thereselittleflower

You know that even Richard Dawkins recognizes the evidence also points to intelligent design which means there must have been a designer, yes?

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it ignores what is meant by "in general" - which, by definition, is not all inclusive of all protestants. That's why I used "in general" to qualify what I said. enough said.

Fundamenatalists do not have an exclusive claim to, and hold on, sola scriptural. Sola scriptura is held by ALL evangelicals, not just fundamentalists. In fact, sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general, of which evangelicals make up only a part, and fundamentalists make up even a smaller part.

No, what I mean is, it would depend on us being able to live as christians fully the way we are called to live in agape love for each other. That's not happening right now. Maybe someday it could. That does not make it an equal chance compared to now. Remember, I am speaking theoretically.

I'm talking on a theoretical level. I recognize it would not work in practice right now. Could it work one day? Maybe. As I said above, that would depend on us.

That's why it can't work now. But that doesn't mean it could never theoretically work. It would depend on christians if it worked or not.

I suggest you ask the first christians who shared all things in common. Seems to me we have lost something along the way . . .

Well, when people are seeking their own good rather than the good of others, then yes, it would be difficult to tolerate. If we could have a society like that of the early church when all had things in common, and all sought the good of the other, which is what agape love is all about, then such a system would work.

I think if the motivations were to serve God, then everyone would be motivated to have all things in common just as the original christians were, and would be motivated towards the good of their neighbor rather than themselves.

If the leaders are truly following God then they will execute righteous laws and judgment. The form of government is not really the issue. The leaders are.

OK so let's look at this - those these words were spoken to those who were part of the Old Covenant, part of God's people. So they were "in" not "out." That only strengthens my pov, that those in Christ's mouth are genuinely His, part of the New Covenant, part of God's people, part of Christ's body, "in" not "out" - so it doesn't prove your pov. On the contrary, it does quite the opposite.

It depends on what you mean. We can risk becoming luke warm.

For communism to work, the leaders must be benevolent and Christian and be true servants looking for the welfare of others always. The problem is absolute power draws those who desire power and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so such a system would never work because of the personalities involved - and this is what Putin learned.

so what exactly is a "liberal" - someone who doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of scripture? It seems you believe all conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists, but that certainly is not true. All of us, as evangelical Protestant Christians, believe in 1) the supreme authority of inspired Scripture for faith and practice, 2) basic Christian orthodoxy as embodied in the consensus of the church fathers and reformers about the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc., 3) a supernatural worldview, 4) salvation by God’s grace through faith alone, 5) personal conversion as normative for authentic Christianity, 6) the cross of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and as vicarious atonement, 7) the virgin birth, resurrection and visible return of Jesus Christ. The distinctive hallmarks of post-1925 fundamentalism are 1) adding to those essentials of Christianity non-essentials such as premillennial eschatology, 2) “biblical separation” as the duty of every Christian to refuse fellowship with people who call themselves Christians but are considered doctrinally or morally impure, 3) a chronically negative and critical attitude toward culture including non-fundamentalist higher education, 4) emphatic anti-evolution, anti-communist, anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenical attitudes and actions (including elevation of young earth creationism and American exceptionalism as markers of authentic Christianity), 5) emphasis on verbal inspiration and technical inerrancy of the Bible as necessary for real Christianity (including exclusion of all biblical criticism and, often, exclusive use the KJV), and 6) a general tendency to require adherence to traditional lifestyle norms (hair, clothes, entertainment, sex roles, etc.). Who were these post-1925 fundamentalists? Not all of these embodied all six of the above hallmarks, but they generally functioned within that ethos: William Bell Riley, Frank Norris, Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, John R. Rice and the early Jerry Falwell. And many, many more. Most of them were non-Reformed, but there was a Reformed camp of fundamentalists who shared that ethos without premillennialism. (I would locate Cornelius Van Til there.) How did the postfundamentalist evangelicals differ from them? Beginning in the 1940s and increasingly throughout the 1950s former self-identified fundamentalists began to shy away from that identity and ethos without embracing liberalism or neo-orthodoxy. They 1) sought to establish ecumenical cooperation and fellowship among evangelicals who disagreed about non-essentials such as eschatology and predestination [“generous orthodoxy”], 2) sought to be cautiously open to secular culture and higher education and its products, and 3) sought to overcome legalism that had become characteristic of much fundamentalism. In other words, the main difference between the new evangelicals and the fundamentalists was one of ethos—at least from the new evangelical point of view. From the fundamentalist point of view, of course, the difference was more than one of ethos. It was often viewed as one of departure from the gospel. The new evangelicalism was to be a broad tent that included everyone from conservative Presbyterians to Pentecostals to Advent Christians to Nazarenes to (recently) the Worldwide Church of God. Fundamentalists were invited to join but declined. Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/04/what-distinguishes-evangelical-from-fundamentalist/ Noting that last line, Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists. since I recognize all evangelicals are not fundamentalists, I cannot be liberal by definition.

Well I guess we will see huh?

It might not be me

No. not being a fundamentalist chrsitian does not make one automatically liberal. There are many conservative non-fundamentalist christians in the world dear enoob. Many, many more than there are fundamentalists. Some boxes are simply artificially too small.

It's random - but when it happens it's very weird and it's not just happening to me. This is the type of thing I have seen elsewhere before a site crashes and there's data loss.

This is just not working! - In the post above, it won't let me past in in a copy/pate and if it does, it simply quotes bopeep again . . . ! This is what I am trying to quote to finish my post above: " But in process of, so to say, maybe, growing, maturing it became more and more obvious for me, more obvious truth that it nothing more than a beautiful and harmful fairy tale. Harmful because implementation of it or attempt to put it in practice in our country caused a large damage [to our country]. " This is the fuller historical context of his words, which was already provided by other one.

That's how the article is designed- to get you to see "things" that aren't really there. He's clarified such words in the past and they don't mean what the article appears to make them mean here. [ok this site is acting very weird here. . pasting things in I didn't paste in in place of what I did paste in . . . . I have seen very bizarre things here lately with quotes and links and copy/paste - there is data corruption going on and if it's not fixed soon, the site will crash and a lot of data might be lost]

It might. It might also indicate weak belief. We should be careful not to pain with too broad a brush. We should all cry "Lord, I believe! Help thou mine unbelief !" Mark 9:24

There isn't enough there for context.

MG . . communism is not in power in Russia.

I hate to disagree with MG here but I have to disagree with some of what you've written here. There is a saying All swans are white - that is, until someone finds a black swan. The West used to hold the belief that all swans were white. This was held as true until in 1697 the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Australia. This was an unexpected event in (scientific) history and profoundly changed zoology. So an 'All swans are white' belief or hypothesis is accepted as factual and true because no one has seen a black swan. But once someone has seen 'a black swan', the claim 'all swans are white' has been proven false and can no longer be held as true. There are animals who are doing things we have long thought were the prerogatives and domain of man alone. All we need is one 'black swan' to your "white swan" claim that "intelligent" animals are programmed to receive and that they don't learn by experience for your claim to be false. A black swan has indeed been found, and its name is Koko. Koko is a gorilla who learns like a child learns, who has created concepts not taught her, just like a child does, by putting two and two together through her own experiences. Koko loves, Koko discusses, etc. So being made in God's image must mean something more than this. And it is not our physical appearance. Gorillas and monkeys, etc have a man like appearance. They have hands, not claws, feet not flippers. Some even have no fur and have hair. Are they made in God's image too?

I believe this may very well be true. I just don't understand why Putin is being cast in the light of a Hitler or Stalin.