Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	I believe both views get people's blood going on opposing sides. I do
believe the 1st one is more encompassing and correct though. With the 2nd one
you can break that down too and find only certain kinds of fundemental
Christians could beconsidered Christian. Let Him decide. 


Glen

      Hi Richard, 
    
        Really nice topic!!
    
        I'd like to offer the idea of Christianity from the perspective
        of the light that one is accountable for.
    
        1) small nugget of light:
           Romans 1 and 10 indicate that any of the word of God can be
           received by faith.  This includes the creative word of Jesus
           Christ.  One can look at the manifestation of the creative
           word of Christ and respond to it with heartfelt faith.  A
           native American Indian can, for example, survey the great 
           plains or the stars or mountain peaks or flowing water and
           know "God is" and "God is love" and respond to that love.
           Such a man has begun to allow God to mold his heart.  Such a
           man is justified before God.
    
           From the perspective of fundamental Christianity (as I under-
           stand it), it is not inclusive enough.  It seems to sometimes
           raise up dogmas such as "You must believe this, this, and this
           OR ELSE you're lost."  My own understanding of fundamental
           Christianity is that it would view the above hypothetical 
           native American Indian as lost and thus stigmatizes part of the
           body of Christ.  Perhaps other parts of the body could have 
           learned from this man of faith in a small nugget of light.  But
           no, the Pharisee can learn nothing from the publican.  After
           all, he is increased with goods.
    
        2) The endtime peculiar time of a latter rain's worth of light:
           A belief of mine is that the transition of covenant that took
           place at ~31 AD is (in part) a schoolmaster pointing to a last
           day transition of covenant.  After all, Paul says "all these 
           things happened for examples and were given for us unto whom
           the ends of the earth are come..."
    
           What happened during this transition of covenant?  Well, funda-
           mentalism was confronted with TREMENDOUS LIGHT!  What did they
           do to it?  They crucified it!
    
           Fundamentalism will do to the last day transition of covenant
           just what the religion of 31 AD tried to do to that transition
           of covenant.  They will rest on their own dogmas and agendas
           and they will disregard the tremendous light hitting them from
           all over.  They will view it as 'that hated sect' and do all 
           that they can do destroy it.
    
           Look at the life of Christ.  Look at what happened to the word
           of Jeremiah (its burned, his life is sought by 'priests and
           prophets and the king', he's put in stocks, etc.).  Look what
           happened to the word of Elijah which is a precursor to the 
           latter rain, i.e. "Rain will not come except at my word!"
           The king (Ahab) and the woman (Jezebel - I think that's her
           name) want to destroy that word.
    
           Fundamentalism is dangerous.  It has the characteristic of
           nailing down the 'whatever number' tenets of the faith.  It is
           resistant to change.
    
           After saying all this, I think the main challenge is to allow
           God to show us the characteristics of fundamentalism that is in
           our own hearts.
    
           How many of us would have discerned the infant Jesus in our
           very midst as did Simeon?  How many saw NOTHING IN HIM.
    
           "ALL THESE THINGS happened for us as examples..."
    
                                                        Tony
    
    

    If we could digress a little...What exactly is fundamentalism or what
    is the fundamentalism that constitutes the "radical religious right?"
    If it is really the, "I'm right...your wrong" attitude, then the whole 
    world is fundamentalist!
    
    Note: Anytime government uses religion in a pajorative context, even
    with Waco, I believe they are eroding religion in general.  Our
    representatives need to exercise more responsibility in this area.
    
    -Jack

    .3  I doubt we'd ever agree on a precise definition of fundamentalism.
    However, there is a string for this very topic.  It is topic 87, "What
    is fundamentalism?"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    If we cannot define fundamentalism, then the two paradigms are based on
    an ambiguous premise so the whole topic is moot anyway.
    
    I can tell you this.  Fundamentalism in the Christian realm is
    portrayed as a very bad thing.  It is apparent from the rhetoric of 
    the current administration that people with religious convictions 
    should keep a low profile.  I certainly do hope that the democrat
    party isn't using this rhetoric to undermine religious values of any
    kind.  If it is allowed to continue...believer or non believer, Jew
    or gentile, orthodox or reformed, they are slapping YOU in the face and
    are eroding YOUR freedom to worship as you see fit.  
    
    -Jack
    

Of course, the whole topic is moot.  What reason would there be to bring up
a topic that wasn't??  If there's only one possible answer, then why
bother??

I detect paranoia in the rest of your entry.  The Clinton administration is
decidedly not anti-religion, despite what you've heard from Rush, Robertson,
and the rest of the far right-wingers.

Shalom,
Richard

    Hi Richard,
    
    Recently, Clinton has made some very anti-Christian statements.  Now as
    we have definition crisis of Christian between ourselves, give me the
    latitude I seek.  Just because you may not find them anti-Christian
    doesn't mean that myself others like me don't.  Can we agree on this?
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Would you care to back these allegations up with Clinton's exact
    quotes?  Or is this about Clinton's expressions of righteous
    indignation towards Falwell and his media clones (shock jocks,
    a few far right-wing televangelists, dittoheads, etc..)?
    
    Who was it who brought the book, "A Culture of Disbelief," to the
    attention of the public?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 945.5 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     It is apparent from the rhetoric of 
>     the current administration that people with religious convictions 
>     should keep a low profile.  

        It may depend upon what are your convictions.

        I have strong religious convictions and yet I don't feel
        particularly threatened by the current administration.

        I felt my religious convictions were *very* threatened by the
        most recent Republican convention.  I believe that one of the
        reasons they lost the election is that if they won, sooner
        or later, believer or non believer, Jew or gentile, orthodox
        or reformed, they would have eroding *our* freedom to worship
        as we see fit.

        How many U.S. administrations have truly been neutral
        with respect to the religious convictions of citizens?

        Bob

    re: Note 945.7 by JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
    > Recently, Clinton has made some very anti-Christian statements.
    
    Enlighten me... and I mean with specifics.
    
    Eric

    RE Note 945.2 by STRATA::BARBIERI

    > From the perspective of fundamental Christianity (as I understand
    > it), it is not inclusive enough.  It seems to sometimes raise up dogmas
    > such as "You must believe this, this, and this OR ELSE you're lost." 

    I believe this is a characteristic of all traditional organized
    religions. That is to say they view themselves as possessing the only
    true interpretation of the recipe for salvation. Fundamentalism is not
    peculiar that this respect.
    
    Eric

    Eric,
    
    There is a note posted I believe in the Religion in the News topic, but
    I'm not one for digging things up... let me see what I can do for you.
    
    BTW, as an aside being for abortion is ANTI-CHRISTIAN as well.  And as
    debatable a topic as this is, I imagine so would his other
    ANTI-CHRISTIAN statements be.
    
    Nancy

re Note 945.12 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     BTW, as an aside being for abortion is ANTI-CHRISTIAN as well.  And as
>     debatable a topic as this is, I imagine so would his other
>     ANTI-CHRISTIAN statements be.
  
        Of course, not all Christians agree that to be pro-choice is
        to be ANTI-CHRISTIAN, any more than freedom of religion (and,
        as a consequence, freedom to follow a non-Christian religion)
        is ANTI-CHRISTIAN.

        (Of course there was the older, pre-American paradigm that
        there is no right to be in error, and that there are no
        legitimate freedoms whose result is that people are allowed
        to chose wrongly.  The U.S. has done rather well with a
        philosophy that says we will defend the right of citizens to
        make choices with which we disagree.)

        Bob

    .13
    
    Point in case... That note just made my decision to not go and find the
    statements from one of Clinton's most recent speeches.  
    
    I'm wearying of noisy banter. :-)  No offense at you Bob, really, I
    just need a break from this tit for tat stuff.
    
    Nancy

Re: Note 945.6       
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Heat-seeking pacifist"            11 lines   1-JUL-1994 19:24

>>I detect paranoia in the rest of your entry.  The Clinton administration is
>>decidedly not anti-religion, despite what you've heard from Rush, Robertson,
>>and the rest of the far right-wingers.

Paranoia?!!  First of all, I am not a ditto head, I can think for myself 
thank you.  All my sources are more the editorial pages of USA Today, The
NYT, CSPAN, etc.  By the way, these are moderate/leftist sources and
my "paranoia" as you put it does not stem from fright, or anxiety.  It stems
from a sense of national embarrassment for our current leadership.  Saying 
stupid things at the worst possible moments.  Bill Clinton's remarks didn't
bother me though stupid it was to single out Falwell and Limbaugh.  This will
only help their cause and hurt the presidents.  Besides, I would like to 
know specifically how Falwell's name got dragged into this.  I know the prez
used Limbaugh and cynicism synonimously.  I can tell you beyone the shadow of
a doubt that my suspicions toward this crowd started Waaaaay before I listened
to anybody on talk radio.  Cynicism and big government go hand in hand.  
Eastern Europe is a statue on a pedestal of big government dismal failures.

I am not paranoid by these people.  I am embarrassed for them.  My cynicism
here is directed toward our current surgeon general, another national 
disgrace!

-Jack

re: Note 945.15 by Jack

> It stems from a sense of national embarrassment for our current leadership.  
> Saying stupid things at the worst possible moments.  

Like Ronald "The bombing starts in 5 minutes" Reagan?

.-)

Jim

    re Note 945.5 by AIMHI::JMARTIN  

    > It is apparent from the rhetoric of the current administration that
    > people with religious convictions should keep a low profile.  

    Jack,

    I understand you don't like the president, but that tirade against the
    president did nothing to support the above statement. You may well be
    correct, but as yet there's no steak to your sizzle.

    No conservative or liberal has any room to criticize the other side
    regarding the size of government or the lack of intellectual depth in
    the other's leadership. It is a silly argument.

    Eric

    Yes Jim...exactly!  That particular incident was a dangerous faux pas
    in humor and was not done maliciously...because he didn't mean it.  
    Nevertheless, it was done without prudence and definitely should have
    been avoided.  
    
    I fault the Condom Queen for maliciouness and nothing less.  
    
    -Jack

    Eric:
    
    I think taxation is robbery and so you can see why I am against the 
    current administration.  I held my nose when I voted for Bush because
    I knew this guy was lying from the beginning!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 945.19 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I think taxation is robbery and so you can see why I am against the 
>     current administration.  I held my nose when I voted for Bush because
>     I knew this guy was lying from the beginning!!
  
        You've got me confused here:  if you think "taxation is
        robbery" then shouldn't you be against *every*
        administration and in fact against government in general?

        As far as I can tell, taxation pre-dates the current
        administration!

        Bob

    > I think taxation is robbery and so you can see why I am against the
    > current administration.

    In one note you said you were against the administration because they
    were against "people with religious convictions." In another note you
    said you were against the administration because the president is
    a "national embarrassment." Now you're against the administration because
    you think taxation is robbery (which means you're an Anarchist and not
    a Republican).

    All I wanted you to do was tell be *why* you think the Clinton
    administration was against people with religious convictions. I don't
    think you've done that yet. Have you? 

    Eric

    PS. Falwell's organization produced a video that attacked and maligned 
    the president. A fine collection of rumor, innuendo and half-truths,
    from what I understand. Rush Limbaugh was raving about its "merits."
    That's why those names were brought up. It was not some slam against
    people with religious convictions.
    
    Jack Kemp (a Republican I like, BTW) denounced this sort of politicking
    on one of the Sunday morning news shows. 

    Sorry guys, I'm in one of those "trying to stay awake modes".  Baby
    kept us up last night!
    
    Let me explain myself better.  I am still unconvinced as is most of the
    public that taking money from the private sector to put into the public 
    sector is for the betterment of all.  I DO believe taxation is
    necessary.  What I meant to say was that any taxation over and above
    that which is required by the Constitution, i.e. A strong national
    defense, etc. is robbery.  I believed the 1990 budget deal under Bush was
    ludicrous.  I believe the 1993 budget deal under Clinton was robbery. 
    I am very dubious of Healthcare.  If a family member of yours came out
    of jail for the seventh time in a row for DUI and said to you, "Please 
    give me your car keys...I am a new person and promise that I won't
    drive drunk!!!":  would you trust him...would you believe him??  Not
    I!! 
    
    Thanks for explaining about Falwell.  I simply didn't know.  As far as 
    Rush goes, the thing that makes him somewhat credible is that his
    conjecture is based from the writings of National newspapers, etc.
    Again, my main beef is with our lame attorney general.  Please, I 
    realize every president has a beaut in his cabinet but Clinton 
    certainly out did himself with this individual.  "The Immoral Religious
    Right"??  On what basis does she say this?
    
    -Jack

    Nancy,

    If you are unwilling -- or unable -- to cite specific anti-Christian
    quotes by Clinton, could you at least paraphrase what he said. I think
    you have some responsibility to support such a devastating claim that
    the president of the Unites States is anti-Christian.

    Eric

    PS. Saying someone is anti-Christian because they are pro-choice is
    like saying someone is anti-Semitic because they support the American
    Pork Council. Because I operation my life contrary to *your* personal
    beliefs, doesn't mean I'm out to destroy your personal beliefs.   

    Eric:
    
    When your personal beliefs are implemented as public policy under the
    guise of compassion, you are in fact eroding what I consider valuable.
    Our current welfare system for example is a major hinge pin in
    destroying our economy and depressing the work ethic.  
    
    -Jack

    Unfortunately I lost the attachment to this memo.  Mea culpa.
    Nonetheless, it was this mail message with an attachment of one of
    Clinton's speeches that created the statement made previously.
    
    Sorry Eric, that I could not give you the whole thing.  
    
    BTW, I disagree with you about the abortion comparison.  To me a
    President that condones abortion signs bills against anti-abortion
    activists is unchristian.  But this is where go tit for tat.
    
    Okay I'm tat you be the other! :-)
    
    Nancy
    
recently, president clinton and some in his administration - most
frequently, surgeon general elders - have been leveling attacks 
at people because of their fundamental Christian beliefs.  having
recently read the constitution, specifically the first amendment,
i take personal exception to this behavior.  i would hope that our
president would be more interested in bringing our nation's
diversity together rather than supporting and encouraging those 
who would isolate one group for attack.  it seems especially 
disconcerting since that group played such a fundamental (excuse 
the pun) role in the founding of our nation.

anyway, if you would be interested in writing mr. clinton regarding
your opinions on this or any matter, he can be reached via internet
email at:

	 president@whitehouse.gov 


p.s. the opinions expressed in this email should not be confused with
the opinions of my employer - they are mine, personally, only mine.

    A particular groups civil rights must be protected if we are to remain
    a free nation.  As a citizen, I will stand up for ones civil rights as
    long as the rights of said group does not interfere with the civil
    rights of another group.  This is the hub of the abortion topic.  
    
    Just for my information, isn't the crux of this debate over the
    creedence of free petition outside a clinic being stymied over the right 
    to petition freely anywhere else.  I.E. you must maintain so many yards
    distance in you are picketing a clinic but if you want to picket a 
    church, you can stand on the sidewalk right in front of the building.
    That sounds like an infringement on YOUR civil rights Eric and I
    believe it is the duty of citizens to fight for your rights too!!
    
    -Jack

    .26
    
    I know it sounds like that to you, but honestly it is not.  I actually
    support women's rights to choose, but only because the law allows them
    this choice.  Morally I do not support this choice.  I believe to have
    an abortion is to murder.  Everybody was up in arms when the
    abortionist doctor was murdered, and rightfully so, but those same
    people condone abortion?  This is as lopsided as it gets.
    
    Besides, the speech that was attached had to do with education as I
    recall, not abortion.

    I dunno.  Sure sounds like some people in *this* conference have an AGENDA.
    

    Sheesh Richard, why do you come back in noting with the same
    antagonistic banter as before?  I guess going through topic 9 was a
    waste of time.  How sad.
    
    Amazing that we've had some interesting, diverse and palatable
    conversations in your absence today.
    

        I have machine-readable copies of nearly all of Clinton's
        speeches (since taking office) and can make them available if
        there is interest.

        Bob

    Richard:
    
    Everybody has an agenda, nobody denies that.  Fulfilling the Great
    Commission is an agenda in and of itself.  
    
    I don't hesitate to call it like it is though.  Pick up last months
    edition of National Review if you get a chance.  It is entitled,
    "Feminists Statistics and Why They Are Always Wrong."  If one is to 
    have an agenda, that's fine, so long as it is overshadowed with some
    element of credibility or truth, otherwise, people will not conform!
    
    -Jack

re Note 945.32 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I don't hesitate to call it like it is though.  Pick up last months
>     edition of National Review if you get a chance.  It is entitled,
>     "Feminists Statistics and Why They Are Always Wrong."  If one is to 
>     have an agenda, that's fine, so long as it is overshadowed with some
>     element of credibility or truth, otherwise, people will not conform!
  
        I must admit that I find it extremely hard to take seriously
        a publication that states, categorically, that their
        opposition is *always* wrong.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    National Review is a credible source for information.  The editorials 
    do have a conservative slant but you will rarely see a falsehood.
    
    I believe the article on feminists are more toward what I call "The Sad
    Bunch", meaning the radical feminist movement today that are in cahoots 
    with ACT UP and that crowd; anti family and all that good stuff.  
    They weren't referring to the feminist movement of the late 60's/70's 
    which stood for equal rights, equal opportunities, equal pay for equal 
    work, etc.  They fought for an honorable cause.  The Patricia Irelands
    of the world...very few even take them for real!!!!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 945.34 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I believe the article on feminists are more toward what I call "The Sad
>     Bunch", meaning the radical feminist movement today that are in cahoots 
>     with ACT UP and that crowd; anti family and all that good stuff.  
>     They weren't referring to the feminist movement of the late 60's/70's 

        So the only good feminist is a dead one (or retired)?

        That title ("feminist statistics .. are always wrong")
        certainly implies that all feminists today are wrong -- that
        there is no feminist today who uses *any* statistics
        truthfully.  Like the exclusive use of the word "feminazi"
        instead of "feminist" (since there is no honorable feminist
        movement today :-{), it makes a sweeping implication and
        accusation which itself is surely wrong!

>     which stood for equal rights, equal opportunities, equal pay for equal 
>     work, etc.  They fought for an honorable cause.  

        Yeah, I remember how supportive of that movement National
        Review and conservative Republicans were back then! :-}

        Bob

    
    
    > so the only good feminist is a dead one
    
      No, the only good one is a submissive wife :-)

>    Sheesh Richard, why do you come back in noting with the same
>    antagonistic banter as before?  I guess going through topic 9 was a
>    waste of time.  How sad.

Sorry.  Undiscarded baggage.  I had some very good teachers, I guess.

I had decided that I would delete my remark upon entering C-P this morning
but I see other have built their comments on it.  So for the sake of
coherence I'll leave it intact, with the promise that I shall avoid
unprovoked repetition.
    
Shalom,
Richard

    I'm a feminist.  I am not anti-family.  And I don't hate men.
    

    
    
    -1
    
      So what does being a male feminist mean to you?
    
    
    David

    > I actually support women's rights to choose, but only because the law
    > allows them this choice.

    So you and the president agree. Do you want to retract you
    characterization of Clinton as anti-Christian, or do you want to supply
    some facts to support your defamation of his character?

    	Eric

    .40
    
    As the President he has the power to not sign bills against folks who
    protest abortion.  I do not.  
    
    No, I don't care to retract my statement.  Clinton has also made it
    clear that he is pro-choice, not anti-abortion but following the law.
    
    

Interesting string, catching up...

re. .5, .24 AIMHI::JMARTIN

Why is it nobody (except me) was upset when Bush stated in his opinion that
atheists should be considered "neither patriots nor citizens". Or did I just
miss that discussion in here? I too would like to see at least a paraphrase as
to what makes the administration anti-christian. (This would upset me as much as
the previous quote, BTW).

As far as welfare goes (ie. "Our current welfare system for example is a major
hinge pin in destroying our economy and depressing the work ethic."), I believe
that welfare itself is only about 1% of our total budget, so the destruction of
the economy is a bit far fetched. I have no argument with you on the second half
of the sentence, however. And Clinton is attempting to do something about the
system.

re. .29 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Heat-seeking pacifist"

I have an agenda, but I'm keeping it set to 'hidden' :^) BTW Richard, I would
wager that you've found the heat you are seeking!

    re Note 945.41 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 

    > Clinton has also made it clear that he is pro-choice, not anti-abortion
    > but following the law.

    The fact is Clinton has made it very clear that he thinks there are
    *far* too many abortions being performed in this country. In an
    interview with Ted Koppel he stated that the number of abortions was
    "unacceptable" and that he would work to reduce the number of
    abortions.

    I firmly believe that his administration will do more to *effectively*
    promote abstinence than either of the two previous "just say no"
    administrations. Furthermore, his surgeon general's efforts to promote
    birth control education have been thwarted and protested by the very
    groups who are so adamantly opposed to abortion. 

    Finally, I object to your characterizing someone who allows people to
    choose an un-Christian act as being anti-Christian. I find this
    convoluted. It is un-Christian to deny that Christ is the savior, but
    we have laws (that I hope the President would support them) which
    protect the rights of other religions to profess this. Is the state
    treasurer anti-Christian because he promotes the state lottery? Is the
    liquor commissioner anti-Christian because she promotes the consumption
    of alcohol, albeit responsibly? Is the Congress anti-Christian because
    it subsidizes tobacco farmers? There are many un-Christian activities
    that are protected by law. To call them *ANTI*-Christian --  as if they
    in some way infringe on your right to worship as you please; to believe
    in the God of your choosing -- is nonsense. No... you are too loose in
    your vocabulary and too rash in your assaults on personal character.
                                                       
    Just my opinion.

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    Federally funding of abortions under the Clinton health plan will not
    deter abortions.  Passing out condoms in the public schools will not 
    promote abstinence.
    
    If abstinence is on the rise during the Clinton admin., it is because
    of the fear of HIV.  Clinton has nothing to do with it.
    
    -Jack

    .43
    
    Political jargon at best to get votes from both arenas.  I used to
    think that I was naive, but....
    
    

    Face it, no government is Christian.  Especially not a republic that is
    made up of "public servants" voted into office by people with varying
    religious affiliations.  All people are to be represented in this form
    of government. Whether it is always done fairly is up to debate.  I
    think what gets conservative Christians irritated is that we see things
    getting worse all the time.  In this country in my lifetime the crime
    rates have skyrocketed, the value of life has gone down, and a country
    that by in large believed "in God we trust" in some way, shape, or form
    has changed. Christians are to blame as much as non-Christians for
    those changes. We abdicated the privilege of educating the youth of
    this nation early on. We were foolish to believe that  government would
    keep the standards to which they were first formed on.  If your faith
    is in mankind, you will always be let down.
     
    It is human nature, indeed our sinful nature, to villify our
    opposition. We need to face that every administration is going to be
    filled with it's goods and it's evils.  I must admit this is much
    harder for me to say with this administration in office then with any
    previous administration. I might not have agreed with the Carter
    administration on everything, but I at least had a respect for them. 
    I've always believed that you should get behind whoever is in office
    for the good of the country, this is the first time I haven't been able
    to do that because I am so opposed to what I see as a fundamental
    change of how they want to see this nation governed. Not that I think
    it was perfect the way it was, but I disagree with what I see as a move
    toward socialism.  I think the more we put in governments hands to
    "take care of people" the more likely people will see it as less of a
    burden to care for others themselves.  I would much rather see
    privately funded companies like Habitat for Humanity who provide
    low-cost homes for the homeless with the gifts of people's time, money,
    and labor. Government will never solve our problems.  It will never be
    Christian enough for some and it will be too Christian for others.  Our
    answer does not lie within ourselves, but with God.
    
    Jill

    This topic, it seems, has drifted considerably from the basenote
    proposition, as well.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    It drifted but that's alright because we haven't determined what a
    fundamentalist Christian is.
    
    What is one?
    
    -Jack

    You're not really paying attention, are you, Jack?
    
    Richard
    

>>Note 945.4                   Two opposing paradigms                      4 of 49
>>CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Heat-seeking pacifist"             7 lines   1-JUL-1994 14:43
>>                             -< Internal pointer >-

>>    .3  I doubt we'd ever agree on a precise definition of fundamentalism.
>>    However, there is a string for this very topic.  It is topic 87, "What
>>    is fundamentalism?"
    
>>    Shalom,
>>    Richard
    
Yes I am Richard, you mentioned a few replies back that we are straying from 
basenote.  I responded in kind that we didn't establish what a fundie
is.  You said we couldn't agree (thanks for the pointer), we got off the 
subject.  What was there to pay attention to?  What did I miss?

-Jack

    .50  Nothing, Jack.  Not a thing.
    

Note 942.107 et al

>   as
>   is Jack and any other Bible believing Christian in this conference.

I am a Bible believing Christian.  I don't perceive Patricia's remarks
as a jab at either God or me.
    
>    Why?  Because it was a purposeful "slander" against Bible believing
>    Christians.
    
Wrong again.  It is only a criticism of certain fundamentalist notions
about God.  Of course, a fundamentalist might have trouble telling the
difference.

I guess some judge God to be so small that God occasionally needs to be
rescued by a few of God's best and most strident followers.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    your expressed attitude is very familiar, but thanks for sharing 
    it again.
    

    Nothing surprising coming from your direction either.