Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
it is an analogy..... fundamentalists believing that only their view is the correct one theologically is like a person from the U.S. believing that the only history in the world that matters is U.S. history....
not a problem.....Thanks for clearing that up. While I suppose there are those who believe what you said about the good old USA, I am not one of them.
AT
By that same definition I gave for fundies, you could very well include SDAism in that group as well can't you?
AT
it is a mystery and while I understand the mentality I do not agree with it.... nor would I allow a person or persons with that mentality teach my kids....I'm still trying to figure out how a book God did not write can be infallible. It seems that some Christians do not base faith on the Creator but on the picture of God the bible writers wrote, so if an account in the bible is proven not to be entirely accurate or has errors in it then I shall assume their faith is then weakened?
This sounds like individuals who believe a dogma certain regardless of what the evidence says. That's a rather dangerous attitude to take and I hope none of my children are ever taught by someone with that approach to the world.If what is ment by the word fundamentalism is infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming then I will kindly welcome the title fundamental....only don't call me a Dispensationaist fundamental.
AT
Shocking! SDA fundamentalists! Where could they possibly be. Why something like that could split a forum or something!
Hey Stormy did you know that the sun warms the earth? Stay tuned for more shocking revelations!
You know, you have a very serious attitude problem! And then you have the nerve to talk about my faults???
You really need to take the advice that I gave earlier concerning "What time is it?"
I think the term Evangelical needs to be included, progressive is way to broad, it can mean anyone who disagrees with anything, from slight difference over minor detail to Major doctrine shifts, Like Theistic Evoloution. That is too broad. Evangelical is a well defined postion in Adventism and is clearly distinct from Progressive. it is well documented. To include it is just the natural course of things.As for the use of Evangelical I am not sure it is needed as it fits within the term Progressive Adventist.
No it is not simply about me and Adventruth. It is about the atmosphere on the forum.
It is where people like you will say nothing against the people like Adventruth,
nearly all the Progressive Adventists who regularly post here have in effect told him to back off,
none of the former Adventists say a thing.
That tells us a lot about what the former Adventist people want for this forum verses what the Progressive Adventists want.
There is no need for and it goes against what this forum put forth as objectives to have people on here saying that others don't trust God, or others don't see Jesus Christ atonement because it is a different atonement theory than theirs.
The fact is that the narrow fundamentalist viewpoint is polluting the respect and acceptance that this forum tried to deliver.
Yes the former Adventists could have acted to change things
before but their inaction results in the need for the rest of us to change things before it is too late
and all Progressive Adventists leave this forum,
But that is one of the things that make Progressive Adventists a much larger tent and far more tolerant then the fundamentalists.
(1) You specifically told me that you wanted no interaction with me. In an effort to make peace, I backed out of the thread in which you have been posting, and I've concentrated my time on threads where you are not posting. I was hoping this might allow you some time to soften a bit. Obviously, I was mistaken.
[/indent]I don't recall that, I may have said I was no longer going to discuss something with you.
Even if that was the case, it is not a violation of rules to note when people misuse logic or refuse to answer questions or make false declarations about others or even declarations which they can have no way of supporting.
This is why I said a forum is only as good as those members of the forum. I think that most of the former Adventists on the forum now have no desire to support the forum and as such they tend to work against it.
I am always amazed also to see fundamentalist pleading they don't know what fundamentalism is. Probably caused by their denial of their own reality.
He at least is obligated to illustrate, using definitions that are common to the two of you, why you are a fundamentalist even if you claim you are not.If I say to you that I am not a fundamentalist, and if you continue to refer to me as a fundamentalist, are you living within the rules and the purpose of this forum?
He at least is obligated to illustrate, using definitions that are common to the two of you, why you are a fundamentalist even if you claim you are not.
I agree.
I'm not really sure how a person is to define "fundamentalist" as the term has been used to mean so many things about so many different groups of people. If you look up "fundamentalist Christian" in Wikipedia, you will find (in part) the following:
I couldn't begin to confirm whether or not this is a true definition of a "fundamentalist." However, if it is, I would note that:
The fundamentalists emphasized the command to "be ye separate" and adopted a conservative social outlook that avoided many items deemed to be sinful, worldy, or inappropriate or sinful for christians. Whilst there is some variation in approach, most fundamentalists will share a majority of the following views:
- (1) rejection of popular music including rock and roll and contemporary Christian music - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
- (2) dancing is prohibited - seen as associated with immorality and immodesty
- (3) visiting the cinema or theatre is unacceptable - perception is that content is unchristian and lifestyles of performers are immoral
- (4) modest and traditional dress styles are required - women must not wear trousers, men must not have long hair or wear earrings
- (5) no drinking of alcohol - seen as worldly and associated with immorality
- (6) traditional gender roles - male headship, woman's role is to raise children - seen as the Biblical model
- (7) no sex outside of heterosexual marriage, opposition to homosexuality - seen as immoral and prohibited by the Bible
- (8) abortion is unacceptable - seen as murder (in some cases, all forms of birth control are opposed)
(1) Many (if not most) Seventh-day Adventists put into practice the statements set out in Items *1-5 and #7 above;If this is the definition of "fundamentalist," I would not be a very strong candidate.
(2) I do not agree with, nor do I practice, any of the statements set out in Items 1-6 above;
(3) One might wonder why the SDA denomination has not officially adopted the position set out in #8, and why many (but not all) SDA hospitals still perform abortions.
BFA
BFA, what you posted is more of a description than a definition.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?