I am proud to be a Christian Fundamentalist.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

You can't distance yourself, as a Christian, from the dastardly deeds of your Christian predecessors, who have created the foundation of the Christian environment that exists today.

Does that also apply to non Christians? By your judgment then you can't distance (whatever that means) yourself from the dastardly deeds of your non Christian predecessors who have created all of the non Christian foundation environments that exist today. Man that is a can of worms isn't it? That would show that you have one bigger mess in your backyard than the Christians have in their backyard by a fantastic more dastardly deeds. WOW--

Non-Christian is not a religion nor a specific group.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

I think that you "REAL CHRISTIANS" need to find another name for yourselves so that we, the rest of us, don't continue to get REAL CHRISTIANS mixed up with the billions of people on the planet who have called themselves Christians, but really aren't, according to you.

That has already been done and then the Romans killed almost all of us and stole our name. Then Luther did the same thing and called themselves Lutherans. Then everybody jumped in to the mess and that's why we now have denominations. Now you can call them by name and not be confused. The reason you are confused is that you have not learned to call the bunch that you hate by their name. It's some thing like calling all people humans. You have to learn to call out the humans you hate by name. It's real simple after you take a lesson from Hitler.

Perhaps you could clarify for use which specific denominations are real Christian denominations and the total number of the people in said denominations.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: windword

Deuteronomy 22:20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

Very rare indeed even though law. In that era a Jewish bride was well informed of the consequence of lying by the family as well as the priest. There was always a three day preparation of both bride and groom and at the expected time of consummation of the marriage it was customary for witnesses placed outside of the quarters to immediately take the cloth and give it to the parents for safe keeping.

Even in the event that blood was not shown, then the examination by qualified female authorities wold verify the claim. It was almost fool proof for the innocent woman and virtually non existent. The claim must be presented by the next day at the latest. Blood was not always proof of the lack of virginity.

So you're justifying the stoning to death of women who were not virgins or who appeared to not be virgins? I wonder if anyone else finds it more than a little creepy that you're so interested in this topic and up on the details.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

I love my Father in Heaven and his son Jesus Christ.
Who come to earth in the flesh and was born of a virgin.
I know he is my only hope for redemption and an awesome
relationship, with the one true oracle and human kinds missing
guidance system, that it is more than obvious we need. Glory to
God that I can see clearly.

a reply to: windword

Yep. AND, the SS soldiers, following orders under Hitler, were also following LEGAL orders.

I don't think the slaughtered Jews ever had their day in court. I never remember reading that in any historical book.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I've made no such statement ^^, straw man.

Nope. You claimed that Hitler was not a Christian. Yet, he claimed he was. Not only that, but the Christian Church he aligned himself with, The Catholic Church, never excommunicated him! The "faith" remained with Hitler.

I was pretty specific, and said that Hitler showed himself not to be a Christian based on his actions (fruit). I never talked about billions of other people, I dont even know any of them. Since Jesus Himself said a Christian would be evident by his fruit. Same Jesus said to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing. And finally, there is no teaching from Jesus or any other NT author that says to murder one's enemies. It's pretty common knowledge that a person's words are meaningless if their actions are totally contrary. Examples were provided.

a reply to: windword

My point is, Christian ethics change with the times and adjust to the current cultural environment, just like everyone else's.

Liberal Christians maybe, I'm a fundamentalist. I can't answer for their desire to fit in with the world.

a reply to: Tangerine

Perhaps you could clarify for use which specific denominations are real Christian denominations and the total number of the people in said denominations.

It's not based on denominations. Most denominations arise from differences on secondary and minor doctrines, not primary doctrines. Most all denominations do not differ on the first things, like Christology and Soeteriology.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

And, examples were also provided to you that proves that Christians can approve of things one day and not approve of them the next day. The Catholic Church NEVER excommunicated Hitler, therefore, Hitler was in "GOOD STANDING" with the "Christian" Catholic Church.

At one point it was perfectly just to kill heretics. At one point it was perfectly just to kill heathens.

I do believe that in your religion, it is Jesus who does the judging, in the end, of who is and who is not a "Christian". Not you. If you decide to take on that responsibility yourself, you're going to busy judging for a long, long, time.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

And, examples were also provided to you that proves that Christians can approve of things one day and not approve of them the next day. The Catholic Church NEVER excommunicated Hitler, therefore, Hitler was in "GOOD STANDING" with the "Christian" Catholic Church.

How can I speak for the pope in the 1940s? Hell, I'm not even a Catholic!

At one point it was perfectly just to kill heretics. At one point it was perfectly just to kill heathens.

It never was! Those people were sinning. You can't find a single teaching from Jesus or the apostles telling Christians to kill their enemies. Not one, in fact the opposite is true, Christians are commanded to love one another, and love and serve their enemies. To be gentle as doves. I mean what good is Christianity if we cannot let Jesus and the apostles determine what it means to be a follower of Jesus??

I do believe that in your religion, it is Jesus who does the judging, in the end, of who is and who is not a "Christian". Not you.

I never said it was me, and this isn't the final judgment. But you also can't ignore that Jesus told us not to judge on appearance but to make judgments based on righteousness. And Jesus also said by our fruits we will be knows. And James said a faith without good works is a "dead faith".

Who knows, perhaps in the 1920s Hitler thought he was a Christian because he was baptized as a baby?? He certainly wasn't a disciple and follower of Jesus Christ. That's a fact, the man ordered 6+million innocent Jews murdered, even children.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine

Perhaps you could clarify for use which specific denominations are real Christian denominations and the total number of the people in said denominations.

It's not based on denominations. Most denominations arise from differences on secondary and minor doctrines, not primary doctrines. Most all denominations do not differ on the first things, like Christology and Soeteriology.

OK, let me ask you this: what percentage of self-described Christians would you estimate are, using your criteria, real Christians?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Jesus' teachings have very little to do with what it means to be a Christian.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine

Perhaps you could clarify for use which specific denominations are real Christian denominations and the total number of the people in said denominations.

It's not based on denominations. Most denominations arise from differences on secondary and minor doctrines, not primary doctrines. Most all denominations do not differ on the first things, like Christology and Soeteriology.

OK, let me ask you this: what percentage of self-described Christians would you estimate are, using your criteria, real Christians?

Whoever follows Christ. I don't have any idea. lol Whoever affirms Romans 10:9-10 and 1 Corinthians chapter 15.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Jesus' teachings have very little to do with what means to be a Christian.

Then who should we Christians follow? Muhammad? Buddha? Krishna? LeVey?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

A lot of Christians are following Paul, and whoever wrote those other epistles pretending to be him. A lot of you are following the guy who wrote Revelations, and the guy who wrote John 1, (If they were the same person, or not). Those were NOT the words of Jesus. And, Paul only wrote about what he received through "revelation" from Jesus AFTER his conversion. So, not Jesus' teachings either.

A lot of Christians follow the Pope and Catholic Saints' writings, while a lot of Christians follow the preachings of Pat Robertson, et al.

a reply to: windword

I'm pretty sure everyone you mentioned would say Jesus is the authority, not themselves. Most of the NT authors write about false teachers, and Christian living and service.

And you never answered my question, who should Christians follow besides Jesus?

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I'm not about to tell Christians who to follow. But I'm also not going to listen to any one Christian who claims to judge who is a real Christian and who isn't. As far as I'm concerned, none of y'all are!

a reply to: windword

I'm not about to tell Christians who to follow.

Well why not? You didn't have any issues telling us who we shouldn't follow.

But I'm also not going to listen to any one Christian who claims to judge who is a real Christian and who isn't.

I only refer to Jesus. Who said by our fruits we shall be known. Now I'm not 100% positive, but I don't think ordering 6+ million of one's enemies murdered, including children to be the "good fruit" Jesus was speaking of.

Besides all that, Jesus told us to make judgments based on righteousness. Which is precisely what I have done.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

You didn't have any issues telling us who we shouldn't follow.

No. I never said that.

No one is judging you and your Christian status. It's you that's judging others who have proclaimed that they view themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. You have tried to disassociate yourself, and therefore all Christians, from those you whose Christian views are opposed to your own.

Christians can, and have, justified all kinds of travesties in the name of Jesus Christ, and they still remain "Christians".

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NOTurTypical

You didn't have any issues telling us who we shouldn't follow.

No. I never said that.

No one is judging you and your Christian status. It's you that's judging others who have proclaimed that they view themselves as followers of Jesus Christ. You have tried to disassociate yourself, and therefore all Christians, from those you whose Christian views are opposed to your own.

Christians can, and have, justified all kinds of travesties in the name of Jesus Christ, and they still remain "Christians".

I say bring back the coliseum and let the Christians fight it out. No lions. No spectators. Just Christians going at it. The winner gets declared the one true Christian.