Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Lloyd J. Averill (a non-fundamentalist Christian theologian) defines
    fundamentalism this way:

        Primarily a reference to those Christians who believe in the total
        errorlessness--inerrancy--of the Bible in all of its assertions, of
        whatever kind; who believe that the present, penultimate
        dispensation of history will end in utter disaster, as have all of
        its predecessors; who expect the imminent, public return of Christ
        in a second advent that will usher in the final dispensation of
        history; and who feel bound by faithfulness to an inerrant
        scripture to anathematize, and to separate themselves from, those
        who take a different view, whether they be Christians or others.

    He distinguishes fundamentalists from both conservatives and
    evangelicals, who share many of the beliefs of fundamentalists, and who
    therefore are often lumped together with them, but who in fact differ
    on certain important issues.  He defines evangelicals as repudiating
    "inerrancy" in favor of "infallibility" (admittedly a rather subtle
    distinction), and he identifies "conservatives" as those who repudiate
    both "inerrancy" and "infallibility".  Conservatives and evangelicals,
    he notes, "take a moderate, ecumenical approach to other Christians who
    do not share their doctrinal views in detail."

    -- Mike

    Re: .0
    
    	As a Fundamentalist I find Averill's definition somewhat harsh. He
    has touched on some key doctrinal positions of Fundamentalism but he
    leaves me cold toward the movement. Fundamentalists, while perceived of
    as narrow and uncompromising, view their seeming severity as loving. 
    
    	Other aspects of his definition are, I think, overstated. Speaking
    for myself (and those Fundamentalists under whom I was educated) I
    think it is proper to say that we believe in inerrancy but I would not
    say, as Averill, "in all of its assertions, of whatever kind." That
    terminology seems to suggest "wooden-headed literalism" but perhaps I
    am being too sensitive. Nonetheless, the definition has problems.  
    
    	I don't like to drop credentials. I struggle with pride as, I am
    sure, any honest Christian would admit. But I think it may help here. I
    graduated from Bob Jones University in Greenville, S.C. with a B.A. in
    1984 and an M.A. in 1988. Both degrees were in Bible. I am two-thirds
    of the way through the MDiv. program there as well.
    
    	Bob Jones stands unapologetically for "old-time religion" and
    considers itself the premier Fundamentalist training ground. Over
    50,000 have graduated from the school since its founding by Bob Jones
    Sr. in the 1920's. The school claims that it has trained more
    Fundamentalist leaders, pastors and educators than any other
    Fundamental school in the world. 
    
    	Chapel is held at BJ all but two days of the week. During the
    chapel services students recite the following creed prior to the
    message:
    
    	"I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and 
    	New Testaments; the incarnation and virgin birth of our Lord
    	and Savior Jesus Christ; His identification as the Son of God; 
    	His vicarious atonement for the sins of mankind by the shedding 
    	of his blood on the cross; the resurrection of His body from the
    	tomb; His power to save men from sin; the new birth through the
    	regeneration by the Holy Spirit; and the gift of eternal life
    	by the grace of God."
    
    	Every student is expected to hold to this creed and he signs a
    statement prior to his registration to that effect. Fundamentalists
    consider these truths to be central to saving faith. It is not an
    all-inclusive creed but neither is it intended to be. For example, the
    "resurrection of His body from the tomb" assumes belief in the
    miraculous, "His identification as the Son of God" assumes the deity of
    Christ, etc.
    
    	I've run out of time. I will provide a definition from Dr. David O.
    Beale, Professor of Church History at BJ, who has written _In Pursuit
    of Purity: A History of Fundamentalism_ at a later date.
    
    					In Christ,
    
    					John Leabeater
    
    
                                       

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary declares itself as an evangelical 
seminary and it's students tend to consider themselves evangelical.  Part
of the statement of faith of the seminary is that the Bible is
inerrant.  I'm not so sure that this is a good dividing point between
fundamentalist and evangelicalism.

Collis

The Church of Christ denomination (started approximately around
the turn of the century in Texas) believes that God spoke the
last time to mankind in the King James Bible. They are
literalists in the sense that the very words IS God speaking.

The term "fundamental teachings" refer to the teachings of
Christ, aside from all traditions, history or social aspects that
happened around the life and times of Jesus while He was here on
earth. Perhaps the term, fundamentalists are dreivitive from that
description.

calvin

I believe the term "fundamentalist" derives from the doctrine which many
conservatives held as "fundamental" to being a believer in Jesus Christ.

I don't think that fundamentalists as a group ignore the traditions, history or
social aspects of the times of Jesus when interpreting the Bible.  Certainly
not the fundamentalist preachers I have heard on the radio, who make
understanding the times of Jesus very important for correctly interpreting
the Scripture.

Collis

    
    Collis,
    
    you mentioned that inerrancy of scripture was not a valid dividing line
    between evangelicals and fundamentalists. Are you aware of any basic
    tenets that wold separate the two groups?
    
    Jamey
    
    

I think "style" of interpreting is different.  For example, a fundamentalist
would be much more likely to interpret the periods in Genesis 1 as
days than would an evangelical.  Both might claim inerrancy, but
differ on interpretation.

Fundamentalism, in my experience, tends to have many more explicit
expectations of their members.  For example, church attendance and rules
about smoking or drinking.  Evangelicals tend to rely more on the
person's own judgment, i.e. in my church (which I would categorize as
an evangelical church), I don't know any adult who smokes (although I
would not be surprised if I found out that a few of them did), but this
is no church rule about not smoking or even a hint of such a rule.  I also
know of churches that explicitly have rules that prohibit members from
either smoking or drinking - and believers who attend are not members
because of this rule.  (Some friends of a friend believe that it is
o.k. to drink wine at meals sometimes and are therefore not members of
the church, although quite active.)

So, in my mind, these two points (style of interpretation and explicit
rules) separate fundamentalists from other "conservative" Christian
viewpoints.

Collis

    The following are select quotations from Dr. David O. Beale's _In
    Pursuit of Purity: American Fundamentalism Since 1850_.
    
    	"Ideally, a Christian Fundamentalist is one who desires to reach
    out in love and compassion to people, believes and defends the whole
    Bible as absolute, inerrant, and authoritative Word of God, and stands
    committed to the doctrine and practice of holiness (p. 3)."
    
    	"To the Fundamentalist, however, the most important principle is
    not perpetuity but authority (p. 4)."
    
    	"The word itself became a kind of pejorative term to denote a mean
    spirit, a pharisaical character, a cantankerous person - ready to fight
    at the drop of a theological diphthong (p. 4)."
    
    	"The present study reveals that pre-1930 Fundamentalism was
    *nonconformist*, while post-1930 Fundamentalism has been *separatist*
    (p. 5)."
    
    	Hope this helps a bit.
    
    					In Christ,
    
    					John Leabeater
    

	... that the current leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention is
doing an injustice to REAL fundamentalists by continuing to let themselves be
called by the name!  I've heard nothing "loving" or "compassionate" from that
gang in several years!

	Personally, I'd like to be called a "Bob Jones" fundamentalist, based
on .2's reply.

re Note 87.5 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I don't think that fundamentalists as a group ignore the traditions, history or
> social aspects of the times of Jesus when interpreting the Bible.  Certainly
> not the fundamentalist preachers I have heard on the radio, who make
> understanding the times of Jesus very important for correctly interpreting
> the Scripture.

        Which, of course, makes the correct understanding of
        God-breathed (and supposedly "inerrant") Scriptures extremely
        dependent upon non-Scriptural evidence regarding the use of
        language and customs from thousands of years ago.

        Bob

Re:  87.11

  >Which, of course, makes the correct understanding of God-breathed 
  >(and supposedly "inerrant") Scriptures extremely dependent upon 
  >non-Scriptural evidence regarding the use of language and customs 
  >from thousands of years ago.

I think saying "extremely dependent" is an overstatement.  People are
essentially the same today as they were two thousand years ago.  Of
course, cultures are quite different and expectations in settings are
quite different, etc.  However, when dealing with the nature of people
and how be acceptable to God, for example, the problem has not changed
one iota over time.

I do agree that there are numerous misinterpretations of Scripture
simply because interpreters (i.e. people who read the Bible) don't take
the time to understand the culture or the setting or numerous other
aspects which are all useful (and sometimes, although rather infrequently,
required) in interpreting.

Collis

    	The use of language and the use of history is essential in coming
    to grips with proper exegesis. Without these two tools we would not
    have Bibles. A grammatical, historical and contextual interpretation of
    Scripture is a hallmark of conservatism in general and Fundamentalism
    in particular.
    
    					John Leabeater
    

    Furthermore, revelation is dependent upon a historical context. Men do
    not live in a timeless vacuum. Much of the liberalization of exegesis
    in Germany came to the text with just this presupposition, i.e. divorce
    the text from history and try to find some meaning with the pious
    enjoinder "God is above history." No, God works *in* history, history
    is part of the warp and woof of Scripture.
    
    					John Leabeater
    

The other day I went to the ZKO library at lunchtime to look up what the
Encylopedia Brittanica had to say about Fundamentalism.  The article begins
on page 7:777 in the Macropaedia and runs on for a couple of pages. 
Unfortunately I didn't take notes, and in any case, I'm not going to type
it all in, and it won't be easy to do a good precis of the article. 

Doctrinally, Evangelicals are very close to Fundamentalists.  (I happen to
agree because I consider myself one; the Evangelical label just doesn't
have as much negative connotation as the Fundamentalist label.)  The term
Fundamentalist was used early this century.  Only later was Evanglical
used.

Back in the 1920s the Fundamentalists were in opposition to the Modernist
or Liberal position which accepted the "higher criticism" method of
interpreting the Bible.  (Higher criticism holds, for example, to the late
authorship of the gospels and other New Testament books, as well as Old
Testament books; that some or all of these were not written by the authors
to whom the books were attributed; that "prophecies" were written after the
fact, etc. ect.)

Around that time (early this century) there was a series of pamphlets (?)
titled _The_Fundamentals_ which I suppose (I don't remember if the EB
article concluded in so many words) lent itself to the name Fundamentalism.

The EB article used the term millenarists a lot to refer to the early
Fundamentalists (before the term came into being).  This was in reference
to the belief that Christ will return for a thousand-year rule on earth.
(See my other topic on Pre-millenialism, which so far hasn't drawn many
responses.)

There are either five or eleven basic points of Fundamentalist doctrine. 
I know what I believe, but I am not clear (without referring to the EB
article) which eleven those were.  The five basic points are: inerrant and
God-inspired scriptures, virgin birth of Jesus, miracle workings of Jesus,
the Atonement, Redemption through Jesus Christ.  (Correct me if I'm
misquoting the EB article.)

I'm sure that the item list of Fundamentalist doctrine is much longer than
the five or even eleven points.  I'm not sure where Trinitarianism fits on
the list, but I'm pretty sure that Fundamentalists and Evagelicals are
almost without exception Trinitarians.

So what's the difference between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists?  I'm not
sure; maybe I have to go read the article on Evangelicalism.  It think that
most of the difference is not in doctrine as related to the Bible or
Christ, but in practices and attitudes.  In that regard, I'm probably too
liberal to be Fundamentalist, so call me Evangelical.

--Simon

I think the Evangelicals of today were the Fundamentalists of 100 years
ago.  Fundamentalism has changed (moved to the right) through the decades and 
Evangelicalism has taken on the role that Fundamentalism used to have.  The two camps
are closely related.

Collis

Note 87.14

>    Men do
>    not live in a timeless vacuum.

Neither do women.

;-)
Richard

Simon,

Fundamentalists and Evangelicals share the same values; not
doctrine. The methodists were evangelists that spread the word of
God to the natives of Africa, Asia and Micro-Asia (Pacific
Islands). Their doctrine was to spread the word of God and to
work to support the propagation of the Gospel of Christ.

Fundamentalist doctrine involves the word of God around their
lives and how that word influences the whole environment around
them.

calvin

    (Evangelical) Fundamentalists, Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses,
    Christian Scientists and Mormons all arose out of the turbulent
    era of the American Civil War.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

	In 1909 a group of those who judged that liberal thought was
corrupting the orthodox truths of Christianity organized a reactionary
protest against the so-called "modernists"; circulated a 12 volume
publication called _The Fundamentals_ (1910-12).  Their 5 most important
points of doctrine:

1. The Virgin birth.

2. The physical resurrection of Christ.

3. The infallibility of Scripture.

4. Substitutional atonement.

5. The second coming of Christ.


Peace,
Richard

Note 617.36

>"fundamentalism" as a movement didn't exist until after the Civil
>War.

This is true.  But it is a purist's point, not usually observed in ordinary
conversation.

When Bishop John Spong entitled his book, "Rescuing the Bible from
Fundamentalism," he was speaking of fundamentalism as a broad spectrum
of conservative biblical-literalists and inerrantists.

Richard

    Also see 613.84
    
    Richard

Take note, though, the 613.84 doesn't really address
fundamentalism as, per the author's on comments, some
(actually many) of those he is talking about are not
fundamentalists.

Collis

	Jerry Falwell is.

	John Spong is not.

	Kenneth Copeland is.

	Robert Schuller is not.

	Charles Colson is.

	Henri Nouwen is not.

For Colorado Springs people:

	Will Perkins is.

	Harvey Martz is not.

Actually, Charles Colson claims to be an evangelical,
not a fundamentalist.

Collis

    .25
    
    True.  So does Robertson.  For our purposes though, fundamentalist
    is adequate.  I realize you make a finer distinction, Collis.
    
    Richard
    

Personally, I think "fundamentalist" is misleading and
inaccurate.  I am not aware that Chuck Colson supports
fundamentalist views in any of the areas that they differ
from evangelicalism.

It's not a matter of a finer distinction; the issue is
an accurate label (if you must label).  Trying to paint
all conservative Christians as fundamentalists (which is
apparently what Richard is doing) is not only inaccurate,
but also encourages bashing (as most broad labelling
does).

Collis

    I realize not all conservative Christians are fundamentalists.
    But I also realize that the average American doesn't draw the
    distinction that you seem to feel is a vital one.
    
    By all means, Collis, feel free to provide us with the distinguishing
    characteristics between fundamentalists and evangelicals.
    
    Colson, for our purposes, is in the same camp as Robertson.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 87.28 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     But I also realize that the average American doesn't draw the
>     distinction that you seem to feel is a vital one.
  
        But we in this conference are not average Americans, Richard!

        Bob

    
    Can a cult leader be a fundamentalist?  My guess is not unless he
    agrees on the fundamentals.  I'm not sure Copeland fits a 
    description of fundamentalist.  I'll bring in a new book I have 
    exposing Copeland's teaching as those of a cult leader.  The book
    is Christianity in Crisis by Hank Hanegraff of the Christian
    Research Institute.  It goes into great deal about the Faith
    Movement and what some of their leaders really claim to believe.
    
    Jill

Richard

Rereading the earlier notes in this string will probably
help (87.7 being one of those)

I think that the term you may want to use is "inerrantist"
rather than "fundamentalist".  Admittedly, this label is
quite specific and doesn't have the negative connotations
that "fundamentalist" has; on the other hand it is accurate
and well understood.

Actually, I see all 4 as positives (but I expect you do not
or you may have used this label in the first place).

Collis

Re:  .32


  >Perhaps you can explain why evangelicals are so opposed to being
  >confused with fundamentalists?

I don't know about evangelicals.  I do know that I am opposed to
being labelled a fundamentalist.  Why?  Because I am not.

I suspect that Bishop Spong claimed to rescue Bible from Fundamentalism
instead of "Inerrancy" (although the second is a much more accurate
title than the first) because he wanted to sell books.  Richard, I
don't at all claim that you are the first or the only to play loose
with your terminology.  Picking it up from Bishop Spong and the
media (amongst others) is understandable.  It would be considerate of
you, now that it has been brought to your attention that all those who
are called fundamentalists are not actually fundamentatlists, to use
more accurate labels.

I believe we had a topic on labels a few years ago.  That's all we're
talking about.

Personally, upon re-reading .7, I thought I pointed out 2 significant
differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals.  Indeed, believing
the Bible to be true is not what makes a fundamentalist (although this
is a belief of fundamentalists).

Collis

	>When Spong wrote "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" he didn't
>distinguish between evangelicals, fundamentalists, or any other
>conservative faction.  When I speak of fundamentalism, it is in the same
broad sense.

	>Perhaps you can explain why evangelicals are so opposed to being
>confused with fundamentalists?


I suspect that you might have answered your own question, Richard.  The 
term "fundamentalist" carries a very negative connotation.  Many people, 
myself included, picture a fundalmentalist as "Bible-waving, legalistic,
Scripture-spouting lunatic who won't let their kids have any fun".  
That's an awfully broad brush that most of us don't want to be painted 
with.

I consider myself to be an evangelical Christian.  I'm a member of the 
Evangelical Free Church and believe the Bible to be inerrant and 
God-breathed.  I suppose that will land me in the fundie bin but I see 
the difference as a matter of degree.  I'm carefull about what my 
daughters watch on tv and I don't allow them to celebrate Halloween, but 
other than that, they're normal (well almost :^) ) American kids.

Collis,

	Perhaps you can explain why evangelicals are so opposed to being
confused with fundamentalists?

	When Spong wrote "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" he didn't
distinguish between evangelicals, fundamentalists, or any other conservative
faction.  When I speak of fundamentalism, it is (usually) in the same
broad sense.

	I personally didn't find .7 to be very helpful.  The characteristics
therein are not ones I've ever used to differentiate fundamentalists from
other factions.

Richard

 Hmmm...maybe after reading .7 and .33 I should rethink my definition of
 fundamentalism.  While I attend a Bible believing, soul winning Baptist 
 church, we also don't have a lot of the rules, though I believe there are
 some for church staff and school teachers as far as conduct.  But then again
 a lot of what some might consider rules, to me, become something else the
 deeper my relationship to Christ becomes.






 Jim

    I suppose its all perspective.  An alien from another planet, would
    probably have a hard time distinguishing Christians from Buddhists.

    I really don't blame people for not wanting to be identified with
    fundamentalists.  They've got a reputation for being rule-oriented,
    uneducated, and pushy.  My sister and I go through this same
    conversation once a year.  She insists that she is an evangelical (as
    opposed to a fundamentalist).  Then she explains these incredibly tiny,
    subtle differences to me.

    I try to remember to honor her wishes and remember to not call any of
    her churches fundamentalist, but honestly, I can't tell the difference.

    To me it sounds like one of those how-many-angels-can-we-fit-into
    a-volkswagon discussions.

    Ruth

  The more I think about it, the more I think I'd prefer to just be called
 a sinner, saved by the grace of God and drop all the other labels.





 Jim

There are several other differences I can point out between
fundamentalists and evangelicals.

The fundamentalist movement started in the late 1800's;
the evangelical movement started in the 1930's and 1940's.
Historically, this is a very significant difference.  People
associated with one movement are being miscast as being
associated with a different movement.

A second difference is the emphasis on social services.  As
I have written up before, as the fundamentalist and liberal
movements became more defined in the late 1800's, the two
movements emphasized their differences.  Fundamentalists
emphasized the Bible; liberals emphasized social works.
By the time the 1920's rolled around, fundamentalist preaching
was not only Bible-based, but often focused on salvation
and Biblical inerrancy.  Many liberal churches had moved
away from using the Bible much either in worship or in
teaching.  They were instead defined by all their social
programs.

The evangelical movement is a moderate position between the
two.  Yes, there is the same foundation of Biblical truth.
However, you'll find that almost all of the large conservative
movements in our nation that are an outreach to others are
products of the evangelical movement, not the fundamentalist
movement.  Chuck Colson's Prison Fellowship is an obvious
example.  Crisis Pregnancy Centers is another.

I believe that the fundamentalist movement of the 1870's and
1880's is very similar to the evangelical movement of the
1980's and 1990's.  However, fundamentalists moved quite a
bit (as did the liberals of that era) and a new movement
sprung up to claim the middle ground on the right.

Collis

By the way, many more conservative Christians today consider
themselves evangelicals rather than fundamentalists.

Why do those who are neither so often insist on misrepresenting
evangelicals?  Some possible reasons:

  - they are unaware of the differences
  - the don't understand "evangelical"
  - others miscast them and they just follow the example
  - the term "fundamentalist" has a derogatory conotation
    for many

I expect that all 4 are common reasons.  However, the resistance
I (and others) encounter when trying to correct those who use the
wrong term leads me to believe that the last reason, unfortunately,
is a relatively important reason that this term is purposely
misapplied.  The term "conservative Christian" is what is meant
by at least 80% of the references to "fundamentalist" that I see -
but it's much easier to view a "fundamentalist" as wrong than it
is a "conservative Christian" and, in the writer's opinion, the
conservative Christian is almost always wrong (an impression that
he/she hopes to convey with the misuse of the term fundamentalist).

I rarely see evangelicals or fundamentalists use the term
"fundamentalist" incorrectly.

Collis

    Collis,

    You may present yourself differently when talking to members
    of your church than noting here.

    What I hear are rules about what God wants and "what happens
    if" and absolute statements of faith.  It comes across as 
    being very rigid.  BTW: If that's how you want to approach
    The Almighty, that's OK with me :-)

    Now, looking from the point of view of one whom you may call
    too easy going or loose the rigidity and pronouncement of rules
    that come from an evangelist or a fundamentalist looks an
    awlful lot alike.  From "far away" the differences look small,
    indeed.

    Does this make sense?

    Tom

Okay, we don't have any fundamentalists.  Fundamentalists are the other ones.

We don't have any members of cults (with the possible exception of Bob F.
while visiting France).  Other people belong to cults.

We don't have any members of sects (with the possible exception of Mike V.,
who doesn't find the term objectionable).  Other people belong to sects.

Richard

    Back in .1, I posted a definition of "fundamentalist" that came from a
    book by Lloyd J. Averill, a moderate theologian who was highly critical
    of fundamentalism.  Averill distinguished between fundamentalists,
    evangelicals, and conservatives as three distinct groups.  I don't have
    the book with me right now, but if I can dig it up I will post his
    definition of "evangelical" and "conservative".  It might be
    interesting to see how he distinguishes between the three groups.

    My own feeling is that many of the same things that give the term
    "fundamentalist" a derogatory connotation are also typically
    characteristic of "evangelicals", and that is why the term
    fundamentalist is used to incorporate what some people divide into two
    distinct groups.  It is some of these characteristics that Averill
    specifically identifies with fundamentalism, and which he does not
    include in his definitions of evangelical and conservative
    Christianity.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .41

From my point of view, and with the concurrence of Webster,

1. Many of you are fundamentalists, ie. a belief in the literal truth of the
   bible.
2. All of you are cultists, ie. a system of religious worship and ritual, or
   the more common view, a religion or religious sect considered to be extremist
   or bogus.
3. Many of you are from sects, ie. a religious body, esp. one that has separated
   from a larger denomination.

Please note that I don't consider any of these terms as necessarily bad, but from
my viewpoint they are all accurate.

Steve

Yes, Collis, I am aware of the fundamentalist movement.  I had a class in
religion in college where the history of fundamentalism was delineated.
And strictly speaking, you are correct.

It may surprise some, but fundamentalism actually found its beginnings in
the North near the time of the War between the States.  And originally,
fundamentalism was an 'intellectual' movement, attracting primarily the
elite and the well-educated of the time.

Fundamentalism brought us the so-called 'Scopes Monkey Trial,' from which
we derived the play "Inherit the Wind."  The ACLU has been the hated target
of a certain faction ever since.

Popularly, however, fundamentalism has become synonymous with the
Religious Right (or Christian Right) and its associated agenda as
articulated by (but not limited to) such organizations as Jerry Falwell's
'Moral Majority,' Pat Robertson's 'Christian Coalition,' and a vocal
segment of 1992 Republican National Convention.

I *also* want to make a distinction here.  There are a few Christians
who might be perceived as conservative theologically, or on how they view
the Bible (Inerrantist), who have not bought into the agenda of the
Sheldons, the Robertsons and the Falwells.  I'm hesitant about casually
lumping these 'conservative' Christians all together.

Unfortunately (IMO), it seems like more and more if you say you're a
Christian at all, you're automatically categorized with the Sheldons,
the Robertsons and the Falwells.  To me, it's a terrible image to try to
overcome.

Richard

>Unfortunately (IMO), it seems like more and more if you say you're a
>Christian at all, you're automatically categorized with the Sheldons,
>the Robertsons and the Falwells.  To me, it's a terrible image to try to
>overcome.



 Cranking up the random rathole generator here, and I almost hesitate to ask,
 what is so horrible about these 3 (though I must admit I'm not familiar with
 Sheldon)?







 Jim

    RE: .44
    
    Good points Richard.
    
    I would put myself in the camp thats mainly a conservative and who
    doesn't want to be associated with the "moral majority" or Pat R.
    
    Although it may sound like a contradiction...it makes sense to me.
    
    Marc H.

>    Although it may sound like a contradiction...it makes sense to me.

    Is that to say you try to follow Christ and not Pat Robertson?

    It makes sense to me, too :-)

    Tom

    RE: .47
    
    Bingo
    
    Marc H.

So, Richard, you don't want to see yourself lumped into a
group that you're not in

BUT

you continually lump others into a group that they are
not in.

Seems to me that some thinking (hopefully with resulting
action) is appropriate here.

Collis

Re:  .43

  >1. Many of you are fundamentalists, ie. a belief in the literal truth of the
  >   bible.

Proof I'm not a fundamentalist.  :-)

Collis

Speaking of fundamentalists, there are certainly some around.

Marshall (when he was with is) was clearly a fundamentalist.
My brother-in-law is attached with a fundamentalist missions
group (New Tribes) and graduated from their school.  They
have rules that include no touching anyone of the opposite
sex (in a sexual way, I expect - such as holding hands)
until marriage.  These rules do have their impact - the school
is often referred to as "New Brides".  :-)

Collis

 Well, maybe I'm a conservative Christian?






 Jim grappling to find out who he is.



 

    .49
    
    Yes, repentance (re-thinking) is a good thing.
    
    I've explained what I mean when I use the term "fundamentalist."  You've
    explained what you mean by a "fundamentalist."  I've conceded that, on a
    certain level, your definition is accurate.  I also spoken about the
    popular understanding of what constitutes a fundamentalist.  So have
    you.
    
    I still bear the name Christian, though some (imo) have disgraced it.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  I don't recall specifically labelling you a fundamentalist, Collis.
    My apologies if I did.

Re:  .53

It seems to me that people should not be called that
which they deny that they are - particular when there
is another perfectly acceptable label which all agree
fits.

It seems to me that you missed the point in .49 (or at
least did not address in .53).  You yourself are lumped
into a group because of the inaccuracies of others and
you dislike that - but are (apparently) content to do
the same to others.  Is this true?  If so, are you
going to change (or just going to talk about different
perceptions of different labels)?

Collis

    And you, Collis, missed the point that I wear the label even when
    I don't particularly like what might go along with it.
    
    I have stated that I don't recall labelling you a fundmentalist,
    apologized if I have, and have resigned myself to avoid the term
    fundamentalist when addressing you.
    
    That's the best I can promise you at this time.
    
    Richard
    

I did indeed miss that point [that you wear the label
"Christian" even though you don't particularly like what
might go along with it].  Of course, that's not quite the
same as you believe that the label is accurate in some
sense as well (whereas I don't believe the label fundamentalist
is accurate in describing me).  

Thank you for not addressing me as a fundamentalist.

Collis

    Collis,

    Regarding your reply (.50), could you explain to me why you say you do
    not believe in the literal truth of The Bible?  

    And Collis, please know that I am amazed at the sheer volume of words
    that you manage to enter into this conference.  I personally, cannot
    keep up with you.  -- My little girl sees to that!

    So, if this is something you have already discussed, please accept my
    apologies for asking you to repeat yourself.

    And, one more tiny request -- since I do not have the time that you do
    to devote to this conference, could you give me the "overview"
    explanation?  I'd really appreciate it.

    Thanks much,

    Ruth

Re:  .57

I'm a fast typist - and God graciously gives me the
words (not the ones that aren't true, mind you :-) ).

Collis

Re:  .57

See note 24.

    
    Actually, you guys can (and have) labelled me whatever you want.
    When it all comes down, it doesn't matter.  
    
    When I brought up the issue of a cult leader being a fundamentalist
    I was serious.  Earlier descriptions said that a fundamentalist 
    believe in certain fundamental (basic) principles.  If a cult
    leader like Kenneth Copeland does not believe in those basic
    principles, then he can't be a fundamentalist.  Can he?  I'm
    asking...I wasn't jerkin anybody around.  I'm asking...isn't
    this a contradiction???? 
    
    Jill

According to The Other Side magazine, a jail in Ft. Worth, Texas, offers a
special cell block for fundamentalists.

I wonder if they'd consider filtering out the evangelicals and setting up
another cell block for them.

:-)
Richard

I happened to catch part of an installment of an educational series on PBS
yesterday called _My Eyes Have Seen the Glory_, which seemed to be a
compassionate examination of American fundamentalist history, perspective
and experience.

I noticed the writer/narrator used the terms "fundamentalist" and
"evangelical" interchangeably.  At least, it seemed to me that way.

Richard

I was reading something the other night and the article seemed to make
the point that evagelicalism arose as a result of the clash between
modernism and fundamentalism.  There must be some church history books
around that can tell us more about where these terms arose.

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

	"Protestant fundamentalists preach an escapist theology in which
Jesus is primarily one's 'passport' to heaven.....

	This dramatic oversimplification of the gospel message is typified
by _Free Trip_, distributed by the Overseas Missionary Fellowship [in the
Philippines].....:

	'Dear Friend,

		You are invited to travel with me on a trip I will soon
	be making.  This place is so beautiful I cannot describe it.  The
	travel guidebook says even angels live there.  But in order to go,
	you must have a special passport.

		The place is heaven.  The travel guidebook is the Bible
	(Revelation 21 and 22 in particular).  The special passport is
	receiving Jesus Christ as Savior.

		If you've never been invited, I want to personally invite
	you to go to heaven with me.  Just pray this little prayer with
	me if you want to go to heaven....'"

Extracted from "The Human Quest for Spiritual Survival," an article by
Luna Dingayan and Tom Montgomery-Fate.

Richard

re Note 87.64 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE quoting "The Human Quest for Spiritual
Survival" quoting _Free Trip_:

> 		If you've never been invited, I want to personally invite
> 	you to go to heaven with me.  Just pray this little prayer with
> 	me if you want to go to heaven....'"
  
        The only big quarrel I have with this, and it is a BIG
        quarrel, is substituting "Just pray this little prayer" with
        the Biblical requirement of "faith in Jesus".  The latter is
        not something little and not something of a moment's
        duration.

        Bob

 since .64 indicates an extraction from a message, I wonder if there is 
 something missing from the message, ie, before the request for one to pray
 the little prayer, is there a presentation of the gospel?  My church, for
 example, has tracts that present the gospel and then suggest those who have
 been so led, to pray a "little prayer".




 Jim

>	"Protestant fundamentalists preach an escapist theology in which
>Jesus is primarily one's 'passport' to heaven.....


  Of course Jesus Himself taught this "escapist theology" did He not (John 14:6)











Jim

	I suppose there is a element of what might be described as
escapist theology to what Jesus taught.  But it is doing the gospel
a great disservice, in my opinion, to reduce it to such.

Richard

 Well, what is "escapist theology"?

    
    	Some say that its the person who believes that they can escape a
    judgement just because (enter excuse here), without resorting to the
    saving grace which God sent.  Though the actual process of salvation is
    easy to do, its very hard to walk and demands honesty to yourself and
    to God.  
    
    
    Dave

 Hmm...guess I misunderstood the meaning..





thanks

The following article has been edited for length.
Brackets [], mine.

Corrections to Note 91.2990 --
Spelling of names: Bernhard Kuiper (not Bernard) and Tony Marco (not Marcos).


Colorado Spring Gazette Telegraph

	The Rev. Bernhard Kuiper thinks there's too much talk about God's
love, and not enough about sin and judgment.

	Kuiper, who describes himself as "a Bible-believing, conservative,
fundamental[ist] preacher," is the senior pastor at the theologically,
socially, and politically conservative Village Seven Presbyterian Church.

	The Netherlands native's Sunday sermons -- delivered in a rich Dutch
accent and broadcast on radio station KGFT-FM -- are full of Bible quotations,
and punctuated with references to Focus on the Family and Rush Limbaugh.

	Kuiper's "Salt of the Earth" sermon -- delivered Nov. 1, two days
before Coloradans voted on Amendment 2 -- made it clear how he believed
God would vote on the amendment that would prohibit laws protecting gays
from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

	"I don't know if you saw in the paper...that 300 ministers from
the city of Denver said that proposition No. 2 was evil and we should vote
against it [I suspect this was the ad in which my name was included]," he
said.  "I wish all 300 could listen to this.  I don't care if it was 3,000
ministers who said homosexuality is something we should tolerate.  I say
no, it is not, and I don't care if if it's 3 million ministers who say that."

	Members of the church -- which includes among its members Amendment
2 drafters Will Perkins and Tony Marco -- respond by saying "Amen" and
applauding.

	Still, Kuiper claims the church isn't political.

	Kuiper, 58, has lived in the United States 24 years, but can't vote
because he hasn't sought U.S. citizenship.

	The church is one of the larger congregations of the Presbyterian
Church in America (PCA) denomination, which was founded in 1973 as a
response to perceived liberal tendencies of the other Presbyterian
denominations.

	In the PCA, the fight against sin is led my male warriors.  Women
are not allowed to serve as pastors, elders or deacons.  Women can teach
Sunday school classes for children, but not for men.

	In his sermon, Kuiper also said women are expected to submit to
their husbands, even if the husbands are abusive.  "A woman has to learn to
submit to her husband when he is nice, and when he is not nice."

	Parents must discipline their children, to combat children's inborn
tendencies toward rebellion and evil, he says.

	Discipline begins at birth,...and continues with the spanking of
disobedient children.  Girls are spanked until they are 8 or 9, and boys
are spanked until they at 14 or 15.

	"When my children disobeyed, I would lay into them," Kuiper says.
"They've had bruises on the place that God marvelously provided for them
to have bruises on...."

    
    
    
    -1
    
       The bible says a wife should submit to her husband. The bible says
    discipline your childred. Maybe there is a reason this is in the
    bible??
    
    David

    .73  Yes, there's a reason.  However, the Bible doesn't require a wife
    to submit to abuse.  And since when does discipline mean causing bruises?
    If a parent still has to cause bruises on a 15 year old boy,
    that parent has most likely been failing to instill discipline for
    quite a long time prior to the boy's reaching that age.
    
    Furthermore, the Bible condones smashing the babies of your enemies
    against a rock (Psalm 137, see Topic 730).  Is this something we all
    might want to start observing just because it's in the Bible?
    
    Richard

     >>Furthermore, the Bible condones smashing the babies of your enemies
     >>against a rock
    
    Well, maybe not babies, but I know a couple of parents who have been
    considering this type of action for their *teenagers*!
    
    <yes, that was a joke>
    
    Ruth

    
    
    -2
    
     > bible condones smashing babies
    
      I wonder what problems would have been solved today if they had done
    what they were told back then. We have a small perspective from our
    vantage point.
    
    Incoming,
    David

    .76  Shall we take it from your remark that you are in favor of the
    smashing of babies against rocks?  Is it an action Jesus would advise
    you to do?  Is it a Christian thing to do?
    
    	And if you answer yes, are you simply toying with me?  Trying to
    get my goat, so to speak?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    
    
    -1
    
     I don't want your goats :-) If God wanted you to slay your child
    would you?
    
    David

    .78  Yes, if it was the older one. 8-}
    
    I think I'll wait until God asks such a thing of me before I answer
    that one.  If Jesus has anything to do with it, my guess is that I'll
    never be asked to do such a stupidly cruel thing.
    
    Incidentally, I was talking with a driver with Springs Mobility
    recently.  And, as we were riding down that hill past UCCS on Austin
    Bluffs headed towards Nevada, the driver related a story about one
    of his former co-workers.  It seems this other driver was motoring
    down the same stretch of road when he heard the voice of the Lord.
    The Lord told the driver, "Take your hands off the wheel."
    
    My driver pointed out where the trees are now missing alongside the
    road and where the front tires had blown and where the bus finally came
    to rest.  Fortunately, there were no passengers on the bus at the time
    and the driver was not seriously hurt.  I understand he went to the
    nearest phone booth, called his dispatcher and resigned his job.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    
    -1
    
     :-)

    I was listening on my old radio during the Christmas to New Year
    "break" when I heard, on a Christian radio station, a fundamental
    preacher. Now this preacher was something else! He would quote the
    Bible, and then lay in to the people in the church with the most
    vocal, ranting, yelling sermon you ever heard. It was straight out of
    the most stereotype image you can muster of a rural black church.
    Amens, yes brother, etc. 
    
    The part I heard was about how the woman preachers in the UCC churches
    ( i.e. Congregational) were "Satans" among us.....how the bible proves
    that woman should not talk in church, only men.
    
    I found the "sermon" interesting, in that I think that some of the 
    strong feelings here in this note's file were clarified, while I
    listened to this "sermon". This was my reasoning:
    
    Here in NewEngland, the most fundamental churches I have heard don't
    come close to the "sermon" I heard on the radio. To me, this means that
    what is fundamental in NewEngland, most likely is moderate in the south
    or maybe western ( Col. Springs)...so that when the word fundamentalist
    is talked about to say Richard it represents a very constrictive view
    of religion, whereas to me who hasn't, until listening on the radio,
    directly experienced what fundamentalist people are really about.
    
    Make sense?
    
    Marc H.
    

    Marc,
    
    Interesting perception... and one of which I agree.  I go to a
    *fundamentalist* church.  Women are not allowed to preach in our
    church.  They are allowed to be teachers which is not the same office.
    
    I  happen to agree with the Bible in its entirety and in its basic 
    form... and I said a few Amens quietly last night in one whale of
    preaching service. :-)
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

    RE: .82
    
    Nancy,
     Glad your Amens were quiet......the ones I heard on my radio were
    real pulpit shakers!
    
    While I don't have your viewpoint, I can understand it.
    
    Marc H.

Fundamentalist is not equal to conservative and is
certainly not equivalent with evangelical.

Unfortunately, some people would rather

 - not be informed about the difference
 - use inaccurate labels anyway (fits in with
   stereotyping better)

Peace.

    RE: .84
    
    Don't know if your comments were to me or not...but.....
    
    I'm sure you have stated, before, your own definitions, can you try
    them here again?
    
    Marc H.

re Note 87.82 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Women are not allowed to preach in our
>     church.  They are allowed to be teachers which is not the same office.

        I don't so much care what they are allowed to do in the
        office -- what are they allowed to do in the sanctuary?

        Bob

    
  >Don't know if your comments were to me or not...but.....
    
  >I'm sure you have stated, before, your own definitions, can you try
  >them here again?
 
Some of my attempts are in 87.5, 87.7 and 87.38.

Actually, there's a lot of useful information in this whole
string.  In re-reading .49 and following, I see that time has
not changed some things in the slightest.

Collis

    RE: .87
    
    Thanks for the pointers......my own faith and resultant feelings have
    been slowly changing....as such, a re-read is helpful at times.
    
    By the way, are you confusing me with Richard? 
    
    Marc H.

Marc,

There is no way I'd confuse Richard with anybody.  :-)

My remark was indeed in reference to the very recent
discussions of labelling we've had the past week.  It
just happened to go into a note that was primarily meant
for you.

Collis

    O.K......
    
    
    Marc H.

>     Women are not allowed to preach in our
>     church.  They are allowed to be teachers which is not the same office.

Bob>        I don't so much care what they are allowed to do in the
Bob>    office -- what are they allowed to do in the sanctuary?
    
    
    Were you seriously asking or just making a %-} ??????
    
    

    > Glad your Amens were quiet......the ones I heard on my radio were
    > real pulpit shakers!
    
    Well, the men in my church put a 2.7 quake on the richter scale! :-)
    :-) :-)

  :-)

Note 87.81

>    The part I heard was about how the woman preachers in the UCC churches
>    ( i.e. Congregational) were "Satans" among us.....how the bible proves
>    that woman should not talk in church, only men.

Good ol' Timothy, again:

I Timothy 2:11  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
authority over the man, but to be in silence.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
2:13  For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
2:14  And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived...

Some will say this applies only to the formal worship experience.  It
seems to extend beyond worship to me.  Your own mileage may vary.

Peace,
Richard

    P.S.
    
    There are no female teachers to males in my church not even
    kindergarten.
    
    Women care for the babies and toddlers regardless of sex, but when
    sundayschool starts officially at 5-6 years of age, it's a man that is
    the teacher and oftimes their wives are helpers in the class.  I
    actually believe in this authority and have no issue with it
    whatsoever.  Why?  Because I believe the Bible to be true.
    
    Nancy

    Is the church wherever two or more are gathered in the name of Jesus
    or is it an organization of like-minded, professed believers?
    
    Richard,
    A man
    

    A church is an ecclesia or called out assembly..
    
    Nancy
    a woman

    Ecclesia does not suggest "called out."  It does mean assembly,
    however.
    
    So, to your way of thinking, you cannot teach the men who attend your
    "called out assembly," but any other time it's perfectly hunky-dory.
    It's insubordination inside your church, but not outside your church?
    Is that accurate?
    
    Richard
    

    I don't think so, because I don't teach outside my church.
    
    

re Note 87.95 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     There are no female teachers to males in my church not even
>     kindergarten.
>     
>     Women care for the babies and toddlers regardless of sex, but when
>     sundayschool starts officially at 5-6 years of age, it's a man that is
>     the teacher and oftimes their wives are helpers in the class.  I
>     actually believe in this authority and have no issue with it
>     whatsoever.  Why?  Because I believe the Bible to be true.
  
        Sounds like SOMEBODY did SOME picking and choosing.

        Bob

    RE: .95
    
    Although you are certainly entitled to your belief, I couldn't accept
    that type of church.
    
    A followon question , Nancy. In the secular world, how do you view 
    the man/woman/authority differently? For example, the equal pay for
    equal work concept.
    
    Marc H.

    .101
    
    Try reading Proverbs 31 and you'll see what I think of women working...
    there is nothing that says a woman cannot be a leader in the workforce,
    she's commanded to be so for her family.
    
    I believe that God created men to be spiritual leaders, I also believe
    that God will raise a woman to fill the void where men shirk their
    responsibilities.  In the book of Acts it even says that women will be
    prophets.   The rub comes in making sure your following God's call on
    your life and not your own ego's calling.
    
    Please don't confuse secular leadership with spiritual leadership.
    
    Nancy

Note 87.99

>    I don't think so, because I don't teach outside my church.
    
Oh?  I could swear that on more than one occasion you were trying to
teach me.

Richard

re Note 87.103 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> >    I don't think so, because I don't teach outside my church.
>     
> Oh?  I could swear that on more than one occasion you were trying to
> teach me.
  
        Some people distinguish between teaching and the "office" of
        teaching.

        (I don't.)

        Bob

    .103
    
    Perceptions are oftimes misleading.  "Can't judge a book by its cover."
    
    Discussions, conversations, are not *teaching*.  While one can and
    should learn from such things.  I learn too.
    
    Nancy

    So you feel woman should not preach based on the Adam and Eve story?
    
    What if the author of Timothy because of the culture of that day and
    the science of that day saw the significance of the story as different
    than we do today.  Do you believe that the significance of the Adam and
    Eve story is exactly the same today as it was in the first century.
    
    Patricia

    >What if the author of Timothy because of the culture of that day and
    >the science of that day saw the significance of the story as different
    >than we do today.  Do you believe that the significance of the Adam and
    >Eve story is exactly the same today as it was in the first century.
 
Excellant point, Patricia.  That is worthy of consideration.  I
think you'd be hard-pressed to make a convincing case, but I do
think that this type of thinking and questioning is critical
in order to come up with the best interpretation.

Collis

    Gee Collis,
    
    This is much more fun than name calling.  I think I understand where
    you are coming from now.  We probably will never see eye to eye, but we
    can dialogue.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia

    From George Lamsa's translation from the Aramaic of the Peshitta

    I Timothy 2:8-12

    "I wish, therefore, that men pray everywhere, lifting up their holy
    hands without anger and doubting thoughts.  In like manner also, let
    the apparel of women be simple and their adornment be modest and
    refined; not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly array; But
    let them be engaged in good works, as is becoming women who profess
    reverence for God.  Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 
    I do not think it seemly for a woman to debate publicly or otherwise
    usurp the authority of men, but she should be silent."



    Two points:

    1.  It says the woman is to learn in silence, but does not prohibit her
    from teaching.

    2.  It is clearly the author's *opinion* that women should not debate
    publicly, etc, as shown by the prefacing words "I do not think."
    
    Ruth

1.
The Greek, in verse 12, uses the word didaskein, a form
of the verb didako meaning to teach.  The Aramaic is
translation is interesting, but not something that I
would choose to base my theology upon when the original
Greek is available.

2.  The "opinion" is derived from verse 8 where, in the
Greek, Paul uses the word "boulomai" which means wish,
want or desire as a primary meaning.  However, when 
followed by an accusative and an infinitive, it means
"of decisions of the will after previous deliberation"
(according to Bauer).  The most interesting point is
one that should not be overlooked - the author is not
simply Paul, but God.  The only pure opinion that I see
Paul expressing in Scripture that is not God's command
is that Paul desires that all were like him - unmarried
(although you and I might not be around if that were
the case :-) ).  These instructions on worship don't
appear to be a personal preference from what I read, but
rather an appropriate way to worship in that culture.  I
daresay that the advice is still appplicable to our
culture.  Of course, looking on at various other passages
of Scripture that discuss leadership in the church make it
clear that there was an assumption of male leadership.
That, too, may have been cultural - but I don't think so.

Collis

                        
    I skip all that entirely....being a Unitarian Universalist member.  (;^)
    I've led many a summer lay service in the last several years too.  They're 
    always well-attended.
    
    Over Christmas, I found it slightly disturbing that the former principal 
    of my elementary school actually quit the local Episcopal church because 
    a woman is now the minister.  I recall many (many) years ago that I had 
    to fight to take the same aptitude tests that the 'boys' took in that 
    school.  Girls were excused from taking a few of them because 
    'traditionally girls don't become engineers'.  (This was in the 1960's.)  
    I scored in the 99th percentile in all of them.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    Thanks for writing .81, Marc.  
    
    You should listen to more of those types of things if you can.  
    Really scary in many instances.
    
    There's a great book entitled "Fundamentalism And American Culture", by
    George Marsden, that explains this concept quite well, and puts it into
    historical perspective.  It helped me to understand this topic when I 
    first read it about 6 years ago now.  It's a scholarly work (as opposed 
    to a sensationalistic one.)  
    
    Cindy

    RE: .113
    
    
    Our interium minister is a woman. I haven't agreed with her on every
    sermon, but, I can't understand any reason for rejecting her sermons
    based *only* on her sex.
    
    Marc H.

  >I can't understand any reason for rejecting her sermons
  >based *only* on her sex.

The pastor at my parents (Methodist) church is a woman and
I try to gain what I can from her sermons.  I don't object
to her sermons based on her sex; I do object to her role
as minister based on her sex (but I'm easy - it's not a
critical doctrinal issue in my eyes).

I was upset to hear her invitation to communion - anyone
who knows Christ or wants to follow Christ is accepted.
I strongly disagree with her that non-Christians should
take communion.

Collis
    

         
    Re.115
    
    Collis,
    
    That is, I believe, a Methodist-wide decision that all, including
    non-Christians, can take communion, and not the result of your female
    minister's opinion.
    
    This was also announced by a male minister in the Westford, Mass.
    church, and I believe I read it somewhere in a Methodist bulletin that
    this is a generally accepted practice in that church body.
    
    Cindy

 1 Corinthians 11 indicates that partaking of the Lord's Supper is 
 a fairly serious matter.




 Jim

    Collis,
    
    So the discussion about atonement does in fact get back to the topic on
    fundementalism and innerratism.  I guess this is where the topic
    finally belongs.
    
    There are many different opinions regarding "What is a Christian". 
    The fundementalists innerantist will use Paul's definition of
    Christianity as absolute.  If I believed that 1 Corinthians and Romans
    were  the innerant word of God, I would accept probably have to accept your
    defintion and would feel that the Methodist are pretty casual in who
    they invite to participate in communion.  I might expect a huge
    outbreak of dystentary after the service.
    
    So it does get back to whether each of us believe the Bible to be
    innerant or not.  I do not.  I agree with the Methodist definition of
    Christianity.  Anybody who knows Christ or wishes to follow Christ can
    consider themselves a Christian.  If a Moslem also considered
    themselves a Christian, I would invite them to participate in
    Communion.  I sort of doubt whether any would but that is there choice. 
    To know and follow Christ can mean different things to different
    people.  If I accept Christ as the incarnate spirit of God, then any
    religion that believes that God's spirit, God's word is available to
    humankind can be considered  Christian.
    
    I believe in a universal God.  God's word and God's spirit is available
    to people everywhere from all times.  IF that is what Christ is, then
    Christ has been available to many people, at many times, with many
    different names.  
    
    Patricia

Note 824.34

>  >There are at least two very different kinds of Christianity.
  
>Oh, I feel left out.  I don't fit into either category and
>now I'm lost.  Maybe you can make a new category for me?

Collis,

	I realize you try to distance yourself from these folks, but
honestly, except for a handful of superficial issues, I've yet to see any
significant difference.

Richard

Re:  87.125

  >I've yet to see any significant difference.

There were two significant points that caught my I that
certainly don't apply to me.

The first is the belief that revelation is closed.  There
are indeed a number of conservatives who believe this.
There are a number that don't.

The second is the inference that alive and vibrant is
somehow at odds with actually believing the prophets of
God.  Why denying what the prophets of God say make you
alive and vibrant is a total mystery to me.  I find it
is often quite the opposite.

Collis

Note 87.126

>The first is the belief that revelation is closed.

While I recognize that this is a difference, I'm not sure it is significant,
especially since you affirm a measure of ambiguity: "There are indeed a
number of conservatives who believe this.  There are a number that don't."

>The second is the inference that alive and vibrant is
>somehow at odds with actually believing the prophets of
>God.  Why denying what the prophets of God say make you
>alive and vibrant is a total mystery to me.  I find it
>is often quite the opposite.

Now this is really vague.  Are you sure this is a recognizable distinction?

Richard

re Note 87.127 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Note 87.126
> 
> >The first is the belief that revelation is closed.
> 
> While I recognize that this is a difference, I'm not sure it is significant,
> especially since you affirm a measure of ambiguity: 

        Richard,

        I always wince a bit when I see one person question another
        person's self-description.

        Bob

    .128
    
    You're right, Bob.  Perhaps it was not the best way to pose the question.
    
    My question is, "How does the fundamentalist belief that the revelation is
    closed manifest itself and make it distinguishable in those who are at
    variance on this issue?"
    
    Richard
    

I attended a seminar at Colorado College Saturday afternoon and heard Scott
Appleby as part of the college's annual symposium on religion and spirituality.
Scott Appleby is Associate Director of The Fundamentalism Project, a broad
effort sponsored by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that enlisted
more than 200 scholars since 1988 to examine fundamentalist movements in
seven major religions and across five continents.  Appleby is co-editor
(with Martin E. Marty) of "Fundamentalism Observed," which won the 1991
American Association of Publishers Award for best book in religion and
philosophy.

I realize for some readers the foregoing will give Appleby no particular
weight or credence.

Appleby spoke about the shared traits and elements of later twentieth century
fundamentalism in not only Christianity, but also Islam, Judaism, Hinduism
and Sikhism.

Only after speaking at length to dispel some of the more commonly held
misconceptions about fundamentalism and fundamentalists did Appleby begin
to describe some of the "family traits" of fundamentalists, Christian
and otherwise.  The following is only a glimpse of what Appleby had to
offer:  (The following should not be construed as a full and complete
summary of Appleby's talk, which was more than one hour in length.)

o  Fundamentalists believe they, and they alone, are the genuine article,
   the true believers, the faithful few.  Fundamentalism draws an absolute
   line over which one must step in order to gain the identity of "true
   believer."  These are always in absolute terms with no room for ambiguity.

o  Fundamentalists believe they are retrieving aspects of the true faith
   which have been lost, compromised, skewed or watered down.

o  Fundamentalists see themselves locked in battle between the secular and
   the sacred, between God's (Yahweh, Allah, Ramah) defenders and God's enemies.

o  Fundamentalists see themselves as the ones who are most deeply rooted in
   original sources: Bible, Koran, other sacred writings and places.

o  Fundamentalists see themselves as active agents of God (Yahweh, Allah,
   Ramah) in the unfolding of history.

o  Fundamentalists are, without exception, patriarchal.  Even in the
   few instances where their leaders are women, they are women who are
   supportive of patriarchal privilege.


Harry Emerson Fosdick once described (Christian) fundamentalists as "Mad
Evangelicals!"  I suppose, in more contemporary terms, fundamentalists might
be viewed "Evangelicals with an attitude!" ;-}


Richard

    Well, Richard you've done well at listing what someone else believes...
    what do you believe?
    
    Nancy

    RE" .130
    
    From my very limited knowledge of fundamentalists.......
    .130 seems right on target.
    
    Marc H.

>  Fundamentalists are, without exception, patriarchal.  Even in the
>   few instances where their leaders are women, they are women who are
>   supportive of patriarchal privilege.




Horrors!

    .130
    
    I won't deny that the DEFINITION of FUNDAMENTALISM is correct. 
    However, if we are fundamentally rooted in the Truth of God and His Son
    Jesus Christ, then there's no problem.
    
    If you are fundamentally rooted in Buddha, then there is a problem. :-)
    :-) :-)
    
    Grins all over my face as I wrote that. :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

Note 87.131

>    Well, Richard you've done well at listing what someone else believes...

Thank you, Nancy.  I don't deserve credit beyond paying attention to someone
who had already done the research.

>    what do you believe?
    
Well, while some of my beliefs overlap those of fundamentalist Christians,
my beliefs are not congruent with fundamentalism.

A general summary is contained with re-introductory note 3.119.

Peace,
Richard

In the 1960's, who did Jerry Falwell identify as the most dangerous man
in America?



	Billy Graham


This is not a joke.
    

In the 1980's, who did Bob Jones, Jr., identify as the most dangerous man
in America?



	Jerry Falwell


This is true, also.

    
    Who is Bob Jones, Jr.
    
    Cindy

 The son of Bob Jones Sr ;-)

    Bob Jones (Sr and Jr) are, how shall I put this, extreme right wing
    evangelist types. The families ministry runs Bob Jones University
    which ran into some trouble with the Feds some years ago over their
    admissions policy. They didn't accept African-American students. They
    did however accept African students. I never did understand the logic
    there.

    We used to read through the (Bob Jones) student handbook at the rather
    conservative college I attended just to see how "good" we had it. BJU
    had rules that let them expel male students if the students wife was
    dressed "inappropriately". If she, for example, wore shorts outside the
    house for other then yard work her husband could be tossed. There were
    other similar extreme rules but I forget them.
    
    I don't know that much about their brand of religion nor will I attempt
    to explain or defend what I do know. They're policies at least are more
    sexist and racist then I would *ever* be likely to accept. They would
    have tossed my brother in law and my sister out of school just for
    dating for example.
    
    			Alfred

    I've had the utmost pleasure of hearing Bob Jones, Sr., before he died. 
    I was young, but the impact left in my life is still evident today.
    
    He was a man filled with Holy Ghost and vision for the youth of
    America.
    
    Nancy

    My point with .136 & .137 is that even among fundamentalists there
    are factions and perceived degrees of "purity."  Falwell considered
    Graham too ecumenical, which is translated "compromising."  Graham
    was known to gather with Catholics, Jews and others on occasion.
    
    Jones considered Falwell, with his 'Moral Majority,' an example of
    compromise, also.
    
    There's a bit of irony there.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .140  Good information, Alfred.  Thanks!
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .142
    
    More than a "bit" I would say.
    
    Marc H.

 I subscribe to an Independant Baptist newspaper, "The Sword of the Lord"
 which recently editorialized on Dr Falwell.  He has aroused the ire of a 
 number of Independant Baptists by compromising in some areas.



Jim

Re:    Fingerpointing among fundamentalists

Since Billy Graham is an Evangelical (and more closely associated
with the Evangelical movement than any other person, alive or
dead), accusing him of being a Fundamentalist says a lot more
about you than about him.

Re:  Fundamentalists

It doesn't surprise me in the least that people consider those
who have views very similar in a number of ways - but differ in
important ways - as the greatest threat.  In fact, I think that
the premise is, in general, true.

Collis

    It has been reported that Billy Graham now believes there is no hell...
    don't know how true the above statement is... but I heard it from a
    reliable source.

    As I said before, a fundamentalist is an evangelical with an attitude.
    
    I've not been convinced that the "important" differences between
    evangelicals and fundamentalists are all that important.
    
    Richard
    

Scott Appleby, in his talk at Colorado College (See 87.130), brought up
something I've been wondering about for quite some time.  I've always
wondered how come so many fundamentalists can be found working in high
tech industries.

Appleby reminded his audience that people who work in high technology
are not generally people who deal with theoretical physics or anything
where the "ground rules" are subject to change or question.

Most who work in high technology know that a solution for a given situation
either already exists or can be made to exist -- it's really just a matter
of identifying and implementing the solution.  Zero or one; on or off; broken
or fixed; positive or negative; right or wrong (absolutes - precision - no
compromise).

Richard

                                               
    Richard,
    
    It's interesting though that of the many astronauts who have been in
    space - particularly on the moon - that they come back either reverting
    to their childhood faith (Jim Irwin, for example), or they go on to 
    experience the unity (Edgar Mitchell).  And for some, the journey had
    no affect on their faith and belief system.
    
    Also interesting that when I was in college, my Circuits teacher was a
    BAC, yet our physics instructors leaned more toward a unitarian view.
    
    As you know, I introduced Edgar Mitchell at the Hindu conference this 
    last summer.  He gave an interview for Hinduism Today that I helped
    to arrange, and I'll try to type it in one of these days.  He is an 
    absolutely lovely person and had done some amazing things since he
    went to the moon over 20 years ago now, including founding the
    Institute of Noetic Sciences, in Sausalito, CA.
    
    Cindy

Speaking of the moon:

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin was given a small package by his parish priest
just before he left for the very first flight to the moon.

Shortly after touching down (still inside the lunar module) he contacted
mission control and asked for a few minutes of silence while everyone
thought about the significance of what had just happened.

Then he opened the package his priest had given him and poured the liquid,
which "curled slowly and gracefully" into the chalice in the one-sixth
gravity of the moon.  It is interesting to know that the very first liquid
poured on the moon, and the first food eaten there, were the Most Precious
Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

/john

   >It has been reported that Billy Graham now believes there is no hell...
   >don't know how true the above statement is... but I heard it from a
   >reliable source.

What nonsense.  

There is a biography of Billy Graham out entitled "A Prophet with
Honor" which I have read the first 250 or so pages (I forget how
long it is, but probably over 500 pages).

Billy Graham accepts the Bible as fully true.

97.115

Bob,

>        As you might recall, I recoil from stereotypes, even this
>        one.  (Especially this one, after all, we're ALL in high-tech
>        here.)

I think Appleby would be the first to admit that the correlations made
in 87.149 are not without exceptions.  It should be reiterated, I suppose,
that Appleby's talk was lengthy and I've only provided a slice of it.
In full context, Appleby's assertions may not be perceived as quite
so stereotypical.

It may doesn't seem like it, but I've actually been trying to avoid
the pejorative in recent entries in 87.

Richard

PS  I agree with 97.116.  Good note!

    I think the link between spiritual beliefs and career is determined by
    personality types.  As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am very interested
    in Personality indicators such as the Myers Briggs indicator.  These
    indicators have a high correlation to the careers one choices and to
    the church one chooses.  I know that my personality type INFP is very
    much underrepresented in the Corp World and very much overrepresented
    in the Unitarian Universalist church.
    
    ISTJ and ESTJ are very numerous in the Corp World.  My guess is that
    these personality types are more highly represented in the more
    doctrinal churches.  NP tend to be very open ended and intuitive.  SJ's
    tend to be more detailed oriented and more closed ended.  I believe
    this accounts for the fact that there are more religious conservatives 
    in the business world.

    Collis,
    
    Before you are too quick to judge, you may want to check.  The person
    who gave out this information is VERY reliable... more reliable then
    most.
    
    A biography captures the truth of the moment... changes occur in
    individuals after biogrphies are written.
    
    Nancy

    re: Note 87.155 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > The person who gave out this information is VERY reliable... more
    > reliable then most.

    Care to shed some light on who this reliable source is... or does the
    source prefer the darkness of anonymity.
    
    Eric                                                       

    -1
    
    You wouldn't know him if I told you.  He goes to my church.
    
    Nancy

    re Note 87.157 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    You've repeated a couple of times, at least, that this is a "VERY"
    reliable source. The implication is that this person has intimate
    knowledge of Billy Graham's personal convictions; knowledge that Mr.
    Graham's own biographer is not aware (although you to insinuate that
    the biographer may not be totally honest).

    Although the name may not be significant to me, I'd still like to know
    what qualifies this person to make such claims. Who is this person and
    what makes him/her more reliable than Billy Graham's biographer?

    Thanks,
    	Eric

 Time Magazine, in late Decemeber, published an article about Dr. Graham, and
 from my recollection, his view on Hell has changed somewhat from mainstream
 Conservative Christianity.



 I have a trememdous amount of respect and admiration for Dr. Graham.  In
 my early days as a Christian I would watch his crusades on TV each time they
 were on, and do to this day.  I received for several years his monthly 
 newspaper, and also received many other publications from him.  I know there
 were some allegations at one time about financial mismanagement at his 
 organization, however they were quickly proven false.




 Jim

    .158
    
    I never said the Biographer purposely distorted truth.. get a grip.  I
    said that people can change after a biography is written.  Each time I
    learn something new, it helps create a very ambulatory Nancy.
    
    May I be a workman who studys not to be ashamed and lets the word of
    God and knowledge ever grow me.
    
    Nancy
    
    P.S.
    It's my Pastor... who never makes sweeping statements.
    

re Note 87.159 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  Time Magazine, in late Decemeber, published an article about Dr. Graham, and
>  from my recollection, his view on Hell has changed somewhat from mainstream
>  Conservative Christianity.
  
        Although it doesn't settle the issue one way or another, my
        conservative Catholic friends are fond of pointing out that
        the church isn't a democracy.

        A divergence from "mainstream Conservative Christianity", per
        se, means nothing.

        Bob

    .161
    
    The article basically stated that Billy Graham had changed his position
    on believing in a literal burning hell.  My apologies for mistakenly
    saying he didn't believe in hell any longer.  He's just changed his
    view of what hell is.
    
    Nancy

    
    > I never said the Biographer purposely distorted truth.. get a grip.  I
    > said that people can change after a biography is written.

    I have now gotten a grip. I apologize for ignorantly misrepresenting
    your statements regarding biographies. Mea culpa. Please forgive me for
    my sloppy note scanning and my to judgment.

    I am still curious, though. What makes you pastor uniquely qualified
    as a "very reliable source" regarding Mr. Graham. Is it just the fact
    that he is a preacher, or does he have a personal relationship with
    Billy Graham? 

    Eric

    Eric,
    
    I can understand your asking the question about my Pastor, since you
    don't know him.  Let me tell you that he is a man of utmost integrity,
    21 years in the ministry, 18 years at the church I now attend.  He is a
    man who has crippling arthritis in EVERY joint in his body... but when
    he stands behind the pulpit, you wouldn't know it.  
    
    I'm not saying that my Pastor is the Messiah or that he's never made
    mistake.  However, he has a strict rule about condemnation of another
    man's character, even if he disagrees with that man.  He basically
    stated a fact based on an article that Billy Graham himself wrote.
    
    So I'd say while my Pastor isn't personally chummy with Mr.Graham, Mr.
    Graham's own words are a fairly reliable source to quote.
    
    No problem on the misread of my previous note.  It happens.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

There is quite a difference between not believing in
hell and believing that the fire in hell that the Bible
talks about is symbolism rather than actual fire.

As I understand what you are now saying, Billy Graham
believes in hell but believes that it may not be a place
where literal burning takes place.

Collis

    re Note 87.164 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > He basically stated a fact based on an article that Billy Graham
    > himself wrote.


    Thank you. This is what I was looking for. Using the words "VERY
    reliable source" led me to believe that you were protecting the
    anonymity of someone who was giving you inside information...
    information that Mr. Graham would rather keep private. You know, like 
    "a reliable source at the Pentagon revealed that a covert mission..."
    or "a reliable source close to Ms. Harding said that Tanya knows more
    than she is telling." 

    It would have been less mysterious if you had said, "According to my
    pastor, Billy Graham wrote an article recently in which he stated he
    doesn't believe in the literal burning of hell." But perhaps I'm over
    sensitive.
    
    Thanks for the informantion, though.
    
    	Eric  

    .166
    
    I suppose ... :-)  Couldn't help but chuckle, not making fun of you..
    But I'm the last person who'd get involved with *secrets*... :-)
    

    
    RE:  .154
    
    Interesting observation Patricia.  I too love personality indicators
    and my Myers Briggs is ENFP.  I would have to say based on initial
    hunch that we have a greater diversity of personality types than your
    church.  I don't find it to be heavily dominant by ISTJ and ESTJ types
    any more than society in itself is.  It seems to me that Christianity 
    transcends personality types.  It's interesting that you don't see 
    the same in the UU church.  I wonder why that is....I'm sure our 
    intuitive minds are just buzzing with possibilities.  :-)
    
    My old boyfriend was an ISTJ...boy did I drive him crazy.  ;^)
    Actually it was mutual.
    
    Jill
    
        

I've gotten my hands on a book entitled "Fundamentalism: Hazards and
Heartbreaks," by Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent, forward by Steve
Allen, introduction by Isaac Asimov.

It is the most sympathetic book I've ever read that didn't embrace
the fundamentalist stance.

It explains that fundamentalism was never a denomination and that
fundamentalist tenets are now found to be embraced in widely varying
measure by members of nearly every denomination, including Roman
Catholics.

I'll be exploring some of the insights gained through this book here
in this file under a new topic:  Fundamentalism - The Problems of
Biblical Inerrancy."

Shalom,
Richard

    It is sad...  have you ever heard that verse about a foolish woman
    tears down her own house...
    
    Why would anyone wish to tear down the authority of God's word??
    
    IMHO, because the Word of God convicts behaviors that we hold near and
    dear to our hearts.  People interpret the word of God as condemnation
    versus everlasting life....
    
    Salvation is so simple it is freely given to all who receive... The
    Bible is the book of life, hope and love.... to tear it down, tears
    down all of Christianity... 
    
    Woe to those who destroy the foundation on which the very world was
    created.
    

    > Woe to those who destroy the foundation on which the very world was
    > created.
    
    As if that were possible... There are those, I agree, that hack away at
    it, but destroy it?... never.
    
    Woe to those who turn another's heart away from God...
    
    	Eric
    

    > As if that were possible... There are those, I agree, that hack away
    >at it, but destroy it?... never.
    
    Actually when one heart is turned away from God's Word it is
    destruction.

    > Actually when one heart is turned away from God's Word it is
    > destruction.

    Ahhh, but is it destruction of God or the individual. I maintain that
    mankind cannot destroy God, only his/her relationship to God. 

    This all ties back to assuming that God is the foundation upon which
    the Earth was created... the foundation you suggested was being
    destroyed. If you meant something different I'll just shut my yap ^:)

    Eric

    .173
    
    the individual of course..
    
    I was referring to world as being peoples...not earth.
    

    .170  Nobody, not even this demon-infested soul of mine, wishes to
    tear down the authority of the Bible.
    
    Those of us who do not idolize the Bible would like to pursue the
    truth, however.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    My house is not built on sand.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .175
    
    What T(t)ruth is important to you Richard?
    
    Thatsa Question Up there.. now I'm gonna make a statement as to what
    T(t)ruth is to me.. the question is still valid to you.
    
    I believe spiritually there is the Truth and there are truths.  You may
    even agree with this.  However, I believe all Truth is contained in the
    Word of God as it points towards God.  I also believe that truths are
    contained in the word of God, but can also be outside of the Bible. 
    Such as it is true if I stick my hand in fire it burns.  Simplistic
    example perhaps, but conveys the "truth" of my statement. :-) :-)
    
    Inerrancy bashing is tearing down the authority of the Bible in my
    view... 

    Inerrancy bashing?!?! 8*} Whoa!!
    

    Richard,
    
    I am trying to have a discussion with you on this... but I can see once
    again you tend pick and choose something other then on what the is the
    discussion.

    When someone rebukes a viewpoint it becomes bashing: Gay bashing...
    Inerrancy bashing. These are charged words that serve only to escalate
    the tension and lower the content... IMO, just in case anyone is
    confused.

    With that said, I think that questioning inerrancy undermines the
    veneration or mystification or iconification of the Bible, but, in my
    mind, not the authority of the Bible.
    
    	Eric

    RE: .180
    
    Correct. A good discusion is useful to all of us.
    
    Marc H.

    Re: .178
    
    Well, I've heard you called many things...but...Inerrancy bashing is
    a new, original one.
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 87.177 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Inerrancy bashing is tearing down the authority of the Bible in my view...


	Nancy, how can you believe that? I had thought according to your
beliefs that the authority can not be brought down. Now, maybe those who you
perceive to be unsaved view the Bible differently than you, and maybe to you
because of their views the Bible does not hold the same authority that it does
to you, but it can hardly bring it down to those who you perceived as saved. Is
this a coorect statement? 

	BTW, I think Richard said it right about those who do not idolize the
Bible would like to seek the truth. Too many people SEEM to hold the Bible up
higher than God. To me that is one of the real sorry states with religion.


Glen

    Inerrancy bashing!
    
    Now I like that expression.  I'll sign up for it.
    
    I believe that the doctrine of Inerrancy is a false doctrine, that it
    is idolatrous, and it leads away from truth and not to truth.  The
    doctrine of Inerrancy leads to oppression and a denial of truths that I
    hold most dear and most holy such as the equal worth and dignity of all
    people.
    
    Nancy, I respect your right to yell and scream and insist that us who
    see inerrancy as false doctrine are speaking contrary to what you
    sincerely believe is truth.  You do have to understand though that I
    think that inerrancy is just as wrong and harmful as you think it is
    good and truthful.  Both you and I want to know what God wants for us
    and we want to align our lives with the divine.  Each of us reads
    scriptures differently in trying to determine what is truly sacred.
    
    Patricia

    .184
    
    Now Patricia you are the first person that I've read in here that makes
    any sense to me.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    .185
    
    Gee Nancy,
    
    I'm honored. 
    
    Patricia

    Don't be surprised... while we may wrestle with one another for truth,
    I believe we are similarly motivated.
    
    

	Hi!

	I have problem which I will try to formulate here in the hope that
	someone can help me.

	I'll start with the basic question, and then try to show why this
	is a problem.

	"Why do (so many) fundamentalists, inerrantists or literalists find
	 it so difficult, nay, impossible to accept that the bible is not
	 that for which they regard it?" (To which I do not want an answer
	until the following has been considered).

	The research and growth in knowledge in recent years, together with
	the sharpening of scientific disciplines, has justified revisiting
	older theories and, in a considerable number of instances, required
	them to be revised. This applies in so many fields: natural science,
	cosmology, archaeology, anthropology, philology, history etc. that
	the cumulative knowledge is overwhelming. It is no longer possible
	to sweep this evidence away with the "all a load of unproven
	theory" argument. Even when *proof* in its absolute, final, etched
	in gold form is not always possible, the amount of supportive
	evidence for most theories is such that they must, *must*, be
    	regarded as valid. On which rock, I ask myself, is this church to be
    	built?

	But that is not all. The doubts, interpretations, conflicts and
	acknowledgement of biblical inconsistencies are written large in
	the history of the church. The very existence of dogma is proof
	of the existence of conflicting belief-based interpretations.
    	Even Paul, before the church, had problems with his fellow
    	apostles.
                                                                    
	Add to this that there is no biblical text which has come down to
	us in its original. All are, at the very least, third generation
	texts. Then there are translations of translations, each in and
	of itself an, albeit (largely) unintended, a rape of its original;
	since no two languages are 100% congruent.

	Are they afraid that to yield even a millemeter will bring the
	whole thing crashing down? Is there a belief that, to admit one
	biblical error is to make the whole a lie? To concede that Moses
	did not write the Pentateuch invalidates the Law? What difference
	will it make to a fundamentalist to acknowledge that Mary was not
	a virgin? And so on...???

	I know that some will answer that it is their faith which gives them
	strength to stand firm in the face of the evidence and, from some,
	I would accept this without question. From others, however, I would
	argue that they are afraid of the "truth", afraid of the consequences
	of venturing from behind the screen of inerrancy. From yet others,
	I think ego is in play: they have placed their bets and now it is
	a matter of personal ego that their horse wins.

	My problem arises out of the basic question, above, and becomes
	intensive when I pack it with the thoughts I've been kicking around
	here and then start to reflect these thoughts back on to myself.

	I am seeking the truth/Truth. I started my quest with an open mind
	and, after "scanning" the shelves in the Religion Supermarket, chose
	the pack labelled "Christian".  I had already started placing bets.
	I read the bible over and over. I had many questions, arising from
	my own life; born of the "gentle Jesus, sweet and mild" theology of
	my early teachers in the wake of a world war and personal tragedies
	and, later, multiplied by my reading and searching. Some of the
	answers I was given "felt" wrong; my search began to embrace history,
	theology etc. Once you start, there seems to be no end. I was
	steadily increasing my stake but had still not found the right
	horse; there are a lot of runners.
	
	But: I had inwardly, decided -- based on my learnings -- not to bet
	on some of them: the inerrantists, fundamentalists, and literalists.

	And there's the crunch! Once, in a session with my analyst, we
	"discovered" that, in communicating with others, one is confronted
	with hurdles, some large, some small, which have to be surmounted.
	The hurdles confronting me are the ego of my partner; & his hurdles
	are my ego.

	Is there a clash of egos which is hindering me in my search for 
	truth/Truth?

	I want to emphasize that, in all of the above, I have been kicking
	my opinions around; baring my soul to some extent. There is no
	intention to attack, or lowere the value of, any person or belief
	system. I am genuinely asking for help.

	Greetings, Derek.                                    

 I accept what the Bible says about my sin (Romans 3:10,23).  I then
 accepted the consequence of my sin (Romans 6:23)..I then accepted this
 free gift of eternal life that God promised me..since then all of the promises
 made to those who believe in Him have been fulfilled in my life, save the
 one about being with Him for eternity, and I have every reason to believe 
 that will be fulfilled.

 All of the stuff about scientific proof, etc is, to me, meaningless as a 
 result.  I know what my life was like before I came to Christ, and I know 
 what my life is like now..I need no other proof.


 "I need no other argument, I need no other plea
  it is enough that Jesus died, and that he died for me".



  
  Jim

 Here's a man who didn't need a great deal of proof..



  My Pastor related a story yesterday.  Seems a member of the congregation asked
  him to visit an unsaved relative living in another town.  Pastor agreed to do
  so.  One particular day he felt led to visit this man and went off to visit 
  him.  He knew he worked at a construction site and when he had found the
  site he noticed that there was no one at this site, except one man sitting
  on a bulldozer with the engine off..the man was just sitting there.  Pastor
  walked up and inquired as to whether he was the man he was to visit, and then
  climbed up on the dozer and introduced himself, and asked if he could share
  some things from the Bible with him..the man said, "please do"..and so pastor
  shared the Gospel with him and the man was saved..as the man didn't live near
   our church, he recommended a church to him and got him settled in..

  This past Saturday as pastor was working with some other men on our church
  land, one year after the above man was saved, he showed up on the land,
  and mentioned to the pastor who he was..Pastor remembered him and they 
  talked..the man had been a slave to alcholol and from the day he was saved
  he had not touched another drop, and had become involved in his church, 
  sharing Christ with others who were alcoholics..

   they talked for a while, and the man started to leave, then turned back 
   and said "Oh, by the way pastor....there's something you don't know..the
   day you came up to me as I was sitting on that bulldozer, I had shut it
   off and was planning the best method of committing suicide..I had reached
   the conclusion that there was absolutely no hope in this life and no reason
   to live..since that day I've helped many alcoholic men come to Christ".





 Jim

    RE: .190
    
    Great Story! But, how does it relate to fundamentalism?
    
    Marc H.

 Re .190




 It was meant as an example of the power of the Word of God to bring about
 change in one's life.  He wasn't convicted by a lot of scientific proof 
 and intellectual arguments.  He was convicted of his sin and his need for
 salvation through Jesus Christ.  And it seems it was hardly an accident
 that my pastor and this man met at the time this man had run out of solutions
 to life's problems.





 Jim

    RE: .192
    
    Again, I agree.....just looking for how fundamentalism, per say, 
    is part of the story.
    
    I see no reason why the pastor couldn't have been from any Church.
    
    Marc H.

	Jim, there was another thing that helped him. He listened to the words
of your pastor which were relayed to him by God. I mean, who else would have
put him there at that very moment? Great story and another great example how
God uses us to get His message out there.


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 87.194 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>	Jim, there was another thing that helped him. He listened to the words
>of your pastor which were relayed to him by God. I mean, who else would have


Correct...the very words that were written in the Word of God (note that my 
pastor asked the man if he could share some words from the Bible).  Remember
"Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"...

The man needed no scientific proof, no theological argument, no inerrancy
argument..only the Word of God which convicted Him..and true to what the
Word of God said, he was born again, raised to a new life, received the
Holy Spirit which guided him into all truth..
 


Jim

| <<< Note 87.195 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>


| >	Jim, there was another thing that helped him. He listened to the words
| >of your pastor which were relayed to him by God. I mean, who else would have


| Correct...the very words that were written in the Word of God (note that my
| pastor asked the man if he could share some words from the Bible).  Remember
| "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God?"...

	Agreed Jim. Like I have always said. The Bible is a great guide. There
are many things in there that help a lot of people. The Bible is just another
tool that God uses to help those in need. (IMHO)

| The man needed no scientific proof, no theological argument, no inerrancy
| argument..only the Word of God which convicted Him..and true to what the
| Word of God said, he was born again, raised to a new life, received the
| Holy Spirit which guided him into all truth..

	Like I said, the message that was relayed was just what the doctor
ordered. Dr. God that is. :-)  Messages can be very powerful. But after a while
people will look into things.


Glen

re Note 87.194 by BIGQ::SILVA:

> 	Jim, there was another thing that helped him. He listened to the words
> of your pastor which were relayed to him by God. I mean, who else would have
> put him there at that very moment? Great story and another great example how
> God uses us to get His message out there.
  
        This reminds me of the (tongue in cheek) insight I have into
        the existence of the spirit world and higher power:  just try
        to turn left* onto a busy street.  As soon as there is an
        opening on one side there will be a vehicle on the other. It
        will happen again and again.  This can't be by mere chance!

        Bob

        *for those of you in parts of the world that drive on the
        left, substitute "just try to turn right".

    .189 Welcome back, Jim.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re:  .197

Just goes that veering to the left can be hazardous.

Personally, I stay to the right.

:-) :-)

Collis

Note 87.188 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Another day older and deeper in deb"

>	Are they afraid that to yield even a millemeter will bring the
>	whole thing crashing down? Is there a belief that, to admit one
>	biblical error is to make the whole a lie? To concede that Moses
>	did not write the Pentateuch invalidates the Law? What difference
>	will it make to a fundamentalist to acknowledge that Mary was not
>	a virgin? And so on...???

As far as I can tell, inerrancy is a veritable house of cards.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 87.188 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Another day older and deeper in deb"

By the way, who is deb?
    
    
    
    
    ;-}
    
    

    Re: .201 Richard.
    
    If I kept my replies under 10 lines, you would read "debt". It's the
    price I pay for being so long-winded that I even have to borrow from
    my debts!  :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek  (I think I may have managed it this time!)

    RE 945.3 AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > What exactly is fundamentalism...

    Fundamentalism uses the Bible, and in some instances only particular
    translations, as its *sole* philosophical and theological work.
    Fundamentalism shuns science and research which do not result in
    bolstering a pre-desired outcome -- that all conclusions must conform to
    a narrow, literal reading of the Bible. The Bible is a mystical,
    venerated (in some cases iconified) and divine document. In fact,
    intellectual exegesis on spiritual (or even Biblical) matters is viewed
    as anything from fruitless to blasphemous. 

    The world to a fundamentalist is a binary system of good or evil, black
    or white. When conflicts arise they are rationalized away. When reality
    conflicts with dogma it is reality which must change, not the dogma. To
    disagree with the dogma is to be an iconoclast or heretic or some sort
    of demon inspired ghoul.

    > or what is the fundamentalism that constitutes the "radical religious
    > right?"

    The "radical" religious right, or the political manifestation of
    radical Christian fundamentalism, seeks to legislate its religious
    morality. Through well organized political groups, they embark on
    campaigns of character assassination and muckraking. They use terms
    like "family values" and "traditional morality" as a divisive
    rhetorical tool. To be against their agenda is to be "anti-Christian."
    To disagree with their spokesmen is "anti-Christian." To desire a
    separation of religious doctrine from state affairs is to be
    "anti-Christian." The "radical religious right" vilifies diversity and
    glorifies homogeneity.  
    
    And the worse sin of all is to be "liberal". For "liberals" seek to
    embraces and understand those who have different ideas, different
    frames of reference. This "liberal" viewpoint will tear down the very
    foundation of this country, in the mind of the radical religious right. 
    
    Just my opinion,
    
    Eric
    

    

>    Fundamentalism uses the Bible, and in some instances only particular
>    translations, as its *sole* philosophical and theological work.
>    Fundamentalism shuns science and research which do not result in
>    bolstering a pre-desired outcome -- that all conclusions must conform to
>    a narrow, literal reading of the Bible. The Bible is a mystical,
>    venerated (in some cases iconified) and divine document. In fact,
    
    True.
    
    
>    intellectual exegesis on spiritual (or even Biblical) matters is viewed
>    as anything from fruitless to blasphemous. 
    
    True/False :-)
    
    Intellectual exegesis alone doesn't feed the soul, it feeds the mind. 
    It's where reason begins and faith ends.  So in this case, it doesn't
    produce fruit in the spiritual sense.
    
    Intellectual exegesis alone doesn't have to be blasphemous, but most
    times it does become very contradictory, as is evidenced in here. 
    Taking scripture and trying to reason it away with a predispositoned
    point of view.  In  other words, trying to mould the Bible to fit you,
    versus letting the Bible mould you into His sons and daughters.
    

    >The world to a fundamentalist is a binary system of good or evil, black
    >or white. When conflicts arise they are rationalized away. When reality
    >conflicts with dogma it is reality which must change, not the dogma. To
    >disagree with the dogma is to be an iconoclast or heretic or some sort
    >of demon inspired ghoul.
    
    Well, this mostly false.  Again, this statement above is
    predispositioned on the "it's a good book" belief based on pure reason
    versus faith.
    

    Nancy    

    
    

    Eric,
    
    Could I ask you again for a definition of fundamentalism?  You've described
    some of the side effects, though not completely accurate. But can you
    actually define fundamentalism without characterization?
    
    I'm not trying to be testy, really.  I just believe that the definition
    more clearly describes the position better than a "media portrayed
    chracterization."
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

>    For "liberals" seek to
>    embraces and understand those who have different ideas, different
>    frames of reference. 
    
    Is this a definition of a liberal?  Does every liberal in the file
    agree with this definition? 
    
    If so,  as a fundamentalist, I too seek to embrace and understand
    different ideas, different frames of reference.   I use the word
    embrace meaning to fully understand.  I do not however, believe that
    all ideas are moral or beneficial.
    
    
    > This "liberal" viewpoint will tear down the very
>    foundation of this country, in the mind of the radical religious right. 
    
    Is this considered a good thing?  I have a feeling here that what the
    real issues are have nothing to do with the foundation of this country,
    but more with the sins of individuals in this country... 
    
    But based on the above, again, is this is a good thing and why?
    
    Nancy
    
    

    
    

    My description of "liberal" is my understanding of how the radical
    religious right views liberals. I was not speaking in the first person.

    "Embrace" does not mean to fully understand. It means to agree with or
    to include as valid. Given the correct definition of "embrace" I don't
    think fundamentalists seek to embrace different ideas. As a matter of
    fact, I would say it would be contradictory to fundamentalism to
    embrace anything but THE idea.

    My first two paragraphs were an attempt to define and/or describe
    fundamentalists. If you think I have missed the mark, please, by all
    means, give us the benefit of your own definition.

    Eric

    .207
    
    Your first paragraph truly encompasses much of what is fundamentalism.
    
    The diversity is in how that is applied in each person's life.  Much
    like the "foundation of this country" and the bill of rights. :-)
    
    Can you explain to me why there are so many ammendments to the
    constitution?
    
    And once you ponder that, then you can see how there must be an
    absolute morality by which we live, we can *never* please everybody. 
    However, with God all things are possible.  Without God, there is
    little hope for this world.
    
    I was just thinking how this world is being prepared for the
    Anti-Christ...  there will be a modern day messiah and many will
    follow this false prophet as he becomes the instrument of peace in the
    world..., and he will be a liberal for sure. :-) :-) :-)
    
    I hope you have a sense of humor.
    
    Aww, but back to defining fundamentalism - BASIC, ORIGINAL 
    
    

re Note 87.208 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     .207
>     
>     Your first paragraph truly encompasses much of what is fundamentalism.
    
        Since it has the ring of truth to my ears, and since Nancy
        and Eric agree to it, it is worth re-posting (Note 87.203 by
        APACHE::MYERS):

>     Fundamentalism uses the Bible, and in some instances only particular
>     translations, as its *sole* philosophical and theological work.
>     Fundamentalism shuns science and research which do not result in
>     bolstering a pre-desired outcome -- that all conclusions must conform to
>     a narrow, literal reading of the Bible. The Bible is a mystical,
>     venerated (in some cases iconified) and divine document. In fact,
>     intellectual exegesis on spiritual (or even Biblical) matters is viewed
>     as anything from fruitless to blasphemous. 

        I could never agree to fundamentalism as defined above (and
        as confirmed by at least one conservative).

        The problem with the above is, indeed, *fundamental*:  where
        is Christ?

        True, the Bible does point to and speak of Christ.  However,
        to put Christ second to *anything* is not Christianity.

        Bob

        P.S. Nancy, if this comes across to you as "tit for tat", I'm
        sorry, but I do believe that I have as much right to respond
        to you as you do to respond to me.

    .209
    
    No problem Bob.  Different subject, less subjective. :-)
    
    Actually believing the Bible as stated in Eric's note doesn't preclude 
    Christ's importance, it exudes it.  Christ comes first in every aspect
    of a fundamental Christian.  There can be no dissection between the
    Word and the Son, we believe they are one and same.
    
    Therefore, absence of the Bible doesn't mean absence of the Son.  But
    absence of the Son would mean absence of the Bible.
    
    :-)

re Note 87.210 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     There can be no dissection between the
>     Word and the Son, we believe they are one and same.
  
        Well, of course I believe they are one and the same, too, as
        supported by John 1.

        However, it is also clear from John 1 that "the Word" and the
        Bible are *not* one and the same.

        Bob

    re Note 87.210 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > There can be no dissection between the Word and the Son, we believe
    > they are one and same.

    The Word, in my opinion, is not the Bible. The Word is the message of
    Christ. In that sense I agree with you; Christ and his message are
    inseparable. If you mean the Bible when you said "the Word" -- and I'm
    not sure if this is what you mean -- then you are putting the Bible on
    par with Christ.

    > Therefore, absence of the Bible doesn't mean absence of the Son.  But
    > absence of the Son would mean absence of the Bible.

    Are you saying I can disagree with you about the nature and
    interpretation of the Bible and still be close to the Son of God? I
    thought fundamentalists coupled the Bible and Christ much closer than
    this statement indicates.

    My understanding of fundamental Christianity is that salvation is
    through Christ, BUT we cannot know Christ except through the Bible. 
    The Bible is the portal, if you will, through which we can reach
    Christ. Remove the Bible and although the Son is still there, our
    ability to reach him is lost. Is this not the fundamentalist view
    point?

    Eric

    Well, if you would've asked me a few months ago, I'd have struggled a
    lot more with your question.  But today I confidently say that knowing
    Christ comes through faith in Him whether the Bible has contributed to
    that faith act or not.  The Bible enhances the relationship with
    Christ.  In my case, it led me to Him through someone else.
    
    Nancy

    re  Note 87.213 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    Although it pains me to say it... :^)
    

    Great note, Nancy.

    Do you think your present view is the predominant fundamentalist view?

    Eric

    (I'm joking about the "pains me.." not the great note)

    .214
    
    Yes, I do, when pressed as you have pressed me to answer this.  The
    problem is that we do hold the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and
    believe the author to be Christ from beginning to end... and this
    belief is part of our faith.  
    
    Many people that I go to church would reject any notion that Christ and
    the Bible though are not equal are married if you will and that by
    rejecting one you are treading very close to rejecting the other, no
    matter what direction that flows. 
    
    I know that when I hear the Bible being picked apart, that it tears
    spiritually and emotionally at my heart... :-(  But I also know that
    what God requires [because I read it in the Bible] is faith in Christ
    as the Savior.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    .203  Well, Eric, it might be just your opinion, but that was the most
    succinct encapsulization I've ever read on the topic.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Perhaps the word press is too strong, Eric. :-)  I press my dress and
    look at this mess!

.208 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

    And once you ponder that, then you can see how there must be an
    absolute morality by which we live, we can *never* please everybody. 

OK. Even if I agree with the above (which I don't), who gets to pick THE
morality? I think what you really meant is that the absolute morality picked
MUST come from the bible, or you won't follow it, no? What if it comes from
Islam, or from me? Nancy, please correct me if I've mis-interpreted, but
whenever I see a statement like this my mind automatically translates it to
agree with MY morality. This is the kind of thinking that truly frightens me, as
the next step (the must be an absolute morality) is to translate it into law.

BTW, I tend to define a fundamentalist as anyone who has the answer (for them,
for me and for everyone) and can back it up by showing me a book as the absolute
last word (any book, it doesn't matter which), and who is willing to legislate
their answer so that I am forced to comply.

Steve

    Steve,
    
    You are right, the next step is in the choosing. And since we live in a
    democracy, it should be a majority rule.  As I have mentioned before, I
    believe that fact that we don't have [we, being Christians] a voice
    currently in congress, is not only individually our fault, but
    also the fault of our church leaders; Pastors and Deacons.
    
    So, we now have a majority rule that has taken the Christian values
    that founded this country and tossed them aside like garbage.  So, if
    myself and others like me, believe that this governing body is corrupt
    and lacks morality, then we must begin our own compaign to draw this
    country *back* to that which was good and of course, try and purge that
    which was unequitable.
    
    I believe the morals and standard of living this country had was not
    only beneficial to all, but also yeilded men seeking to wield their
    power and control to corrupt that which should have been uncorruptible.
    
    I think we should glean from the past and leave the mistakes behind. 
    There is no doubt in my mind that which is valuable to be gleaned, and
    honestly, I believe their is a majority of people who would believe the
    same.
    
    Nancy
    

re: .220 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

Nancy,

>    You are right, the next step is in the choosing. And since we live in a
>    democracy, it should be a majority rule.  As I have mentioned before, I
>    believe that fact that we don't have [we, being Christians] a voice
>    currently in congress, is not only individually our fault, but
>    also the fault of our church leaders; Pastors and Deacons.

First of all, (and once again), our system of government is NOT pure democracy.
I believe the official term for it is Constitutional Republic, but I may be a
bit off. What this means is that the items spelled out in the Constitution can
not be overridden by a simple majority vote. I also find your perception (ie.
having no voice in Congress) to be amusing on several counts. On the first
count, my view is that you are over-represented. On another count, I don't
believe that religion (yours or anyone else's) should have a direct say in
government.

>    So, we now have a majority rule that has taken the Christian values
>    that founded this country and tossed them aside like garbage.  

This nation may have been founded by people with Christian beliefs, but it is
not based on Christian values from a religious or governmentatl perspective. The
U.S. Constitution is a secular document, and does not mention religion other
than to prohibit governmental interference with it. In 1797, the U.S. signed a
treaty with Tripoli stating the "the government of the United States is not, in
any sense, founded on the Christian Religion". This document was drafted and
approved by many of the same men that you insist founded a Christian nation.

Now I don't disagree that the country has problems. I don't even disagree that a
return to your set of values might not improve things. On the other hand, I
strongly believe that imposing a particular set of religious laws will
definitely pervert what this country was designed to be, and could be. 

We all, Christians and Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and yes, even atheists, CAN
get along with each other and still allow the others to live as they wish. We
can come up with laws that more or less everyone can agree upon, without
dragging the (choose your favorite holy book) into it. Most of it is common
sense, by retreating into dogma and absolute (I KNOW the answer) positions all
we continue to do is fragment ourselves and society, and continue on the
downward spiral.

So you still didn't answer my question. If by some quirk Islamic law were voted
in as our absolute morality, would you follow it?

Steve

>First of all, (and once again), our system of government is NOT pure democracy.
>I believe the official term for it is Constitutional Republic, but I may be a
>bit off. What this means is that the items spelled out in the Constitution can
>not be overridden by a simple majority vote. 
    
    Ummm who can it be overridden by and how did this group get their
    power?
    
    >I also find your perception (ie.
>having no voice in Congress) to be amusing on several counts. On the first
>count, my view is that you are over-represented. On another count, I don't
    
    your opinion and my opinion differ... so what!  It isn't the first time
    and it won't be the last.
    
    >believe that religion (yours or anyone else's) should have a direct say in
>government.
    
    Morality doesn't have to be religion - it's just plain common sense for
    most.  

>This nation may have been founded by people with Christian beliefs, but it is
>not based on Christian values from a religious or governmentatl perspective. The
>U.S. Constitution is a secular document, and does not mention religion other
>than to prohibit governmental interference with it. In 1797, the U.S. signed a
>treaty with Tripoli stating the "the government of the United States is not, in
>any sense, founded on the Christian Religion". This document was drafted and
>approved by many of the same men that you insist founded a Christian nation.
    
    Well, then if the morality and value system which founded this country
    was as non-Christian as you seem believe it was, then you should have
    no problem whatsoever in returning to it.

>Now I don't disagree that the country has problems. I don't even disagree that a
>return to your set of values might not improve things. On the other hand, I
>strongly believe that imposing a particular set of religious laws will
>definitely pervert what this country was designed to be, and could be. 

    Read previous paragraph.
    
>We all, Christians and Muslims, Jews, Protestants, and yes, even atheists, CAN
>get along with each other and still allow the others to live as they wish. We
>can come up with laws that more or less everyone can agree upon, without
>dragging the (choose your favorite holy book) into it. Most of it is common
>sense, by retreating into dogma and absolute (I KNOW the answer) positions all
>we continue to do is fragment ourselves and society, and continue on the
>downward spiral.
    
    Well, I haven't seen much success in desegregation do you?  It seems
    there is more animosity and more violence in this country than ever
    before.  You tell me, has the "live and let live" mentality really
    worked?  Is that why Rodney King and Riots in L.A. demonstrate such
    progress?

>So you still didn't answer my question. If by some quirk Islamic law were voted
>in as our absolute morality, would you follow it?
    
    Probably not.  I'd probably be imprisoned for practicing my Christian
    beliefs. As Iran is currently doing to Christians in their country.

re: .222 JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

    Ummm who can it be overridden by and how did this group get their
    power?

Congress, by a 2/3 majority vote. The power still derives (theoretically, at
least) from the people. My point is that you still cannot override the
Constitution by a simple majority vote of the people.

    your opinion and my opinion differ... so what!  It isn't the first time
    and it won't be the last.

Agreed. (If opinions didn't differ this would be a dull notes file :^) As to the
so what, I was just attempting to point out how perceptions can differ. 

    Morality doesn't have to be religion - it's just plain common sense for
    most.  

Agreed. And if we could stick to that we would have a basis for working it out.

    Well, then if the morality and value system which founded this country
    was as non-Christian as you seem believe it was, then you should have
    no problem whatsoever in returning to it.

I didn't say the base system was non-Christian, I said that the system of
government set up by these folks (most, but not all, of whom were Christian) was
PURPOSELY non-Christian. The Christian principles you speak of were not
legislated then (for the most part) and are not legislated now (for the most
part). If you are talking about returning by legislating the Bible, we have
problems.

    Well, I haven't seen much success in desegregation do you?  It seems
    there is more animosity and more violence in this country than ever
    before.  You tell me, has the "live and let live" mentality really
    worked?  Is that why Rodney King and Riots in L.A. demonstrate such
    progress?

So you believe that we should try dogma, and that your dogma is the correct
dogma? Do you believe in segragation? I do see progress, a lot of progress. I
see millionaire black athletes in sports they were kept out of before
desegregation. I see black politicians where they weren't even allowed to vote.
I see some desegregated schools that work, as well as some that don't. I haven't
seen any signs recently telling blacks where to sit, or wash there hands, or
where they can't go. Sure there are still problems, so we aren't there yet.
(What does this have to do with the topic at hand, he wondered, as his hands
flailed wildly at the keyboard, seemingly of their own accord).

    Probably not.  I'd probably be imprisoned for practicing my Christian
    beliefs. As Iran is currently doing to Christians in their country.

And I would be saddened, as I would we, as a nation, took to jailing people for
not believing a set government doctrine. And THAT is what the Constitution seeks
to avoid.

Steve

    .223
    
    No, I don't believe in segregation.  But desegragation wasn't the
    answer.  It has created some very hostile schools in which all races
    must attend.  The kids have created their own way to segregate though,
    take a look at gangs.
    
    The answer lies within accountability.  There once was accountability
    in this world.  Fathers were accountable to provide for their families. 
    Mothers were accountable to their children and homes.  Children were
    accountable to Mothers for there behavior, whereabouts and education.
    
    There was some order...  Of course, this wasn't perfect, there is no
    perfection in this life.  But this was as close to perfection as I
    believe that we can get.
    
    Since women are not going to be leaving their careers and run back home
    to provide for their children.. for many reasons, divorce, greed,
    mis-directed fulfillment :-), then there must be a way to bring
    accountability back into our lives.
    
    #1 pet peeve... Child abuse should be no excuse for violent crimes. 
    Child abuse should not be allowed to be entered into the courtroom as a
    defense for a person's behavior.
    
    I believe that Child Abuse should only be allowed to be offered and
    challanged for sentencing purposes.  I think our jails need to be
    re-defined and managed in a way to not just punish, but to reform.  
    
    Reformation of an inmate can mean strict discipline, hard work and
    counselling that is monitored by a more qualified probational board.
    
    #2 I think that parents who leave their children unattended while they
    work up to 18 years of age, should be fined.  Much like a traffic
    ticket... and the more tickets you get the bigger the fine.
    
    #3 I think we need to set up more after school and summer programs for
    all ages up to 18 or graduation from High School, instead of SEX
    educational programs.  If we had our kids in a place where they were
    accountable for their behavior, then SEX ed classes would become less
    and less needed.  I think also you would see a drop in drug usage.
    
    I also believe in this country, we tend to think that children who can
    feed, clothe and make their beds as grown up.  If you look at the ages
    of our youth being arrested for criminal activity you will find that
    15-18 year olds are on the top of the list.  Think parents who allow
    their teenagers to go unsupervised should be punished.  
    
    If you got a good kid, bravo... set him/her up to succeed by placing
    them in a position to be accountable for every after school or summer
    minute, while Mom and Dad work.
    
    We've lost it in this country... just lost it and our children to boot.
    

    
    Well, Eric, 
    
    I can't agree with your definition of fundamentalism because too 
    often as a conservative Christian I get labeled a fundamentalist by 
    some folks and your definition does not mirror my life.  You've 
    combined many kinds of people into your narrow description of a 
    fundamentalist Christian.  If I am indeed a fundamentalist Christian 
    then this is a more accurate, although probably not encompassing, 
    description of what a fundamentalist Christian is:
    
    We believe in God the Creator.  We believe that mankind whom God
    created for fellowship with Him fell from grace because of pride and
    disobedience against God.  We believe that God because of His love
    provided a Way back into His grace and fellowship through Jesus, the
    second person of the Trinity, taking on the body of a man, living a
    sinless life, and becoming the eternal sacrifice for the sin of all
    mankind and rising from the grave defeating death for all that would
    follow Him.  This sacrifice is a gift that must be accepted to come
    back into fellowship with God.  It is the only way back to God.  Our
    lives are to be hidden in Christ Jesus.  We stop clamoring for our own
    way and desire that Christ lives through us. Just as Christ carried His
    cross to His death, we likewise, are to be obedient to the Father's
    (first person of the Trinity) will to our deaths. But death has lost
    it's sting for a follower of Christ, because He defeated it.  We will
    live with Him on high for all of eternity.
    
    Now how do we know these things?  Because they were passed down to us
    by God through His followers.  How?  They were recorded in the Bible. 
    A book inspired by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, the third person of
    the Trinity.  We believe that the Bible as given to those prophets and
    apostles and later canonized is the inspired Word of God that in it's
    entirety points to Christ; man's only salvation.  We don't believe that
    any part of it should be thrown out because all of it is useful for
    teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. 
    Believing it to be the Word of God, we believe the Bible to contain
    truth because God does not lie.  We study the Bible and pray to learn
    more about God, ourselves, our relationship to Him, and His will.
    
    We believe we are to be in the world, but not of the world.  We believe
    we should be transformed to the image of Christ and not conformed to
    the image of this world.  We believe we must be prepared to give an
    answer of the hope that lies within us.  This not only comes through
    studying His Word but studying the evidence available to prove to
    others it's truth. We look for the proof we can find from an
    evidentiary study of the Bible. We look for the proof we can find from
    a historical study of the Bible. We look for the proof we can find from
    an archeological study of the Bible. We look for the proof we can find
    from a scientific study of the Bible. However, we will not be conned by
    proof offered up by "men of intellect" who oppose the Bible and the
    truth it presents not because they have genuinely discovered that it
    was untrue, but because their motives are impure.  Men like Huxley who
    said that we must disprove the Bible because if it is true then there
    is a God and He will cramp our lifestyles by wanting us to give up the
    vices we use for pleasure (not an exact quote, but the gist).  Indeed
    the fundamentalist Christian and the atheist have something in common
    we are both seeking to prove that which we believe by faith.
     
    A fundamentalist Christian believes that Christ should radiate from all
    areas of his/her life.  We are to be obedient with our whole lives.
    Therefore we strive to decompartmentalize our lives and give over our
    lives to Christ.  We believe God should lead us in all areas of our
    lives whether it be how to parent, politics, work habits, finances,
    caring for those less fortunate.  We care about those around us and
    this world we have been put in and we strive to be obedient to the
    Great Commission of our Lord by letting others know of His saving
    grace.  We believe that we need to take care of people's physical needs
    before they can even comprehend their spiritual needs.  We strive to
    invest our lives in God's eternal kingdom and not this temporary world. 
    And all the while, we long to be home...away from the turmoil of this
    world...home with our Savior and Lord to live in peace eternally. 
    Until that day we struggle to put aside our sinful nature and let
    Christ live our lives.  We are far from perfect, but God will finish
    the work that He started in us.  We are in the process of becoming what
    He fully intends us to be.
      
    This is far from conclusive, but it's a least closer to where the heart
    of (if I'm to be considered) a fundamentalist Christian is.
    
    Jill

    What you've provided is essentially a credo or statement of faith,
    Jill (some of which, you possibly realize, overlaps non-fundamentalist
    Christianity).  While it may be a good thing, I wonder how useful it is
    as a definition.
    
    My sense is that non-fundamentalist Christians know exactly who they're
    talking about when referring to fundamentalists, while fundamentalists
    don't seem to see themselves as definable other than as the *real*
    Christians.
    
    Richard
    

  My perception is that there is no such definable entity as so called
  "fundamentalism". There was at first; the term was created by the
  leadership of the 1895 Nyagra (sp) Bible Conference, there were five
  basic tenents which were claimed to be "fundamental" in order for 
  an individual or church to call themself "christian" (Inspired scripture, 
  virgin birth, etc). I belief the Conference was a reaction to the 
  Neo-Orthodox movement, the term "fundamentalist" stuck.  Since then the 
  spiritual descendants of said bible conference have added other elements 
  (such as a belief in dispensationalism: not necessary to salvation, but 
   required to bear the title of  "fundamentalist"). Today the closest thing 
  to an officiating body is the IFCA (Independant Fundamental Churches of 
  America - it may have been disbanded by now, I dont know). Many 
  "fundamental" churches (during the time I was involved with it) had
  left the IFCA for two ironic reasons 1) "They have gone overboard in their
  strictness and isolationism" or 2) "They have recapitulated". This is a clue 
  as to the subjectivity of "fundamentalism" and its definition.

  The term has indeed become a relative one, for instance, if you believe in 
  the Trinity, some Unitarians would label you as a "fundamentalist".

  In addition the term has inherited a negative nuance from groups such as
  "fundamentalist shiitites", etc.
 
  Hank 
  

re: .225 CSC32::KINSELLA "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand."

    Indeed the fundamentalist Christian and the atheist have something in common
    we are both seeking to prove that which we believe by faith.

Jill, you show the same lack of understanding around atheism that you lament at
the top of your note about others lack of understanding about fundamentalism. I
am not seeking to prove anything. I have simply not seen *any* evidence to prove
that God exists. Saying that I have a 'faith' that God does not exist is the
same as saying that I have 'faith' that there are no flying saucers. 

Steve

    .226
    
    Richard,
    
    Jill's statement is exactly what I believe and I am fundamental. 
    Fundamental doesn't mean extremist.  It means Original/Basic.
    

    .228
    
    So you believe that your lack of faith in God constitute faith in
    nothing?   Perhaps you are still searching where to place your faith
    and until then have you placed it in yourself?
    

    I would submit that fundamentalism is as difficult to narrowly
    define as New_Age.  There are plenty of exceptions and even
    contradictions.
    
    I would also submit, as a sociology instructor of mine taught,
    stereotypes are useful only when they're understood to have
    "fuzzy edges."  As long as anyone is looking for a hard-edged
    definition of contemporary fundamentalist Christianity, there'll
    always be ways to poke holes in it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .230  Might I suggest pursuing your inquiry in the Atheism topic?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
     Steve,
    
      Why is there a universe? 
    
    
    David

    
    Ahhhh but Richard...how can you leave out faith in the description of
    any Christian, fundamentalist or otherwise?  If a Christian is supposed
    to be faith in action, then the actions and the faith should be an
    inseparable combination.  Should they not?  Eric has painted a portrait
    of a "spiritual boy in the bubble."  Is that really how you see a
    fundamentalist?  Yes, I do believe in the literal truth of the Bible,
    but Eric takes it further and states that we deliberately avoid with
    consistency (the dictionary's meaning for shun) other philosophical and
    theological works.  Gee, that would certainly mean that a
    fundamentalist could not take part in this file as all kinds of other
    philosophical and theological works are discussed. A good FC by his own
    definition would not be in here debating anything. We certainly
    wouldn't be checking out what other religions have to say. I guess I
    wouldn't have taken the philosophy and religious study classes in
    college that I deliberately took if I were an FC.  As a matter of fact
    I wouldn't be reading any of the 4-5 other books that I'm currently
    reading because all I would need is the Bible.  The fact is I don't
    live in a bubble.  I read quite often.  I'm well educated.  I don't
    suppress my doubts, I research them.  Despite the black and white that
    I see, I still run up against moral dilemmas that require me to reason. 
    People often ask me for advice and I don't always have a black and
    white answer for them. No, my life is not a robotic and simplistic as
    Eric might make it out to be, so that either means I'm not a
    fundamentalist or I am and his definition is way off albeit concise. 
    How is this for a *fuzzy edged* description of a FC:
    
    The dictionary says that fundamentalism is a protestant movement
    charactized by a belief in the literal truth of the Bible and the
    adherence to that belief.
    
    It's concise, it's non-judgmental, and I'd say much more accurate.
    
    Jill 
    
    P.S.  And as for my political activity...I exercise my right to vote
          and I voice my opinions when someone brings up a topic in my
          presence.  I don't belong to any political groups nor do most
          Christians that I know.  Hardly radical.
    

    RE: .228
    
    Steve, I don't lament being misunderstood.  I think anyone who is truly
    willing to listen to what I have to say, has at least a framework to
    understand me in.  Granted it's not complete because noting is very one
    dimentional.  I don't believe I've misrepresented atheists.  Just as I
    have founded my life on the axiom that there is a God, you have founded
    your life on the axiom there is no God.  Neither can be ultimately
    proven by either of us, so how do we believe it, we accept it on faith.  
    Since I don't live your life, I won't presume as to what you have or 
    haven't seen.  However, I will express my doubt that you haven't seen 
    any evidence of God, but will readily agree that you haven't accepted any.
    
    Jill

    re Note 87.225 by CSC32::KINSELLA

    > I can't agree with your definition of fundamentalism because too often
    > as a conservative Christian I get labeled a fundamentalist by some
    > folks and your definition does not mirror my life.


    While my definition might not have been complete enough, is there
    anything in my definition that is incorrect? Unless I misstated
    something, then the definition isn't wrong; although it might be
    incomplete.

    FWIW, "fundamentalist" as it applies to religion -- any religion --
    means more than simply "basic" or "original", as has been stated here.
    There is an implication of a certain level of zealousness, self
    certainty, and exclusivity. In fact fundamentalist Christianity is a
    re-evaluation of Christianity and not original (and certainly not
    traditional!) Christianity. It is the outpouring of the "Great
    Awakening" movement of the late 19th and early 20th century.

    In my mind, one can be a devout conservative Christian and not be a
    fundamentalist. 

    Eric

>    FWIW, "fundamentalist" as it applies to religion -- any religion --
>    means more than simply "basic" or "original", as has been stated here.
>    There is an implication of a certain level of zealousness, self
>    certainty, and exclusivity. In fact fundamentalist Christianity is a
>    re-evaluation of Christianity and not original (and certainly not
>    traditional!) Christianity. It is the outpouring of the "Great
>    Awakening" movement of the late 19th and early 20th century.
    
    Who do you include as the leaders of the Great Awakening movement?
    
    The zealousness you describe is oftimes imho not by fundamentalist
    but zealots disguising themselves as Christians. :-)

 >   In my mind, one can be a devout conservative Christian and not be a
 >   fundamentalist. 

   Only if your still equating zealots to fundamentalism.
    

    
    RE: .237
    
    Hi Eric, I think my note to Richard (.235) should cover most of my
    disagreements with your statement.
    
    There have been many movements throughout history in the church.  Some
    right, some wrong.  Some provoked by godly men and others provoked by
    ungodly men.  All having some impact on organized religion.  I do *not*
    equate religion with Christianity.  I feel a person can be very
    religious without being a Christian.  I believe God can transcend
    religion through His Word and in our hearts.  My relationship with
    God isn't about religion.  I act on my faith in God and my actions
    may be seen as religious, but that's not what is at the core.
    
    I would moreover accept this statement as a definition of FC than your
    other rather judgmental statement:
    
        "Fundamentalist" as it applies to religion -- any religion -- means
        more than simply "basic" or "original".  There is an implication of
        a certain level of zealousness, self certainty, and exclusivity.
    
    I do hold to the basic truth of the Bible.  I am zealous in my belief.
    I do have a certainty of my salvation.  Last, there is an exclusivity
    about Christianity as only those who believe the truth of the gospel
    will be saved.  But I am not the one at the gate deciding who gets in
    and doesn't get in.  I may have opinions about people based on the
    fruit I've seen in their lives, but that counts for naught because I 
    don't know their heart.  I also believe in Christianity's inclusiveness.  
    How many exclusive clubs let the outsider decide if he'd like to join?
    
    It would be interesting to hear what you think separates a devout
    conservative Christian from a fundamentalist Christian.  I don't see
    that distinct drawn too often in this file.
    
    Jill
    

    Re .227:
    
    It appears to me that there are only three useful definitions of
    fundamentalism.  The first two are technical terms and should probably
    be capitalized, as Fundamentalism.  The third is a popular term and
    doesn't rate a capital letter.
    
    The first two are "adhering to the five resolutions of the 1895 Bible
    Conference at Nyagra (sp)?," and "member of the IFCA."
    
    The third is a vague term meaning something like "truculently strict
    and conservative" or "more conservative than I care to put up with."
    The term is now applied in the context of any religion, e.g. Islam, and
    its metaphorical uses outside the context of religion are getting
    common; eventually, they may cease being metaphor.
    
    The popular term has strong negative connotations but is not quite yet 
    recognized as a term of abuse because of the survival of the other two 
    more technical meanings.  Eventually, it may come to mean "right-wing 
    fanatic"; it doesn't yet, but that looks like the direction it is headed.
    
    People wishing to be clear should probably focus on the exact issue in
    question and describe the person or group as "Biblical inerrantist" or
    "opponent of pronography/abortion/etc.," or "proponent of school prayer
    /aid to parochial schools/etc."  If the context calls for more
    generality, "conservative" or "strict conservative" would be less
    loaded terms.
    
    Just my personal impressions as a wordsmith.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    Fundamentalism (capitalized because it begins this sentence) has
    been encapulized here, it seems to me, more clearly and accurately
    than has New_Age, secular humanism, or any of the other "-isms"
    fundamentalists tend to disparage.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  Is there a reason you don't introduce yourself in topic .3?
    

    Re .241:
    
    Because I didn't know it was there.  I have only recently begun reading
    this conference with any regularity.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

.241

So when can we start talking about a fundamentalist new-age group?

Steve

    Almost everything I know about fundamentalism or Bible believing
    Christianity I have learned from this conference and my brief sojourn
    into Christian.
    
    Do you feel that these sources are an accurate representation of "Bible
    believing Christianity"
    
    In evaluating my learnings, I am trying to understand whether what I
    have learned is truly representative or how it may be skewed?
    
    My feeling, is that the learnings are pretty representative.  What do
    you all think!
    
                                    Patricia

    .244
    
    Patricia,
    
    I am a Bible believing Christian.  However, I am not a Bible
    believing Christian in the same sense that those who label themselves
    Bible believing Christians are.
    
    It has been my experience that fundamentalism, as it is represented
    here, is not as severe, as dogmatic or as rigid as it sometimes is
    outside this notesfile.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    What is your definition of Bible believing as you define yourself?
    
                                       Patricia

.244>  Almost everything I know about fundamentalism or Bible believing
.244>  Christianity I have learned from this conference and my brief sojourn
.244>  into Christian.

i have mostly met in notes files what i perceive as fundamental christians 
(going by the definition in 244.1) 

over a year ago, there was one enormous 'outing' (invasion would be an 
inappropriate term) of what seemed like fundamental christians in my home 
note file, the german DEUTSCH.NOTE. the debate, at times very intensive, 
lasted several months. 

the bone of contention between secular christians (i use this term for folks 
like me, basically non practicing christians) and the fundamentalists was 
meaning of the life of christ and interpretation of the bible. a typical 
fundamentalist argument: "you cannot use the bible as a self-service store, 
you must take it all or nothing".

the anger at this dogmatism boiled to a point where the most outspoken 
fundamentalists eventually, and quite literally, felt the urge to flee from 
the discussion, leaving behind a void, which curiously moved some of the 
secular christians to pick up some fundamentalisms... incidentally, the 
fleeing fundamentalists were cordially invited back to the discussion. this 
time however, with no more attempts at mass evangelization by the initiators
of the debate, the discussion become more even-balanced and enriching for all, 
with old factions dissolving and new friendships evolving.

at the turning point of the debate it was decided by the noters community to 
hold a 'council' and to get to know one another. meeting people face to face,
i discovered, that i couldn't tell a fundamentalist in the street if i met one.
i hadn't expected otherwise.

what i want to say with this is that "fundamentalist" is as much a
label for a stereotype as "bible believing christian" or "conservative"
or "christian" or "gay" or "radical" or "liberal" or "feminist" or whatever.

whatever label we feel un/comfortable with, we're always dealing with people, 
nobody is perfect and loving neighbours and opponents is difficult enough
when communicating through an electronic medium, where communication is 
difficult at best! :-)


andreas.

> (going by the definition in 244.1) 

actually that should read 87.1 instead of 244.1, even though 244.1 is cute!

    .246
    
    Patricia,
    
    I intend to reply to this question in topic 1053 in the near future.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    There is a group of Christians that I identify as Fundementalist but I
    dislike using that term knowing that the members of the group object to
    the term.
    
    I tried using the term "Bible Believing"  and Richard, your response
    leads me to believe that that term may not be the right term.
    
    I reject using the term Evangelical because that term implies the idea
    of spreading the good news which if one has the Good News, then it is
    obvious that they would want to spread it, but there is a real question
    in my mind regarding the interpretation of what is the good new.
    
    Conservative is a political label.
    
    The group is easy to identify.  I am including the statement of Faith
    as found in the "Christian" notes file.
    
    
    
           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 2.1                      Conference Guidelines                      1 of 10
TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"       40 lines  16-FEB-1993 12:33
                            -< Statement of Faith >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 STATEMENT OF FAITH
                _____________________________________________________

WE BELIEVE...   o the Bible is the inspired and only infallible and
                  authoritative Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter
                  1:19-21)

                o there is one God, eternally existent in three
                  persons: God the Father, God the Son and God the
                  Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)

                o in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin
                  birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His
                  vicarious and atoning death, in His bodily
                  resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of
                  the Father, in His personal future return to this
                  earth in power and glory to rule a thousand years

                o in the blessed hope, the rapture of the Church at
                  Christ's coming (1 Thesselonians 4:17); in the
                  resurrection of both the saved and the lost, the one
                  to everlasting life and the other to everlasting
                  damnation (Daniel 12:2; John 11:25,26; Revelation
                  21:7,8)

                o the only means of being cleansed from sin is through
                  repentance and faith in the precious blood of Christ
                  (Ephesians 1:7)

                o regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely
                  essential for personal salvation (John 1:13; 3:3;
                  1 Peter 1:23)

                o in the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit by whose
                  indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a holy
                  life (Galatians 5:16)

                ______________________________________________________
  
    What is the appropriate name to use in refering to this self defined
    group within the Christian community?
    
                                       Patricia
    

>    What is the appropriate name to use in refering to this self defined
>    group within the Christian community?
    

orthodox.    

    	Pat Robertson uses the phrase "Evangelicals and conservative
    Catholics."  When I use the term "fundamentalists," I'm identifying
    pretty much the same people.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

   "The great appeal of the Reformation was to holy scripture, taken in its
plain, literal, historical sense, without appeal to either the allegorical
interpretation or the ecclesiastical tradition which had hitherto accompanied
and supplemented it.  The Roman Catholic system of theology was treated as
'mythological,' as were also the legends of the saints, the historical fiction
of the donation of Constantine, the theory of the two power, secular and
sacred, appointed to govern mankind, the treasury of merit, the seven
sacraments (instead of the two found in the gospels), the sacrifice of the
mass, the doctrine of Purgatory and the practices which clustered about
the belief, the sale of pardons and indulgences -- all this mythological
accretion to primitive Christianity was swept aside, and a pure 'scriptural'
system was substituted for it.  But by the end of the nineteenth century or
early in the twentieth, it began to appear that Protestantism likewise,
though not equally, was 'mythological.'  Devotion to the plain, literal
sense of scripture had produced Fundamentalism on the one hand and Historicism
on the other."

	pg 31, _Ancient Judaism and the New Testament_, Frederick Grant (1959)

Shalom,
Richard

[The following is an adaptation of notes taken during a church retreat.]

What are the qualities of fundamentalism?

o  The fundamentalist is convinced fundamentalists have the whole saving
   truth.

o  The fundamentalist has an intolerant attitude toward differences.

o  The fundamentalist is in search of simple answers.

o  The fundamentalist always has a devil (evil) to blame.

o  The fundamentalist has a desire to impose the fundamentalist view on all
   of society.

What are some beneficial things I've learned from fundamentalists?

o  I've come to realize the importance of knowing the basics of the faith.

o  I've come to realize, by contrast, the degree of difficulty I have in
   sharing my own faith.

o  I've come to realize the importance of knowledge regarding the Bible.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I agree with you.  Particularly with the section on what is important
    to know.
    
    1.  It is important to know as much as possible about what the
    fundementalist position really is.  I person have come to realize that
    the fundementalist position is one that lack's faith in God's ability
    to touch and impact positively every person.  Since the position lack's
    faith in God's direct access to humanity(The key question asked is "how
    do you know the spirit impacting you is the spirit of God") it directs
    its faith to the Bible instead.  This understanding has given me new
    confidence in the Faith position of my own denomination.  Knowledge in
    my opinion could regenerate and enhance each of the main line churches.
    
    2.  It is important to articulate one's own faith.  UU's for instance
    have had a tremendous aversion to evangelizing.  People will not find
    and understand alternatives to fundementalism unless others are as
    willing to indentify the tenants of their own faiths.
    
    3.  It is critical to know the Bible.  Knowing the Bible let's an
    individual 
    
    -  Know that there are some wonderful treasures in the Bible.
    -  Know that those statements that fundementalist often use against
    them  represent the fringe that is in the Bible and not the main
    message.
    - Know that fundementalists pick and choose themselves even as they are
    sure they are accepting every word in the Bible.
    - Know that there is clear ambiguity and clear contradictory positions
    stated in the Canon. 
    - Know that some sections of the Canon are superior to others.  Be able
    to identify which section of the Canon are authoritative to us and why. 
    Be able to identify which sections of the Canon are not authoritative
    and why.
    
    

    The reason I tend to adhere to fundamentalist thinking is twofold.
    
    1. Fundamentalism provides a point of reference that liberal theology
       cannot.  Liberal theology strikes me as a consortium of free
       thinkers and doctrinal embellishment. 
    
    2. Liberal theology doesn't seem to require accountability and can
       therefore at times become a reckless tool for standards
       minimization.  It also puts our own venue of believing how things
       should be over God's holiness and therefore negates hard core
       faith.  
    
    This is a general definition of why fundamentalism is appealing to me.
    I hear that being fundamentalist supports a lack of faith but I see the
    contrary.  Noah, The Garden, the Battle of Jericho, Jonah, and even
    Jesus conquering death are deeply rooted in belief among
    fundamentalists.  Skepticism and other isms don't require faith.  They
    are easy and convenient.
    
    Non maliciously spoken,
    
    -Jack

re Note 87.256 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Skepticism and other isms don't require faith.  They
>     are easy and convenient.
  
        Placing ultimate reliance upon the unseen God rather than on
        a seen text does indeed require a faith.  As to whether it is
        more convenient, I'm not as sure as you.  It can be quite
        convenient (and, IMO, is one of the arguments often given
        *for* the necessity of an inerrant "deposit of faith") to
        know the exact extent of what one regards as "true" (and to
        feel that the truth of anything else can be judged by that). 
        *That* is an ease and convenience that I reject, in part
        because I believe it springs from the desires of human
        nature, and not of God.

        Bob

  ZZ   I believe it springs from the desires of human
  ZZ   nature, and not of God.
    
    From what I've observed, the rejection of sinful humanity and the
    depravity of the human condition stems from humanism and not from the
    holiness of God.  The latter is what I as a human would like to
    believe.  The idea that humankind is basically good but reality forces
    me to think otherwise.  
    
ZZ    Placing ultimate reliance upon the unseen God rather than on
ZZ    a seen text does indeed require a faith. 
    
    It seems to me that God wouldn't have given us scripture if God didn't
    believe we would need it.  There are invariably 1000's of religions in
    the world today as well as millions of gods.  One might attribute this 
    to a zeal for God with a complete or partial lack of knowledge.  I
    believe scripture gives us the small window of who God is and yet at
    the same time deprives us of the full knowledge needed to have complete
    faith.  In other words, scripture and the unanswerable questions force
    us to live by faith.  
    
    -Jack  

.258 Jack Martin

    to a zeal for God with a complete or partial lack of knowledge.  I
    believe scripture gives us the small window of who God is and yet at
    the same time deprives us of the full knowledge needed to have complete
    faith.  In other words, scripture and the unanswerable questions force
    us to live by faith.  

You appear to see this lack of knowledge, requiring faith, as good. Why?

Steve

    re: .257
    
>        Placing ultimate reliance upon the unseen God rather than on
>        a seen text does indeed require a faith.  
    
    
    Ah, but fundamentalists do just this.  They ask for God to reveal
    to them the truth of His word. [general statement, of course]
    They do place reliance upon the unseen God.  The difference between the
    fundamentalist (who accepts all scriptures as God-breathed) and the
    liberal theologist, is that the fundamentalist has an OBJECT of faith-
    the God of the Bible.  The liberal theologist seems to have only an
    unseen god/God defined by his own thoughts and ideas of what God should
    be.
    
    
    
    -steve

ZZ    You appear to see this lack of knowledge, requiring faith, as good.
ZZ    Why?
    
    God is deeply pleased by faith.  As Jesus said to doubting Thomas,
    blessed are you for seeing but blessed are those who have not seen and
    yet believe.  Also, incomplete knowledge drives us to further
    examination.  It builds in us a desire to know and brings us to study
    in order to show ourselves approved of God.
    
    -Jack

    I believe God is also deeply pleased by critical thinking.  I also
    believe Thomas has gotten a bad rap (Compare John 11.16).
    
    I don't believe knowledge in any way inhibits further examination.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 87.260 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     Ah, but fundamentalists do just this.  They ask for God to reveal
>     to them the truth of His word. [general statement, of course]
>     They do place reliance upon the unseen God.  The difference between the
>     fundamentalist (who accepts all scriptures as God-breathed) and the
>     liberal theologist, is that the fundamentalist has an OBJECT of faith-
>     the God of the Bible.  The liberal theologist seems to have only an
>     unseen god/God defined by his own thoughts and ideas of what God should
>     be.
  
        For those who really believe in God, and a God who reveals,
        it is hardly a matter of one's thoughts and ideas of what God
        should be (unless, of course, we are deceived, and God
        doesn't really exist, or doesn't really reveal).

        The so-called "liberal theologist" also has an OBJECT of
        faith -- the God who is there.

        That is why it seems, to me, that the "liberal" has greater
        faith, the faith is not based upon a static description, but
        upon a belief that the God who is there really does interact
        with us and really does communicate with us, in many ways. 
        The conservative seems to take comfort (or is it ease?) from
        thinking that that communication is through a book.

        Bob

    ZZ  The so-called "liberal theologist" also has an OBJECT of
    ZZ         faith -- the God who is there.
    
    Problem is that when we define God without a frame of reference, then
    our zeal is not based on knowledge.
    
    -Jack

>    Problem is that when we define God without a frame of reference, then
>    our zeal is not based on knowledge.

Well, "our zeal" or faith may not based on indirect knowledge.  It may very
well be that our faith is based on direct knowledge, however.

Not that indirect knowledge isn't useful and beneficial, mind you.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    As a liberal Christian, I'd like to correct a misconception. This
    liberal uses Scripture as a frame of reference for knowing God... not a
    frame of confinement. But then, this is based on a different view of
    the nature of the Bible and those men who constructed it.
    
    Eric

  ZZ   This liberal uses Scripture as a frame of reference for knowing God...
    
    If it is truly a frame of reference for knowing God, then how can a
    belief outside this frame of reference be in harmony with
    scripture...which you use as a tool for knowing God?
    
    Example.  For the sake of argument, let's assume you don't believe 
    man born in sin.  This is outside the parameters of your frame of
    reference for knowing God.  Why?  Because that belief is in disharmony
    with your frame of reference, right?!
    
    -Jack

    
>    Problem is that when we define God without a frame of reference, then
>    our zeal is not based on knowledge.
    
    -Jack
    
    The bigger problem is that you define God by a human and flawed standard of
    reference, thinking the standard of reference is perfect. When your
    zeal is based on the Bible without taking into account any of the flaws
    in the bible, then your zeal is based not only on a lack of
    knowledge, but also on your absolute insistence on all parts including
    those that are false.  When you rely on those faulty parts such as the
    wrathful, punishing, mean spirited, God of power and God of War, you
    can justify all kind of evil as being of and from and in support of
    God. 
    
     That is truly dangerous and frightening!
    
    
    Patricia

>    If it is truly a frame of reference for knowing God, then how can a
>    belief outside this frame of reference be in harmony with
>    scripture...which you use as a tool for knowing God?
    
>    Example.  For the sake of argument, let's assume you don't believe 
>    man born in sin.  This is outside the parameters of your frame of
>    reference for knowing God.  Why?  Because that belief is in disharmony
>    with your frame of reference, right?!
    
   I know noone who is not aware that every single human is capable of sin. 
    The more important concept to me as a liberal is the humankind is
    created in the image of God, and that by focusing on our relationship
    with God, rather than on our relationship with physical things, we
    become whole and magnify the light of God which is within each of us.
    
    That theology is based explicitly on biblical passages that dominate
    the scriptures.
    
    As a liberal I believe that even when humans focus on true human love,
    (whether it be caritas, agape, or eros) they are focusing on that of
    God because all true human love come from God.  That is very scriptural
    as well(see James)
    
    In the example that you have given, you have chosen one aspect of
    scripture and made in the cornerstone of your theology.  You have
    chosen to focus on human sinfullness and the wrath of God.  Many
    liberals prefer to focus on humankind as that part of God's creation
    closest to God and on God's Glory and God's love.  That is not only
    very intuitive, it also is directly stated in the Bible.
    
    So you have to answer the charges that you level at the liberal!  Why
    do you so easily ignore so much that is in the Bible?
    
    

    Psalm 8 3-5
    
    When I look at your heavens the work of your fingers, the moon and the
    stars that you have established;
    What are human beings that you are mindful of them, mortals that you
    care for them.
    
    Yet you have made them a little lower than God and crowned them with
    glory and honor.  

    Patricia:
    
    I tend to address the issue of sin and holiness in this file alone. 
    The focus of my daily walk with God is not solely on these attributes. 
    I tend to exentuate these points here because these concepts are sorely
    lacking or flat out denied within C-P.  It is totally understandable
    since our propensity as humans is to think good of ourselves or feel
    good about who we are.  There is no disconnect on my part regarding my 
    self worth or what good there is in me.  I believe it necessary to also 
    remind myself that as Paul stated, In me there dwelleth no good thing.
    
Z    insistence on all parts including those that are false.  When you rely on 
Z    those faulty parts such as the wrathful, punishing, mean spirited, God 
Z    of power and God of War, you can justify all kind of evil as being of and 
Z    from and in support of God. 
    
    And thank you for this example.  The focus here is "faulty parts". 
    This is conjecture on your part as you have not provided plausible
    evidence to support these scriptures as faulty.  Again it falls into
    the human trait we have of believing that God is not possibly capable
    of allowing such a thing to happen.  I notice you brought Psalm 8 up
    and it's a beautiful illustration of how we are viewed in God's agape
    love.  Consider though Psalm 103 where God says we are but dust, or
    even Psalm 53 when David commited that atrocity with Bathsheba.  His
    plea to God was, "Cast me not away from thy presence and take not thy
    Holy Spirit from me."  The concept of eternal separation was a harsh
    reality to the Psalm writer.  The baby consequently died as a judgement
    toward David.
    
    This is not meant as a snide reply to you.  I am trying to bring forth
    the fact that God does allow bad things to happen to people.  It is all
    a part of the molding process to make us better vessels for God's use.
    
    -Jack

.261 Jack Martin

    God is deeply pleased by faith.  As Jesus said to doubting Thomas,

You take this on faith, I assume :^)

Seriously, then what you are saying is that God was deliberately vague in 
some areas in order to test the faith of his followers?

Steve

    
    > Example.  For the sake of argument, let's assume you don't believe man
    > born in sin.  

    I believe that we are born with the capability, perhaps even the
    propensity to sin, but not into the state of sin. Babies are not
    sinners. This may not be in harmony with your interpretation of the
    Bible, but it is with mine. 

    Since I don't view the Bible as literal, I am less apt than you might
    believe to find disharmony between my faith and the Bible. Of course
    there will be disharmony between *my* faith and *your* interpretation
    of the Biblical message.  

    Eric

Note 87.264

>    Problem is that when we define God without a frame of reference, then
>    our zeal is not based on knowledge.
    
As if those who rely on the Bible as their sole frame of reference never get
it wrong.

Richard

 Z   As if those who rely on the Bible as their sole frame of reference
 Z   never get it wrong.
    
    Wouldn't deny that at all but let me ask you something.  If you were in
    a room and one room had four walls and another room had a window with 
    a limited view...and you wanted to birdwatch from the room, which room
    would be the most practical?
    
    -Jack

    
    And if I were to say "I believe a bird can fly great distances," you
    would say "A bird can only fly 32 inches; that is the size of my
    window." 
    
    Eric

    This would assume you knew for a fact that birds fly great distances.  
    Since the concept of God without a frame of reference is how we picture
    God to be, knowledge would have to be based on conjecture.
    
    -Jack

>    This would assume you knew for a fact that birds fly great distances.  
>    Since the concept of God without a frame of reference is how we picture
>    God to be, knowledge would have to be based on conjecture.
 
    
    Of course the logical "Bible believing" analogy would be to Know the
    bird could not fly more than 32 inches because that would contradict
    the frame of reference, and in the fundementalist faith system, nothing
    even common sense and logic is allowed to contradict the frame of
    reference.
    
    That bird can only fly 32 inches.

>    Wouldn't deny that at all but let me ask you something.  If you were in
>    a room and one room had four walls and another room had a window with 
>    a limited view...and you wanted to birdwatch from the room, which room
>    would be the most practical?

I think I'd leave the man-made environment and get into the bird's environment.
I think I'd perhaps check the library in the man-made environment before and
afterward.

Shalom,
Richard

	Jack, I thought most rooms you were in didn't have any windows... just
lots of padding.... ;-)

    Grrrrrrrr.............snarl!!!!
    
    Patricia:
    
    Am I to understand you as saying that the bird can only fly 32
    inches to a fundamentalist...not by common sense but because the frame
    of reference says it...therefore, it is fact?  Kind of like saying
    that it is okay to kill because Reverend Jim Jones says so...that type
    of thing?  Yes, I can see the danger of blind faith.  On the other
    hand, I see scripture as a way to show us the awesome power of God and
    the miracles He performed which clearly fall outside the boundaries of
    common sense.  
    
    -Jack

    
    > Am I to understand you as saying that the bird can only fly 32 inches
    > to a fundamentalist...not by common sense but because the frame of
    > reference says it...therefore, it is fact?

    That's what I'm saying anyway.  The window is used by God to show us
    the wonders of flight. The liberal says birds can fly. The
    fundamentalist says birds can fly 32 inches. The liberal says God
    created the universe and all that is in it. The fundamentalist says God
    created the universe and all that is in it in 144 hours.
    
    Eric

    What you are saying then is that the liberal looks at the abstract and
    the fundie looks at it more concrete.
    
    What I see is the fundie looks at it concrete in way within the frame
    of reference and the liberal looks at it concrete outside the frame of
    reference.
    
    L:  God is a God of Love, therefore, God is incapable of allowing evil.
    F:  God is a God of Love and scripture says God loves whom he chastens.
    L:  Scripture is comprised of writings based on a number of traditions.
        This must be true because God is not a God of war and therefore 
        the writings are not historically true.
    F:  Jesus acknowledges and attributes the writing of scripture to
        Moses.  Jesus acknowledges the history of Israel.
    
    -Jack

    .283
    
    Well, I'll grant you that that is probably an accurate assessment of
    how you see things, Jack.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes, and I can easily provide pointers and do a little cutting and
    pasting if need be!!
    
    -Jack

    
    >  What you are saying then...

    I have said what I am saying. You seem unwilling to accept my words,
    and choose to replace them with your own. :^)

    For what it's worth, I disagree with your examples of liberal theology.
    So, either I'm not a liberal, or you're mistaken. Another possibility
    is that since a 'liberal' to you is anyone other than a 'fundamentalist'
    that leaves an incredible universe of alternate viewpoints. So, when
    you come up with your own example of a 'liberal' idea you're *almost*
    always wrong in assuming I (or Bob, or whomever) hold that belief, just
    because I'm not a fundamentalist. If you read what I've said I believe,
    rather than what you think I *must* believe... :^)

       Eric

    Eric:
    
    You may be right.  In that case there would be Fundies, Libs, and a new
    third party called revisionists.  Would that be possible?
    
    -Jack

    
    Here's and idea... how about Christians. I'll even let you use the term
    to describe youself, too.
    
    Eric 

 Z   Here's and idea... how about Christians. I'll even let you use the
 Z   term to describe youself, too.
    
    As harsh as it sounds, I believe there is a distinction between
    professing Christ and posessing Christ.  
    
    -Jack

    Well, I for one don't pretend to possess Christ.
    
    I belong to Christ.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes...well you could actually look it it both ways.  When one receives
    the gift of the Holy Spirit, they have in their posession something non
    believers don't have.  Since it is a gift freely taken, one has
    posession.  On the other hand, the Holy Spirit can also be seen as a
    mark of righteousness, belonging to Christ and as Paul says, being a
    bondservant of the most high!
    
    -Jack

    
    As harsh as it may sound, I believe that those who claim a higher
    level of 'possessing' Christ will be the ones Jesus describes as being
    rudely awaken when their judgment comes. 
    
    Eric

    Eric:
    
    Posessing Christ involves a few simple points.
    
    -Recognizing God loves you.  This point seems to be shared by all. 
    
    -Recognizing your need...that we are born in sin and depravity.  
     This is probably the most unpharisaical thing you can do.
    
    -Believe on the redemptive power of God, i.e. realizing you are in a
     position of needing grace and mercy.  The world today rejects this
     concept widely because it interferes with the widely held belief we can
     do it on our own.
    
    -Receiving that redemptive power through a scapegoat if you will.  I
     believe this to be Jesus and his death on the cross.
    
    Eric, I was compelled to write the above although you've heard it many
    times.  Your reply left me to believe my profess vs. possess was
    pharisaical.  What I hope to point out above is the extreme opposite. 
    The pharisees were self righteous, felt they could do it on their own
    righteousness, and acted accordingly.  How much more humility can one
    show by admitting they are sinful, depraved, and in need of a savior?
    
    -Jack

    
    > How much more humility can one show by admitting they are sinful,
    > depraved, and in need of a savior?

    By not claiming infallibility in understanding the word of God.
    By not acting with extreme self-assurance, while at the same time
     claiming humility.
    By not condemning those with whom they disagree as being unsaved, or
     in some way frowned upon by God. 

    Eric

    PS I am speaking to fundamentalism and not Jack personally.

 Z   By not acting with extreme self-assurance, while at the same time
 Z   claiming humility.
    
    How does one reconcile pure faith from the above.  In other words, is
    your indicment against those who are unteachable?
    
    -Jack

        Z   By not acting with extreme self-assurance, while at the same time
    Z   claiming humility.

    > How does one reconcile pure faith from the above.

    That's easy: faith doesn't have to be humble. Zealots of all religions
    demonstrate this daily. However, I don't think you be humble and a
    zealot at the same time, which is something fundamentalists try to do.
    That was what I was trying to address when you asked "how could one
    possibly be more humble." 

    Eric

    Possession, for me, implies ownership and control.
    
    I am in relationship with Christ.  I do not own or control Christ.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, I believe Paul implied posession a few times in the epistles.  I
    agree with the principal you set...regarding ownership of Christ. 
    Possessing Christ in the context of scripture is in synch with Pressing
    on toward the goal for the prize, I have obtained the prize, etc.  In
    other words, possessing eternal life.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: Possession.
    
    I think we can have Christ within us, but 'possession' is the wrong way
    to look at it. Jesus talked not of possession, but of bonding as in
    "the Father is in me and I am in the Father." 
    
    Eric

    .299
    
    I must concur.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard