Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxr!lew
From: lew@ihuxr.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Christian Fundamentalism, a Definition
Message-ID: <1076@ihuxr.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-May-84 18:47:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxr.1076
Posted: Thu May 10 18:47:57 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 12-May-84 09:16:21 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 20

Bob Brown's definition of Fundamentalism squares pretty well with my
understanding. The "bad name" that it bears stems, in my opinion, entirely
from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which flies in the face of science,
history, and common sense.

By the way, a while back there was some discussion of Jesus's failed
prophecy that he would return before "this generation passes away". This
was answered by someone by saying that "generation" meant "race", or something.
As strained as this is, it fails to answer the version in Mark, wherein
Jesus states with almost legalistic specificity, "Truly, I say to you, there
are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom
of God come with power." (Mark 9:1)  Even conservative Christian scholars
admit this is a failed prophecy.  Many see it as an insertion expressing the
continued hopes at the time of writing for an imminent Second Coming.

It is only the Fundamentalists who try to squirm out of this embarassment
by the contorted interpretations which so typify their thinking, and
which place them beyond the pale of reason.

	Lew Mammel, Jr. ihnp4!ihuxr!lew