Fundamentalist Thread
- Thread starter RoboOp
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
The Unpardonable sin is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
God is portrayed as Masculine. God is One.
Playing games with grammar so feminist liberals may dare use 'HER' in reference to the Holy Spirit is extremely dangerous.
There are already bible versions flooding the markets (MAINLY FOR OUR CHILDREN) that are gender-inclusive-gender-neutral, and feminizing of God.
God is portrayed as Masculine. God is One.
Playing games with grammar so feminist liberals may dare use 'HER' in reference to the Holy Spirit is extremely dangerous.
There are already bible versions flooding the markets (MAINLY FOR OUR CHILDREN) that are gender-inclusive-gender-neutral, and feminizing of God.
E
Her dilberate misuse of the feminine pronoun which does not indicate gender IS wrong:
Originally Posted by TheGrungeDiva
So I guess I'm saying yes, learn history, learn ancient Greek and Babylonian culture, but never for a second think that that education can replace the Holy Spirit. It can supplement her (the Spirit, that is, Ruach, feminine), but never replace her.
NO one (except the feminist TNIV group etc) calls the Holy Spirit HER.
True enough I could have left it, after making her conscious decision to be provocative (and bordering dangerously on blasphemy) be known: but I admit I wasn't all that pleased to have myself portrayed as a tweenie snickering at potty jokes simply for pointing it out.
I'm with ya! Scientists say it took less than a second to create light. Maybe claiming it took 24 hours is diminishing God's glory. 
At any rate, I totally believe it took six days. But the days are defined very loosely within a self-contained definition in Genesis. In fact, the days as defined in Genesis are each a year long at the poles.
At any rate, I totally believe it took six days. But the days are defined very loosely within a self-contained definition in Genesis. In fact, the days as defined in Genesis are each a year long at the poles.
T
No, the angels are not all male. Sigh.
The Hebrew word for "children" (plural and inclusive) is "benay." So, while "sons of God" is an accurate translation, if a writer in Hebrew had wanted to say "children of God, including both male and female," there is no way in Hebrew to say that. "Sons of God," in Hebrew, means both "children of God" and "male heirs of God." So just the fact that it says "sons of God" does not mean that God is sexist. God loves ALL his children, both male and female. He created us -- male AND FEMALE.
See, that's the thing. You say "well, 'man' is inclusive. It refers to both men and women." And I'll buy that -- it does indeed. But too often, someone reads something like the above ("sons of God") and assumes sexism where there is not. I don't ask for gender inclusive language because I think God was wrong. I request gender-inclusive language because too many of God's creatures still don't get it. If "man" really does include women, start treating us like we're equal.
As a friend of mine (who was Cree Indian) said, when I asked, "do you prefer "American Indian" or "Native American" or what?" He said, "You can call me Purple for all I care: just treat me right."
If you want to say "Good will toward men" and then show me and my sisters the same good will you show your brothers, I'm all over that. But as long as there are Christians running around thinking that "Good will toward men" means it doesn't go to women, well, Houston, we've got a problem.
The Hebrew word for "children" (plural and inclusive) is "benay." So, while "sons of God" is an accurate translation, if a writer in Hebrew had wanted to say "children of God, including both male and female," there is no way in Hebrew to say that. "Sons of God," in Hebrew, means both "children of God" and "male heirs of God." So just the fact that it says "sons of God" does not mean that God is sexist. God loves ALL his children, both male and female. He created us -- male AND FEMALE.
See, that's the thing. You say "well, 'man' is inclusive. It refers to both men and women." And I'll buy that -- it does indeed. But too often, someone reads something like the above ("sons of God") and assumes sexism where there is not. I don't ask for gender inclusive language because I think God was wrong. I request gender-inclusive language because too many of God's creatures still don't get it. If "man" really does include women, start treating us like we're equal.
As a friend of mine (who was Cree Indian) said, when I asked, "do you prefer "American Indian" or "Native American" or what?" He said, "You can call me Purple for all I care: just treat me right."
If you want to say "Good will toward men" and then show me and my sisters the same good will you show your brothers, I'm all over that. But as long as there are Christians running around thinking that "Good will toward men" means it doesn't go to women, well, Houston, we've got a problem.
T
That's fair enough.
Like I said, I don't mind at all when people use masculine pronouns, even though God is not male. The Father is certainly male in grammatical gender, but God is not, and there's plenty of Scripture to back that up. I know it's what everyone is used to.
A pronoun does not imbue any sexuality onto its subject. If anyone is so caught up in thinking about sexuality every time someone says "he" or "she," that person has a problem. I've said my piece, and the fact that some posters are repeating themselves, running in circles, getting themselves in a lather over grammar, I think reveals to anyone on this board who has sexuality issues, and who is just maybe not as comfortable with pronouns in the English language.
Like I said, I don't mind at all when people use masculine pronouns, even though God is not male. The Father is certainly male in grammatical gender, but God is not, and there's plenty of Scripture to back that up. I know it's what everyone is used to.
A pronoun does not imbue any sexuality onto its subject. If anyone is so caught up in thinking about sexuality every time someone says "he" or "she," that person has a problem. I've said my piece, and the fact that some posters are repeating themselves, running in circles, getting themselves in a lather over grammar, I think reveals to anyone on this board who has sexuality issues, and who is just maybe not as comfortable with pronouns in the English language.
Last edited:
S
Yep, unfortunately the masculine inclusive noun went out of style in English for some reason, and English doesn't have a neuter case. This is actually an issue that came up last November in my parish as we were phasing in the new translation of the Mass. Before the new translation we had a very freely translated gender inclusive version of the Mass prayers (e.g. in the Creed it said "for us and for our salvation" and now it says "for us men and for our salvation"). The reason for the change was because the Latin texts say "man/men" the English translation must. Needless to say some people got pretty ruffled over changes like that.
But to get to the point I don't see gender neutral translating as a problem as long as it's just horizontal (referring to men) and not vertical "referring to God". However it sometimes becomes a problem in the OT because making certain Christ prophetic verses neutral (like Psalm 1) obscures the prophecy.
But to get to the point I don't see gender neutral translating as a problem as long as it's just horizontal (referring to men) and not vertical "referring to God". However it sometimes becomes a problem in the OT because making certain Christ prophetic verses neutral (like Psalm 1) obscures the prophecy.
T
Agreed. As a musician, I shudder at what some people do to hymns to make them "gender inclusive." For example, in the service music "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," some versions read, "Blessed is the one who comes..." But that's referring to Jesus, not to humanity, so ... yes, one must use one's brain
D
Well basically I was judged for saying that I didn't have money, but then another time appearing on webcam at a restaurant "eating Chinese food with chopsticks". (kangkong -- a $0.60 dish at Chow King)
Anyway, I'm a fundamentalist, but I'm not legalistic, judgmental, etc etc. I think there's a real distinction between being a fundamentalist (as in believing the whole Bible) and being judgmental and legalistic.
Anyway, I'm a fundamentalist, but I'm not legalistic, judgmental, etc etc. I think there's a real distinction between being a fundamentalist (as in believing the whole Bible) and being judgmental and legalistic.
S
Agreed. As a musician, I shudder at what some people do to hymns to make them "gender inclusive." For example, in the service music "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord," some versions read, "Blessed is the one who comes..." But that's referring to Jesus, not to humanity, so ... yes, one must use one's brain
C
Everything that is a woman is included in what is a man, but the reverse is not true. Woman was created FOR man, and not man for the woman. While the worth of a woman is equal to that of a man, there is an order, a hierarchy that God instituted.
God instructed Adam, not Eve, not to eat from the tree, and instructed both of them together to have dominion over all the animals.
At the fall this order was reversed. An animal (Satan indwelt snake) instructed the woman, who instructed the man, who then blamed God for the whole thing.
It was because of one MAN that the Earth, the animals AND the woman fell. It was Adam who broke God's commandment. As Paul said, "the woman, being deceived, fell into sin." Eve did not directly rebel against God as He had not commanded her not to eat the fruit NOR that she obey her husband prior to the fall. Where Eve got the story is a matter of guesswork, and as it is not recorded, technically it was not a matter of law. Eve did not blame God, she blamed the serpent. It was Adam who directly rebelled, not Eve.
Most religions blame women for the problems in this world. Christianity blames man and promises redemption "by the seed of the woman", which is the virgin born Christ. However, as sin came into the world through one man, it is atoned by through one man. Gender matters, God is very much into the details. It is repeatedly emphasized in Genesis, male and female He created them.
In fact, note that original sin, condemnation, was passed to any man born by the seed of a man, but NOT every man born of woman because, technically in a very strict legal sense, Eve did not sin. This pararells how Jesus got the legal right to the throne of David from his adoptive father (Joseph) as legal titles are adoptable BUT avoided the curse upon the sons of David, Solomon and Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22) that they would not have someone sit on the throne ever again. Jesus got His genetic inheritance to the throne of David from His mother, who did come from David but not through Solomon (Luke 3). It is interesting to me that Luke the physician gives the biological geneaology, while Matthew the Jewish tax collector through Jesus' royal adoptive lineage.
Details matter, gender matters,
Yes I am a fundamentalist.
God instructed Adam, not Eve, not to eat from the tree, and instructed both of them together to have dominion over all the animals.
At the fall this order was reversed. An animal (Satan indwelt snake) instructed the woman, who instructed the man, who then blamed God for the whole thing.
It was because of one MAN that the Earth, the animals AND the woman fell. It was Adam who broke God's commandment. As Paul said, "the woman, being deceived, fell into sin." Eve did not directly rebel against God as He had not commanded her not to eat the fruit NOR that she obey her husband prior to the fall. Where Eve got the story is a matter of guesswork, and as it is not recorded, technically it was not a matter of law. Eve did not blame God, she blamed the serpent. It was Adam who directly rebelled, not Eve.
Most religions blame women for the problems in this world. Christianity blames man and promises redemption "by the seed of the woman", which is the virgin born Christ. However, as sin came into the world through one man, it is atoned by through one man. Gender matters, God is very much into the details. It is repeatedly emphasized in Genesis, male and female He created them.
In fact, note that original sin, condemnation, was passed to any man born by the seed of a man, but NOT every man born of woman because, technically in a very strict legal sense, Eve did not sin. This pararells how Jesus got the legal right to the throne of David from his adoptive father (Joseph) as legal titles are adoptable BUT avoided the curse upon the sons of David, Solomon and Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22) that they would not have someone sit on the throne ever again. Jesus got His genetic inheritance to the throne of David from His mother, who did come from David but not through Solomon (Luke 3). It is interesting to me that Luke the physician gives the biological geneaology, while Matthew the Jewish tax collector through Jesus' royal adoptive lineage.
Details matter, gender matters,
Yes I am a fundamentalist.
L
Reason for post: It seems that we have some anti-fundamentalists using this site so I just wanted to make it clear that the admin and moderator team (and I hope the majority of users, I hope) are indeed Bible-believing fundamentalists (and we don't want our site to be represented by fundamentalist-bashers who don't believe the Bible).
10. women should be in submission, both in the home and in the church (men should lovingly lead)
Well I just started typing out all the main radical fundamentalist extremist points that I could think of from Genesis to Revelation, and it comes out to 12! So there's my checklist.
10. women should be in submission, both in the home and in the church (men should lovingly lead)
Well I just started typing out all the main radical fundamentalist extremist points that I could think of from Genesis to Revelation, and it comes out to 12! So there's my checklist.
Put another way, do you believe a Christian woman should run for political office?
A nuanced answer is acceptable.
JR