Byron A

I will try to remember to do so. I am sorry.

I didn't ask what some organization thought the fundamentals of the faith was, I asked what is the fundamentals of your faith? Do you not have your own faith and relationship with Jesus? If so, express it! UM? - You posted the Nicene Creed in your first post - I assume because you accept it and believe in it. Well - I accept and believe in the material that I posted. Thats all I wanted to know. You never said in your post that you agreed. You only said this is what fundamentalism believes. So I thought maybe you got the wrong idea from my title and so I thought I would clarify what I meant.

I have an idea Byron. There is a section of the Board reserved for Testimonies. How about you post how you came to repent of your sins and confess Jesus and your Lord and Savior? What would that have to do with the price of tea in china? I am not saying I won't, I am just wondering what that has to do with this subject? It would demonstrate the evidence of your salvation and help stop the accusations. "They overcame the accuser by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony...." They would just say I am lying. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Not on this forum, but on another forum. People with the mentality of some on this forum only have one litmus test for another's salvation: "How close does his beliefs resemble mine?" If my beliefs are too different, I am not saved. Any experience I share that would prove otherwise would be seen as being made up. However, when the Spirit leads me to share my testimony, I shall. He always does, but I always wait on His timing to do so.

I didn't ask what some organization thought the fundamentals of the faith was, I asked what is the fundamentals of your faith? Do you not have your own faith and relationship with Jesus? If so, express it!

Just how did you poke that hornets nest without getting bitten, hmmm? I have no idea how I missed that! I do not think fundamentalism is Phariseeic (sp?) as the Pharisees were a specific Jewish sect that had a specific theology that fundamentalism lacks. However, I do believe the same spirit is behind both.

I think gay sexual activity is sinful. However, heterosexuals have romantic relationships that do not involve sex. I see no reason why homosexuals cannot.

And this pastor says they shouldn't resist, because their temptations are a gift from God. The same God who says homosexuality is an abomination. Byron says he does not think that this Pastor is endorsing or encouraging sin. Byron also said he has no problem with homosexual acts if the couple is monogamous and 'married,' even though they cannot be married, biblically-speaking. Both assertions are false. So Byron may or may not be confused. One thing is clear, however, he is 100% wrong on both counts. Can you quote to me where I said that? I think my words have either been twisted or misunderstood somewhere, because I NEVER gave approval for gay marriage on this forum, or even addressed gay marriages. But I never brought up gay marriage. That last post you quoted, I was saying that homosexual sexual activity is a sin, but not the orientation.

I have an idea Byron. There is a section of the Board reserved for Testimonies. How about you post how you came to repent of your sins and confess Jesus and your Lord and Savior? What would that have to do with the price of tea in china? I am not saying I won't, I am just wondering what that has to do with this subject?

And this pastor says they shouldn't resist, because their temptations are a gift from God. The same God who says homosexuality is an abomination. Byron says he does not think that this Pastor is endorsing or encouraging sin. Byron also said he has no problem with homosexual acts if the couple is monogamous and 'married,' even though they cannot be married, biblically-speaking. Both assertions are false. So Byron may or may not be confused. One thing is clear, however, he is 100% wrong on both counts. Can you quote to me where I said that? I think my words have either been twisted or misunderstood somewhere, because I NEVER gave approval for gay marriage on this forum, or even addressed gay marriages.

Carbon-dating, I would presume. Its the most accurate age determination test. I am not a scientist, but I don't think one can carbon date lead. I think another process is used. You may be right. I am not a scientist either, so I really don't know.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else. Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail? The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith. Byron, you have only been on this site a few days and you have held forth almost exclusively on this subject or offshoots thereof. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make and, btw, I don't see anyone vilifying you as you have claimed in other threads. So....what's your agenda? Go over to the Science vs Faith thread. Over there, they are claiming that I am not saved, they are ridiculing me, etc.

I agree 100 Percent. Take a look at 2 Timothy 2:24-26:

I think we're mixing arguments. Candice spoke of her two-year old. Byron responded with "children". And that is what I responded to. What you mention here seems to refer to older children. No, it was brought up because original sin was an underlying assumption, that anyone born gay was because they were born corrupt do to our corrupt natures. My response was that babies are born innocent. Original sin comes into play because of the fallen nature of the world around us, not because of some kind of sin the baby was born with. This, by the way, is the Eastern Orthodox understanding of original sin. Just thought I would point that out before someone accused the view of being New Age.

Evidently you and I did not hear the same speech. Excerpts....... Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we

If you made a list of doctrines that would be the Fundamentals of your faith, what would it be? I think, for me, its what Christians have used for 1700 years. I would choose the Nicene Creed. What would be in your lists? Edit: I fixed the formatting on the creed a little.

Byron, you are just as stubborn about your interpretation of Scripture as anyone else. Why else would you be defending your position tooth and nail? The difference is, I recognize it for what it is. Its an interpretation and not inerrant. I am not calling the wrath of God down on those who disagree, nor am I saying they are the enemies of the faith.

So what is the difference between fundamentalists and evangelicals? In my experience (and the experience of many others that I have spoken to), self-identified fundamentalists always go above and beyond this acceptance of "sola scriptura" and place their interpretations of Scripture as inerrant and infallible. Anyone who disagrees with their interpretations is an apostate and an enemy of the faith. Evangelicals are not always like that. thefreedictionary.com has a good definition for demonstration:

I agree they deserve a lot of the credit. But it was a coordinated effort. It took months of planning and negotiating on the parts of several military figures, INCLUDING the commander in chief of the United States Military.

Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists, Byron. You should know that. I know they are not. In fact, I posted a topic on Worthy somewhere about what the differences are, in my mind. Here is how I defined a fundamentalist:

Wow... We just got done talking about patents in my Business Law class... I will have to show this video to my teacher and see what she says. This shouldn't legally be possible, but you never know...

I am sorry, I just find it rediculous that any good thing a liberal does (such as the Obama administration successfully coordinating and carrying out the taking out of bin Laden) has to be viewed with suspicion by fundamentalist Christians. I thought, and still think, that Bush was the worst president in America's history. But I still gave him credit when he did something right.

Agreed!

Yes I have two beautiful children who are the light of my life. Their disobedience from such a young age is not from something they are born with, but however it is something that they acquire due to the sin all around us. Children 200 years ago were not so disobedient at such a young age. It took a while a longer for sin to get to them, because the culture was more Christian, sin wasn't as open out in the public back then. You want Scriptures to refute Original sin (the idea that we are responsible for the sins of Adam and Eve from birth)? Keep in mind in the Hebrew, "father" did not literally mean father, but any male direct male ancestor, including father, grandfather, great grandfather, etc. In the Old Testament, in the Book of Ezekiel, God's people are rebuked for suggesting that the children would die/suffer for their father's sins: The word of the Lord came to me: "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The parents eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child