My wife who is a Monty Python fan convinced me to watch "Life of Brian" LOL (I am sure some of you have seen it!) One of the themes has Brian joining the "Peoples front of Judea" A group of rebels who are bent against the Roman government.  While Brian is being introduced to the group he is made aware that the "Peoples Front of Judea" really hates other groups!  such as the "Judeans Peoples Front" and others so on and on...After reading the thread about Gene Edwards book I  had to laugh!!  Yes this is what it means to be a fundamentalist!  You turn on your own and chew them up until you find someone else to bite. DUDES!  There is so much more to life!!!  Go hiking!  Read good literature!  Go down the art museum or better yet do your own art!!!  Why waste your time doing the sme thing over and over and over and over and over......

I saw parts of it though it was a long time ago.  I remember a part that struck me as funny where Jesus was giving the sermon on the mount and some in the crowd couldn't hear him completely so they got a bit mixed up about what what he was saying.

If I recall I think they thought he said "Blessed are the cheesemakers" instead of "blessed are the peacemakers".  

This reminds me of a time you and I were walking in Hillcrest park on a Sunday afternoon and we saw Jim Hayman and some trainees open-air preaching in the outdoor theater.  There was perhaps one or two families within earshot who were going about their business eating lunch, playing baseball, etc. and completely ignoring the earnest preachers.

I had to chuckle when you nailed the situation with the comment, "this looks like something you would see on Monty Python."

Sometimes MP gets a little too silly for my tastes.  However, have you seen John Cleese' Faulty Towers?  How about This is Spinal Tap?

One hilarious part of "Life of Brian" is when the Judaen Liberation Front guys are having a meeting. The leader says "I hate the Romans!!" And everyone agrees with "Yeah!!" etc., And the leader says "What have the Romans ever done for us??"  And a voice in the back says "Well, they did give us some pretty good plumbing sir". There is silence. Then the leader says "Well, besides the plumbing, what have the Romans ever done for us?" The voice from the back "They gave us a pretty good road system sir".  Silence. "Well, besides the plumbing and the good roads, what have the Romans ever done for us?" etc.
That and the stoning scene were hilarious, but the much of the movie borders on the sacriligeous to say the least.

--Joe

Dave,

Just a few words.  Your spelling sucks, and your thoughts are poorly constructed and hypocritical in nature.

You bravely served George for all those years, as did all of us.  It messed you up worse than most of us, and instead of being humble about it, you show up every few months and act like a troll.

Let me illustrate the lack of intellectual honesty by altering your post a smidgen.

I'll substitute "Unitarian" for "Fundamentalist," and you can see the error of your ways.  I'll also substitute "Unitarian author who likes to bash fundamentalists" for "Gene Edwards book." Unitarians accept others, right?  

After reading the thread about the Unitarian Author who likes to bash fundamentalists, I  had to laugh!!  Yes this is what it means to be a Unitarian!  You turn on Christians and chew them up until you find someone else to bite. DUDES!  There is so much more to life!!!  Go hiking!  Read good literature!  Go down the art museum or better yet do your own art!!!  Why waste your time doing the sme thing over and over and over and over and over......

See, your confusion that you aquired bravely serving George all those years has clouded your ability to perceive yourself as you really are.  YOU are the one doing what you accuse fundamentalists of doing, whether they are guilty or not.

Christians are supposed to take abuse from everyone for being "fundamentalists," and "judgemental,"  but if they dare speak an honest, intropective word against one of their own, a block-head like yourself comes along with a statement like the one you shared.

Why aren't you happy when Christians point out the problems within their own house?  Isn't that what you do when you criticise us?  

The fact is, your weak character was more easily damaged by a man like George, so I don't hold this against you, rather I pity you.  It's not all your fault, but you should really think about moving on and getting on with your life.

I'm sorry that you had to join another fringe group to cobble an identity for yourself in your post-assembly life.  Hopefully, you'll be able to be your own person someday, and not rely on group identity.

I also think it's neat that you had the courage to physically threaten George when he was an old man.  Kudos, dude.

Where was this McCourage when George was younger?

So, now, adding to the bravery required to threaten an old man, you have found the courage to write hypocrital criticisms about your former friends that were inspired by a late 70's era movie.  This is progress David.  Way to go.

Regarding that movie, you're almost three decades late to the party.  I've seen 'em all, and that many years ago.  

So, to sum it up, your post is a scathing indictment of yourself, as you are guilty of everything you assign to the "fundamentalists."  

Did I mention that it is annoying to converse with someone who relys on feeble stereotypical attacks and weakly constructed, hypocritical arguments?  Well, it is, which is why I won't read or respond to most everything you write.

The only reason I did on this one is that you suckered me in with the Monty Python title.  I like Monty Python's stuff alot.

Speaking purely for myself,  I am amazed and horrified at the shipwreck you have sustained over the past three years.  It is a potent reminder to me of how a person like George preys on the weak, even to the point of stumbling them.

I hope your future is bright, David.  But I don't think "Fundamentalist" bashing is a good thing.  Then again, Unitarians are always turning on others and chewing them up.  In my experience they are nothing more than a haven for gays, sierra-clubbers, misunderstood geniuses, soy latte-swilling vegans, and others of like mind.

In fact, there is a scene in Monty Python's "Holy Grail," where a couple unitarians are aproached by King Arthur.  It's hilarious, because the Python people have these guys pegged!  They are the most tedious, pseudo-intellectuals, with a knee-jerk reflex to prate about whatever is the social/religious mainstream.

It just occured to me, after reciting the words to this part of the movie from memory, that the character, "Dennis," is just like you David.  

Rent the movie and check it out.

Brent

Dave me lad,

You wrote:


I find your identification of ex-assembly people as "fundamentalists" interesting.  Since you have never been involved, to my knowledge, in a healthy expression of Christianity, you have little idea of how the people in these churches think.  I am including your time with the PB's, who although they are not as messed up as the assembly, hardly qualify as a healthy form of Christianity.

What I see instead of real insight is nothing more than leftist blather about "hate".   You see, Dave, leftists have no good arguments. so when they wish to criticize others, all they can do is call names.  Anyone who disagrees with them is full of "hate" and therefore is evil.  This is nothing more than the dreaded SRSD (Self-Righteous Self-Deluded) syndrome.


DUDES?  Were you suppressed as a teenager?  Do you feel a need to revisit those suppressed emotions and allow them free expression?  

It would seem so.


A few further observations:

1. Why are we not free to talk about that which interests us?

2. Go hiking?  What makes you think that we do not?  I recall having hiked the Silver Moccassin Trail in 1955!  I have also hiked a part of the John Muir Trail. I've hiked in the Sierra in many places, and in the US Rockies. Oh yes, I seem to recall walking along in the Canadian Rockies last summer.
Does that qualify?

3. Literature....You don't think we read.  Some of us like what you call "literature".  Some don't.  Most of it is so sad.  All about dilemmas and moral conundrums, with no solutions.
Been there, done that.  
If that is what you like to read...enjoy.

4. Art museums.   Well Dave, I've been to the Getty, the Norton Simon, the LACMA, the Bowers, the MFA in San Diego, the Santa Barbara Art Museum....many of them several times.  Plus some in other countries, such as Denmark, Mexico, and San Francisco.  

How will I know if I have been to enough to qualify as a good guy?

5.  Actually, and most importantly, all of these together is not a "life".  These are all legitimate recreations, sort of "icing", but there is much, much more to life.

So, since you are now an expert on "life" please answer a few questions:

1. What is the meaning and/or purpose of life.
2. What is the source of morality?
3. What validates our moral values, or are they merely our subjective feelings?
4. Do we have a soul that exists independently, or is our consciousness merely a projection of the electro-chemical state of an organ called the brain?
5. Where did the universe come from?  Why does it exist?
6. Who was Jesus of Nazareth?  What did he teach?  Why should, or should not, he be taken seriously?

Dave, until you have good answers to such questions you don't even know what life is!   So, now that you have freed yourself from the shackles of fundamentalist ignorance, why don't you tell us the answers to these questions?

I would suggest that until you actually have some convincing answers to questions like these, you will not be taken seriously by those who post here.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

What does Paul mean by this reference in Philippians 3:2?

Beware of dogs..  

Is he talking about just Dobermans, or is this a term properly applied to some humans?
John repeats the term in revelation. Anybody?
Verne

It depends on what type of dog you are referring to. Is it a nice fluffy collie, with wagging tail and tongue hanging from it's smiling mouth? Or is it like the pack of rampaging chihuahuas down the street from me, who dragged an old woman from her home screaming--right out of her Lazyboy chair during "Oprah"?

The little growling yappers proceeded to pull her out into the street where she was run over by a UPS truck, followed by a whole bicycling team. Somehow, she came out of it with only a few scratches, but is an avowed hater of chihuahuas to this day. I personally prefer "pooches"--your lovable big dogs with dumb looks on their faces. Unlike the little vicious pack dogs, a "pooch" more than likely would have laid next to the Lazyboy and watched Oprah with the woman.

They never did catch that marauding band of buggy-eyed, yapping shrimps. It makes me shudder just to think of them.

--Joe

Brent

Brent,

Sometimes you just go too far--  I was going to post almost exactly what you posted, except WITHOUT my tongue-in-cheek...  Now I can't, because your satire has assured that no one will take me seriously...

I wanted to quote that verse, "May I be as good a person as my dog thinks I am," but I can't find it.  (and they call Strong's concordance "exhaustive"--hmph!)  Anyway, everybody knows the one that says "Dog is man's best friend."  (I can't find that one either, but I know it's near to "The Lord helps those who help themselves.")

---

Joe, you are entirely overboard in your assessment of the over-rated "pooch."  Pooches are notorious for hogging the remote, and they never tolerate Oprah.  In fact, high sources in the NDAC (National Dept. of Animal Control) have recently disclosed that most, if not all, gang activities of chihuauas and other irritating, squeeky mini-breeds are directly traceable to the influence of pooches.

---

Verne, the reference in Rev.22:15 "...without (outside) are dogs..." clearly establishes scriptural authority that domesticated canines are to be employed in guarding the grounds from intruders, and not to be housepets.  Your other quoted reference in Phil.3:2, "Beware of dogs..." is, in this light, obviously cautioning us to not let them sneak indoors where they might, as Brent points out, "destroy valuable property."

This applies to all breeds without respect to one over another!

---

In case anyone is seriously following this discussion (applying the adverb "seriously" on a thread labeled "Monty Python" seems ludicrous, doesn't it?), There is only one OT word for "dog, and two NT words (one of which appears to be derived from the other.  These words are applied both literally to the canine beast, and figuratively to men.  While the literal dog is accepted as a simple fact of nature, its conduct and motivations fall far short of God's standard for men.  Therefore, when men are referred to, figuratively, as dogs, it is in an unflattering way, the reference being to one who is controlled by his appetites and baser instincts, ruled as it were by the lusts of his flesh.

Brent summed it up succinctly in saying, "...they have no idea what is precious or what is for chewing up.  Consequently, they just follow their appetites and destroy, tread upon or gnaw anything they get their teeth on.

I wonder if some people are the same way?"

al

---

P.S.-- Re:
   
 
Don't worry, Verne:  I daresay no one on this BB has ever seen your kettle!

---

P.S.#2-- ...and finally, referring once again to Brent's post, wherein he said:...inasmuch as the discussion is about dogs, shouldn't the question be, "...How is anyone going to heel...?"