• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Fundamentalism in Christianity

Fool

ALL in all
Premium Member
Although the word "fundamentalist" is used in a negative and derogatory way that is not the original meaning of the word. The root word is fundamental and some synonyms are: essential, basic, vital, and elementary. I believe living in line with the fundamentals of God's word are the only way to be a true servant...

I’m a fundamentalist…and I hope that all who consider themselves to be biblical Christians would declare that as well. The term, however, is used in a derogatory way by many people today. I don’t know why, other than the fact that many simply don’t like Christianity, especially biblical Christianity. But regardless of what its detractors think, fundamentalism is a very valuable concept.


Let me give you an illustration from the sports world. During the college and pro football seasons, the teams’ schedules usually include a bye week. That’s a week that has no game scheduled, so it’s dedicated to practice, and the practices rarely involve tricky new plays. Instead, the focus is nearly always on returning to the fundamentals of the sport.


Throughout the season, players often drift away from fundamental techniques and develop some bad habits that decrease their effectiveness. But sports aside, if one’s fundamentals are wrong in anything, the results aren’t going to be good.
The Importance of Fundamentalism - Part One
the essence of what god is stated to be in the NT, is not necessarily the fundamental of fundamentalists. what should be fundamental for all isn't what christian fundamentalist focus upon.

unconditional love isn't a respecter of persons even if a christian fundamentalist believe it should be so.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Lazarus was Jesus boyfriend.. Here's the evidence.

[video]


  1. Lazarus, not John, was the disciple whom Jesus loved ...
    www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved
    Lazarus
    , not John, was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Traditionally, John the Gospel writer was the disciple whom Jesus loved. However, upon closer study, there is another follower of Jesus that is a stronger candidate that you have likely not considered: Lazarus.

  2. Disciple Jesus Loved Lazarus - Jesus Christ
    https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/disciple-jesus-loved-lazarus-faq.htm
    Disciple Jesus Loved Lazarus. Later, Peter and the unnamed disciple enter at “the palace of the high priest” (John 18:15-17), but while Peter leaves after denying Jesus three times, we only see the one “whom Jesus loved” leave after he is given another charge by Jesus -- when he leaves the foot of the cross with Jesus’ mother (John 19:27-29).
Sick, stupid, ignorant, blather. Posted by one who holds a child molester in higher regard than the Son of God. Why not just give up the facade and come out of the closet ??
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Don´t display your ignorance this way.

The earliest Christians called themselves the Followers of The Way.

Christ said I AM THE WAY, the truth, and the life......................................
His teachings were the way. Love god, and others as yourself, put others first and yourself last. Seems a good message. Sadly, some people took the message of Jesus and made it the message about Jesus and it went downhill from there.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Imho, if it was the original Christianity taught by Christ, fundamentalist christianity would have been a good idea and would have helped the individual grow spiritually.

But fundamentalist Churchianity ( that was carefully designed by the Romans after centuries of brutally persecuting the Christians) would not be much of a good idea.

The Romans didn't design fundamentalism.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Sick, stupid, ignorant, blather. Posted by one who holds a child molester in higher regard than the Son of God. Why not just give up the facade and come out of the closet ??

What child molester are you speaking of?
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
The Romans didn't design fundamentalism.

I meant that the romans designed churchianity to render passive the rebellious christians whom they had persecuted brutally for centuries.

Their official form of christianity is quite different from the original christianity taught by Christ and ensured that variant christian sects were wiped out or brought to uniformity with typical Roman efficiency.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I meant that the romans designed churchianity to render passive the rebellious christians whom they had persecuted brutally for centuries.

Their official form of christianity is quite different from the original christianity taught by Christ and ensured that variant christian sects were wiped out or brought to uniformity with typical Roman efficiency.

Jesus was a Jew.. He didn't teach Christianity.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Jesus was a Jew.. He didn't teach Christianity.
Even the most reformed and humanistic branches of Judaism would not be considered Jewish if they followed John 14:6. So Jesus was preaching something else, something different, right?

Admittedly, I am quite ignorant regarding the New Testament. John 14:6? In your opinion, is it an accurate rendering of Jesus' words? Has it been refuted or has its authenticity been questioned based on archeology or other historical data? John, the author, was a close companion of Jesus?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Even the most reformed and humanistic branches of Judaism would not be considered Jewish if the followed John 14:6. So Jesus was preaching something else, something different, right?

Admittedly, I am quite ignorant regarding the New Testament. John 14:6? In your opinion, is it an accurate rendering of Jesus' words? Has it been refuted or has its authenticity been questioned based on archeology or other historical data? John, the author, was a close companion of Jesus?

The gospels didn't have any names until 150 AD. The authors were anonymous. Naming them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John is a tradition that developed much later.

Luke was a Greek (Gentile or Jew) living in Antioch who never met Jesus.. Mark was a disciple of Peter not Jesus.

Historically, Mark is seen as one of Peter's disciples. The historian Papias in the 2nd Century refers to him as such. Likewise, the evidence in the narrative, for example, indicates that Peter was a significant source for most of the material, and most theologians accept Mark as "Peter's" Gospel.
apostles - Who Were Mark and Luke? - Christianity Stack ...
christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18966/who-were-mark-and-luke

The Book of John has lots of problems.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Jesus was a Jew.. He didn't teach Christianity.
With the coming of the Messiah, Christianity was the correct extension of Judaism, The Jews missed the boat then. However Messianic Jews are growing in number, they know who their Messiah is.

Christ taught Christianity, else his disciples and Apostles all Jews, would have stayed in Judaism. They were followers of THE WAY, and such followers later were called Christians, the exact same thing.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
With the coming of the Messiah, Christianity was the correct extension of Judaism, The Jews missed the boat then. However Messianic Jews are growing in number, they know who their Messiah is.

Christ taught Christianity, else his disciples and Apostles all Jews, would have stayed in Judaism. They were followers of THE WAY, and such followers later were called Christians, the exact same thing.

No.. Jesus did not teach Christianity..
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
His teachings were the way. Love god, and others as yourself, put others first and yourself last. Seems a good message. Sadly, some people took the message of Jesus and made it the message about Jesus and it went downhill f
No.. Jesus did not teach Christianity..
He taught the very fundamentals of Christianity. I recognise you view everything from a koranic perspective, but you are wrong.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm Episcopalian, you nitwit.. I just have more education than you.

@oldbadger

If you want to know about the book of John ask oldbadger.. He knows it far better than I.

@dybmh

Which Church or denomination do you belong to?
Are you an Ordained priest?

PS: Some Churches do Ordain female priests. :)
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I'm Episcopalian, you nitwit.. I just have more education than you.

@oldbadger

If you want to know about the book of John ask oldbadger.. He knows it far better than I.

@dybmh
You have more education, you think ? Perhaps, I only have two degrees, In criminal justice and criminology, and have attended numerous special schools and academies.

I won´t report you for name calling, unlike some, I couldn´t care less.

You are Episcopalian, that explains much. At one time you had a bishop who was an atheist.

I now clearly understand your subversion related to Christianity and the Bible, your denomination along with itś English iteration has been doing it for a long time.

Christ talked about the futility of trying to serve two masters, He, and the world.

Your denomination tries anyway, and drifts further and further away from him. Too bad.
 
Top