Being a fundamentalist Christian in 2020

AZslim · 2020-01-16T03:41:49.889Z

Meriweather:

AZslim:

And my dinner better be on time.

So you are taking her to her favorite restaurant! Very good! I am sure they will serve you both promptly.

Being a good ruler, I will take her out from time to time.

AZslim · 2020-01-16T03:42:25.128Z

Meriweather:

AZslim:

I love her and the house better be clean.

You are providing her with maid service? How nice of you!

Being a good ruler, I will give her a day off now and then.

AZslim · 2020-01-16T03:45:27.386Z

Optrader:

AZslim:

Optrader:

AZslim:

I’m still trying to convince my wife God specifically said I rule over her.

God also commanded husband’s to " LOVE YOUR WIFE" A man who does so understands what “ruling” over his wife means.

I love her and the house better be clean.

It is precisely this cherry picking, Bible skimming nonsense that causes men to blame God for their own troubles.

If that’s you’re take on things, it’s on you…

When kings “rule over” people does that really mean love them and and they don’t have to do anything they say?

Physics_Hunter · 2020-01-16T07:08:28.395Z

Seems that the Leftist yapping class here chased the OP away.

Much the loss.

Optrader · 2020-01-16T14:11:32.253Z

AZslim:

Optrader:

AZslim:

Optrader:

AZslim:

I’m still trying to convince my wife God specifically said I rule over her.

God also commanded husband’s to " LOVE YOUR WIFE" A man who does so understands what “ruling” over his wife means.

I love her and the house better be clean.

It is precisely this cherry picking, Bible skimming nonsense that causes men to blame God for their own troubles.

If that’s you’re take on things, it’s on you…

When kings “rule over” people does that really mean love them and and they don’t have to do anything they say?

Rulebooks only apply to people who agree to follow them. The choice to follow God and his rules is always at the individual level. The Bible says people should not be unequally yoked, meaning if a Christian married a non Christian or if one spouse becomes a Christian after marriage and the other doesn’t, expect conflicts to arise and be an abiding part of life.

God’s plan was for man to accept his rule. Had we done so, we wouldn’t have the problems in the world that we do. Christians OUGHT to put God first, spouse second and self last. Unfortunately, we put self first, maybe our spouse second, but usually lower than football or golf or whatever, and God isn’t in the lineup of importance at all.

Hasn’t worked out well for us, and no matter who gets elected every four years, it’s going to get worse.

Getting back to the OP, my fundamental beliefs regarding things like the age of the earth or creation, don’t have much impact per se in my daily life. But recognizing that my sin would take me to hell unless I accepted Jesus’ death on my behalf has made a huge impact on my daily life.

Meriweather · 2020-01-16T19:39:16.168Z

AZslim:

Being a good ruler, I will take her out from time to time.

Exhibit One of why many women today prefer to remain single. Try taking yourself back to Biblical times. No technology, no modern conveniences, no restaurants…now how are you going to treat your wife? Any better than you would today?

LeroyBrown · 2020-01-16T21:32:53.067Z

AZslim:

When kings “rule over” people does that really mean love them and and they don’t have to do anything they say?

When Adam and Eve ruled over creation, they were gardeners. When Jesus lorded over his disciples, he washed the road filth off their feet.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-16T23:41:13.641Z

Physics_Hunter:

Seems that the Leftist yapping class here chased the OP away.

Great attempt at a genuine discussion

AZslim · 2020-01-17T01:00:26.525Z

Meriweather:

AZslim:

Being a good ruler, I will take her out from time to time.

Exhibit One of why many women today prefer to remain single. Try taking yourself back to Biblical times. No technology, no modern conveniences, no restaurants…now how are you going to treat your wife? Any better than you would today?

I would be a benevolent ruler either way.

No beatings unless absolutely necessary.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T01:13:49.341Z

There’s a reason God is a Him and Jesus was a man amirite (sarcasm meter working)

Meriweather · 2020-01-17T02:16:53.772Z

AZslim:

I would be a benevolent ruler either way.

No beatings unless absolutely necessary.

Going back to the OP of long ago…

Why do Fundamentalist believe Biblical calculations of the seventeenth century over scientific facts presented today.

Let’s look at this assessment of fact versus truth. One way a fact is described: 1+1=2. There is only one possible result…it is a proven truth. On the other hand 2=1+1 is true, but it is not a fact, because 2 could equal infinite possibilities (think along the lines 2=6-4–and infinite possibilities that also equal 2).

One of the definitions of truth is fidelity to the original standard. Fundamentalists have fidelity to the original standard.

What Fundamentalists cannot (by definition) argue is that their truths are facts, simply because there are other possibilities–just like there are other possibilities that 2=something other than 1+1.

Same with your latest reasoning. You might have fidelity to your own truth and understanding that the Bible teaches men should “rule” over women. But, as been demonstrated, it is not fact because plainly there are other possibilities which have been explained to you.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T04:14:30.421Z

…Huh?

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T04:15:25.253Z

Meriweather:

Let’s look at this assessment of fact versus truth. One way a fact is described: 1+1=2. There is only one possible result…it is a proven truth. On the other hand 2=1+1 is true, but it is not a fact, because 2 could equal infinite possibilities (think along the lines 2=6-4–and infinite possibilities that also equal 2).

Therefore…the world is less than 10,000 years old? Because 6 minus 4 is 2?

2 = 1 + 1 is a fact
2 = 6 - 4 is also a fact

Why can’t they both be facts?

What exactly is your point?

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T04:19:32.049Z

Meriweather:

One of the definitions of truth is fidelity to the original standard. Fundamentalists have fidelity to the original standard.

What Fundamentalists cannot (by definition) argue is that their truths are facts, simply because there are other possibilities–just like there are other possibilities that 2=something other than 1+1.

Same with your latest reasoning. You might have fidelity to your own truth and understanding that the Bible teaches men should “rule” over women. But, as been demonstrated, it is not fact because plainly there are other possibilities which have been explained to you.

What does having “fidelity to the original standard” in fundamentalist Christian terms even mean? I thought you disagree with fundamentalist interpretations, using the Bible as a science book. Yet, that is the “standard”?

AZslim · 2020-01-17T05:02:44.624Z

Meriweather:

AZslim:

I would be a benevolent ruler either way.

No beatings unless absolutely necessary.

Going back to the OP of long ago…

Why do Fundamentalist believe Biblical calculations of the seventeenth century over scientific facts presented today.

Let’s look at this assessment of fact versus truth. One way a fact is described: 1+1=2. There is only one possible result…it is a proven truth. On the other hand 2=1+1 is true, but it is not a fact, because 2 could equal infinite possibilities (think along the lines 2=6-4–and infinite possibilities that also equal 2).

One of the definitions of truth is fidelity to the original standard. Fundamentalists have fidelity to the original standard.

What Fundamentalists cannot (by definition) argue is that their truths are facts, simply because there are other possibilities–just like there are other possibilities that 2=something other than 1+1.

Same with your latest reasoning. You might have fidelity to your own truth and understanding that the Bible teaches men should “rule” over women. But, as been demonstrated, it is not fact because plainly there are other possibilities which have been explained to you.

1 +1 = 2 is a fact.
2 = 1+1 is a fact as well.
What the heck are you trying to say?

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T05:07:18.992Z

Meriweather:

Let’s look at this assessment of fact versus truth. One way a fact is described: 1+1=2. There is only one possible result…it is a proven truth. On the other hand 2=1+1 is true, but it is not a fact, because 2 could equal infinite possibilities (think along the lines 2=6-4–and infinite possibilities that also equal 2).

Sorry to break it to you but…

1 + 1 = 1 + 1
1 + 1 = 6 - 4

Infinite possibilities.

I guess it’s not factual to say 1 + 1 = 2 then.

Therefore, Noah’s ark was real?

Meriweather · 2020-01-17T12:29:17.864Z

AZslim:

2 = 1+1 is a fact as well.

No. 2=1+1 is true, but it is not fact. Fact, in its truest definition has one solution. Two can be the solution to an infinite number of equations–that is a fact.

Consider the differences between truth and fact…and it may help in the understanding the religious beliefs of others.

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T12:48:55.168Z

Meriweather:

Fact, in its truest definition has one solution.

Not in mathematics

2 = 1 + 1
1 + 1 = 2
1 + 1 = 6 - 4

All are facts.

But I get it. Nothing about fundamentalism makes sense so the “truth” has to be obscured by some weird analogy of kindergarten arithmetic

ImRightYoureWrong · 2020-01-17T12:54:03.107Z

Since 2 + 2 = 4, it’s true that there was a quid pro quo? Is that what you are saying?

Borgia_dude · 2020-01-17T13:51:01.839Z

I like the semantic mumbo-jumbo.

A fact is just something proven to be true. I just looked up the definition. No mention of uniqueness.