Is there any true fundamentalist on this board

I'd like to see the study which revealed that most pastors are, on the average, highly effeminate. Do you have a link for that?

I know several hundred pastors and can't think of any that fit that bill.

 

it seems to me that some people who consider themselves "fundamentalists" around here are, in all actuality, LEGALISTS.

To be a Baptist fundamental means:

Virgin birth
Trinity - Christ IS GOD
KJV of the Bible
saved by grace
no more apostles after Paul

everything else is a sidetrack.

Debbie C

 

How about believer's baptism by immersion?

And when did KJV become a requirement to be IFB?

 

Oh, and about sin....

All sin is the same in the eyes of God. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory fo God.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

What? No stones to be cast?!?!?!

Now let the homosexuality and the pants on women and all that other stuff REST!!!

Souls to be rescued, boys and girls!!! Legalities clog your vision!!!

 

I'd like to see it again, myself. Didn't realize, when I read it, that I'd ever be quoting from it. Pretty certain it wasn't on the 'net, though a Google search might turn up something. Certainly haven't had your experience, however. I'll stand by my "weak sisters" description as accurate.

 

It sounds like a very harsh criticism to make without something to substantiate it.

 

You first.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]I am not a Fundamentalist, and therefore the shoe does not fit.

Dave

 

OK try the other foot then.

The "judgemental" foot. The one with which you judged fundamentalists as being judgemental.

HankD

 

Oh, come on! You're not going to play that little "Can you prove it?" game, are you? I wouldn't expect that on this board. Are you inferring that, because I didn't bother to make a copy of an article I read in a newspaper or magazine, I must be lying? I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to be condoned here. We're merely exchanging ideas and opinions here, not submitting scientific papers for peer review.

Incidentally, a brief Google search did pick up reference to a book and articles on effeminate trends in the ministry. You could have made the same search, with the same results.

Sorry to be harsh with you, but that's simply not polite conduct.

 

Oh, come on! You're not going to play that little "Can you prove it?" game, are you? I wouldn't expect that on this board. Are you inferring that, because I didn't bother to make a copy of an article I read in a newspaper or magazine, I must be lying? I wouldn't expect that sort of thing to be condoned here. We're merely exchanging ideas and opinions here, not submitting scientific papers for peer review.

Incidentally, a brief Google search did pick up reference to a book and articles on effeminate trends in the ministry. You could have made the same search, with the same results.

Sorry to be harsh with you, but that's simply not polite conduct. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I would like some evidence of your claims - how is that improper? Surely the link to "Reformed Confederate Theocrates" is not the link you found by googling that you give credence to?

I fully believe that your accusations are unfounded. It is kind of like "I think pastors are effiminate so you just have to believe me." You cannot impugne men of God without some type of documentation. The burden of proof so on you since you made the accusation.

How is my request for proof impolite?

Is that problem that men don't preach the way you think they do should they must be a bunch of sissies?

 

Well, my Pastor will tell you that any other translation of the Bible is not accurate and thereofre, is not appropriate for study or for soul-winning.

Baptists all baptize by immersion. That is not sole practice by IFB.

 

All baptists accept the deity and virgin birth of Christ as well.

Disagree on the KJV being a requirement to be IFB. The very fact that IFB are independent precludes such a "requirement."

 

Here is the specific statement by BillyShope that I am looking for evidence to support:

If you want to say, "I think the majority of todays pastors are a bunch of sissies," that is your opinion and can freely be made as such. You have quoted a "profile study" to support your view and that should be documented.

 

How about gluttony? </font>[/QUOTE]What about it? Are you guilty? It's sin in the same way a host of other pleasure oriented behaviors are. One of the best doctors that I ever had smoked, yet he advised others to quit. His advice was good and right! Sinc he smoked, should he have remained silent and allowed his patients to ruin their health?

 

Fundamentalists are jealous for pleasing God. No, they're not perfect. One doesn't have to be a great artist in order to recognize a hack painter. We can recognize and denounce wrongdoing when human behavior is compared to God’s revelation. Just because we are sinners ourselves does not prevent us from denouncing sin.

Your assessment is not accurate--it is a caricature. Whereas some Fundamentalist have overstepped the boundaries, whether being overzealous or from personal motives, one cannot tar all Fundamentalists with the same brush. There are many good, gentle, kind, and sweet Fundamentalists. Your post is like saying that because some Baptist pastors have committed adultery with their secretaries, all Baptist pastors commit adultery with their secretaries.

The question is not about the kind of people who hold a certain view but it is whether the position is true or not. Deal with the issue, not the fallible people holding the viewpoint. We’re all sinners. However, it does not follow that we should not strive for righteousness and holiness in obedience to God.

Two final questions:
Since you are a sinner yourself, can you decry homosexuality which God has clearly condemned?
If so, what are the sins that Fundamentalists should not condemn in others? </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your answer. But again please note that my post was an observation based upon what I see those who call themselves Fundamentalist doing to each other. I might be making a stereotype, and if so I am sorry to do so, but it is a stereotype that has an awful lot of weight behind it. I've never, and I mean never, met a Fundamentalist who was more concerned with the log in his own eye than he was with the specks he/she finds in everyone else. It seems that Fundamentalists as a whole do not pay much attention to the warnings of Jesus regarding casting stones, being judgemental, and lacking compassion and mercy. Sorry. But if the shoe fits, where it.</font>[/QUOTE]Of course this fits Fundamentalists because they are human but Fundamentalists don’t have a monopoly on this. It is pervasive human, and sinful, behavior exhibited all across the spectrum. The problem is that some folks turn pious on this issue. They whine about the hateful, judgmental Fundamentalists and do the same thing themselves. Some people, the Fundamentalist, shout and rave before shooting you between the eyes whereas the sweet, pious types croon and caress until the back is turned and then stab with a vicious twist of the blade. Don’t worry about the shoe fitting. This shoe comes in all sizes. Let’s just be honest about the matter and expose it in all circles—not just use it as a weapon against Fundamentalists.

 

Gentlemen (and ladies),

It has been a spirited debate but the holiday food consumed has overtaken me.

Good evening.

HankD

 

And I strongly disagree! The discussion here should be no different from that friendly discussion which would occur at a party. When a friend mentions something he read in the newspaper, you don't insist he run home and get it. If you don't believe it, you simply smile and say, "That's interesting" and the conversation continues.

This is particularly absurd since even I immediately dismissed the study mentioned, noting that, in my opinion, it was quite unnecessary.

I'm reminded of an old Judy Holliday movie in which she would make up statistics for contribution to any conversation. She was never challenged because the people involved were traditionally civil in their conduct.

Again, having written for scientific journals, I know the requirements for source verification can be quite different, but you can expect me to occasionally violate your definition of "common courtesy" here. I give the people who read these posts credit for having sufficient intelligence to weigh the credibility of such comments. I don't think they need someone like yourself to protect them.

No, that to which I objected was simply rude and highly objectionable conduct, whether in conversation at a party or on a Christian board...perhaps particularly on a Christian board!

 

BillyShope wrote:

No way - I would say "Where did you get that? I can't see ANY profile saying "... pastors are, on average, highly effeinate." I have NEVER had a freind be offended before because I asked where he got some information. No evidence, no arguement - your point is invalid in my own mind.

Okay, lets turn it around. Actual case here - I read someplace that most fundamentalist ministers in America are pedophiles. Now - is it good enough to leave it at that, or would you like a source?