Attitutudinal Issues

AAG,

this is how we talk all the time! This is what I was trying to say earlier at one point.

When we are not "afraid" of an attack, having to watch our back and defend ourselves, we freely admit to many of these things. These are the sorts of conversations I see all the time....on IFB message boards and at home in church.

 

I think they're just angry...at everybody. For some reason, every legalist and Calvanist I have ever met has been angry.

 

I think you should spend more time amongst us my brother to find out that this is commonplace conversation.

 

Yes, the anger from the fundamentalists in this thread has been clear for all to see.

 

I am not sure you saw my point (sarcasm) - I saw no anger from fundamentalists in this thread - did anyone?

 

This has been a difficult thread to follow, with or without sarcasm.

However, I did learn from this thread.

 

I saw no "anger" period. I guess the closest thing to anger would be the reaction when fundies were lumped together and a particular church was attacked as legalistic (which you actually agreed with).

As one of the primary participants, I can tell you I have felt absolutely NO anger. As a matter of fact, I find it all a bit amusing. Sarcasm, relating personal experiences, or questioning certain practices or beliefs do not equal anger.

I would also venture to say the only reason fundies were not as "aggressive" as usual was the nature of the discussion and the involved parties (C4K is not known for his aggressiveness). For differing attitudes, visit the Rick Warren thread in the General section, any of the translations thread, or the C/A thread. Or better yet, visit the FFFs.

 

Oh my! The FFFs? That place is known for its bitterness and hatred AGAINST IFB.

At least it was until they revamped. MUCH calmer now.

And the translations thread! Couldnt agree with you more. The anti-KJVers can be very nasty.

 

I would never suggest FFF - I do not think they are typical of fundamentalism.

 

Heh. You said "perhaps".

What you call an edge has been called a bad attitude by others, including a rather lengthy post on Friday by yours truly. I don't agree that you have to talk about these issues and be controversial.

You wrote:

Hey, something I agree with you about. You said many instead of implying all. I think you're losing your edge.

That's true. However, my main point of the post was that you came out in attack mode and it sounded like the motivation for attack mode was bitterness.

Heh. Touche.

Yes, I saw you write those words, but I wasn't the only one who saw you label all fundamentalists, or "fundies" if you like , a certain way. Your attitude was coming across so loud that it overshadowed what you were saying.

I was there for half a day and couldn't stand it either.

I admit it. I was a little angry on Friday. However, overall, there hasn't been much anger in this thread. I also give kudos to C4K and bapmom. If I were a primary participant, I wouldn't have been quite as gracious as they have been.

 

Even here the anger is on both sides of the issues, not just one.

I don't see any need to ever bring anger and vitriol into debates in the family of God, no matter where we are coming from.

 

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

 

Why?

 

I well and truly think that these folks are a fringe element AAG. I don't think there are at all typical.

 

I agree, either that or they would just be chicken to talk this way to anyones face and are pretending no one knows who they are (always a poor assumption online)

I have little patience for anyone in any kind of "only" or "anti" position. Not everything can be broken down into binary math, and good men disgree about many of the issues raised here. I just wish some could do so with a little more class, myself included sometimes. Sometimes though, passion is confused with anger, a side effect of the lack of non-verbal communication in this particular medium, give folks the benefit of the doubt and assume they are not just baiting you, even though some are.

Unfortunately, Loud Fringe groups and individuals are being allowed to typify IFB'rs as a whole, and not enough of us are standing up and telling the morons to sit down and shut up. IF it ain't in the Bible, and you are spewing it, I am going to call you on it, be it Bible Versions, Standards, Crazy doctrine, or just personal opinion being passed of as Bible. I am not exhibiting a bad attitude by doing so, merely calling you to back up what you believe with scripture, correctly interpreted, and applied in a literal, historical context, not an unreasonable request IMNSHO

 

Amen Superdave, I once considered abandoning the fundamentalist label, but I believe can recapture it. I am a Biblical Fundamentalist, focus on the Bible, not crazy notions, silly standards, or fringe ideas.

 

So C4K, what is different from what I have said and what superdave says and you affirm when you assign titles like "crazy notions, silly standards, or fringe ideas"?

As far as the FFF, go on there and suggest to those fundies that they are a fringe group. You will probably get equally strong arguments that you represent the fringe and they are the mainstream.

When you think about how many churches make up the BJU, PCC, HAC, Longview, Crown College, Sword of the Lord, Tom Nealites, etc. groups, I am not so sure they would be wrong.

 

me too

 

I did not assign those title to any one group, merely stated that I do not stress those things.

Contextually, you have a point, I agree that if I went on FFF and mentioned that their belief system is on the "fringe" I would be roasted alive.

Fundamentalists vary greatly - this is one thing that has become clear in this dicsussion.

BTW, I don't even know who Longview and Tom Nealite are.