![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted: Perhaps you should study the gospel that St Paul preached...Paul was absolutely persecuted violently for the message he preached...yet is was absolutely from his heart felt care about his people... I can guarantee you that Jesus told everyone that He was the only way that men can be saved from the wrath that is to come. A fundamentalist Muslim will never preach that gospel... But you are just baiting him anyway... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I know nothing about Klavan but your angry rant makes you look like a fundamentalist Muslim: “my interpretation of the holy text is the correct one and everyone else’s interpretation is wrong” That isn’t Christian. Perhaps you should study the gospel that St Paul preached...Paul was absolutely persecuted violently for the message he preached...yet is was absolutely from his heart felt care about his people... I can guarantee you that Jesus told everyone that He was the only way that men can be saved from the wrath that is to come. A fundamentalist Muslim will never preach that gospel... But you are just baiting him anyway... I wasn’t, I was making a comparison that he appears to exclude every other Christian whose beliefs aren’t 100% the same as his. Christianity is supposed to be open and welcoming and accepting but some Christians think their interpretation of the Bible is the only 100% correct interpretation and anyone who disagrees isn’t a real Christian. |
|
|
Quoted: So, the whole Reaganite “Big Tent” doctrine, which was pretty successful winning elections and governing the country, is a relic of the bygone age, to be replaced by a theocratic litmus test. Good luck with all that… I’m a pretty hardcore conservative, but I’m not about to tolerate a Christian Taliban, which is exactly what you’re proposing. The principal conceit of Christianity insists upon belief that God is so weak in convincing people of his omnipotence and all encompassing goodness that his creation can only gain salvation through the interposition of an intermediary Jesus. In the Old Testament that I embrace, that salvation was granted for all time on Mt Sinai and has never wavered (both in my embrace of the knowledge and strength it imparted and the commitment it demanded in return). I respect the adherents of Christianity, and I expect respect in return as your elder brother in faith. Which one of us is ultimately right? I fear that will not be known until the day of judgement. If proven wrong, I will be the first to apologize either in this world or the next. If proven right, I expect the same. This mutual forbearance and acceptance of these differing but complementary paths of faith to the One True God were at the very core of the Enlightenment thought that motivated the Founders. Their vision of the Freedom of Religion saw not to embrace a theocratic state imposed religion but to allow for the practice of all faiths in law abiding peace free of the centuries of religious warfare that devastated Europe. It was not a negative prohibitory legal statement but a positive dedication to freedom. A belief in One God, a Hundred Gods or No God coexisting alongside one another was the vision in 1788 and we would do well to remind ourselves and rededicate ourselves to it. To denigrate my admittedly all too imperfect commitment to Judaism and equate it with disloyalty to this country and its principles is detestable and calls into question your understanding of conservatism and the Constitution. View Quote Huh, I thought they were discussing Christianity. |
|
Quoted: James Madison. Religious revisionism is gross. ETA, just because he supported it doesn’t mean it was his baby. View Quote There's that confident ignorance again. Madison needed Leland's support. He got it by supporting the amendments. Maybe stop posting on arfcom 24/7 and read some books. You might learn something. I doubt it but you never know. |
|
Fascinating to see all the different sides turn on Jews for different reasons. Don’t get me wrong I’ll take some simple theological disagreement and badmouthing from you guys over the Jihadi bullets any day.
But, it is amazing to watch. I wonder who is really behind this sudden division and infighting on the right? |
|
Quoted: There's that confident ignorance again. Madison needed Leland's support. He got it by supporting the amendments. Maybe stop posting on arfcom 24/7 and read some books. You might learn something. I doubt it but you never know. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: James Madison. Religious revisionism is gross. ETA, just because he supported it doesn’t mean it was his baby. There's that confident ignorance again. Madison needed Leland's support. He got it by supporting the amendments. Maybe stop posting on arfcom 24/7 and read some books. You might learn something. I doubt it but you never know. James Madison wrote the fucking thing. ETA, I hate to blast the religious, even though I am not a believer, but the willingness of some to absolutely ignore reality and pretend that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians is just downright embarrassing. |
|
Quoted: Fascinating to see all the different sides turn on Jews for different reasons. Don’t get me wrong I’ll take some simple theological disagreement and badmouthing from you guys over the Jihadi bullets any day. But, it is amazing to watch. I wonder who is really behind this sudden division and infighting on the right? View Quote Who has bad mouthed Jews? |
|
Quoted: Are you jewish? I'm not and I'm not really informed enough on Jewish theology to have an opinion on what extraneous-type stuff rabbinic Judaism adds to the religion of Abraham (I mean, to the extent anybody knows the nature of Abraham's religion) I'm interested to hear your opinion regardless of ethnic or religious background. View Quote I'm christian and I beleive in abraham's promised messiah. So, a direct descendant of abraham and sarah, no. Same faith, yes. You know us as ... christians. ![]() This is the dirty little scret of it all that's been right out in the open for 2+ millenia. God didn't abandon the jews, and it's always been a remnant who have believed. In ancient national israel and now, across the globe. Expansion theology - many wild branches were grafted in. No... I am not playing word games with you. Yes, every single point of all this is fought about between people - there's nothing new under the sun. |
|
Quoted: James Madison wrote the fucking thing. ETA, I hate to blast the religious, even though I am not a believer, but the willingness of some to absolutely ignore reality and pretend that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians is just downright embarrassing. View Quote Yeah, this subject was actually a part of my doctoral studies. You're so butt fuckingly wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Confident. Ignorance. |
|
Ben is a Jew. He doesn’t believe in Jesus. He does believe in God. And the OT. And he doesn’t like commies. I’ll let him deal with Jesus thing when he dies. But I’ll count him as on our side.
|
|
Quoted: Yeah, this subject was actually a part of my doctoral studies. You're so butt fuckingly wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Confident. Ignorance. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: James Madison wrote the fucking thing. ETA, I hate to blast the religious, even though I am not a believer, but the willingness of some to absolutely ignore reality and pretend that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians is just downright embarrassing. Yeah, this subject was actually a part of my doctoral studies. You're so butt fuckingly wrong here I don't even know where to begin. Confident. Ignorance. Appeal to authority. lol Another worthless degree |
|
Quoted: I wasn’t, I was making a comparison that he appears to exclude every other Christian whose beliefs aren’t 100% the same as his. Christianity is supposed to be open and welcoming and accepting but some Christians think their interpretation of the Bible is the only 100% correct interpretation and anyone who disagrees isn’t a real Christian. View Quote ... and anyone who says christanity is the opposite of what you say is ... You'll say wrong? No - you cannot reject someone as being wrong merely and only because they say they are right and those who don't agree aren't. In other words, you have to put your homework in and assess what they're saying and show it to either be true or false. |
|
|
Quoted: Ben is a Jew. He doesn’t believe in Jesus. He does believe in God. And the OT. And he doesn’t like commies. I’ll let him deal with Jesus thing when he dies. But I’ll count him as on our side. View Quote And to everyone who believes the bible, that reads exactly as "he's politically on side with us, therefore I don't care if he goes to hell." |
|
|
But but Islamist are extremists!!!!!!! Whargghhggrgrhgrhhhgrrrrr!!!!!!!
|
|
Quoted: I wasn’t, I was making a comparison that he appears to exclude every other Christian whose beliefs aren’t 100% the same as his. Christianity is supposed to be open and welcoming and accepting but some Christians think their interpretation of the Bible is the only 100% correct interpretation and anyone who disagrees isn’t a real Christian. View Quote Roger that, sorry, my mistake, and you are correct...is this sort of what you are referring to? Paul's instructions regarding false teachers and sound doctrine... |
|
Quoted: But but Islamist are extremists!!!!!!! Whargghhggrgrhgrhhhgrrrrr!!!!!!! View Quote Extreme words vs what? Judge a faith by it's works You won't find Christians flying planes into towers...torturing children...turning their own children into bombs to kill other peoples children...need I go on? Apples and hand grenades? |
|
Quoted: Yeah, people who actually study history outside of internet memes are the ones we should ignore. But people who post ignorantly on arfcom all day every day are the ones we should trust. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Appeal to authority. lol Another worthless degree Yeah, people who actually study history outside of internet memes are the ones we should ignore. But people who post ignorantly on arfcom all day every day are the ones we should trust. You are taking a position that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians and that James Madison did not write the first amendment. Seriously, this is what you are saying and trying to insult my knowledge? Seriously? |
|
Quoted: ... and anyone who says christanity is the opposite of what you say is ... You'll say wrong? No - you cannot reject someone as being wrong merely and only because they say they are right and those who don't agree aren't. In other words, you have to put your homework in and assess what they're saying and show it to either be true or false. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I wasn’t, I was making a comparison that he appears to exclude every other Christian whose beliefs aren’t 100% the same as his. Christianity is supposed to be open and welcoming and accepting but some Christians think their interpretation of the Bible is the only 100% correct interpretation and anyone who disagrees isn’t a real Christian. ... and anyone who says christanity is the opposite of what you say is ... You'll say wrong? No - you cannot reject someone as being wrong merely and only because they say they are right and those who don't agree aren't. In other words, you have to put your homework in and assess what they're saying and show it to either be true or false. No, I accept he is a Christian, I believe if he tries to live a good moral life he will go to Heaven, I wish he would feel the same way about other Christians without being so judgmental and restrictive. Be a good person and get rewarded vs. do exactly what I believe or else. |
|
Quoted: You are taking a position that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians and that James Madison did not write the first amendment. Seriously, this is what you are saying and trying to insult my knowledge? Seriously? View Quote I said that Madison included the 1 amendment at Leland's - who was a Bible literallist - bequest in order to win his support that Madison desperately needed. Shoot dude, you can't even accurately summarize what I've said in this thread. I don't have to insult your knowledge, its absence is displayed by your every post. |
|
Quoted: Roger that, sorry, my mistake, and you are correct...is this sort of what you are referring to? Paul's instructions regarding false teachers and sound doctrine... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I wasn’t, I was making a comparison that he appears to exclude every other Christian whose beliefs aren’t 100% the same as his. Christianity is supposed to be open and welcoming and accepting but some Christians think their interpretation of the Bible is the only 100% correct interpretation and anyone who disagrees isn’t a real Christian. Roger that, sorry, my mistake, and you are correct...is this sort of what you are referring to? Paul's instructions regarding false teachers and sound doctrine... My opinion is if you accept the Bible and follow its teachings in the way you (your subset of Christianity) interpret you are in a good place, because the core messages and teachings are the same. That isn’t false doctrine, it’s some minor difference’s of opinion/interpretation but the core beliefs are the same. The false teachers to me are the mega churches that require financial statements, they still teach the Bible but for the wrong ($$$) reasons. |
|
Quoted: I said that Madison included the 1 amendment at Leland's - who was a Bible literallist - bequest in order to win his support that Madison desperately needed. Shoot dude, you can't even accurately summarize what I've said in this thread. I don't have to insult your knowledge, its absence is displayed by your every post. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You are taking a position that the founding fathers were fundamentalist Christians and that James Madison did not write the first amendment. Seriously, this is what you are saying and trying to insult my knowledge? Seriously? I said that Madison included the 1 amendment at Leland's - who was a Bible literallist - bequest in order to win his support that Madison desperately needed. Shoot dude, you can't even accurately summarize what I've said in this thread. I don't have to insult your knowledge, its absence is displayed by your every post. Read all my posts. My position is quite clear, which is why I have been repeating it over and over. I don’t give a shit about your hero. The FF were absolutely not fundamentalist Christians and JM wrote the first amendment. These are the facts. |
|
Quoted: Read all my posts. My position is quite clear, which is why I have been repeating it over and over. I don’t give a shit about your hero. The FF were absolutely not fundamentalist Christians and JM wrote the first amendment. These are the facts. View Quote I've read your posts. They are worthless. Your definition of fundamentalism is wrong. Your assertion that Biblical literalism started in the 1800s is wrong. You're right that Madison put pen to paper, but have no depth of understanding of the conversations that preceded it. You are confident in your ignorance and we are all lesser people for reading it. |
|
|
Quoted: Why do you care what OP has to say about klavan? It almost seems like you're keeping score on OP for doing something you think shouldn't have been done. View Quote ![]() |
|
Quoted: I mean fundamentalist, as in treating the Bible literally. It is modernly recognized as a movement starting in the 1800’s in the US. While many of the founding fathers were Christian and recognized the Judeo-Christian values as being superior to others, most of them would not fall into that category. I am not going to go through their various beliefs, because they were pretty wide ranging, but I will point to the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights, refusing to allow a government religion. View Quote Refusing to allow a Federal religion. States had official state-established religions before and after the signing of the Constitution. |
|
Quoted: I've read your posts. They are worthless. Your definition of fundamentalism is wrong. Your assertion that Biblical literalism started in the 1800s is wrong. You're right that Madison put pen to paper, but have no depth of understanding of the conversations that preceded it. You are confident in your ignorance and we are all lesser people for reading it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Read all my posts. My position is quite clear, which is why I have been repeating it over and over. I don’t give a shit about your hero. The FF were absolutely not fundamentalist Christians and JM wrote the first amendment. These are the facts. I've read your posts. They are worthless. Your definition of fundamentalism is wrong. Your assertion that Biblical literalism started in the 1800s is wrong. You're right that Madison put pen to paper, but have no depth of understanding of the conversations that preceded it. You are confident in your ignorance and we are all lesser people for reading it. You are literally wrong about every single thing. Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a religious movement emphasizing biblical literalism.[1] In its modern form, it began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misunderstood or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith |
|
Quoted: You are literally wrong about every single thing. Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a religious movement emphasizing biblical literalism.[1] In its modern form, it began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misunderstood or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith View Quote Its cute that you pulled up a cut and paste from Wikipedia. It shows where your...depth of knowledge...comes from. You should read the whole article and discover that there's a lot more to it than what you call "biblical literalism". The fundamentalists put out a lot of literature and that's not a terminology they used. You would know that if you had any idea of what you're talking about. The five main principle of fundamentalism is that the Bible is the standard of faith, the virgin birth of Christ, an affirmation of his miracles, his substitutionary atonement, and his bodily resurrection. Note that none of these positions actually started with the fundamentalists, but enjoy a long history in Christianity. In fact, if you knew what you were talking about, you would probably be familiar with the Antiochene school of thought that started in the third century and is well known for its emphasis in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Look, here's a basic source that even you can understand. Maybe. |
|
Quoted: Its cute that you pulled up a cut and paste from Wikipedia. It shows where your...depth of knowledge...comes from. You should read the whole article and discover that there's a lot more to it than what you call "biblical literalism". The fundamentalists put out a lot of literature and that's not a terminology they used. You would know that if you had any idea of what you're talking about. The five main principle of fundamentalism is that the Bible is the standard of faith, the virgin birth of Christ, an affirmation of his miracles, his substitutionary atonement, and his bodily resurrection. Note that none of these positions actually started with the fundamentalists, but enjoy a long history in Christianity. In fact, if you knew what you were talking about, you would probably be familiar with the Antiochene school of thought that started in the third century and is well known for its emphasis in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Look, here's a basic source that even you can understand. Maybe. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: You are literally wrong about every single thing. Christian fundamentalism, also known as fundamental Christianity or fundamentalist Christianity, is a religious movement emphasizing biblical literalism.[1] In its modern form, it began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants[2] as a reaction to theological liberalism and cultural modernism. Fundamentalists argued that 19th-century modernist theologians had misunderstood or rejected certain doctrines, especially biblical inerrancy, which they considered the fundamentals of the Christian faith Its cute that you pulled up a cut and paste from Wikipedia. It shows where your...depth of knowledge...comes from. You should read the whole article and discover that there's a lot more to it than what you call "biblical literalism". The fundamentalists put out a lot of literature and that's not a terminology they used. You would know that if you had any idea of what you're talking about. The five main principle of fundamentalism is that the Bible is the standard of faith, the virgin birth of Christ, an affirmation of his miracles, his substitutionary atonement, and his bodily resurrection. Note that none of these positions actually started with the fundamentalists, but enjoy a long history in Christianity. In fact, if you knew what you were talking about, you would probably be familiar with the Antiochene school of thought that started in the third century and is well known for its emphasis in a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Look, here's a basic source that even you can understand. Maybe. Once again, you didn’t read or comprehend my posts. As I made it clear that I was talking about the modern understanding of the term. Go live in your fantasy world, I am done with your nonsense. |
|
Quoted: Once again, you didn’t read or comprehend my posts. As I made it clear that I was talking about the modern understanding of the term. Go live in your fantasy world, I am done with your nonsense. View Quote Cool. The modern understanding of the term is more of a slur that refers to very conservative Christians. So, apparently, you've been engaging in a historical anachronism this whole time and are now trying to cover it by saying I "didn't read or comprehend your posts." I've provided actual sources, information, knowledge from years of study under actual historians, and you still strut off like a pigeon on a chess board. Thank you for being a living example of why GD has the reputation it has. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.