BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Calling someone a Fundamentalist or Liberal is like the "Establishment" calling those bearded rebels of the 60's "Radicals."

The meaning has as its basis: "Roots."

To the Fundamentalist / Conservative I ask: "Conserve what?"

To the Liberal I say: "Keep on asking questions rather than settle for 'that's the way we have always done it!'"

What was it Adrian Rogers said about the vocabulary and the dictionary?

TD you have been kind and gracious in almost every if not every exchange we have had. But I am afraid you are out to lunch on this one.
My FAther and Mother were not postmodernists, but Momma had the good sense to walk out on Jerry Vines Sermon where he demagogged SEBTS.

Read the sermons of Peter Gomes, Fleming Rutledge. Read N.T. Wright a favorite of Christianity Today. Go back and read the Proceedings of the Inerrancy Consortium at Ridgecrest in 87.
The fundies get their butt kicks at every turn and then resort to whining with a bad dictionary.

I've seen it with my own eyes

Look at the WMU Inquisition by Don Purvis and other FMB trustees in 93. I saw that one on video.
Your boys called Keith Parks a Liberal. How Ridiculous. Anybody who disagreed with the Takeover got tagged a Liberal. Witness the assault by Lee Roberts and Jesse Helms operatives.

It was an insult to Jesus

Stephen---RIGHT ON, MY BROTHER---RIGHT ON!!!!!

Somebody needs to listen and realize we aren't kidding. The battle is over / there are far better things to do / if one red cent of my giving goes to the SBC ever in the future---they will know hell has frozen over!

I personally think that the two of you, Gene and Stephen, over reacted to the use of TD's word "liberal." Certainly from his perspective pretty far to the right nearly everyone around here looks like a liberal even if it just isn't so. But I believe that his note was well intended and cordial. The both of you reacted to the word "liberal" as if TD has set fire to your shoes.

All you have in your paraphrase there, Gene, is your own speculation and observation. Essentially, when it comes to the leadership of the SBC, you are dong exactly what you accuse them of doing. You make an accusation that has no substantiation. How do you know that the sermon that someone preaches is designed to be slick and please men?

Your buds that ran the SBC before the resurgence took over protected the high salaried jobs for each other and treated the denominational budget like it was some kind of personal entitlement.

Let he who has eyes see and he who has ears listen, Sandy!!!!

No matter who the Pharisee is, Jesus had problems with the outlook and lack of sincerity---for them it was all about money and control------not part of "servant ministry" I witnessed pre-1979.

360 posts? Really? All that just to tell Abel you don't like what he believes? I suspect that poor dead horse has been beaten so badly that even the crew of CSI Las Vegas couldn't figure that crime scene out.

I'm often reminded of Dr. Eric Rust's comment that we all are like the old mule who wore blinders so he could be directed straight ahead. He reminded all of his students that we all wear blinders. Rust said that the purpose of education was to be able to recognize our blinders so we understood our own perspectives. This lengthy discussion has certainly been a reminder of that. The good part is that some of us recognize our blinders. Others however do not. (Of course, I don't have any blind spots . Only other people have them.)

When you learn of your own stupidity----and can laugh at such----there is hope for you!!!!