At the Risk of Sounding Divisive, Would All Southern Baptists Please Go Away!

Came across a story on Baptist Press about Fuller President Richard Mouw's comments before a group of Mormons in Salt Lake on Nov. 14. Here's what he said:

"Let me state it clearly. We evangelicals have sinned against you. We've often seriously misrepresented the beliefs and practices of members of the LDS faith. It's a terrible thing to bear false witness ... We've told you what you believe without first asking you."

I love how the Southern Baptist leaders in the area interpreted those comments. Here's a sample of their responses:

Tim Clark, executive director of the Utah-Idaho Baptist Convention, said that a statement from an evangelical leader like Mouw's can cause weak believers to stumble and give credence to the Mormon message by muddying the waters. "[Mouw is] sending a message to Mormons that they are a part of mainstream Christianity," Clark said.

Really? Cause I didn't hear that. I heard a pretty sincere apology. To say that we've misrepresented them in no way suggests that we embrace them as orthodox. Mouw is as conservative a Reformed Christian as you're likely to find. He's also a very nice man. And again:

Clark suggested a better message for an evangelical leader like Mouw speaking at such an historic occasion: "If I had been Dr. Mouw, I would have talked about the life, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Ah, yes, take advantage of an invitation to speak to a group of people who have extended a hand of friendship and proselytize them. What a wonderfully Christian thing to do! The sad reality is that members of the SBC leadership think this is a Christian thing to do.

And finally:

"Some of my people were there and they were turned off by the whole event because of him," said Mike Gray, pastor of Southeast Baptist Church in Salt Lake City..."We want to become all things to all men to reach them to share the Gospel," Gray said. "And the tension and balance is how do you share the Gospel but not become part of standing with the Mormons."

Yeah. Sure hate to see you standing with the Mormons, Mike. Better to stand against them. Maybe even consider them enemies. Why are the Baptists to unapologetic about everything? Somebody that understands them please explain that to me.

Comments

[Scott Jones]

Thanks for sharing this.

Had thought about calling you this week, but it was crazy full. Had a great week in OKC.

[Resident Atheist]

I've found that for these sorts of things, it's helpful to take the perspective of a marketing executive. Pretend that instead of trying to sell the gospel, they're trying to sell large quantities of lemon-scented bath soap.

In this case, their concern is that (1) it's in the best interest of both the Baptists and Mormons to convince the public that they really and truly need scented bath soap, but (2) if the Baptists go too far in solidarity, people might think that the Mormons' orange-scented bath soap is just as good, when clearly it's an inferior product. (Less enlightened members of the public, like me, don't see a difference, but they tell me I'd have to be an advertising exec to make that claim; never mind that the advertising execs are the ones whose disagreements are at the heart of this price-gouging war.)

The main problem, though, is this: when two companies are competing, even if they share the intermediate goal of wanting more people to be addicted to their product, the one on top never, ever talks about Number 2. Coke never mentions Pepsi, Microsoft never mentions Google, McDonalds never mentions Burger King, Nike never mentions Reebok. They market as though their competition doesn't exist; they're juggernautish enough to make that work. And there's apparently a line of thinking that Baptists shouldn't mention Mormons. It gives them free advertising. And we can't have that.

Cheers,
RA

[Adam]

RA,
Why do you always have to be so damn right about everything? (not politically right, just correct, or at least so interesting that nobody here cares if your right or not).

Greg,
I don't know why this never ceases to infuriate me even though I know its coming. There is no dissention allowed in the SBC. Dissention is equal to insubordination and it will not be tolerated from/by staff or church members alike. This is why I am either getting kicked out of SBC churches or proselytized for asking questions to the contrary of the status quo. The methodology is (and this is employed constantly by our friend Hank "The Bible Answer Man" Hanegraaf/hanegraaff/hanegraf) if they don't agree with you then either change their minds or discredit them. Sounds biblical to me.

[cheek]

One of the things in scripture that amazes me is its ability to create a coherent dialectic between writers with varying ideas and immediate goals. I love the Jewish method of viewing the Old Testament, especially the prophetic writings, as an argument rather than a treatise. Under such interpretations, scripture says some fairly amazing things.

Unfortunately, my former-peers in the SBC have abandoned such traditional interpretations for the dogmatic sort that leads to culture war and, eventually, real war. There is no such thing as discussion in Southern Baptist Churches because they have adopted a theology that is centered in fear. Fear of God, fear of hell, fear of philosophy, fear of gays... You name, they are afraid of it. Why do you think the Christian right conned conservatives in this country into using the rhetoric of war in the gay marriage debate. Of course gays aren't attacking traditional marriage in any way, but to someone whose entire perspective is one of fear, any diverging opinion represents a threat. Because they would force their ideas onto others, they fear that others would do the same to them. It,s worldy; it's nonsensical; it's vicious; and it's sad.

[Resident Atheist]

I don't think I'm completely right, because there are serious differences between churches and companies. When you hand over your $1.99 and get your cheeseburger, it's obvious to all parties that the transaction is finished and that everyone has what they want. That idea doesn't work so well when you start dealing with intangibles.

A lot of American churches try to treat conversion this way--their goal is to get people dunked or to get them to say the Sinner's Prayer or "accept Jesus in their hearts" (whatever that means)--but that's not the end of it. There are also things like church attendance and tithing and voting habits that get reinforced or altered, and these are harder to quantify on the end of the converters (and the people who've recently converted sure as hell don't know what it's all about). The entire consumerist model is predicated on the idea of finite, measurable transactions, but when does the transaction of conversion finish? And what does the transaction of "faith maintenance" even look like?

I think these difficulties are the source of a lot of the insecurities in many American churches. The business models they're using to map their activities just don't work, even from their own perspective. Even the most Machiavellian megachurches want their members to live changed lives, but one foundational tenet of the capitalist ideal is universal stability: "Keep your life exactly as it is, just buy our product." This goal can't coexist with the idea of renewal. It's not even a matter of "dynamic tension" or conflicting poles or some such abstract way of managing cognitive dissonance; it's outright contradictory.

[Sarah]

I actually don't think that most churches, in this case SBC churches specifically, actually care if you "change" in your life. I think they have conjoured what I like tho call the four major sin groups (like food groups, buy naughtier):sex (the perverted enjoyable kind or the gay kind), smoking, drinking and cursing. If you steer clear of these deadly four, or at least don't fuck up and get caught at them, you can be as shitty in the rest of your life as you please. Most christian churches seem to have gotten to a "no conversion necessary" mentality, as long as you hide your transgressions well and continue to pump their pastor's wallets with money.

And besides that, the mormons are showing the baptists up in their ability to avoid the four major sin groups, and they have a better sense of community. How embarrassing.

[Adam]

Sarah,
Though jaded as you are, I love to see it.

[Bruce]

Greg asked, "Somebody that understands them please explain that to me."

Fundamentalists have more in common with Machiavelli than they do with Jesus. To them, any apology is a sign of weakness. For them, relations between people are always based on power, not love. That's why dominion theology holds such appeal to them.

[Resident Atheist]

Sarah, that's a good point. The upstart product pushers market themselves as cutting-edge agents of change, but the older and more established companies will sell themselves on stability, consistency and their long history of satisfying customers. McDonald's can run a successful ad campaign with nothing more than their name to back it up ("Buy McDonald's, it's the American thing to do"), but Hot & Now has to spend a lot of money and effort to portray itself as cool, hip and youngster-friendly.

I think this phenomenon is why the super-contemporary megachurches often emphasize renewal (in name, anyway) while the older groups tend to say "Come as you are" with "Stay as you are" scrawled somewhere in the fine print. People tend to go to new churches if they want change and older churches if they want to keep things the way they are.

Cheers,
RA

[Sarah]

People go to new churches for spiritual masterbation. It is that Falls Creek, life on a mountain-top, hands-raised, praise and worship band form of "worship" that feels good while you are doing it, but isn't worth shit in the long run. Church should be a solid romp in the hay with Jesus. The term "Sunday Morning Christian" only makes sense to me in the context of mega-churches with their false idols of some pretty college boy playing the guitar or bongos and their idea that that breif rush of spiritual excitement is religion. I say hey, you do that at home in your room with the door closed, where all masterbation takes place.

[Travis]

So one of the Baptists said, "If I had been Dr. Mouw, I would have talked about the life, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ"?

Okay, is this Baptist absolutely clueless? Oh,yeah, he's a Baptist. Probably he and the myriad other Baptists who have never taken the time to find out what Mormons actually believe would be shocked to learn that Mormons do, indeed, affirm the teachings of the New Testament. In fact, they believe in death and bodily resurrection of Christ.

I suppose, however, that when you're a mindless fundamentalist who already "knows" the "truth", you don't have to take the time educate yourself about those in other faith traditions. As a fundie once told me, "Ecumenicalism [I was surprised he actually knew the word] is the first step on the road to hell."

I guess I'll see you all in hell.

[Streak]

"People go to new churches for spiritual masterbation." I almost spit out coffee at that one! Great line.

I also think that cheek nails the theology of the fundies. It is very fear based. If we allow our gay friends to marry, God will smite us. If we don't cross all the t's God will smite us. God is a smiter and he is on our side! The rest of the world is even worse. That is a scary place to be. How much nicer to go to a place where everyone reassures you that God prefers you to the others. And THEN the masterbation begins!

[eddie jones]

The baptists are no different than us. They know what they stand for and call anyone who disagrees stupid. Seems the same here at this page. We are all just self hating baptists masterbateing to a different picture. Their picture is of "Billy G" and ours is of what ever nutsack theologian we all fancy at the time. yet we are all still just stroking our logs!

Eddie

[greg]

Eddie,

I'll assume there is something serious beneath your flippant remarks and respond. You'll notice a wide variety of spiritual backgrounds and opinions here. RA is an atheist. I don't think he's stupid. Travis may call himself an atheist; he's at least an agnostic. Don't think he's stupid either. Adam and Cheek and I disagree about many things. Don't think they're stupid. So it's difficult to say that we all think everyone that doesn't agree with us is stupid. I think most of us would agree that we think fundamentalism is stupid, if not the people who hold to those beliefs. I would choose ignorant or naive as a first choice; stupid is a possibility in some cases.

[eddie jones]

I am not sure how flippant it was, but it was semi-serious. I think we as "non-fundies" forget that hating or being negative toward people is a bad way to do things. If people were saying the things we say about "fundies" about gays, blacks, and women we might think badly of them. However, since it's "fundies" we don't see a problem with it. This makes us just like them I am pretty sure. They see gays as against God and we see them as against God. Are we not doing the same thing they are doing.

Intellectual Masturbation is just as bad as spirtual masturbation. Physical masturbation however, is not bad... I enjoy that!

[Resident Atheist]

Eddie,

The problem with the usual insults toward gays, women, blacks, etc. is that the knee-jerk reactionary criticisms leveled against them are useless and false. I think the claims about fundamentalists made in this thread have some hyperbole to them and some overly broad generalizations that are intentional and obvious in context, but the overall intent is not to deride them and thereby make us feel good about ourselves, but to respond to Greg's prompt for an explanation why certain people behave in a certain way. It's a difficult question to answer in a way that makes everyone feel good.

Another difference is that we're open to changing our views given better information. Try to imagine one of the majority of Alabama voters who voted a few weeks ago not to remove segregationist language from their constitution revising his views on racial relations. That's not to say we're better than they are; this isn't about "us vs. them". It's just that there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to hold views.

Cheers,
RA

[eddie jones]

It's just interesting to me how their knee Jerk reactionary criticisms and our claims sound very similar in nature, full of distain and judgmental misunderstanding. They seem to have the same affect on people as well, breeding division and angst. It is one thing to say prove me wrong and I'll change my mind and another to be humble enough to know that you might be wrong as well. To act is if the limited knowledge we have is enough to set things in stone is completely crazy. Most of us can't forget that at some point we were completely convinced of some the same things "fundies" are. The fact that we believe differently now doesn't change the fact that we could again be wrong in what we assume about God.

[Sarah]

I don't think there are many, if any people on this blog making assumptions. Most everyone who is commenting here knows just exactly what they are talking about. That is the difference between many "knee jerk reactions" of some more fundamental believers, is that they have never taken the time to try and see the world from a more "liberal" context. But I would wager that a majority of people who read and comment on this blog were raised right here in Oklahoma as fundamental, evangelical christians. Most speak first hand of actions and attitudes they have directly witnessed, and not broad-based, inaccurate assumptions.

[eddie jones]

Sarah,

Your statement is exactly what I am talking about. We can't assume that just because we have read more books and looked at things from a more "liberal" perspective that we know exactly what we are talking about.

Also, making a stereo type is exactly what you described. Hitler had experince with the Jews before he started hating them as well. It doesn't make it any better.

I am just saying that it might be better to aproach the whole thing a little more humble.

It doesn't matter what your views are chances are your wrong on something.

[greg]

Eddie,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Should we not criticize and/or critique fundamentalism? Should we always be nice? Should we always assume we could be wrong? (I might sign off on that one. Good luck convincing the fundies though.) You make my point well though by saying that we could be very wrong about God. I agree completely. What does humility look like in this context? If you're saying it looks like me saying, "Well, the fundies could be right," then I disagree. I'm sure I'm wrong about some things. I'm sure the liberals are wrong about some things. One of the things I'm also sure of is that the fundies aren't right about most things.

[Brandon]

I think I might understand Eddie's point. I think I also agree, in reference to myself, at least.

I think the jist (if I'm reading it right) is this: We get up in arms about people who come here and love Joel Osteen. I know I do, it's fun. We play with them a little and then deliver the deathblow of logic.

In short, we're doing the same thing as many fundamentalists. We call anyone who doesn't agree with what we (or at least I do this) think, crazy, stupid, or uneducated...sometimes by inference, sometimes directly. I think that Eddie raises a good point about that. It wouldn't hurt some of us (chiefly myself) to take a long hard look at the way we treat naysayers...because, in the grand scope of things: we are those naysayers, too.

However, the analogy is not complete. For the most part we are the minority. The minority needs a big stick and sharp teeth...it doesn't have the populous mob on its side. So, there's room, in my mind, for a bit of sharp banter about topics. And, furthermore, the majority desperately NEEDS the minority. We are their yeast. Without us, they are without spice...without salt. One step further, the majority needs the minority to be the minority LOUDLY. And, for that reason, I see value in sharp retorts and direct, challenging comments.

What I don't see room for are unsubtle berating behavior aimed at those we disagree with. I think Eddie is right on. I think that even the 'anti-fundamental' community could stand to be self-reflective. Maybe nothing I've just said applies to you, but let me assure you: it does apply to me.

[Brandon]

Paranthetically, I don't think Greg's post about the SBC was particularly berating or offensive, so in this situation (and honestly most situations) I think it's appropriate.

[greg]

Brandon and Eddie,

I'll agree with Brandon that it's something I need to be careful of. I also agree that we're the minority, especially in OK, so I reserve the option to be a little bit pissy from time to time.

[Resident Atheist]

Eddie,

Can you give a specific example of a statement on this thread that you think shows disdain, hate, contempt or a misunderstanding of one or more fundamentalist positions? I'm honestly at a loss as to what you mean here.

Thanks,
RA

[Adam]

Eddie,

I don't think it would be too far fetched for me to say that anyone here would give a fundamentalist the shirt off of their back if they needed it. But this is not "show me your faith by your works" central. It is one of a few much needed places where ideologies can be presented, attacked, defended and completely discarded or revised if need be. I think it is fundamentally wrong to attack someone's person but I also think that it is a necessity to attack ideas. Can you imagine where we would be if the minority never spoke up? Can you imagine what this country would be like if everyone jumped on the war train and screamed "Go Bush Go"! The minority voice is needed and as long as nobody is having a Ron Artest pulled on them (that was for you Greg) I think that just about anything goes. Of course this all stems from my belief that we are more than just our belief sytems that we happen to hold at a given point in time. I hope so at least, or else I have been several completely different people in my short 23 years.

[Brandon]

And I certainly think that it's not only good and right to get pissy from time to time; I think it's righteous. It's also the reason I keep coming back. I think Eddie has a point...but so do you Greg. I'm not sure these two points are even really at odds.

[Brandon]

Apologies. I used an improper semi-colon in the last comment. I shouldn't have tried to join a dependent clause with an independent one with a semi-colon. I suck.

[Eddie Jones]

There are too many posts for me to totally respond to so I won't.

I will say this, yes Greg we should always be nice. You are a pacifist I should have to tell you that. You are the one that would let a man rape your wife and not fight him. : )

As for the minority thing and the carry a big stick thing I would say tell that to Gandhi or to mother Teresa. They seemed to do ok just spreading love and peace and all that crap they did...

Good deeds are also not always physical giving a man the shirt off your back and then calling stupid later is still not being a good person.

My point was simply that maybe tearing every "fundie" that comes in apart isn't the way to change people minds. It might make you feel better for all the mistreating “they” have done to you but it doesn’t change their minds. It also might make people run from the good things you have to tell them. Maybe we can share ideas without tearing down people who are trying to understand god, even if they are going about it the wrong way. I am not saying that we can't say that we think they are wrong or to express different views than what they have. I wish there were more places other views of Christianity could be heard. However, it is like someone said in one of their posts "there are appropriate and inappropriate ways to hold views" I feel like attacking people is inappropriate way to go about it. I also it is a less effective approach.

But Hey, I could be wrong.

[Resident Atheist]

So wait, you're talking about different threads than this one? Or are you actually talking about this thread? You'll have to forgive me, it takes a while for me to catch on to contexts that aren't made explicit.

Speaking of heroes, a lot of people who knew Gandhi personally thought he was a prick (although his principles were good), and Mother Teresa had the reprehensible habit of not deploying medicine even though she could more than afford it, because she thought suffering was the way people touch the person of Christ. Nobody's perfect, and nothing is above examination.

As far as courtesy goes, I'm of the opinion that returning posters ought to be treated like human beings, but hit-and-run trolls are fair game for anything we feel like throwing at them. If you have specific examples of violations of this principle, then I'd like to hear about them.

Cheers,
RA

[bobstevens]

Well, if the things I've heard are true (note the "if"), then Mormonism is a scary cult. That said, the guy is right. It's stupid to tell people what they believe since logically one could assume that there is only one person who could tell you what that person believes. Even people involved in a scary cult may be somewhere close to correct.

So, it's dumb for people to jump all over this, but at the same time they are just expressing their belief that Mormonism is a scary and harmful cult. If they are correct, when given the opportunity it would be a cruel thing to refrain from trying to proselytize. Would it not?

[bobstevens]

Is it against the rules to clarify so soon after my last post? I think we're not recognizing that many of those here might act in ways that are somewhat similar to those of the "fundamentalists" (which is really a very imprecise term) if we shared the same assumptions.

I have to guess that the problem people here have is with the assumptions, but it's being expressed as a problem with the actions. In this case the assumption is that Mormonism is bad, harmful, etc. You guys (I'm generalizing here) obviously disagree with this assumption, but if you didn't... wouldn't you act a little bit more like the "fundies". Just a little?

Hopefully I'm being clear... I'm just advocating calling a spade a spade, but I guess that's never quite as humorous.

[greg]

Eddie,

I'm afraid RA is right about this. Mother Teresa also had the distressing habit of speaking her mind at the wrong time. Like the time she told a gathering in the U.S. that God maybe had provided a cure for AIDS, but we had aborted it. Gandhi was not a nice man in the way he dealt with the British. He was very effective using non-violence, but non-violence is not the same thing as being nice.

As to your sophomoric comment about standing by while my wife is raped, you should try to understand pacifism without resorting to silly caricatures of pacifism. I would not stand by. The pacifism I tend to believe in is to put yourself in harm's way to spare another. The problem with your view, Eddie, is that it doesn't take Jesus seriously. Rather than debate the merits of the position, you resort to flippancy.

There are plenty of people who come through here that receive excellent treatment. But when someone starts by giving me a lecture about who I am and what I believe having read one post, then they are fair game. And, no, I'm not Jesus, but you ought to try reading some of the things he said: white-washed sepulchres, old fox, murderers, liars, children of the devil, etc.

[eddie jones]

That's cool. I don't take much in life seriously.

Mother T and the other guy aside My point was Treating everyone as a friend might be a good thing. That is if you really want them to listen to what you have to say. (yes I know everyone is not perfect)

As for my flippancy... That's just me. Your gonna have to deal with that. If you remember the rape things was a joke from conversation we had a ways back. It was not a serious point. Hence the :). That is international sign for not serious.

Anyway, I'll go read the bible and look for those cool references so I can learn to justify treating people badly. :)-- see that means that line is flippant.

PEACE

[Brandon]

I understand, Eddie, that flippancy is your way. I appreciate and accept that. The problem is that your message (sans flippant comments) is to treat everyone with respect.

It feels colossally hypocritical of you to in the same comment engage in flippant straw-man comments about Greg's pacifistic views and in the matter of a few paragraphs turn around to say that we should treat everyone 'nice.' That's probably why you get as much static as you did.

If we're to deal with your flippancy, you should use it more wisely. It detracts from your point, a point that I defended and still believe is good.

[Resident Atheist]

Bob,

While there's a lot of really weird stuff (IMO of course) in early Mormonism, there's also a lot of pointless, fact-deprived propaganda out there. The "God Makers" series comes to mind (or maybe there were only two of them; it's been a while). Maybe I'd be more sympathetic to the Baptists' concerns if they were based in fact. I do think there are some serious issues with the LDS church, but these are based on some conversations I've with former members, and that has to be considered; ex-believers often don't paint the most sympathetic picture of the church.

Although I think it's awfully nutty to assume God told Joseph Smith to start a new church, it's not any crazier than thinking God told Ellen White or Charles Taze Russell to start new churches, so realistically any critique of Mormonism on these grounds (or the grounds of extrabiblical revelations) would also have to target Seventh Day Adventism and Jehovah's Witnesses. (The latter is much more cult-like than the Mormons are.)

Of course, me being an atheist and all, I also think it's a bit nutty to think God told Paul to start a church, but I don't harp on it much. My point in bringing it up is that the thing to look at when examining potentially dangerous or destructive beliefs is (usually) not the beliefs themselves, but rather the community in which those beliefs are taught and practiced. There's a case to be made that many Mormon groups might not be healthy in this respect, but that's also true of (e.g.) Southern Baptists as well.

Cheers,
RA

[Adam]

Eddie,
It is pretty obvious to me that you are not very fond of us. You still haven't given us any specific examples of what you are talking about but I will assume that there is something there that is upsetting you. But did you really think you were going to change our minds by telling us that we are bad people. What you are trying to do is evoke change using tactics that go against your own criteria for goodness. I don't think telling fundies they are stupid is going to change their minds, just like I also don't think your are going to change our minds by telling us what bad people we are. But perhaps disenfranchisement is on your list of "good deeds" in which case I laud you for your attempt.

[Brian]

Oklie Doklie...your favorite "fundie" jumping back in after a long sabatical. I TOTALLY AGREE WITH EDDIE. One thing though, I will not be so gracious as to use the "we" tense. I will have the balls to say "you". So, YOU all are not very nice at all. I, believe it or not, read many of the postings here and respond to little. So, I wouldn't classify myself as a "hit and run" poster. I have known Greg for the most of my adult life, a good decade or so, so I am not unfamiliar with the personality type here. I know many of you from church at one level or another, so again not unfamiliar.

I won't respond to comments about how we should dance around things here or there, or how we should put on our kid gloves to deal with others. But I am going to make some specific points about evangelizing, which as a fundy, I see as our greatest calling. After all, what the hell good is knowledge if you only use it to belittle others that don't agree with you.

Now, if you are deliberatly optimizing your site so that you attract people looking for specific things, then want to hit them in the nuts with shock value by saying negative things about those which they are searching, i.e. Joel Osteen, LifeChurch.tv, etc. then that IS being mean, on any and every level and in any and every context.

This is one of Greg's comments and we should all remember the context:

"...if I have to choose between a non-corporeal entity in whom resides pure evil floating around the earth to tempt humans into pecadilloes and foibles and egregious sins or those same humans choosing to be evil and stupid and hateful and bigoted, I'm opting for the entitites I've seen be evil and stupid and hateful... "

Now really, who in the world talks like this? This is inarguably the worst attempt at elitism that I have ever seen. Seriously. Faith is not an elitist concept. Faith should draw people of all types together, not divide them. I used this quote because it was followed and preceded with many comments that belittled a "fundie" way of thinking. Most importantly, when I read it, it sparked the perfect illustration of this really bad elitism that is going on here.

Greg, you and I had a conversation the other night in which I asked if someone broke into your house looking to harm you wife and demanded to know where she was while she hid in the closet, would you give her over to them or lie (a sin) and defend her. You said that you would simply remain silent. Now that was the silliest, dumbest answer possible. And a good attempt at having something very philosophically ethical to stand on. What you should have answered, and I am totally convinced that what God would want to hear, is "I would lie and then kill the bastard" thus protecting your family (good) and removing the threat of him (evil) now and in the future from you and anyone else. What is so evil about that? Situational ethics, bub.

I love you all (not in a fag-like sense :) (no offense, Travis (note the :) (for you, Eddie))), but I will say that this place has some of the worst, elitist, prejudice, hateful discussion that I have ever read. Unless of course you are agreeing with Greg, then everything is all kissy kissy ass ass.

Love to all, and to all a good night!

Brian "super fundie" Richardson

[Kristen]

Question- if you don't like the way opinions are expressed on this blog, why do you read it?

[A Progressive Christian]

I think that there is a lot of anger in the fundamentalist community because their faith is built on quicksand, and they know it but won't admit it. If you can't defend your faith, if you know at heart that your pre-scientific beliefs are dying in light of modern knowledge, and if you are starting to doubt your own rhetoric, you can either begin the painful process of growth or get angry at anyone who could even be slightly construed as saying you might be wrong.

The South before the civil war suffered from this same phenomenon-take a look at the exertions that John Adams went through in Congress simply over whether Congress should accept petitions from citizens relating to slavery (not whether it should do anything about them, just whether they should be received).

A Progressive Christian

[eddie jones]

Ok, for the last time. My flippant (stupid word by the way)remark was a joke that Greg should have picked up on. It wasn't mean or negative in its intent. So that pretty much sums up your miss reading into that.

Secondly, It is NOT "pretty obvious that I am not very fond of you". If you will notice, as brian did, I used we. I was, and am, including myself into the group. So again I was miss read. My point was pretty simple, I thought at least. So, I am going to leave you well enough alone.

Thank you Brandon for trying to understand my point. It was not aimed at anyone. It was just a thought.

So with that said... You can continue your bloody fight with brian. :) (again the smile means don't take me serious) I guess I will have to spell that out more often here.

[Ronald Bailey]

Is this the same Eddie Jone I know and Love
whom I met in Greenville Miss.

[clarissa]

what does the bible say about masturbation? is it wrong all together?