JAMES..not a bad call mate.. they say 'any' publicity is 'good' publicity in the long run.. "welcome to my world" :) and for your confirmation of my own reasons for using 'volatile' slogans which CJ prefers to desribe as 'Nazi-like'.....(When they are not)

But the point I'm making there is that such words as supposedly were uttered by Peter Costello, 2 yrs ago, off the record, are now being dragged up onto the front page of the Herald.

I as going to do a new thread titled "'God' has decided Howard must go".. and of course when you see what 'God' has said "I'm going to destroy him" aah..but 'who' is 'god' in this case ? Well clearly it is Rupert Murdoch who owns the Herald.. The 'creator and destroyer' of men and careers :) Otherwise, how could 2 yr old innuendo suddenly become front page news ?

CJ.. if you wish to say "Christians support the judgement of God on the Cannanites" I'll be the first to put my name on the list of those who agree. But if you say "Christians support the general idea of genocide today" sorry.. no luck there.

*passes CJ a piece of rough sawn 2x4 for the next BOAZ-bash*

CJ.. Statement "Muslims support child molestation"
-If true, how is it true ?
-If untrue, then why is their evidence to the contrary.

Facts:
-Mohammad, at 53, married a 9 yr old girl.
-Mohammad is held up as the 'best of all mankind' and an example to follow.
-Many if not most Muslims will NOT condemn the above, but support it for today in Muslim countries.
-Under Australian Law, sexual activity with a child under 16 is 'child abuse'

CONCLUSION (we are using the inductive method here)
"On the basis of Australian law, most Muslims support child abuse" is a true statement.
Also true, is that they may not support the breaking of Australian law, but this will not alter the inner acceptance.

GINXy... "yes" :) ok..serious now, It is not 'my' opinion, it the legal situation, based on Australian law.

JAMES..back 2 you for a moment

Your opinion about 'fundamentalists' needs some work.

Can you clarify that ? Don't you mean 'bigoted extremists'? Like perhaps (on the 'Christian' side)

-Pastor Fred Phelps (rejoicing at the death of gays bashed)
-Pat Robertson "we should assassinate Chavez"
-Televangelists who seek money for healing or miracles.

Do you consider people who simple believe their own scriptures as 'fundamentalists' ? and if so, is it not just that they hold to different values than you which causes you such angst ? If that is the case, then you have to be willing to accept the 'intolerance' award for today. "Different" beliefs are not neccessarily 'Evil' beliefs, and holding to firm principles is surely a good thing ?

By all means disagree with the principles, but you can only do so on the basis of OTHER beliefs and principles, which, are just as open to the same condemnation you seek to dish out to others.

On the one hand you have this "Hmmm..what will I decide is 'right' for today hmmm..ok..I've got it.. its right for old men to have sex with young boys" (NAMBLA) now.. who is to criticize you and on what basis ? see the problem ? We HAVE to be 'fundamenatlist' in some way or we would end up being chunks of social thermo-plastic which can be shaped into any mould whatsoever. "MIUAUG".

There are only really 2 'fundamentals' of Christianity "Love God" and "Love your neighbour" This is also the gist of the whole old Testament.

Unfortunately, in the absence of specific behavioural guidelines, we get the likes of Nambla or marraige to 9 yr old girls.

Lets take a different example. How could we determine if the 'Children of God' cult of the 60s was 'right' or 'wrong' in their practices of free sex between adults and children ? Simple.. we compare their behaviour with whats in the Scriptures.. "fail"

My definition of a fundamentalist is one who believes that only what he/she believes is right, and that every other system of beliefs is wrong and should be done away with. You'll note that I included atheist fundamentalists (who want to do away with religion all together) in my comments.

My view is that everyone is entitled to their views and beliefs so long as they do not try and force that belief system on me or others who do not wish to follow it.

The Americans dropped the biggest bombs ever during the second world war, but they did that long after they and other countries were attacked. In fact they have often been criticised for entering the war rather late. But it seems that according to the superficial left that the USA are wrong whatever they do.

Have a look at what the Nazis and the Japanese were doing to others before the big bombs were dropped. But why let facts stand in the way of a good prejudice?

James
your definition of 'fundamentalist' is one I can actually agree with, albeit only in part.

"We have the truth" is something I would subscribe to, but who is 'we' ? I would define that as the believers in the Gospel of Christ, and the word of Salvation in Him. That 'we' can manifest itself in many different historic traditions, (denominations) which may have slightly different emphases, yet a basic unity on the essential truths.

Now to the part I cannot agree with. "That all other belief systems should be done away with". This does not apply to Biblical Christianity, except in the sense of a 'moral' victory, where people choose to follow Christ, then, by default or automatically, their previous belief system is left behind. No one is taxed, or punished for not believing. Bear in mind, that under Islam, if you choose not to embrace it, you will be taxed separately for that decision. (Jizya)
There is no such concept in the Bible.

So, I don't know where that leaves me, but in terms of 'your' definition I cannot say I'm a fundamentalist, yet I certainly do believe in the fundamentals of the faith,.... they just don't happen to include part B of your definition.
Beware though, of those fundamentalists where part B IS a part of theirs.

No 'forcing' ? who can disagree with that? Forcing is where you tell someone "Unless you believe this, you will be killed, hurt, taxed, punished, exiled, forfeiture of property etc...in this life"

Proclaiming the Gospel, in public is not 'forcing' people. They can walk away, turn off, switch chanels, shut the door, or move to another school...etc etc...But 'forcing' people to 'not' proclaim their beliefs is as bad as forcing them on people.

My previously stated concern about the Australian Christian Lobby's apparent influence on Howard and Rudd is quite succinctly expressed by today's Ditchburn cartoon on OLO:

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/Web/CARTOONS/2007/2007-505-stations-of-the-cross-today.jpg

Scary huh? How can you be too worried about a few Muslims when Howard and Rudd are falling over each other to pander to the Christian lobby?

Anybody who's read the twaddle that the most prolific Christians post here would have to be concerned about their issues being taken seriously by government, let alone actively courted. Fortunately, the rabid tripe posted here by some fundies bears scant resemblance to the daily conversations I have with my good Christian neighbours and customers - who include priests, nuns and AOG pastor-types.