Pope Says It Is Wrong To Equate Islam With Violence

[ThePilgrim]

 And a Jesuit always has the mother church as their sole thought behind everything they do. DON'T doubt me on this.

The Jesuits (a so-called missionary organization) were set up as the popes personnal army of zealots to make sure every one towed the popes line.  And they were truly zealots.  Flagellating themselves along with other forms of masochistic behavior as a spiritual exercise.  The vow that they take leaves no doubt who they have dedicated themselves to and the consequences for breaking that vow.  The Jesuits were set up in such a fashion that a Jesuit could never become the pope of the roman church.  I guess things have changed and the Jesuits have became more powerful.  

If you are curious about yhe vow they take: http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=jesuit

[Alimantado]

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.

 

Gotta agree with John and others on this one. I guess I've always had a pragmatic approach to language--as far as I'm concerned words are there to get your meaning across and so if the popular meanings of words change, which they do, you have to change your usage if you want to communicate what you mean.

 

Most of us use the word 'due' in sentences like 'cancelled due to rain', don't we? Here's what my 1965 edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say about that:

 

 

Has due to, using the weapon of analogy, won a prescriptive right to be treated as though it had passed, like owing to, into a compound preposition? May we now regard as idiomatic such sentences as ... Due to last night's rain play will be impossible before lunch? ... The prepositional use of owing to is some 150 years old, but of a similar use of due to there is not a vestige in the Oxford English Dictionary (1897); in the 1933 supplement it is said to be 'frequent in U.S. use', and in 1964 the Concise Oxford Dictionary tersely dismisses it as 'incorrect'.

 

To comment on something Mike said: Is someone 'repudiating' the fundamentalist part of IFB when they drop the word itself? Not necessarily--in fact you could argue that they are staying loyal to the concept by trying to find the clearest words to express it.

 

I do agree with the point that we shouldn't drop terms just because they have negative connotations. If the negative connotations come from a correct understanding of the idea/message, then no prOBlem. Does the word 'Christianity' do that? I think so, broadly. But with 'fundamentalist', I don't think folk anymore associate that word with staying true to fundamentals or foundations. I think these days they apply the term synonymously with 'extremist', in the sense of one who takes an idea and exaggerates it. Might be wrong...

[Ukulelemike]

I believe the issue with the word "Fundamentalist" isn't that the meaning has changed-I think most people just don't know WHAT it means. Its become a catch-all term to describe evil, murderous zealots, yet the meaning hasn't changed, and really, despite the clear assumption they attach to it, the usage is still fairly applicable when applied to, say Muslims killiong non-Muslims, since it IS a fundamental to their religion, or Mormons having more than one one, because that's a fundamental of their religion. 

 

I was an IFB for many years before I really thought about, or understood the term. Later in life, I started looking into it, why WAS I a 'fundamentalist'..what did it mean? And in that study, I discovered the meaning and was pleased, because it was just what I wanted to be.

 

The meaning hasn't changed, it still refers to what it should. And so I will remain a fundamentalist.  Shall we cease being conservatives, because the media paints conservatives as ignorant, Bible-thumping hicks that don't understand science and want to repress women and minorities? Should I call myself Pigmentally-Disabled, because the media thinks it's evil to be born white? Maybe I should consider myself a Woman without ovaries, because being male has such negative connotations to it?

 

I know I am getting silly here, but if we're fundamentalists, shouldn't we remain such, and try to teach others what it means?  We keep running from one thing and another, and, unless its to move away from compromise, and closer to truth, I just see it as one more piece of ground we are giving to the enemy.

[Alimantado]

I believe the issue with the word "Fundamentalist" isn't that the meaning has changed-I think most people just don't know WHAT it means. Its become a catch-all term to describe evil, murderous zealots, yet the meaning hasn't changed, and really, despite the clear assumption they attach to it, the usage is still fairly applicable when applied to, say Muslims killiong non-Muslims, since it IS a fundamental to their religion, or Mormons having more than one one, because that's a fundamental of their religion. 

 

.....

 

I know I am getting silly here, but if we're fundamentalists, shouldn't we remain such, and try to teach others what it means?  We keep running from one thing and another, and, unless its to move away from compromise, and closer to truth, I just see it as one more piece of ground we are giving to the enemy.

 

If it's become a catch-all term to describe evil, murderous zealots then the meaning has changed, to that. Word meanings are not set in stone but come from common usage and are subject to semantic change--that's just the way of it.

 

So if it's true that this is what the word now means to folk, then they'll read IFB as 'Independent, Evil, Murderous, Zealot Church', not because of anything your church has done but because of meanings imported from elsewhere. If you're happy for everyone to think that so long as it means you get to be right about a dictionary definition, I guess that's your choice. But then we go back to the question, what are words for? Is the label 'IFB' supposed to broadcast a message? The audience isn't going to look in their dictionaries.

 

Now I don't think that the original meaning of 'fundamental' is archaic as all that and maybe you're right that there's still time to reclaim the word. But be careful not to mistake loyalty to the dictionary for loyalty to Christian fundamentalism. :-)

[Jim_Alaska]

I think we can go on in this vein forever. I also think it wrong to continually change the description of what we are to suit the times.

At one time the term Independent Baptist meant something definitive. Then the "fundemental" got added, then the negativitity against that word got perverted. This is a vicious circle.

 

Until I joined this forum I never heard so much usage of the word "funtamental" as I have since. It would be beneficial to simple state what we are simply, such as "Independent Baptist." If people don't understand it then I can expain it as I always have.

 

Let's not try to forever comform to what someone thinks would be a better explanation, only to find at a later time that the added words have been perverted and we have to change it again.

 

 

 

 

Edited for spelling

[Ukulelemike]

Then my question would be: How do we now advertise to the world what we are and what we believe? Fundamental meant we believed in the fundamentals. How do we now better describe that? I DO like the term 'biblicist' as said earlier, but, well, gosh, the Bible is such a narrow book, so mean-spirited and promotes slavery and white dominance, (yes, I know it doesn't, but try to keep up-lol), how could we use that?

 

I guess my point it, ANYTHING we call ourselvs is set to be considered negative. If it isn't already associated with supposed evil, as per my former post, then it will be. How often shall we run from a good term because the world calls it evil? Remember, the Bible said  "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Is 5:20). No matter what we do or call ourselves to promote the truth,  Satan, through the world, will seek to discredit it, and then, we'll be running again from it.

 

I am not married to words and labels, but we need to describe who and what we are, somehow. Once, to call an assembly, a church or an assembly, for so the word means, was sufficient. But that word was co-opted a long time ago, even while the Apostles were still teaching. We still use the term, but we have built on it to further distance ourselves from false churches and to advertise our stand. And while there are certainly IFB churches that have gone out of the way, or are currently sliding, yet the terminology still appropriate.  

 

Anyways, maybe this argument is unnecessary. I always believe that what a church does is between them and the Lord-I'll not judge another servant of my Lord. If there are those who feel the need to turn from terminology that the world is seeking to poison, its not for me to judge or rebuke, and I'm sorry if it seems I have-not my intention. I guess I am just pretty passionate about it, which is interesting, because its never really been an item of discussion for me, so I'd not much thought about it before.

 

 

I think we can go on in this vein forever. I also think it wrong to continually change the description of what we are to suit the times.

At one time the term Independent Baptist meant something definitive. Then the "fundemental" got added, then the negativitity against that word got perverted. This is a vicious circle.

 

Until I joined this forum I never heard so much usage of the word "funtamental" as I have since. It would be beneficial to simple state what we are simply, such as "Independent Baptist." If people don't understand it then I cna expain it as I always have.

 

Let's not try to forever comform to what someone thinks would be a better explanation, only to find at a later time that the added words have been perverted and we have to change it again.

 

I finished the above comment just as Jim posted. Its funny-any time I tell someone we are Independent Baptist, my wife pops in with 'Independent FUNDAMENTAL Baptist". She's maybe more passionate about it than me.

 

Anyways I don't consider myself to always be right, and since its a fairly new thought for me, maybe something I should pray about.

[ThePilgrim]

" Shall we cease being conservatives, because the media paints conservatives as ignorant, Bible-thumping hicks that don't understand science and want to repress women and minorities?"

I stopped referring to myself as conservative when I learned people consider a conservative to be one who wants to preserve the status quo.  I could be described as a reactionary, I guess: one who opposes political or social liberalization.  The society has moved so far to the left of what was once called conservative that the modern conservatism is not what was once called conservative at all . . . . the words may not change but what the words mean does.

[Alimantado]

Then my question would be: How do we now advertise to the world what we are and what we believe? Fundamental meant we believed in the fundamentals. How do we now better describe that? I DO like the term 'biblicist' as said earlier, but, well, gosh, the Bible is such a narrow book, so mean-spirited and promotes slavery and white dominance, (yes, I know it doesn't, but try to keep up-lol), how could we use that?

 

Well if we stick to examining the word 'fundamentalist', maybe every 100 years or so? If you want to advertise something to the world, your only choice is to use language people understand. Anything thing else and you may get to say that you've won a victory--the continued use of a term you've always used, maybe--but you can't also say you're still advertising what you want to advertise. Not if people understand differently to what you're trying to say. I don't think 'fundamentalist' has gone so far yet, but there's nothing inherently Christian about the term itself, it's just a word that about 100 years ago folk decided would be a good fit for what they were trying to say.

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Gotta agree with John and others on this one. I guess I've always had a pragmatic approach to language--as far as I'm concerned words are there to get your meaning across and so if the popular meanings of words change, which they do, you have to change your usage if you want to communicate what you mean.

 

Most of us use the word 'due' in sentences like 'cancelled due to rain', don't we? Here's what my 1965 edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say about that:

 

 

To comment on something Mike said: Is someone 'repudiating' the fundamentalist part of IFB when they drop the word itself? Not necessarily--in fact you could argue that they are staying loyal to the concept by trying to find the clearest words to express it.

 

I do agree with the point that we shouldn't drop terms just because they have negative connotations. If the negative connotations come from a correct understanding of the idea/message, then no prOBlem. Does the word 'Christianity' do that? I think so, broadly. But with 'fundamentalist', I don't think folk anymore associate that word with staying true to fundamentals or foundations. I think these days they apply the term synonymously with 'extremist', in the sense of one who takes an idea and exaggerates it. Might be wrong...

But the world doesn't have a prOBlem with fundamentals or those that teach it -- they only have a narrow, selective, self-serving restrictive definition as applied to the area of "religion".  But not so with Fundamental Psychology, The Fundamentals of Accounting, or Fundamental Baseball Technique

[ThePilgrim]

Do we want to spend our time teaching the lost world  what the true meaning of fundamentalism is or do we want to spend our time teaching them the gospel? 

[Ukulelemike]

But the world doesn't have a prOBlem with fundamentals or those that teach it -- they only have a narrow, selective, self-serving restrictive definition as applied to the area of "religion".  But not so with Fundamental Psychology, The Fundamentals of Accounting, or Fundamental Baseball Technique

Good point.

 

In Religion, "Fundamental" means "Evil, intolerant, hateful, homophOBic, racist, etc etc.

 

But in every other area, it has a positive connotation, its the basics, the foundation of learning. It just isn't allowed to be applied to religion, because religion, in the world's eyes, MUST be able to be revised and altered to fit in with culture. Even science must continually change with the face of culture. Once, scientifically, homosexuality was considered a mental deviancy, Now, since culture demands it, it is just another valid way of viewing the world. No real fundamentals at work here, depsite what the evolutionists say about the 'scientific method', according to which, evolution is not science, because its not reproducible, nor is it subject to blind testing.

 

Anyways, enough of my  blah blah blah.

[Ukulelemike]

Do we want to spend our time teaching the lost world  what the true meaning of fundamentalism is or do we want to spend our time teaching them the gospel? 

Isn't the gospel a fundamental? 

[ThePilgrim]

Isn't the gospel a fundamental? 

I don't think that was my question?

[heartstrings]

Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 2 Timothy 2:19

 

When the word "fundamental" is gone completely,it will matter little: there will still be the name of Christ. There's only one real way to stand out from the crowd.

[John81]

It's our lives, our witness and testimony, that should stand out and make it clear to others we are different (peculiar people).

 

Names of churches, movements, slogans, ideologies, description change over time so they better reflect the reality of the times.

 

Prior to WWII the swastika symbol was used by many different cultures and was considered a beautiful symbol with some strong, sometimes great meaning to various people groups. With that symbol becoming so attached to the Nazis, here we are about 70 years after the fall of the very short lived Nazi Party and that symbol is still extremely tainted.

 

The Word says people will know us by our love one for another. Shame on us that we are more often known for other things...battling Baptists, bickering Baptist, buffet Baptists, bigoted Baptists...