Starting over new...
Sarah
I'm 19 and for many many years was not religious at all. For the past
couple weeks I've been "called" to the baptist faith. I went to a catholic
school all my life and ahve never studied baptist beleifs or much of
anything other than catholic however during school I tried my hardest to NOT
learn catholic. A rebelious stage I guess...
Howver talking to friends and my boyfriend who is baptist, it sounds like
this might be the thing for me. But I dont know much about it, dont know
how to start, what to do, and what to do once i get there ;-)
Can anyone help me in learning about thebaptist faith, what you beleive, how
you live, how you honor god, how to get "started" in this faith and whatnot.
i know I'm asking alot. if you could just send me to good webpages that
would be a tremendous help. Thanks so much!
Sę.tSem
"Sarah" <barn...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:sRY89.702$Yt4.69...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
is learn how to hate Catholics. Only then will you be a real Baptist. May I
suggest you read Elaine the Doc's posts. If you do, you will learn about her
baptist faith, what she believes, how she lives, how she honors god, how she
got "started" in this faith and whatnot. I would concentrate on her
"whatnots" or her whatnuts, whatever. Read what the Baptist popess has to
say then talk it over with your boyfriend.
>
Tiger
news:sRY89.702$Yt4.69...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com:
> Can anyone help me in learning about thebaptist faith, what you
> beleive, how you live, how you honor god, how to get "started" in
> this faith and whatnot. i know I'm asking alot. if you could just
> send me to good webpages that would be a tremendous help. Thanks
> so much!
http://www.cbfonline.org
http://www.gty.org/~phil/baptist.htm
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
Sę.tSem
"<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
news:pbjamugus9ernuohjdv4g05lkstm26a4tq@watsnet...
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 03:26:16 GMT, "Sarah" <barn...@prodigy.net> spake
> these words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>Hi everyone I was wonderig if you could share some advice.
> ~>
> ~>I'm 19 and for many many years was not religious at all. For the
> past
> ~>couple weeks I've been "called" to the baptist faith. I went to a
> catholic
> ~>school all my life and ahve never studied baptist beleifs or much of
> ~>anything other than catholic however during school I tried my
> hardest to NOT
> ~>learn catholic. A rebelious stage I guess...
> ~>
> ~>Howver talking to friends and my boyfriend who is baptist, it sounds
> like
> ~>this might be the thing for me. But I dont know much about it, dont
> know
> ~>how to start, what to do, and what to do once i get there ;-)
> ~>
> ~>Can anyone help me in learning about thebaptist faith, what you
> beleive, how
> ~>you live, how you honor god, how to get "started" in this faith and
> whatnot.
> ~>i know I'm asking alot. if you could just send me to good webpages
> that
> ~>would be a tremendous help. Thanks so much!
> ~>
>
> Hello Sarah
>
> Welcome to this newsgroup.
>
> firstly, please pay NO attention to the one posting under the name of
> 'SaeSem' or however it's spelled ---- that creep has been trying
> desperately to stalk and intimidate me for some time, FAILING every
> step of the way.
>
> I'm more than happy to help you if I can.
>
> Please email me if you would, at romr...@vianet.ca and I'll be
> pleased to get back to you woth some good Baptist site info.
>
> In the meantime, I'd sure appreciate it if you'd visit my site, which
> features a Christian Encouragement section...... please. sign the
> Guest Book, visit the chat room, poll, forum, etc........... I'd love
> to see you there.
>
> Take care, and may God bless you and yours :o)
>
> "Doc" (Elaine)
>
Be careful Sarah. She wants to get under your skirt. First thing you got to
learn on these newsgroups is never to send private E-mails to people you
don't know nor give you personal E-mail address. Elaine could well use what
you say to her against you. She's done it before. The slut is not to be
trusted.
>
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 08/03/02
nick gordon
"JP" <perettij_pasd...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:Rif99.19575$cH2.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> > "NOT learn catholic." LOL. You're on your way Sarah. Now what you have
to
> do
> > is learn how to hate Catholics. Only then will you be a real Baptist.
>
>
> A person who values biblical teachings doesn't hate the person, whether
> catholic or other, but hates lies and sin.
>
> In Christ
>
A person who values biblical teachings Jean-Paul C., must first understand
what Scripture is all about. Problem here is that those idiot Fundie
literalists just use Scripture to justify their sectarian beliefs.
> JP
>
>
Uniake
> Dear Sarah
>
> I was a Catholic before and discovered the Truth in the Bible in March
> 1977... I never looked back...
Interesting. You discovered what you were looking for, how you could justify
yourself. Don't we all?
> The important thing is that you don't change religion for the sake of
> changing religion or because you want to espouse your boyfriend's faith...
> It must come from a conviction from the Lord...
Can't agree with that. She and her boyfriend must respect each other and
that includes their religious beliefs.
>
> Anything that is not found in the Holy Scriptures is to be rejected... In
> Matthew 5, you will find these verses: *** 18I tell you the truth, until
> heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke
of
> a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
> accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments
and
> teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of
heaven,
> but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in
the
> kingdom of heaven.***
Except that Christians are not Jews. The Gospel according to Matthew was
intented for Jews. The Gospels according to Luke and John were written for
Gentiles.
>
> If you have questions, you may email me..
Sure. New-Brunswickers know best. :-)
>
> JP
>
> Romans 8:28-29
Who will only know when you get there.
>
>
Uniake
> > A person who values biblical teachings Jean-Paul C.,
>
Let me laugh this one out.
>
> must first understand
> > what Scripture is all about. Problem here is that those idiot Fundie
>
> Those humble enough to count on the Lord to guide them through
understanding
> the Bible will read it with joy and understanding...
>
Maybe so. With joy likely, with understanding? Depends if one is a
literalist or one can interpret what s/he is reading.
> > literalists just use Scripture to justify their sectarian beliefs.
>
> This is like saying God is a sectarian? Me think not... duh!
Vox populi vox dei. Are you one of those new sectarians? I thought N.B.
folks were either Catholics or Presbyterians. To tell you the truth, we
didn't have a Bible. You are telling me we should have had. Bullshit.
>
> JP
>
>
Uniake
> > Except that Christians are not Jews. The Gospel according to Matthew was
> > intented for Jews. The Gospels according to Luke and John were written
for
> > Gentiles.
>
>
What is that supposed to mean Giason?
> JP
>
>
>
The Boog-man Seven7s
Just a few things..
I'm a Southern Baptist, theologically. It's a good place to learn
what you need to know - but the key is to get plugged in and become
an active participant in whatever church that you join, and to
actually get something out of what you're being taught. Some of the
strongest Christians that I know were those that "got it" within a
Baptist church; however, I know plenty that didn't.
Keep your mind open a little more, though. That was the problem that
I found that I had - you'll understand people a lot better and
understand how God wants you to deal with the world.
The Boog-man Seven7s
Phar-Lap
<barn...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Sincere suggestion - This isn't really just about converting to a
particular denomination. If you want to understand the theology of the
Baptists you need to understand how the theology of the Church itself
developed.
You will find in particular that to a large extent to this day the very
existence of the Byzantine Empire - which as the Later Roman Empire lasted
from around 300AD until 1453 has been conveniently covered up. This is
because of the role that Western Catholicism played in weakening it in the
centuries prior to the collapse of its capital, Constantinople, to the
Ottoman Turks.
As a religion Christianity was refined and systematised during the Roman
and Later Roman (Byzantine) Empires. The Reformation of Martin Luther and
the Baptists came later. This is the historical basis on which any
understanding of Christianity in the theological sense needs to be built
As to the people themselves and their activities the best way to know them
is to meet them.. I am an ex-Baptist but I would still say for the most
part they are very nice people on a person to person basis and likely to
be welcoming. To me the Baptists lacked the essential intellectual depth
that I needed in any religion - they are inclined to gloss over that which
needs desperately to be questioned. And there is a fatal tendency towards
fundamentalism
Go and have a cup of coffee with them, but if you decide to remain do
ensure you maintain your ability to question and reason and do not rely on
Baptist Bible Study as either a substitute for or a source of genuine
intellectual study and scholarship
In my experience the best of the Baptists honor their image of God by
applying the second commandment - thou shalt love thy neighbour - That
is why a faith that can sometimes be very closed minded can also produce a
Martin Luther King.
It is also why to this day I am not a racist. They brought me up to see
that as a terrible sin.
Sometimes frustrating - sometimes making very little sense but almost
always kind-hearted - thats what they meant in my life.
Phar Lap
+++++++++++++++++
Uniake
> > Vox populi vox dei. Are you one of those new sectarians? I thought N.B.
> > folks were either Catholics or Presbyterians. To tell you the truth, we
> > didn't have a Bible. You are telling me we should have had. Bullshit.
>
> JP
>
I don't think BMW really cares.
>
VOJ
> > Vox populi vox dei. Are you one of those new sectarians? I thought N.B.
> > folks were either Catholics or Presbyterians. To tell you the truth, we
> > didn't have a Bible. You are telling me we should have had. Bullshit.
>
> JP
>
>
A religion?
sure.
There are many religions including Humanism and atheism.
VOJ
"<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:25:49 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
> Phar-Lap) spake these words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>To me the Baptists lacked the essential intellectual depth
> ~>that I needed in any religion - they are inclined to gloss over that
> which
> ~>needs desperately to be questioned. And there is a fatal tendency
> towards
> ~>fundamentalism
>
>
> Wrong. I'm a Baptist, and I certainly DO dig into the questions that
> need to be asked.
> Don't place a bad label on Baptists simply because you were inadequate
> in your questioning.
>
> As for fundamentalism, perhaps you should develop some of it.
>
> Doc
Fundamentalism. Staying with the fundamentals, a trait Phar-Lap has a
disdain for. Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for personal
variations of scripture.
Tiger
news:Mdt99.2032$Ic7.2...@news2.west.cox.net:
> Fundamentalism. Staying with the fundamentals, a trait Phar-Lap
> has a disdain for. Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for
> personal variations of scripture.
>
>
What other variations are there? The interpretation prescribed by
some authority? Like the Pope? Or are *you* the authority?
VOJ
"Tiger" <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns927381DE8...@24.25.0.106...
> "VOJ" <ic...@here.com> wrote in
> news:Mdt99.2032$Ic7.2...@news2.west.cox.net:
>
>
> > Fundamentalism. Staying with the fundamentals, a trait Phar-Lap
> > has a disdain for. Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for
> > personal variations of scripture.
> >
> >
>
> What other variations are there? The interpretation prescribed by
> some authority? Like the Pope? Or are *you* the authority?
English is English.
The Gospel is the Gospel.
Many use the term fundamentalist when in their ignorance, they mean
legalists or any "other" religion, or any religion that does not ADD to
scripture what they ADD to scripture. Catholicism is basically not
fundamental in any stretch of the imagination.
Tiger
news:2_t99.2098$Ic7.2...@news2.west.cox.net:
Nice diatribe...but you answered none of my questions. Would you
care to try again? Here, I'll make it simple for you:
You stated: "Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for personal
variations of scripture."
My question: What *other* types of variations (other than
"personal") are there? And if "personal variations" are not
desirable (which is implied by your statement), which of the other
variations is recommended and why?
Uniake
"VOJ" <ic...@here.com> wrote in message
news:2_t99.2098$Ic7.2...@news2.west.cox.net...
human intelligence.
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
news:Xnu99.8618$xL1.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
How would you know? You have nothing to deny, physically or mentally.
VOJ
Personal such as a Pastor, or an individual, or a humn group.
A stops sign says stop.
It doesn't say slow down or ignore if no one is watching.
Written law says that one may proceed when safe, not proceed just because
one has stopped, the later being an ADDED interpretation.
Tiger
news:bav99.2144$Ic7.3...@news2.west.cox.net:
Well, this doesn't seem to address either of my questions. If it's
meant to address the first, then you are saying that "other"
interpretations than "personal" include "personal." If you are
saying that these are the "recommended" variations, then you seem to
contradict yourself by recommending "personal" variations in one post
and casting aspersions on them in another.
Strike two.
Care to try again?
>
> A stops sign says stop.
A stop sign cannot "say" anything.
> It doesn't say slow down or ignore if no one is watching.
It doesn't say anything whether someone is watching or not.
> Written law says that one may proceed when safe, not proceed just
> because one has stopped, the later being an ADDED interpretation.
>
Written law, like a stop sign, says nothing.
Would you care to try and make more sense? And perhaps actually
address my questions?
Uniake
>
Uniake
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a denial of
human intelligence.
WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has left
many people confused and afraid. Their understandable longing for security
leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern life
and reestablish fundamental truths. Fundamentalists try to satisfy their
"lust for certitude" by oversimplifying things, by making a passionate
commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.
Christian fundamentalists believe that they find the truth they yearn for in
the literal interpretation of the Bible as the only guide to Christian
living, in being "born again" through a conversion experience of accepting
Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior, and in baptizing only adults. The Old
Testament's traditional strictness of the Law and Commandments is emphasized
more than Christ's forgiving, all-embracing love. Christian fundamentalists
confidently claim to find easy answers to all of life=s difficult questions
through a simplistic understanding of the Bible.
FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE BIBLE
Far from being a mere answer book, the Catholic Church reveres the Bible as
the record of God's saving Presence among us. The Bible is a collection of
very old books, written under divine inspiration in ancient languages by
many different human authors over a long period of time. The literary style
and purpose of each book reflects the particular time and place in which it
was written. Biblical scholars study the historical and cultural context of
each book so that, thousands of years later, we can better understand each
book's message. The various books of the Bible were not all meant to be
understood literally, but make use of a variety of ancient literary styles
to teach important truths of salvation.
Fundamentalists disagree. They reject modern Protestant and Catholic
scholarship about the origins of the Bible. Rather than trying to understand
the historical situation in which the books of the Bible were written and
the literary styles they employ, fundamentalists believe that their English
translations of the Bible must be understood literally, that is, the surface
meaning must be accepted as true, word for word. Unlike Catholics, many
fundamentalists believe that the Bible is meant by God to faithfully teach
not only the way to salvation, but science and history as well. Unlike
Catholics, many believe, for instance, that the Bible teaches that God
created the universe in literally seven days, and that evolution is
Biblically impossible, no matter what modern science may say.
Fundamentalists are afraid to acknowledge the legitimate place of our
God-given gift of reason and science in studying and interpreting the Bible
correctly.
Fundamentalists claim to interpret the whole Bible literally. In reality
they do not. While rejecting the Church's right to do this, each group takes
it upon itself to decide what is literally true in the Bible and what is
not. There are many different fundamentalist groups, and they disagree among
themselves as to what the Bible teaches. While they all say that the Bible
is to be followed exactly, each group decides which verses to follow
exactly. Theirs is an enthusiastically literal, but very selective, reading
of the Bible. For example, the Bible says in Matthew 5:27-30 that if one's
eye or hand leads to sin, it should be cut off and thrown away. Have you
ever met a fundamentalist who interprets these verses literally?
http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrRonStanley/fundment.ism.html
1) Fundamentalists are advocates of a minority viewpoint. They see
themselves as a righteous remnant. Even when they are numerically a
majority, they perceive themselves as a minority. 2) They are oppositional
and confrontational towards both secularists and "wayward" religious
followers. 3) They are secondary level male elites led invariably by
charismatic males. 4) Fundamentalists generate their own technical
vocabulary. 5) Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological
precursor.
[Bruce Lawrence]
Uniake
Ooops!
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
news:H3x99.64406$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Sarah
> > changing religion or because you want to espouse your boyfriend's
faith...
> > It must come from a conviction from the Lord...
Well I've been with my boyfriend for a long time, and have always knows he
was Baptist and until recently didn't really care one way or the other.
LIke I mentioned before, I had been Catholic, hated that with a passion
(going to churchto listen to boring songs, reciting prayers that, to me,
had no real meaning, talking to God through a priest... The Catholic church,
to me, was boring), then had no real religion for quite a while. Until just
recently, like a couple weeks ago, I have been drawn to the Bible and drawn
to researching the different christian paths and have found the Baptist path
to be the most comfortable/happiest/comforting path I've come to learn about
so far... so maybe it's God callig me to this path. It isn't because of my
boyfriend or anyon else I've talked to - I feel it is God calling me here.
Phar-Lap
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
> WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>
> Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> immorality of today's world
One slight disagreement here
Fundamentalism IS the main source of immorality in todays world
Fundamentalism is a disgusting mind set - a cancer in all of the worlds
great religions - eating away at their core and turning them into tools of
fascism, hatred, and terrorism.
Fundamentalism in Christianity is an enemy on the scale of the
mythological Antichrist. It has forced more people out of Christianity
than any other reason for leaving.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
> There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
>
Hence the mess both internally and overseas!
Phar-Lap
<j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com> wrote:
> "VOJ" <ic...@here.com> wrote in
> news:Mdt99.2032$Ic7.2...@news2.west.cox.net:
>
>
> > Fundamentalism. Staying with the fundamentals, a trait Phar-Lap
> > has a disdain for. Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for
> > personal variations of scripture.
> >
> >
>
> What other variations are there? The interpretation prescribed by
> some authority? Like the Pope? Or are *you* the authority?
>
Absolutely!
Each has his own understanding based on his own experience and study.
There is no real "institutional" belief when it really comes down to it
It is one person seeking to have power and authority over others
Which is how the Church developed its undemocratic structure in the first place!
That is how it came to exclude women from the priesthood and positions of
authority. It is the origin of dogma and infallibility and inerrancy
doctrines of Scripture
It is not so much Fundamentalsim I hate as Fascism. Fundamentalism is
just one form Fascism takes
We victims learn that the hard way!
Phar Lap
Phar-Lap
®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:25:49 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
> Phar-Lap) spake these words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>To me the Baptists lacked the essential intellectual depth
> ~>that I needed in any religion - they are inclined to gloss over that
> which
> ~>needs desperately to be questioned. And there is a fatal tendency
> towards
> ~>fundamentalism
>
>
> Wrong. I'm a Baptist, and I certainly DO dig into the questions that
> need to be asked.
> Don't place a bad label on Baptists simply because you were inadequate
> in your questioning.
>
> As for fundamentalism, perhaps you should develop some of it.
>
> Doc
>
Thankyou for the confirmation of what I said
I rest my case!
"To me the Baptists lacked the essential intellectual depth
that I needed in any religion - they are inclined to gloss over that which
needs desperately to be questioned. And there is a fatal tendency towards
fundamentalism"
I trust the original poster will take notice of this. You don't see your error
But I do - and that is why I left
Phar Lap
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
> > >
> > Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, the denial
> of
> > human intelligence.
>
> How would you know? You have nothing to deny, physically or mentally.
We know it through reason knowledge study and experience
(and not through revelation)
:-)
Phar Lap
Phar-Lap
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
> >
> Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, the denial of
> human intelligence.
ABSOLUTELY!
And they are the greatest enemy Christianity has and set to destroy it
(Which they almost have)
+++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
> Your post proves my point. Literalists are idiots.
And under the challenge of reason they become politically ultra conservative
Which is how those who claim to be Christian are so easily manipulated by Mammon
Fundamentalism is not a strength but a weakness.
It is the crack in Christianity that, as it widens, threatens
Christianity's very existence
Phar Lap
Phar-Lap
<barn...@prodigy.net> wrote:
Walk carefully!
It is all too easy for emotional feeling and religious feeling to become
confused when one is a sexual romance. Many protestants seriously
consider that they are called to Catholicism when the loved one is a
Catholic
Do not consider Christianity in isolation from the world but as part of
it. Fundamentalists have tried to seize if for themselves and create an
isolated sub culture. Christianity is not about comfort it is about
recognising the faults in this world and attempting to put them right. It
is about sharing and welfare as well as about compassion and love
Baptists have too often tried to invent a religion in which "belief" is
all - but in reality in Christianity belief and action are one.
There is a world of difference between the Baptist religion of such as
Martin Luther King and such as other Baptist groups promote. There is in
reality no consistent Baptist identity.
Phar Lap
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
> There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
>
> Ooops!
>
Of course we have already seen that few seem to know what fundamentalist
means, but continue using the word.
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
>
> "Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
> news:6mw99.56396$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a denial of
> human intelligence.
>
> WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>
So you have no idea of English or of logic.
Anything else you want to inform us of?
You latch on to little hype words of the liberal press quite well.
VOJ
No common language.
I am an educated person speaking English.
I can talk with the educated and with children but the miseducated are
impossible.
Tiger
news:LiE99.3072$Ic7.4...@news2.west.cox.net:
And yet again you have not addressed my questions. Very well...it
seems you either cannot or will not. Apparently you are an "educated
person" who thinks stop signs speak. If you cannot understand why
that point pertains, then perhaps your education is not quite what
you believe it is.
Uniake
>
> "Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
> news:H3x99.64406$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
>
have something to do with the Java virtual machine or Windows XP.
I'll repost it for you.
Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a denial of
human intelligence.
WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE BIBLE
http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrRonStanley/fundment.ism.html
[Bruce Lawrence]
> Anything else you want to inform us of?
>
My message is clear. Archaism is an error.
> You latch on to little hype words of the liberal press quite well.
>
You should read what Minimalists have to say about literalist idiots like
you Vernon, why you cling to your false traditions.
>
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
Uniake
show up on your screen, I will repost it for you and others. No problem.
Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a denial of
human intelligence.
WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
Uniake
with Islamic Fundamentalism, is not convenient at present. You are trying to
cover your ass Vernon.
>
Pastor Dave
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>
>Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
>immorality of today's world.
Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
___
In Christ,
Pastor Dave
"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether
the gods which your fathers served that were on the
other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15
Mike Bugal
It's funny that a post that seeks to label those who hold to the fundamental
truths of the Bible as frightened, confused ignoramuses under close
examination is in reality so full of misinformation and downright ignorance
(such as the statements about biblical interpretation that the verse above
immediately comes to mind. It is Mr. Lawrence who is frightened, not the
Christians. He is frightened that if the Body of Christ stands united we are
anything *but* a "minority". He merely *wishes* that Christians would "act
like a minority even when they are a numerical majority". IF such were the
case he would *have* no fear and not *need* to have written this article to
denigrate Christians. One rarely bothers to *attacks* those who are no
threat to you. No, the *reality* of the matter is that when the Body of
Christ stands *united around truth* it is Mr. Lawrence and his liberal
(probably politically as well as theologically) who are the minority. And in
reality is Mr. Lawrence and his cohorts who wish to force their minority
opinions on the majority and to replace the sure Word of God with their
ideas and opinions that are as constant as a sand dune in a hurricane. The
word that any reasonable person would call that is "foolishness".
His and Yours,
Mike Bugal
Heartland Chapel Ministries
http://www.heartlandchapel.org/
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
news:ApM99.10856$sY3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Uniake
"Pastor Dave" <nospam-p...@conceptz.net> wrote in message
news:4e6fmu439b87va4sj...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
> >
> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> >immorality of today's world.
>
> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
>
"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh;
even though we have known Christ according to the flesh,
yet we know him thus no longer"
( Paul, 2 Cor 5.16)
Uniake
"Mike Bugal" <heartla...@socket.net> wrote in message
news:umf8o9b...@corp.supernews.com...
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:22)
> It's funny that a post that seeks to label those who hold to the
fundamental
> truths of the Bible as frightened, confused ignoramuses under close
> examination is in reality so full of misinformation and downright
ignorance
> (such as the statements about biblical interpretation that the verse above
> immediately comes to mind. It is Mr. Lawrence who is frightened, not the
> Christians. He is frightened that if the Body of Christ stands united we
are
> anything *but* a "minority". He merely *wishes* that Christians would "act
> like a minority even when they are a numerical majority". IF such were the
> case he would *have* no fear and not *need* to have written this article
to
> denigrate Christians. One rarely bothers to *attacks* those who are no
> threat to you. No, the *reality* of the matter is that when the Body of
> Christ stands *united around truth* it is Mr. Lawrence and his liberal
> (probably politically as well as theologically) who are the minority. And
in
> reality is Mr. Lawrence and his cohorts who wish to force their minority
> opinions on the majority and to replace the sure Word of God with their
> ideas and opinions that are as constant as a sand dune in a hurricane. The
> word that any reasonable person would call that is "foolishness".
Fundamentalist literalism is a straight jacket, an absurdity and you know
it. Don't consider Fundamentalist literalism as a Christian majority or the
whole Body of Christ. It's not. It's a vanishing minority.
The only quote from Lawrence in my previous post was the following:
"1) Fundamentalists are advocates of a minority viewpoint. They see
themselves as a righteous remnant. Even when they are numerically a
majority, they perceive themselves as a minority. 2) They are oppositional
and confrontational towards both secularists and "wayward" religious
followers. 3) They are secondary level male elites led invariably by
charismatic males. 4) Fundamentalists generate their own technical
vocabulary. 5) Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no ideological
precursor."
[Bruce Lawrence]
The main part of my post was copied from a Catholic website dimwit.
Read again:
http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrRonStanley/fundment.ism.html
Uniake
"<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
news:kjofmucjhkogs3kl5unajavpjm7jpcr0un@watsnet...
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:37:07 GMT, Tiger <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com>
> spake these words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>
> ~>address my questions?
>
>
Don't feed the troll. Ignore the slut.
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
>
>
> Fundamentalist literalism is a straight jacket, an absurdity and you know
> it. Don't consider Fundamentalist literalism as a Christian majority or
the
> whole Body of Christ. It's not. It's a vanishing minority.
>
A VERY pedantic statement, posted by a bigot who only knows words told to
him by someone else and then repeated as if to have meaning.
Get a grip.
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
Fundamental Islam is the fundamentals of Islam, So???
Islam does NOT mean peace and never has.
Fundamental Islam is fundamental terror and murder and has NEVER been
different.
A fundamental Democrat and a fundamental Republican can be entirely
different but both fundamentalists.
VOJ
> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
> >
> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> >immorality of today's world.
>
> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
>
Sorry but biblical principals are always current.
VOJ
"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
Gee, learned a new word, slut now.
Again a word used out of true context.
Phar-Lap
<heartla...@socket.net> wrote:
> "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools," (Romans 1:22)
> It's funny that a post that seeks to label those who hold to the fundamental
> truths of the Bible as frightened, confused ignoramuses
(etcetera)
Fundamentalism is a lie per se.
It claims to hold on to fundamental truths but is in fact a late
nineteenth century to early twentieth century INTERPRETATION of Scripture
It was always crap - but its original aim of acting as an ideological
bastion against progressive and liberal politics has been forgotten
Fundamentalism is a political movement that pretends to be a religious one
As such it on the one hand louses up the body politic
And on the other it signs the death warrant for the religion it
purportedly supports.
If we really want to return to the fundamentals of Christianity it
requires open minds, scholarship, academic study, the development of
reason and a progressive political attitude
Fundamentalism is just a cul de sac in such a search - a failed route
leading nowhere
Phar-Lap
order to defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology,
German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other views regarded as harmful to
American Christianity. It arose in the early l900s and reached its height
during and after World War I. Since then, the focus of the movement, the
meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who willingly use the term to
identify themselves have changed several times. Fundamentalism has gone
through four phases of expression while maintaining an essential
continuity of spirit, belief, and method.
The 1920s. The earliest phase involved articulating what was
fundamental to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel
enemies of orthodox Protestantism from mainline churches. A series of 12
volumes called The Fundamentals (1910-15) identified a wide listing of
enemies騎omanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism,
Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like. Above all, liberal theology, which
rested on a naturalistic interpretation of faith, and German higher
criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the Bible's
authority, were identified as threats. The writers represented a broad,
interdenominational Christianity in both North America and the United
Kingdom. The doctrines they defined and defended covered historical
Christian teachings. They presented criticisms fairly, with careful
argument and in appreciation of much their opponents said. Almost
immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and the
fundamentals less comprehensive.
The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee
Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, but it seemed to pop up everywhere
in the early 1920s as an identification for someone who believed and
actively defended the fundamentals of the faith.
Late 1920s to the EarZy 1940s. By 1926 or so, militant fundamentalists had
failed to expel the modernists from any denomination. Moreover, they lost
the battle against evolution. Orthodox Protestants, who still numerically
dominated the denominations, began to struggle among themselves. During
the 1930s the term "fundamentalist" came to apply to one party among those
who believed the traditional fundamentals of the faith. New "pure"
denominations emerged. The distinctive theological point that the
fundamentalists made was that they rep resented true Christianity, based
on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that this truth ought to be
expressed organizationally in separation from liberals and modernists;
separatism was aligned with the maintenance of fundamental Christianity.
Fundamentalists identified with purity in personal morality and American
culture. Thus, the term "fundamentalist" came to refer largely to orthodox
Protestants who left mainline northern denominations and established new
denominations, joined conservative Southern churches, or started
independent churches.
Early 1940s to the 1970s. From the early 1940s fundamentalists, thus
redefined, divided gradually into two camps: Many voluntarily continued to
use the term to refer to themselves. They equated fundamentalism with true
Biblebelieving Christianity. Others regarded the term as undesirable,
connoting divisiveness, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, unconcern with
social problems, even foolishness. This second group wished to regain
fellowship with orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast
majority of clergy and people in the large Northern
denominations輝resbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian. They
began during the 1940s to call themselves "evangelicals" and to equate
that term with true Christianity. Beginning in 1948 a few preferred to
take the name "neoevangelical." Organizationally many separatist
fundamentalists formed the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC)
in 1941. Those desiring a more inclusive fellowship formed the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942, which sought to embrace
orthodox Protestants as individuals in all denominations.
The term "fundamentalist" now expressed a contrast from evangelicals or
neoevangelicals, rather than merely with liberalism, modernism, or
neoorthodoxy. Fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s
shared much but remained apart because of a different ethos.
Late 1970s and the 1980s. By the late 1970s, and in particular by the 1980
campaign of Ronald Reagan for the U.S. presidency, fundamentalists entered
a new phase. They became nationally prominent as offering an answer for
what many regarded as a supreme social, economic, moral, and religious
crisis in America. They identified a new and more pervasive enemy, secular
humanism, which they believed was responsible for eroding churches,
schools, universities, the government, and蟻bove all鞠amilies. They fought
those they considered to be offspring of secular humanism evolutionism,
political and theological liberalism, loose persona morality, sexual
perversion, socialism communism, and any turn from the absolute, inerrant
authority of the Bible. They called Americans to return to the
fundamentals of the faith and the fundamental moral values.
C. T. MCLAmRE
Fundamentals, The series of 12 volumes of articles published in Chicago
between 1910 and 1915 as a witness to the central doctrines and
experiences of Protestant Christianity and a defense against modern
movements, cults, and criticisms of orthodoxy. The Fundamentals, subtitled
"A Testimony to the Truth," is associated with the founding of
fundamentalism as a restatement of orthodox Christianity against liberal
theology and modernism; 3 million copies were distributed free to English
speaking ministers, missionaries, and workers around the world. The
Fundamentals originated out of, and was editorially controlled by, persons
in the Bible school, revival, and independent church movements associated
with the Bible Institute of Los Angeles and Moody Bible Institute. The
authors included Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Independents, and
others, and were from England, Scotland, Canada, and the U.S.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mark Tindall
>Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a >denial of
human intelligence.
An excellent post worth a reread.
Rev Dr Mark
Mark Tindall
+----------------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| PENTE I
I PARROT I
+---------------+
| |
| |
..\|..|/..
Rev Dr Mark
Mark Tindall
>"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,"
>(Romans 1:22)
A nice proof text explaining pentes.
Rev Dr Mark
Mark Tindall
>If we really want to return to the fundamentals of Christianity it
>requires open minds, scholarship, academic study, the >development of
reason and a progressive political attitude
... which are the very things pentecostals oppose! Pentecostals are against
modernity. They fight a losing battle.
Rev Dr Mark
Mark Tindall
>Fundamentalist literalism is a straight jacket
Yep.
> Don't consider Fundamentalist literalism as a Christian majority >or the
whole Body of Christ. It's not. It's a vanishing minority.
Most definitely. People like John Shelby Spong have ripped the false lies
out and exposed them publically. Read his 'Rescuing the Bible From
Fundamentalism'.
Rev Dr Mark
Mark Tindall
Mike Bugal
> The only quote from Lawrence in my previous post was the following:
<snip>
That was the *only* attribution in a *very long* cut and paste job from the
website mentioned. The rest, if not written by Mr. Lawrence, is posted
without credit being given to the true author by the paster.
Uniacke
Truth hurts. That someone else doesn't exist.
>
Uniacke
>
Uniacke
> "Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
> news:iRO99.26429$_75.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > The only quote from Lawrence in my previous post was the following:
>
> <snip>
> That was the *only* attribution in a *very long* cut and paste job from
the
> website mentioned. The rest, if not written by Mr. Lawrence, is posted
> without credit being given to the true author by the paster.
I thought you could find out by yourself.
>
FUNDAMENTALISM
By Ronald Stanley, OP Fundamentalists of various stripes are in the
news almost daily. Read this to learn about the nature and origins of
fundamentalism, particularly Biblical fundamentalism.
http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/publicat.htm
Bari Stepanovich
<mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote:
>Phar-Lap wrote:
>
>>If we really want to return to the fundamentals of Christianity it
>>requires open minds, scholarship, academic study, the >development of
>reason and a progressive political attitude
>
>... which are the very things pentecostals oppose! Pentecostals are against
>modernity.
Quite ironic, seeing as they, themselves are a modern sect.
"Pentecostalism" was born at the dawn of the 20th century.
Even the Watchtower and Adventist cults are more "ancient".
In XC,
Bari Stepanovich
*****************************************************************************
IC XC
--+-- "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."
NI KA
VOJ
"Mark Tindall" <mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote in message
news:3d682c95$1...@news.turboweb.net.au...
Find out what fundamental means.
VOJ
For people too stupid to know what the word fundamental means, then coin a
word fundamentalism out of the press which is made up of uneducated liars.
>
> Rev Dr Mark
>
>
VOJ
"<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:16:44 GMT, "VOJ" <ic...@here.com> spake these
> words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>
> ~>news:1sfcmu4vo7t0g0qta7fbuuvtukh2ip7vn9@watsnet...
> ~>> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 15:25:49 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
> ~>> Phar-Lap) spake these words as Gospel truth on Usenet
> 'newsfroups':
> ~>>
> ~>> ~>To me the Baptists lacked the essential intellectual depth
> ~>> ~>that I needed in any religion - they are inclined to gloss over
> that
> ~>> which
> ~>> ~>needs desperately to be questioned. And there is a fatal
> tendency
> ~>> towards
> ~>> ~>fundamentalism
> ~>>
> ~>>
> ~>> Wrong. I'm a Baptist, and I certainly DO dig into the questions
> that
> ~>> need to be asked.
> ~>> Don't place a bad label on Baptists simply because you were
> inadequate
> ~>> in your questioning.
> ~>>
> ~>> As for fundamentalism, perhaps you should develop some of it.
> ~>>
> ~>> Doc
> ~>
> ~>Fundamentalism. Staying with the fundamentals, a trait Phar-Lap has
> a
> ~>disdain for. Sticking with fundamentals does not allow for personal
> ~>variations of scripture.
> ~>
> Right!! A LOT to be said for us 'fundies' huh ? !!!!! Personally, I
> roar with laughter every time someone calls me a 'fundie'------ all
> the time thinking they're 'insulting me'......!!!! :o)
> elaine
That's all right. Just tell them they are not fundies. They are too stupid
to know they have been insulted.
Mark Tindall
Mark Tindall
>Find out what fundament means.
What you use instead of a brain.
Rev Dr MarK
Uniacke
Fundamentalists you would want us to believe you are. Fundamentalist
hypocrites are not Fundies. I consider you both as degenerate Fundies.
>
VOJ
> VOJ wrote:
>
Find out what fundament means.
Still over your head?
John Weatherly
messes. If we hadn't ben there to interfere, no telling how much
damage your Satanic cult would have done.
In Christ,
John W
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:09:50 +1100, grandn...@aintree.com (
Phar-Lap) wrote:
>In article <pbx99.66010$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "Uniake"
><J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
>> There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
>>
>
>
>Hence the mess both internally and overseas!
In Christ,
John W
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
John Weatherly
wouldn't even add up to the Southern Baptist numbers. Ah, Uniacke! If
you only knew what you were talking about!
The 12 were fundamentalists. They insisted on a pure interpretation
(literal whenever the literal makes sense) of Scripture.
Non-fundamentalists have tried to water down the pure gospel ever
since. Paul said, "Don't let them!"
In Christ,
John W
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 16:48:36 -0400, "Uniake"
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
PTL! I hope it's 10 times that. Just in America.
>
>Ooops!
>
>"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
>news:H3x99.64406$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>
>> "Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
>> news:6mw99.56396$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a denial of
>> human intelligence.
>Would you elevate human intelligence above divine Revelation? That makes you anti-Christ.
>
>> WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>>
>> Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
>> immorality of today's world. The knowledge and technology explosion has
>left
Extreme? Because we insist on the unadulterated Bible? WE preach
EXACTLY what Paul preached. We preach EXACTLY as Jesus preached.
Problem with that?
You wish to water it down. Paul said, "Don't let them!"
We don't.
>> many people confused and afraid.
That's a SAtanic Lie! PRovide documentation, or it's just your puny
opinion. And when you represent your puny little opinion as "fact",
you lie. YOU are a LIAR!
Their understandable longing for security
>> leads some to look for a way to cut through the complexities of modern
>life
>> and reestablish fundamental truths.
You make it sound like we can't have both. I don't see fundamentalists
walking everywhere; we drive cars. I don't see us listening to old
radios. We have TV just like everyone else. I don't type my articles
on a typewriter; we actually have computers!
Fundamentalists try to satisfy their "lust for certitude" by
oversimplifying things, by making a passionate
>> commitment to a part, and sometimes to a distortion, of the truth.
For instance. Give me a distortion we do. You're all talk.
And the fundamentalists are the closest to the truth of scripture.
While you explain it away so that you can do as you damn well please,
we fundamentalists are the ones who STUDY the Bible INTENSELY, so we
KNOW God's will, and we defend the Bible from all her enemies, such as
you.
Heaven and hell may pass away. The Word will stand forever! "You don't
like God's laws, so if you disregard the Fundamentalist defenders of
the Bible, you think you can do as you please!
Well, don't let us stop you! Do as you please! Just don't mislabel
yourself Christian. You aren't allowed to do that.
>>
>> Christian fundamentalists believe that they find the truth they yearn for
>in
>> the literal interpretation of the Bible as the only guide to Christian
>> living, in being "born again" through a conversion experience of accepting
>> Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior, and in baptizing only adults.
Not exactly. I don't know where you got THAT lie! I agree with
everything else, but when you said we only baptize adults, you're full
of caca. I was baptized when I was 9. I was grilled on my faith, I was
a bright kid, and I knew what I was doing and what I believed. My son
prayed to receive Christ on his 3rd birthday. However, before I could
arrange his baptism, the wife and I argued about it. I insisted; she
divorced me so she could wait till SHE was ready. Shallow people like
you and her we don't need more of in the church.
The Old Testament's traditional strictness of the Law and
Commandments is emphasized more than Christ's forgiving, all-embracing
love.
An absolute lie! We were taught from my earliest memories, "We are
free in Christ." The first verse I ever learned was "For God so
loved..."
We didn't and they don't follow the Old Testament. They/we are Sunday
worshippers just like the Apostles before us. And the first song I
remember singing in junior church all the way back to 5 years old:
"Jesus loves me, this I know."
You are SUCH a BOLD FACED Liar! And for once, I will rebuke you!
You have attacked a bunch of sincere believers who are doing their
best to serve Christ as imperfect people in an imperfect world. What's
YOUR excuse for your skepticism? Let me guess, you want to "do your
own thing".
"You don't break God's laws; they break you!"
-- Dr. Charlie Shedd on Phil Donahue!
Christian fundamentalists confidently claim to find easy answers to
all of life=s difficult questions through a simplistic understanding
of the Bible.
Another Satanic lie! No fundamentalist I ever heard of, and all my
pastors have been fundamentalists (merely means we hold the Bible as
infallible, and the final authority on all spiritual matters) ever
claimed to have all the answers, or that they're "easy answers". Life
is hard, even though we're right.
>>
>> FUNDAMENTALISTS AND THE BIBLE
>>
>> Far from being a mere answer book, the Catholic Church reveres the Bible
>as
>> the record of God's saving Presence among us. The Bible is a collection of
>> very old books, written under divine inspiration in ancient languages by
>> many different human authors over a long period of time. The literary
>style
Now I see! Another Roman pagan.
I stop here. I refuse to entangle with a person who worships John
Paul, George, and Mary. (the George was a joke)
>> and purpose of each book reflects the particular time and place in which
>it
>> was written. Biblical scholars study the historical and cultural context
>of
>> each book so that, thousands of years later, we can better understand each
>> book's message.
I'll match my Christian scholars against your pagan "scholars" ANY
DAY.
The various books of the Bible were not all meant to be
>> understood literally, but make use of a variety of ancient literary styles
>> to teach important truths of salvation.
That is true. No fundamentalist ever said otherwise. We can't
interpret Daniel totally literally, nor Revelation.
One of the rules of interpretation of scripture is "if the common
sense (what it says) makes sense, seek no other sense."
You Roman pagans, however, worship John Paul, who is just a man. You
worship Peter, God knows why, even after he refused Cornelius's
worship. "Don't worship me!" he told Cornelius. "I'm only a man, jus
like you!" Those aren't the words of the first pip. (no typo/I'm
showing your pip my UTTER, ABSOLUTE contempt.) He still sweats, he
still passes gas, he still defecates, he still urinates. Yet you
worship him. ????? You worship Mary , tho she admitted during her
prayer following Gabriel's visit, "God is my Savior." If she were a
god, she would have said so, don't ya think? You make her a god
anyway, and then you have the stones to put her above Christ, who IS
god.
You have a PANTHEON of "saints", tho any Christian (including me) is a
"saint" The word simply means born-again Christian.
Sister Teresa isn't a saint. She had all the body functions of any
human, and she was a murderer.
>>
>> Fundamentalists disagree. They reject modern Protestant and Catholic
>> scholarship about the origins of the Bible.
Absolutely. You Roman pagans want to tell us you "wrote the Bible."
Tuh! The authors are the ones whose names appear on the books.
Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark, Luke wrote Luke. See how that
works?
Luke wrote Acts, Paul wrote Romans, 1 and 2nd Corinthians (all the
epistles except Hebrew, which was either written by Apollos or
Barnabas)
Your pagan cult wrote NONE of the above, tho we give you credit for
HELPING to preserve the Bible. You'd rather we didn't know that the
Eastern Church also helped. Their effort is called the Peshitta. My
sources say it's probably the first published Bible. And it ISN'T
Roman.
Rather than trying to
>understand
>> the historical situation in which the books of the Bible were written and
>> the literary styles they employ, fundamentalists believe that their
>English
>> translations of the Bible must be understood literally, that is, the
>surface
>> meaning must be accepted as true, word for word.
You're lying again. I've never had a fundamentalist pastor who didn't
have multiple Ph Ds. These godly men could ALL read the Hebrew and
Greek. I resent you suggesting we're ignorant.
And we DON'T follow every word "literally". We've been taught when to
take it literally and when not to. We don't take the symbolic books
strictly literally, other than the narratives. Daniel is symbolic, as
is Revelation.
Unlike Catholics,
You keep comparing Christians to Roman pagans. You AREN'T the standard
by which all others are compared.
The mistakes aren't ours; they're yours. We don't worship Mary. That's
not our error. The Bible says NOT ONE WORD about worshipping Mary.
many fundamentalists believe that the Bible is meant by God to
faithfully teach not only the way to salvation, but science and
history as well.
Bunk! Again, you lie. We believe that the Bible is correct on all
matters it discusses. The Bible doesn't discuss science, yet the few
mentions it makes are accurate.
Isaiah knew the earth was round HUNDREDS, maybe THOUSANDS of years
before the "scientists" discovered it. Isaiah told us the earth was
round when the "scientists" insisted it was flat.
ISA 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Unlike
>> Catholics, many believe, for instance, that the Bible teaches that God
>> created the universe in literally seven days, and that evolution is
>> Biblically impossible, no matter what modern science may say.
Correct. We believe that God knows more than man. We believe that if
God had the power to create all we see in 6 days--not 7 as you
mistakenly mis-state--and He says He did, why not believe it? AS one
scientist minister put it, "If God is all powerful, why did He have to
"practice creating life for billions of years? He had the knowledge
AND the power to do it in an INSTANT! Why believe it took more than
the 6 literal days? If you don't believe God could create everything
FROM NOTHING, as the Bible says, you have emasculated God.
There is also plenty of evidence for a recent creation. Did you know
that? Most Roman and atheist scientists reject creation, not because
it's unscientific (it IS), but because they refuse to believe in an
all powerful Creator. That's not our problem; it's yours! Live with
it!
>> Fundamentalists are afraid to acknowledge the legitimate place of our
>> God-given gift of reason and science in studying and interpreting the
>Bible correctly.
If you interpreted correctly, there would not be a problem.
We don't reject reason; you lie again. We don't elevate reason above
Revelation; you worship reason above Revelation.
And since modern science is founded on the concept that there is no
God and we're an accident, if you start with that fallacy, where do
you go from there?
You choose to believe you're end result of a long series of accidents?
Fine! I choose to believe a loving personal God created loving,
personal humans. He could in our belief. Is YOUR God great enough to
have accomplished creation in 6 days? If you say "No, of course not!"
then we don't even believe in the same God.
>>
>> Fundamentalists claim to interpret the whole Bible literally.
AGAIN, you lie! We accept Daniel and REvelation as largely symbolic.
In reality they do not.
And you're a Satan worshipper! How does it feel? At least that's the
truth. You worship Satan!
I worship the living God.
While rejecting the Church's right to do this, each group
>takes it upon itself to decide what is literally true in the Bible and what is
>> not.
That's entirely scriptural. Paul calls it "the priesthood of the
believer." If you were a Bible student, you might have known that.
There are many different fundamentalist groups, and they disagree
>among> themselves as to what the Bible teaches.
At least we're all making a valiant effort to "keep it scriptural".
And there certainly minor differences. Drink alcohol? Don't!
No big. We DON'T add gods, like Mary and Peter, as you do.
Where'd THAT heresy come from?
We don't add books, like the corrupt Apochrypha.
Paul said FIRMLY that the Bible is the final authority. You even place
the Apochrypha above the Bible. HERESY!
While they all say that the Bible is to be followed exactly, each
group decides which verses to follow exactly.
WE are human, and sometimes we goof. There is even scriptural
allowance for that . What's your excuse for adding an entire book,
flatly rejecting both Galatians 1 and Rev 22?
"The Church has the authority." Show me scripture or eat it!
Theirs is an enthusiastically literal, but very selective,
>reading of the Bible.
You don't even read the Bible. You shelve it and you read the
Apochrypha instead. Son don't point at the Bible and shake your head.
I just found out you aren't even allowed to sit in your home and read
the Bible! Show me THAT commandment in scripture.
Why can't you read it all alone? In America, the land of the free?
Like normal people? In You might figure it out and leave the Whore of
Rome.
For example, the Bible says in Matthew 5:27-30 that if one's
>> eye or hand leads to sin, it should be cut off and thrown away. Have you
>> ever met a fundamentalist who interprets these verses literally?
As a matter of fact, I HAVE. Some less educated people don't recognize
symbolism when they see it.
When's the last time YOU knew of some Roman pagan hack off their tinky
for adultery?
That is called, "What goes around..."
>>
>> http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrRonStanley/fundment.ism.html
>>
>> 1) Fundamentalists are advocates of a minority viewpoint.
Last I heard, we're in the hundreds of millions. But who's counting?
YOU ARE! Why? You really MUST have more people going to hell than
heaven! You teach what scripture calls "Doctrines of Demons!"
"Other than what Paul taught." BY the way, if I didn't mention it,
Peter denied any attempts to worship him, with "Don't do that! I'm a
man, just like you!" So much for Paul being your first pip.
They see themselves as a righteous remnant.
Well, I wouldn't say Righteous, other than as forgiven. We believe in
putting on His righteousness, as Paul instructed. But then you reject
the REAL first pope, Paul. ;) That was a joke, but not far off. Paul
outranked Peter rather than vice versa, and corrected Peter SHARPLY
when Peter expressed totally hypocrisy right in front of Paul in a
Gentile church's pot luck supper. (Yep, there are several pot luck
suppers in the New Testament.) And last time I looked, the
fundamentalists are STILL holding to that tradition started by the
apostles. Jesus ate with both the sinners and the apostles at the
local tavern. The one place the fundamentalists (at least the S.
Baptists) fall down is that Jesus wasn't above tipping a few in a
tavern while witnessing to the other tavern patrons. You'd not catch a
fundamentalist, or a S. Baptist to be more specific, you'd not catch
either one worshipping over a mug of beer, and I've heard a few
misguided sermons by mis-guided, well meaning pastors condemning
alcohol whether used as a witnessing tool or not.
But numbers don't matter. Jesus said, "broad is the way" (WAY more RCC
pagans than true Fundamentalist Christians) that leads to death.
Narrow is the way to life, and few will find it." Sounds like the
world's largest cult is in more trouble than the tiny fundamentalist
churches.
Even when they are numerically a majority, they perceive themselves
as a minority.
There is no way we can outnumber the RCC pagans.
You STILL represent the broad path. You even include homosexuals, who
the Bible SPECIFALLY refers to as men/women who won't be in heaven.
Paul FORBID the religions who forbid marriage. You ignore Paul and
forbid your priests to get married, in direct conflict with God's
Word.
Producing CHILD RAPIST PRIESTS BY THE SCORE! Which the Satan John Paul
announces he intends to hide within "the church". The Son of a Bitch
pip is harboring child rapists. I'd kill the SOB myself. Send him on
his merry way to the pit whence he came.
2) They are oppositional and confrontational towards both secularists
and "wayward" religious followers.
ehehehehehehehe! Spoken like a true apostate! You reject the truth and
you stand in the gate, holding back, keeping out, those who wish to
enter. Look up what JEsus said about you blocking the way of Life.
We believe in confronting sin as error, as I'm correcting, and
confronting YOU!
You don't like it because we are keeping souls from the pits of hell
within the Roman pagan cult.
3) They are secondary level male elites led invariably by
>> charismatic males.
horse crap! And you follow a crippled old man whom you call god.
Our theologians are typically men with half-a-dozen doctorates. How
about your priests? The typical fundamentalist pastor speaks/reads
Hebrew AND greek! How many Hebrew and Greek scholars do YOU know?
4) Fundamentalists generate their own technical
>> vocabulary. 5) Fundamentalism has historical antecedents, but no
>ideological
>> precursor.
Yawn! Another of Satan's boys speaks up! And I call you who you are!
Satan!
In Christ,
John W
>>
>> [Bruce Lawrence]
John Weatherly
In Christ,
John W another proud fundamentalist, rightly dividing the Word. And
why are you blood drinking pagans in here?
This is the Baptist group. We don't drink His blood, and we don't
drink His flesh!
We also don't worship Peter, who would be turning over in his grave to
think you worship him. Cornelius tried to worship Peter by bowing
before him. Peter ordered him to get up! "Don't worship me! I'm a man,
just like you!"
If John Paul is a descendent of the apostle Peter, where are John
Paul's miracles? Peter AND Paul raised the dead. Has pip John Paul?
No!
Mary recognized her need for the Savior in her prayer after Gabriel
left. "I rejoice in God, MY SAVIOR!"
Why would she say that if she were sinless.
And I can't find the quote anywhere that Mary was born of a virgin.
Please give me that quote. In the Bible.
Please show me where the Roman cult is allowed to forbid priests to
marry. This directly contradicts Paul's instructions, "Don't forbid
marriage, as is the habit of some." You FLATLY reject Paul, so you
FLATLY reject Christ, who gave Paul these words.
You WORSHIP Peter, tho he has already rejected worship.
You have rejected MUCH of the Bible in favor of pagan "doctrines of
demons" as Paul put it.
You aren't Christian! You are a pagan blood drinker!
Paul also gave us instructions to not drink blood. YOU pretend to
drink the blood of Christ, even though every instruction on blood in
the entire Bible is a prohibition on consuming it.
You turn and twist Christ's symbolism (which the Jews and we
fundamentalists understand) into a pagan feast.
As Jesus Himself said, you eat his flesh, and by the process of
digestion, God ends up in the sewer! Heresy!
You should be ashamed of attacking the REAL children of God. We read
the Bible. YOU aren't allowed. So I can give you my own personal
learning. YOU give me what you're told it means by child rapists, whom
the pagan pip OPENLY admits he will CONTINUE to hide! I heard that one
myself. If that SOB weren't the head of the Roman Cult, the biggest
"Christian" religion, I'd shoot him myself!
In Christ!
John W
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 04:50:56 GMT, "VOJ" <ic...@here.com> wrote:
>
>"Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
>news:pbx99.66010$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>> There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
>>
>> Ooops!
>>
>
>Of course we have already seen that few seem to know what fundamentalist
>means, but continue using the word.
>
In Christ,
Uniacke
"John Weatherly" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:g6rhmu4avrvie9vio...@4ax.com...
> Oh, I think there are MANY more of us than that. That, as I remember,
> wouldn't even add up to the Southern Baptist numbers. Ah, Uniacke! If
> you only knew what you were talking about!
> The 12 were fundamentalists. They insisted on a pure interpretation
> (literal whenever the literal makes sense) of Scripture.
> Non-fundamentalists have tried to water down the pure gospel ever
> since. Paul said, "Don't let them!"
>
reading? Amazing that you would reject the Church who sorted out Scriptures
produced by Catholics and who gave you the Bible. Typical Fundie logic.
Uniacke
> Phar Lap, you pagan, YOUR Roman cannibal vampire cult made these
> messes. If we hadn't ben there to interfere, no telling how much
> damage your Satanic cult would have done.
>
It is enough for the talmid that he be like his teacher, and the servant
like his lord. If they have called the master of the house Ba`al-Zibbul, how
much more those of his household!
Uniacke
sixty furlongs from Jerusalem, named Emmaus.
35 And they told what things were done in the way: and how they knew him
in the breaking of bread.
What did they say that Jesus appeared to them or that they saw Jesus in
the bread?
It appeared to them that Jesus was alive and in the bread. That's the
message the author of Luke is sending you but you wouldn't understand, your
fundamentalist straight jacket has put you brain in a bind. Like I said, you
haven't got a clue of what Scripture is all about. The Bible is not a
history book, silly.
"John Weatherly" <john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ekvhmu833nifv92e9...@4ax.com...
Uniacke
"<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 22:03:47 GMT, "VOJ" <ic...@here.com> spake these
> words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
>
> ~>
> ~>news:C1S99.11260$sY3.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ~>>
> ~>> "<:o) docw © ®²°°²" <G...@stuffed.haha> wrote in message
> ~>> > On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 18:37:07 GMT, Tiger
> <j...@yourclothes.sc.rr.com>
> ~>> > spake these words as Gospel truth on Usenet 'newsfroups':
> ~>> >
> ~>> > ~>
> ~>> > ~>Would you care to try and make more sense? And perhaps
> actually
> ~>> >
> ~>> >
> ~>> Don't feed the troll. Ignore the slut.
> ~>
> ~>Gee, learned a new word, slut now.
> ~>Again a word used out of true context.
> ~>
> It's okay, Vernon--- I forgave 'uniacke' for calling me a slut, even
> though I know I'm not a slut......... he's mentally unbalanced, and
> can't help himself.
>
> I really feel sorry for him, actually!
> I don't bother responding to him personally, because I know how much
> he CRAVES attention, which he will undoubtedly be receiving very soon
> again.... when he's back in the institution.
>
Seems like the Venom never was in Toronto. 'Slut' and 'Asshole' are two
words you hear every day in Toronto. Slut is for women and asshole for men.
I had never heard anyone say 'Hi asshole' to a man before I lived there.
Part of their culture I guess. Toronto used to be a pig farm. Pigs, swines,
have short tails. Of course Herlaine is not offended. She's been called a
slut ever since she was ten years old. She really was and still is. She
lives near Toronto. :-)
> Elaine :o)
>
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.381 / Virus Database: 214 - Release Date: 08/03/02
Pastor Dave
<J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam-p...@conceptz.net> wrote in message
>news:4e6fmu439b87va4sj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
>> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>> >
>> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
>> >immorality of today's world.
>>
>> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
>> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
>>
>
>"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh;
>even though we have known Christ according to the flesh,
>yet we know him thus no longer"
>( Paul, 2 Cor 5.16)
Are you saying that the first century is, "today's
world"?
___
In Christ,
Pastor Dave
"And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether
the gods which your fathers served that were on the
other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house,
we will serve the Lord." - Joshua 24:15
Pastor Dave
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
>
>"Pastor Dave" <nospam-p...@conceptz.net> wrote in message
>news:4e6fmu439b87va4sj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
>> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
>> >
>> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
>> >immorality of today's world.
>>
>> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
>> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
>>
>
>Sorry but biblical principals are always current.
Yet they were not written "today", which means that
they cannot possibly be a reaction to, "today's world".
Uniacke
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 12:25:10 -0400, "Uniake"
> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Pastor Dave" <nospam-p...@conceptz.net> wrote in message
> >news:4e6fmu439b87va4sj...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
> >> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
> >> >
> >> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> >> >immorality of today's world.
> >>
> >> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
> >> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
> >>
> >
> >"Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh;
> >even though we have known Christ according to the flesh,
> >yet we know him thus no longer"
> >( Paul, 2 Cor 5.16)
>
> Are you saying that the first century is, "today's
> world"?
>
antiaging
A person that really believes in the fundamental doctrines of the
Christian faith.
Definition of fundamentalist:
A fundamentalist believes in these fundamental doctrines of the
Christian faith:
The infallibillity and literal truth of the Bible as God's inspired
Word.
[This can only apply to the real Bible, since the market is flooded
with fake modern Bible versions that have had the words changed. The
real Bible in English is the King James Version.]
The Virgin Birth and complete Deity of Jesus Christ.
The pysical ressurection of Christ and all dead.
The atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, that Jesus did when
He was crucified.
The Second coming of Christ in bodily form.
Fundamentalists are the real Bible believing Christians.
To be a Christian you must be a believer.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach
the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark Tindall
>Find out what fundament means.
&
>Still over your head?
If your fundament is over your head, you've got the problem.
Rev Dr Mark
Phar-Lap
<mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote:
> Phar-Lap wrote:
>
> >If we really want to return to the fundamentals of Christianity it
> >requires open minds, scholarship, academic study, the >development of
> reason and a progressive political attitude
>
> ... which are the very things pentecostals oppose! Pentecostals are against
> modernity. They fight a losing battle.
>
>
> Rev Dr Mark
>
I think Pentecostalism in some ways is a kind of fundamentalist
recognition that mainstream Christianity is indeed off course.
In this I have some sympathy - however Pentecostalism heads further down
the incorrect path and virtually creates a different religion based on
shallow Occult practices and emotion based delusion.
Pentecostalism is a symptom of the need for Christianity to enter into a
New Reformation that puts its theology on a more reasonable and possible
basis and which creates clearer rational progressive roles for Christians
in a modern world.
++++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote:
> Uniake wrote:
>
> >Fundamentalist literalism is a straight jacket
>
> Yep.
>
>
> > Don't consider Fundamentalist literalism as a Christian majority >or the
> whole Body of Christ. It's not. It's a vanishing minority.
>
> Most definitely. People like John Shelby Spong have ripped the false lies
> out and exposed them publically. Read his 'Rescuing the Bible From
> Fundamentalism'.
>
>
> Rev Dr Mark
Absolutely! And it took a lot of Christian courage to do it
Phar Lap
(Christian Alumnist)
+++++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
NOT WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS VERN!
And that is the problem............ The word Fundamentalism in Christian
Fundamentalism does not refer to foundation beliefs etc. What it refers to
is a series of articles SO ENTITLED published over the course of 5 years
by a particular political coalition in Christianity
The Fundamentals articles were aimed at a clear POLITICAL purpose. You
want to see them as being religious article only that state truth because
they agree with your PERSONAL political ethos
Vern I am not trying to impose different ideas on you - I am happy that we
discuss matters. But you try to impose the political ideas of
Fundamentalism on others pretending that these ideas are "only religious"
in nature
Fundamentalism was created primarily as an anti-socialist and anti
social-democratic movement . That accords conveniently with your personal
"Republicanism"
But it is antidemocratic, and it is socially irresponsible - and in my
opinion anti-Christian to deliberately hide the truth about Fundamentalism
and to attack those who do not agree with it as somehow anti Jesus
We are not - we just do not share your image of Jesus or (thank God) your
political opinions.
One final point - Your attempt to divert this discussion uses a
"Fundamentalist ploy" - the avoidance of CONTEXT.
You seek to prove a point by separating the word "FUNDAMENTAL" from the
context in which it is used.
In fact its meaning in this case is unattainable UNLESS one knows the
context - that it is a TITLE of a group of articles
Similarly your error with Scripture is that you want to isolate it from
its historical context, from the context of long term spiritual and
theological development and evolution and from the context of literary
definition within its own literature.
Phar Lap
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fundamentals, The series of 12 volumes of articles published in Chicago
between 1910 and 1915 as a witness to the central doctrines and
experiences of Protestant Christianity and a defense against modern
movements, cults, and criticisms of orthodoxy. The Fundamentals, subtitled
"A Testimony to the Truth," is associated with the founding of
fundamentalism as a restatement of orthodox Christianity against liberal
theology and modernism; 3 million copies were distributed free to English
speaking ministers, missionaries, and workers around the world. The
Fundamentals originated out of, and was editorially controlled by, persons
in the Bible school, revival, and independent church movements associated
with the Bible Institute of Los Angeles and Moody Bible Institute. The
authors included Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Independents, and
others, and were from England, Scotland, Canada, and the U.S.
Fundamentalism. A movement reaffirming orthodox Protestant Christianity in
order to defend it militantly against the challenges of liberal theology,
German higher criticism, Darwinism, and other views regarded as harmful to
American Christianity. It arose in the early l900s and reached its height
during and after World War I. Since then, the focus of the movement, the
meaning of the term, and the ranks of those who willingly use the term to
identify themselves have changed several times. Fundamentalism has gone
through four phases of expression while maintaining an essential
continuity of spirit, belief, and method.
The 1920s. The earliest phase involved articulating what was
fundamental to Christianity and initiating an urgent battle to expel
enemies of orthodox Protestantism from mainline churches. A series of 12
volumes called The Fundamentals (1910-15) identified a wide listing of
enemies騎omanism, socialism, modern philosophy, atheism, Eddyism,
Mormonism, spiritualism, and the like. Above all, liberal theology, which
rested on a naturalistic interpretation of faith, and German higher
criticism and Darwinism, which appeared to undermine the Bible's
authority, were identified as threats. The writers represented a broad,
interdenominational Christianity in both North America and the United
Kingdom. The doctrines they defined and defended covered historical
Christian teachings. They presented criticisms fairly, with careful
argument and in appreciation of much their opponents said. Almost
immediately, however, the list of enemies became narrower and the
fundamentals less comprehensive.
The term "fundamentalist" was perhaps first used in 1920 by Curtis Lee
Laws in the Baptist Watchman-Examiner, but it seemed to pop up everywhere
in the early 1920s as an identification for someone who believed and
actively defended the fundamentals of the faith.
Late 1920s to the EarZy 1940s. By 1926 or so, militant fundamentalists had
failed to expel the modernists from any denomination. Moreover, they lost
the battle against evolution. Orthodox Protestants, who still numerically
dominated the denominations, began to struggle among themselves. During
the 1930s the term "fundamentalist" came to apply to one party among those
who believed the traditional fundamentals of the faith. New "pure"
denominations emerged. The distinctive theological point that the
fundamentalists made was that they rep resented true Christianity, based
on a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that this truth ought to be
expressed organizationally in separation from liberals and modernists;
separatism was aligned with the maintenance of fundamental Christianity.
Fundamentalists identified with purity in personal morality and American
culture. Thus, the term "fundamentalist" came to refer largely to orthodox
Protestants who left mainline northern denominations and established new
denominations, joined conservative Southern churches, or started
independent churches.
Early 1940s to the 1970s. From the early 1940s fundamentalists, thus
redefined, divided gradually into two camps: Many voluntarily continued to
use the term to refer to themselves. They equated fundamentalism with true
Biblebelieving Christianity. Others regarded the term as undesirable,
connoting divisiveness, intolerance, anti-intellectualism, unconcern with
social problems, even foolishness. This second group wished to regain
fellowship with orthodox Protestants who still constituted the vast
majority of clergy and people in the large Northern
denominations輝resbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and Episcopalian. They
began during the 1940s to call themselves "evangelicals" and to equate
that term with true Christianity. Beginning in 1948 a few preferred to
take the name "neoevangelical." Organizationally many separatist
fundamentalists formed the American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC)
in 1941. Those desiring a more inclusive fellowship formed the National
Association of Evangelicals (NAE) in 1942, which sought to embrace
orthodox Protestants as individuals in all denominations.
The term "fundamentalist" now expressed a contrast from evangelicals or
neoevangelicals, rather than merely with liberalism, modernism, or
neoorthodoxy. Fundamentalists and evangelicals in the 1950s and 1960s
shared much but remained apart because of a different ethos.
Late 1970s and the 1980s. By the late 1970s, and in particular by the 1980
campaign of Ronald Reagan for the U.S. presidency, fundamentalists entered
a new phase. They became nationally prominent as offering an answer for
what many regarded as a supreme social, economic, moral, and religious
crisis in America. They identified a new and more pervasive enemy, secular
humanism, which they believed was responsible for eroding churches,
schools, universities, the government, and蟻bove all鞠amilies. They fought
those they considered to be offspring of secular humanism evolutionism,
political and theological liberalism, loose persona morality, sexual
perversion, socialism communism, and any turn from the absolute, inerrant
authority of the Bible. They called Americans to return to the
fundamentals of the faith and the fundamental moral values.
C. T. MCLAmRE
***************************
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
Certainly over yours at the moment - as I explained in a previous post
Fundamental in this context is a title.
It is that simple. It has no meaning that defines the articles within
the volumes so entitled ("Fundamentals") as "genuinely" fundamental.
They are - in fact - articles published with a particular political
purpose ninety years ago. They were expressed as opinions not as truths
Did you know that and not say it - which is deliberately deceptive and
dishonest.
Or was it just a display of forgiveable ignorance on your part
+++++++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
> <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
> >
> >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> >immorality of today's world.
>
> Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
> principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
>
On the contrary Fundamentalism is about politics disguised behind a mask
of religion. It represents a particular stream of Biblical interpretation
that is non contextual and therefore is ideologically based
Hence its similarity to - and attraction for - Fascism
++++++++++++++
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
> "Pastor Dave" <nospam-p...@conceptz.net> wrote in message
> news:4e6fmu439b87va4sj...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 24 Aug 2002 10:07:35 -0400, "Uniake"
> > <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >WHAT IS FUNDAMENTALISM?
> > >
> > >Modern day fundamentalism is an extreme reaction to the complexity and
> > >immorality of today's world.
> >
> > Your post fails on the first point. Biblical
> > principles are not a "reaction to today's world".
> >
>
> Sorry but biblical principals are always current.
>
I am unconvinced that you know any - in that you seem to be so
anti-contextual in your attitudes to scripture and to definition of
terms. You seem to base meaning and interpretation on ideology rather
than on context - be it academic, historical, logical or literary.
I think you are far more a Republican American than you actually are a
Christian and that you pass your Christianity through the filter of
Fundamentalism to avoid ever having to question such a prejudiced
attitude.
Phar Lap
Uniacke
"antiaging" <anti...@email-lotto.com> wrote in message
news:109e20c8.02082...@posting.google.com...
Phar-Lap
> >
> > Are you saying that the first century is, "today's
> > world"?
> >
I think we do need to understand the historical context of Jesuses world
and the world of the first Christians in order to reach through the
development Christianity underwent to understand the original message
For example I think it matters to know that the first disciples -
including Peter, were almost all likely to have been married men and that
the origins of priesthood did not include celibacy or indeed a ban on
women holding priestly office.
I think we need to know about the religious beliefs not only of Judaism
but also of other religions in Judea and Galilee at that time because so
many of these have become part of "Christian" theology. This knowledge
grants us the right and the duty indeed to examine that theology. We need
to recognise that it evolved as part of a liturgy.
American Christianity at present seems to be almost entirely based on the
current American ignorance of the past and even of the historical place
that American society played in history.
Fundamentalism rose to popularity in America because of a desire to
maintain that ignorance - a desire to pretend that one could supplant the
literal content of the Gospels into modern America without the benefit of
scholarship.
There is an old joke about America. Please forgive me if I remind you of
it - it defines America as "the only country to go from barbarism to
decadence without the benefit of an intervening culture"
Of course the joke is not fair - and I believe it is an American comment
anyway. But it does express the concern we overseas have - even as
friends and allies of the USA - for the failure of Americans generally to
be contextual in their understanding of ANYTHING. Americans come across
as very isolationist in their thinking.
We live in a very complicated and dangerous world. We need to understand
EVERYTHING in context.
Is it too much that we seek to start with our very religion?
Isn't that the Christian thing to do?
Phar Lap
+++++++++++++++
Mark Tindall
>>People like John Shelby Spong have ripped the false lies
>> out and exposed them publically. Read his 'Rescuing the Bible >>From
Fundamentalism'.
>Absolutely! And it took a lot of Christian courage to do it
Spong regularly receives death threats from 'bible-believing Christians'.
It's a strange world.
Rev Dr Mark
Tiger
@news.turboweb.net.au:
LOL.
--
Tiger
*Remove yourclothes. to reply via email
Phar-Lap
<mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote:
Very much so.
Spong not only poses a threat to the Fundamentalist mind set he also, by
being so closely allied in my opinion to the likely thinking of the
original Jesus movement, places himself in a position of being threatening
to any irrational authoritarianism or prejudice.
I see Spong as a person whose ideas are vital to not just the development
and survival of Christianity as a potent moral and spiritual force but
also to the development of democracy and the institutions of democratic
society.
Spong's success is that he reconciles people on both sides of the boundary
currently erroneously set between Christian and secular "ex" Christian
And he points a path that leads towards general reconciliation between
human beings of different races, cultures, creeds and backgrounds.
No longer - like John Woolwich before him - a voice in the wilderness .
Many of us have come to see in his words Christianity's best hope for a
relevant future.
I only wish even more would speak out
Thankyou John!
Phar Lap
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
> "Uniake" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
> news:pbx99.66010$Px3.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > There are at least 30 million Christian fundamentalists in the U.S. alone.
> >
> > Ooops!
> >
>
> Of course we have already seen that few seem to know what fundamentalist
> means, but continue using the word.
actually Vern you don't as is displayed and dealt with in another thread
Anyway to assist you out of ignorance the following might help:
C. T. MCLAmRE
See also EVANGELICALISM; FUNDAMENTALS, THE.
Phar-Lap
<ic...@here.com> wrote:
> "Mark Tindall" <mb...@turboweb.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3d68...@news.turboweb.net.au...
> > Uniake wrote:
> >
> > >Fundamentalists are conservative literalists. An abomination, a >denial
> of
> > human intelligence.
> >
> >
> > An excellent post worth a reread.
>
> For people too stupid to know what the word fundamental means, then coin a
> word fundamentalism out of the press which is made up of uneducated liars.
As explained in another thread you obviously don't. In this context it
refers to the title of a series of articles published nearly ninety years
ago
no more and no less!
Sorry Vern you appear to have made a fool of yourself
Phar-Lap
<john_wea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Oh, I think there are MANY more of us than that. That, as I remember,
> wouldn't even add up to the Southern Baptist numbers. Ah, Uniacke! If
> you only knew what you were talking about!
> The 12 were fundamentalists. They insisted on a pure interpretation
> (literal whenever the literal makes sense) of Scripture.
> Non-fundamentalists have tried to water down the pure gospel ever
> since. Paul said, "Don't let them!"
>
> In Christ,
>
> John W
The suggestion here seems to be that Paul was somehow a Fundamentalist -
which is arrant nonsense
Much of our current liturgy and theology is quite clearly an invention of
persons such as Paul. In Paul's case, he is responsible for much of our
Salvation theology (with all its now unworkable nonsense) and quite
probably for the Eucharist/Lords Supper
Paul was responsible for the adaptation of Christianity that was made to
suit the special conditions of his time
Unfortunately it is modern Fundamentalists that are so keen to hang onto
his interpretation and to defy all attempts to modernise theology away
from what we now see as an impossible eschatology and an irrelevant and
dysfunctional.theology
***********
Phar-Lap
conservative movement in American Protestantism arising out
of the millenarian movement of the 19th century and
emphasizing as fundamental to Christianity the literal
interpretation and absolute inerrancy of the Scriptures,
the imminent and physical Second Coming of Jesus Christ,
the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and Atonement.
Fundamentalism came into its own in the early 20th century
in opposition to modernist tendencies in American religious
and secular life. In the late 20th century the movement was
represented by numerous church bodies, educational
institutions, and special-interest organizations. See also
evangelical church. (see also Index: Bible)
Origins.
The roots of fundamentalism are found in the history of the
American millenarian movement. In the 1830s and '40s, much
excitement was generated in the United States by
expectations of the Second Advent of Christ and an ensuing
thousand years of peace ("the millennium"). The initially
scattered interest in the subject was concentrated and
built into a movement largely through the Niagara Bible
Conference. Initiated by James Inglis, a New York City
Baptist minister, shortly before his death in 1872, the
conference continued under James H. Brookes (1830-97), a
St. Louis Presbyterian minister and editor of the
influential millenarian periodical The Truth. Other early
millenarian leaders included George C. Needham, a Baptist
evangelist (1840-1902); William J. Erdman (1834-1923), a
Presbyterian minister noted for his skill as a biblical
expositor; and William R. Nicholson (1822-1901), who left
the Episcopal church in 1873 and became a bishop in the
Reformed Episcopal denomination. (see also Index:
millennialism)
Toward the close of the century, the movement attracted
leaders such as the prominent Boston Baptist minister
Adoniram J. Gordon (1836-95) and Maurice Baldwin
(1836-1904), bishop of Huron in the Church of Canada. The
group held annual summer conferences, which generally met
at Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario, until 1899. The
millenarians associated with the Niagara Conference also
sponsored public conferences in major cities beginning in
1878, such as the Bible and Prophetic Conference in New
York City.
Development of fundamentalist views.
The millenarian movement began to grow within America when
confidence in America's destiny first began to wane among
some Protestant leaders, faced as they were with labour
unrest, social discontent, and the rising tide of Roman
Catholic immigration. During the late 1880s and '90s the
challenges posed by the rise of liberal Biblical criticism
also won many converts to the millenarian movement.
As the century drew to a close, the Protestant evangelist
Dwight L. Moody (1837-99) provided in his Northfield
conferences an influential platform for millenarian
expression. Millenarians supported foreign-missions work
and influenced the surge of missionary zeal that was
eventually institutionalized as the Student Volunteer
Movement. Also, they found within the Princeton Theological
Seminary at Princeton, N.J., a group of scholars interested
in defending the authority and inspiration of the Bible.
Millenarians invited the Princeton professors to their
conferences and adopted their arguments in defense of the
Bible. Virtually none of the Princeton faculty adopted
millenarianism, and some opposed it strongly, but both
parties appreciated each other's support on the issue of
biblical authority.
The high point of millenarian influence upon the
conservative tradition within evangelical Protestantism
occurred when millenarians cooperated with other defenders
of the inerrancy of the Bible in founding the American
Bible League in 1902 and in writing a series of 12
pamphlets entitled The Fundamentals. The pamphlets attacked
the current theories of biblical criticism and reasserted
the authority of the Bible, using the arguments developed
at the Princeton Theological Seminary. The series was a
summary of the previous generation's attempt to oppose
biblical criticism and modernism through argument.
Almost all the leaders who had founded the Niagara
Conference had died by 1914. The new generation of leaders
were not as firmly attached to their denominations as were
their predecessors. And their defense of the millenarian
cause was more militant and uncompromising. During the last
years of the 19th century, disagreements over prophetic
interpretation were expressed, but James H. Brookes held
the dissident factions together. Within a few years of his
death, however, the Niagara Conference was abandoned, and
shortly thereafter a paper war broke out between the two
leading millenarian periodicals, Watchword and Truth and
Our Hope, that deeply divided the movement.
The fundamentalist-modernist controversy. At the end of
World War I, the millenarians, alarmed by the growth of
liberalism and disturbed over what they conceived to be
social degeneracy, held a number of conferences in New York
City and Philadelphia that were successful enough to
encourage the formation of a larger and more comprehensive
organization in 1919, the World's Christian Fundamentals
Association. As a result of this conference, the
millenarian movement changed its name without changing its
basic character. Furthermore, the 1919 conference placed
planks in a platform on which the
millenarian-fundamentalist movement would stand for the
next 30 years.
The leaders reiterated the creedal basis of the movement,
called for the exorcism of modernism and all its associated
demons (especially evolution), practically abandoned the
universities and placed their faith in the more recently
founded Bible institutes, denounced the unitive and
cooperative spirit exemplified in the Federal Council of
the Churches of Christ in America, and threatened schism if
this type of spiritual decline persisted. In spite of
vigorous leadership, however, the association never
prospered.
During the late 19th century, the liberal faction in the
church had numbered only a few men, most of them professors
in seminaries or universities. Their acceptance of higher
criticism was viewed with apprehension by parishioners, the
clergy, and officials of their denominations. Where legal
machinery existed to examine the new teachings, as it did
in the Presbyterian denomination, the verdict was given
against the innovations of liberals.
Within a few decades, however, evidence for the new
understanding of the Bible mounted and a new generation of
seminarians had joined the liberal cause. By 1914, among
the Episcopal, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian
denominations in the North, liberalism had gained many
adherents. The battle to prevent the reception and spread
of these new views had been lost. During the 1920s it only
remained to be decided whether the liberals could be forced
out of the denominations. (see also Index: Protestant
Episcopal Church, Presbyterian churches)
Not every Protestant denomination was affected by
intellectual controversy during the 1920s, of course. In
some, such as the Southern Baptist denomination, modernism
had not yet become prominent. In others, such as the
Methodist and Episcopal churches, modernism had gained many
adherents; but the opposition did not become well enough
organized to bring the issue to a focus.
Serious controversy did erupt, however, among the northern
Baptists and the Presbyterians in the northern states.
Within the Presbyterian church, conservatives had, with the
help of the millenarians, imposed a set of essential
doctrines upon the denomination in 1910, declaring the
inerrant inspiration of the Bible, the Virgin Birth of
Christ, and the Atonement (redemptive activity),
Resurrection, and miracle-working power of Christ necessary
to the Christian faith. In 1922, when a New York minister,
Harry Emerson Fosdick, soon to become a leading modernist
spokesman, protested the activities of millenarians in
foreign-mission fields in a sermon entitled "Shall the
Fundamentalists Win?" the conservatives and millenarians in
the denomination were able to force Fosdick, who was a
Baptist, out of his position as pastor of the First
Presbyterian Church of New York City. (see also Index:
miracle)
A withdrawal of the liberals had been the solution desired
by millenarians and conservatives. To avoid a schism within
the Presbyterian church in the United States, a Commission
of Fifteen was appointed to work out a compromise. The
report of the commission took the position that the
Presbyterian denomination had traditionally tolerated a
diversity of opinion and rejected the right of the General
Assembly to determine which were the essential doctrines of
the Christian faith. The report virtually destroyed the
conservatives' position.
The focus of discord within the northern Baptist
denomination was in their annual convention, which
functioned much like the convention of a political party.
Beginning in 1920, a group of Baptists calling themselves
the National Federation of Fundamentalists began holding
annual preconvention conferences on Baptist fundamentals.
Thus organized, they attempted to carry their views into
the convention. When the tactics of the National Federation
failed to make immediate progress, some of the more
militant Baptist fundamentalists founded the Baptist Bible
Union. Among the Baptists, however, as among the
Presbyterians, divisions among the fundamentalists caused
their defeat.
Displeasure with the teaching of evolution, as well as
anxiety over the spread of biblical criticism, gained
momentum in the 1920s. Fundamentalists, believing that the
Bible could not be reconciled with the view of the origin
of life put forward by Charles Darwin, opposed evolution;
but not every opponent of evolution was a fundamentalist.
Antievolution crusaders lobbied for legislation to prevent
the teaching of evolution in the public schools. Tennessee
passed such a statute, which was challenged in the courts
in 1925 at the instigation of the American Civil Liberties
Union. John T. Scopes, a science teacher in the small town
of Dayton, offered to serve as the defendant against the
charge of having taught evolution. Two of the foremost
public figures of that decade, William Jennings Bryan, a
Presbyterian fundamentalist, and Clarence Darrow, a defense
counsel in notable criminal trials, made headlines as the
assistant prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney,
respectively. (see also Index: Scopes Trial)
Institutional development.
During the 1930s and 1940s, fundamentalists gradually
withdrew from conflict and from the national spotlight.
During this period the institutional structure of modern
fundamentalism developed. Some fundamentalist Presbyterians
and Baptists broke away from their denominations to form
new churches, such as the Presbyterians, led by J. Gresham
Machen, who in 1936 formed the Presbyterian Church in
America, or the Baptists, who left the Northern Baptist
Convention to establish the General Association of Regular
Baptists. Some remained within congregations of the larger
denominations. But most fundamentalists joined a
congregation of one of the smaller sects that had remained
faithful to the creed of biblical literalism and
premillennialism, such as the Christian and Missionary
Alliance, the Plymouth Brethren, and the Evangelical Free
Church, or one of the many independent Bible churches and
tabernacles that arose during that period.
Much of the structure of modern fundamentalism is provided
by Bible institutes and Bible colleges. Many of these
schools, such as the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, Ill.
or the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, Calif., in addition
to teaching their students, publish periodicals, broadcast
from their own radio stations, hold conferences, and
maintain a staff of extension speakers. They operate very
much like denominational headquarters, providing a bond
between otherwise isolated congregations. In the arts and
sciences the strongest bastion has long been Wheaton
College, a scholarly college in a suburb of Chicago.
There is also a series of organizations for fundamentalists
paralleling the professional and business organizations of
American society. Doctors, scientists, athletes, social
workers, historians, businessmen, nurses, students, and
others may join groups designed especially for their
interest or vocational area. Chapters of the Inter-Varsity
Christian Fellowship and Campus Crusade for Christ exist on
hundreds of university and college campuses to provide
religious support similar to that provided by organizations
of the major Protestant denominations and Roman Catholics.
The American Scientific Affiliation holds meetings and
publishes a journal in which the compatibility of science
with the Bible and with a Christian worldview is
emphasized.
Paralleling the ecumenical bodies of Protestantism are the
American Council of Christian Churches (ACCC) founded in
1941 and the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
founded in 1942. The ACCC was (until 1969) virtually the
voice of one man, Carl McIntire, who spoke against larger
ecumenical bodies, such as the National Council of
Churches, and against the alleged dangers of communism. The
NAE operates as a coordinating body for its members but
implements no programs of its own.
The most significant influences upon the fundamentalist and
evangelical churches in America since World War II have
been the prosperity of the postwar decades, the religious
revival of the 1950s, and the alleged threat of communist
subversion. The new public image of the fundamentalist
during this period was perhaps best exemplified by the
evangelist Billy Graham.
The issue of communism that preoccupied the American public
during the 1950s closely resembled the traditional concerns
of fundamentalism--namely, biblical criticism and
evolution--which fundamentalists believed came from abroad,
seemed to spread uncontrollably and subversively, and
tended to undermine Christianity. The anticommunist
activities of the mid-20th century virtually duplicated the
history of the antievolution crusade of the 1920s. The
evolution controversy itself resurfaced in the 1960s when
creationists (those accepting literal interpretations of
the biblical Creation account in Genesis), dismayed by the
emphasis on evolutionary theory in biology textbooks,
sought again to ban the teaching of evolution in the public
schools. In the 1970s creationists campaigned for the
mandatory teaching of Genesis whenever evolutionary theory
was taught. This was followed by an attempt to mandate the
teaching of so-called " creation science," or "scientific
creationism," which presumed to present creationism and
evolutionary theory as alternative scientific models. All
of these movements were successfully challenged in the U.S.
courts on constitutional grounds. The fundamentalist
creationists gained some ground in conservative areas, and
the issue generated a broader controversy concerning the
rights of parents to determine what their children are
taught. Also during this period the so-called Moral
Majority, a fundamentalist citizens' organization under the
leadership of Baptist minister Jerry Falwell of Virginia,
crusaded against legalized abortion, homosexual rights, and
the women's Equal Rights Amendment and crusaded for school
prayer, increased defense spending, and a strong
anticommunist foreign policy.
Fundamentalist beliefs have not changed significantly since
the time of the Niagara conferences. The greatest
theological excitement in the history of modern
fundamentalism was generated by the theology of Karl Barth,
whose emphasis on biblical authority was seen by many to
reflect fundamentalist concerns.
Though fundamentalists are not notably ascetic, they do
observe certain taboos. Most fundamentalists do not smoke
or drink alcoholic beverages and usually do not dance or
attend movies and plays. At most Bible institutes and
fundamentalist colleges, these practices are strictly
forbidden. Worship practices may vary from denomination to
denomination but are usually nonliturgical and heavily
influenced by revivalism. A sermon with congregational
singing and prayer are common elements of fundamentalist
services.
(Britannica)
Pastor Dave
Well, let's assume that I agree with everything you've
said. I do with at least most of it, but how does that
change, or negate my point?
Tom Vick
> A person that really believes in the fundamental doctrines of the
> Christian faith.
Ok.
>
> Definition of fundamentalist:
> A fundamentalist believes in these fundamental doctrines of the
> Christian faith:
>
> The infallibillity and literal truth of the Bible as God's inspired
> Word.
Ok.
> [This can only apply to the real Bible, since the market is flooded
> with fake modern Bible versions that have had the words changed. The
> real Bible in English is the King James Version.]
Oh, really? No doubt the HS told you that. Otherwise, how would you know
that? So, that means that, prior to the KJV, there wasn't a "real" Bible.
Ok. Gotcha. I certainly understand where you are coming from.
<snipped>
PAX
antiaging
> Oh brother! What do you put on your toasts?
If you don't really believe the Gospel, you will go to hell and be
toast!
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be damned.
Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Uniacke
"antiaging" <anti...@email-lotto.com> wrote in message
news:109e20c8.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Uniacke" <J...@Ahpmoojeenegamook.edu> wrote in message
news:<Ypea9.858$if4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> > Oh brother! What do you put on your toasts?
>
> If you don't really believe the Gospel, you will go to hell and be
> toast!
>
> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
> that believeth not shall be damned.
>
> Mark 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for
> thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into
> hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
>
stationary engineer in charge of inmates and furnaces. Yours, I will heat to
melting point.