Attitutudinal Issues

"Looking down" are your words and interpretation. But you are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.

By the way, it is hard to accuse someone else of "looking down" on something or someone without "looking down" on the person "looking down". Would you agree with that?

Again ... as I have argued repeatedly throughout the thread, it is difficult to question someone's stance or beliefs without coming across as condescending.

Would you agree you may appear guilty of the very thing of which you are accusing me?

Which by the way, I don't care or mind. I like it. I appreciate sarcasm and edginess. It is how I write, how I communicate, and how I interact on places like the BB. For every few people it turns away, it provokes many others to think.

Jesus had an edge in the way he spoke. It does not mean you do not love someone. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that provoking someone to rethink their stance is actually a form of genuine love. Iron sharpens iron.

So keep sharpening Andy T.

 

Is that because you knew my follow-up question would be: what are those characterizations???

By the way if what you say is true, the term is useless .... anyone could call themselves a fundamentalist.

 

many terms ARE becoming useless these days for exactly that reason. People are calling them something and then putting their own definition to it.

For example, in another thread someone was referring to Jerry Falwell as being a part of the Fundamentalist group. Not sure why.

In the list of groups you mentioned, I know who everyone is except Tom Neal. But seriously, were you referring to Pensacola Christian College? Theres also Pacific Coast Christian which Im also very familiar with.

 

I have a feeling that we don't have to worry too much about people who are not fundamentalists calling themselves such .

 

I have a feeling that we don't have to worry too much about people who are not fundamentalists calling themselves such . </font>[/QUOTE]That's because there are certain characteristics that mark fundamentalism with which we do not want to associate

 

That is your choice, as there are certain characteristics of new evangelicalism (for lack of a bettere term) with which I do not care to associate.

Ain't liberty in Christ great?

 

I'm with you here, C4K. I choose not to associate with those who believe in errors in the Bible (the autographs), Neo-theism, universalism and soul sleep. These are all currently problem areas in evangelicalism.

We Fundamentalists may have our problem areas, but evangelicalism is by no means spotless. Maybe we'd all better just walk with Jesus--humbly?

 

I believe it was Dr. Doran who said once "Fundamentalism may have its warts, but New-Evangelicalism has its cancers."

I much rather would have warts then cancer- thats why I unashamedly call myself a fundamentalist.

 

Ain't it ironic that there are those 'Christians' that will willingly associate with those that committ evil, but will not associate with their brethren . . . I may not agree with everyone on this board, but there are few that I would disassociate with . . .

And strangely, I had always considered disassociation from those that are in error to be a mostly fundamentalist practice . . .

 

Here we go ... C4K ... where are you now?

Talk about generalizations. In 3 posts we have ... new evangelicalism ... those who believe there are errors in the original autographs ... neo-theism ... universalism ... soul sleep ... cancerous ... association with those who commit evil (not even sure what this means) ... will not associate with brethren ... erroneous.

Where are you now C4K???

Just give fundies enough time and their true colors always surface.

And just for the record - one more time - it is equally as wrong to be too far to the right as it is to be too far to the left ... as pointed out by Jesus Himself.

 

Come on AAG,

even with C4K soundly asleep no one is here calling you any names yet.

Youve got to admit, El Guero has you there on that disassociation thing.

 

For most of the time I was asleep - I am 5 hours ahead of Eastern, then I was gone for the day.

I find it a bit amazing that AAG felt justified in making generalisations for about 12 pages, but the same type of generalisation aimed in the other direction is wrong.

And no one would argue that it is just as wrong to be too far to the left or right.

[ November 09, 2005, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I would not argue that it is correct to be too far to the 'right' nor to the 'wrong'.

I would argue that your definitions of 'right' & 'wrong' are significantly different than mine are.

I would go to a bar to witness to the lost.
I would risk my life for the Kingdom of God.
I have witnessed to the lost (several have come to Christ - 7 in the last 2 weeks - PRAISE GOD!)
I have been beaten because of my faith (It hurt the non-believer more than it did me - PRAISE GOD for that miracle!)

But I will not disassociate from you nor from fundamentalists that believe:

God's Word is innerent; Jesus Christ is the God-Man of Scripture; Jesus is described by Paul, John, Matthew, Luke, et al., as Eternal with God the Father and that Christ was/is NOT CREATED; The Holy Trinity; Miracles are caused/allowed by God; The Resurrection; and salvation by grace.

 

AAG

Would you find that you need to disassociate from me because of any of the above?

In the Name of Christ

 

I did not say it was wrong. Once again, I don't care. My beliefs are open game. I am not ashamed of them and will defend them. I simply find it ironic that you were so quick to scream "generalizations" and then as soon as a few other fundies wander in and start throwing out typical falsehoods about those blasted neos, you fail to rebuke your own.

Do you think the generalizations provided above are accurate?

 

Of course not. My personal experience has always been the reverse ... as soon as a fundy discovers my beliefs and practices, they usually flee like a KJVOnlyist from a NLT. I don't have to disassociate from them. They usually want nothing to do with me.

 

AAG,

so you don't think that the groups mentioned include the beliefs also mentioned?

 

I am not sure what you are asking.

 

AAG

I think that is sad. . .