Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Pope Says It Is Wrong To Equate Islam With Violence


Jim_Alaska

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

And, once again, we see the ferm "Fundamentalist" equated with violence and crazy, fringe lunatic thinking and action.

 

 

“…we must work –together to outlaw all forms of discrimination, intolerance and sectarian fundamentalism.”

 

Okay, folks, soon we will be outlaws, because we are fundamentalists. Because, of course, fundamentalism equates to intolerance and hate. But its okay to hate and be intolerant of fundamentalists, and more and more, Christians altogether, save for those extremely cooperative, ecumenical, kum-bi-ya types.

 

Its funny, because I am currenty working on a short pamphlet of what an IFB is, for those who realy just don't know, but will avoid our churches because of what the media equates to fundamentalism. This article is perfect to include.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not sure I understand why we have to make a big deal about the word "fundamentalist"...meaning...do we have to use it openly?   Meaning....the term was coined in the 70's, I believe, but our belief system went WAY farther back than that time period.  If the meaning of the word "fundamentalist" is changing...should we change how we describe ourselves?

 

Fundamentalist Mormons are known as mean and selfish polygamists.  Fundamentalist Muslims are known as murderers.  Fundamentalist Baptists are now known as Westboro.

 

Would it be wrong to abandon the word "fundamental"?   I know that we just say we are Independent Baptist and "old fashioned" and "KJV".   That pretty much sums it up...doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I just say to people, "I believe what the bible says."  They can take that anyway they want.  They usually say, "Well anybody can interpret the bible anyway they want."  I say, "I never interpret it, I just read it and believe it."  And that's the truth!  :frog:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I know a pastor who calls himself a biblicist. In fact, the church name is First Biblicist Church. I thought it was interesting when I heard about it because I had a teacher in college who said that one day the term fundamentalist would be tainted and we'd need to identify ourselves as biblicists instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a little weird.  But yeah I think Fundamentalist is pretty much out now.  It tends to make people think of abuse and hate.  :-(  I personally do not use it to describe myself anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

President Bush, President OBama, and a host of our other politicians make the same declarations. They have proclaimed Islam to be a religion of peace, terrorists to just be terrorists not driven by religion, that the god of Islam is the same as the God of Christianity.

 

Truth and reality mean nothing to these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That's a little weird.  But yeah I think Fundamentalist is pretty much out now.  It tends to make people think of abuse and hate.  :-(  I personally do not use it to describe myself anymore.

I think this explanation is valid.

 

The concept was needed at the beginning of the 20th C when the "free" churches - non-conformist in the UK - accepted modernism & rejected the authority of Scripture. In the UK Bible fellowships were formed by people seceding from the denominations.

 

These were called together to form the "Fellowship of Independent Churches" - FIEC - with today's slogan "Bible Churches Growing Together." It was originally the "Federation of Undenominational & Unattached Churches & Missions." (A snappy title, soon replaced.) Some churches labelled themselves "Undenominational." The founder of the FIEC, Poole-Connor, wrote an informative book: "The Apostasy of English Non-conformity" which then spared only the Brethren & Strict Baptists. 

 

Baptist churches were not exempt from modernism, as Spurgeon's "Downgrade Controversy" with the Baptist Union showed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Would we rather see a Pope who works for peace between religions or who maintains the RCC as the absolute & incontrovertible & unique truth? 

 

We cannot advance the Gospel by war & the attempted imposition of democracy, but the climate the Pope is working towards may open up areas & people to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Words have meanings, definitions, and when those definitions are valid, there is no reason to abandon them, just because they are tainted by the world.

 

The term Fundamentalist refers to someone who holds to the fundamentals, or the basics, the foundations, of their beliefs, (in a religious sense). Thus, a fundamentalist Muslim would, indeed, be someone who believes in killing those who won't convert, because that is an Islamic fundamental. Their 'prophet,' so-called, practiced it.

 

An Fundamentalist Mormon is someone who would hold to the polygamy of their founder, Joseph Smith, who declared it to be an everlasting covenant between themselves and their god. It would be proper.

 

Westboro is NOT a fundamentalist group, and their preaching and activities declare such. Timothy McVeigh wasn't a fundamentalist, nor was David Koresh, or Jim Jones, despite what the media says.

 

Neither I, nor my faith, will be decided by what the media says. Seriously, the term 'Christian" has a negative connotation to it for many-shall we cease using that term? Being a 'separatist' is negatively viewed by many, but I will still stand and declare myself such. 

 

I am an Independent Fundamental Baptist Christian, because I believe those terms describe my faith and my stand. And I must admit, it makes me wonder why some say they're IFB, if they have repudiated the "F".

 

As far as the Pope's climate, its no different than the 'climate' they have been seeking to make since the Vatican II in the 1960's, and became ecumenical. The prOBlem is, they aren't giving the gospel to anyone, and they still clearly maintain that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic church. So, it hasn't changed at all-they will make small concessions to get others to step under their umbrella, as they have done for 2,000 years, but ultimately, those will have to join the RCC, not the other way around. It is a false peace, a false reaching out, being performed by a Jesuit, THE Jesuit. And a Jesuit always has the mother church as their sole thought behind everything they do. DON'T doubt me on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The popes talks of inclusion only extend so far as it gains the RCC more influence. One of the deals the pope has been working with Muslims is agreeing to the idea of Muslims being off limits for conversion efforts while proclaiming both their gods are the same.

 

The pope is only working for a false peace that would enable the spread of Catholicism and their sphere of influence. If the major false religions reach a point where they agree they have the same god, but different ways of viewing that god, this could easily become a one world religion.

 

Who would be left out of such? Those Christians who believe the Bible and insist there is one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus, and only one way to be right with God, and that's through Christ Jesus. The RCC, Islamists and others would be united in their anger towards such "intolerance" and willing to work together to eradicate such "extremists".

 

Both the RCC and Muslims thwart the spread of the Gospel. There is little chance cooperation between the RCC and Islam will result in the opening of nations to the spread of the Gospel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Walk into a gathering of IFBs and announce you are a "proud, gay, Baptist" and you will quickly discover whether the true meaning of words can be held to or if corrupted use taints them to the point of being unusable in a right way. :icon_smile:

If you notice, we still us the Bible version that speaks of the man wearing the gay clothing.  Yes, we titter a bit when its said, (like speaking of Balaam's talking ass), but its still valid English with proper definition.

 

Besides, I suspect I wouldn't walk into ANY IFB church and announce that I am anything but born again. but I get your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...