Stuffed Undies Like Scholarship Onlyism Fallacy

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. 1 Timothy 6:20-21

In keeping with the tradition of attacking any Baptist who does not have an “accredited” degree from MyOwnGod University, the Stuff Fundies Like website pokes fun at a Baptist preacher in an “article” titled “Anti Scholar”.

Liberal groups like SFL have a habit of demeaning the educations of those who graduated from Bible colleges that are unaccredited. In their minds, a proper education and thus the only appropriate barometer for measuring ones intelligence is the inclusion of the academic standards of secular colleges and “higher learning” institutions. A Christian school can’t possibly know more about the Bible and Godly living standards than a state- sponsored accreditation entity.

It must have been such a shock to all the converts of the early church to find out that the apostles that Jesus chose were fishermen and tax collectors-ordinary people. The Pharisees themselves questioned the education of Jesus:

How knoweth this man letters having NEVER LEARNED” John 7:15

Aside from the fact that over 53% of college graduates in the US are unemployed [1] (“A college diploma isn’t what it used to be”, ibid) it is nothing short of pompous arrogance and foolishness to think that a state- sponsored accreditation agency can produce better education standards to learn the Bible and church ministry than a school/college that focuses on that particular subject exclusively.

And on another note, who goes to a Bible college to get a job in the auto industry? If you went to a Bible college and then complain that you can’t get a job curling hair, an accredited degree probably isn’t going to offer the kind of help you really need.

Unless you have an “accredited” education, you are not as smart as Dr. Harvard. Dr. Harvard is well versed in “equal rights” of homosexuals and Muslims, is an astute expositor of Marx, Benthem, Maslow, Descartes and Kant; and can demonstrate why Christians should not hold to an exclusive view of their religion over all others. Dr. Harvard can prove that Jesus is not the only way to heaven and no Christian can possibly be “educated” enough to prove otherwise unless they have obtained a degree from an  institution that demands a “balanced” approach and equal emphasis on alternative beliefs.

Of the numerous comments on the SFL article in support of the title, the tide seems to have turned toward the lack of “scholarship” in evaluating Biblical texts. One reader, “Bob” posts;

As others have pointed out, your analysis is absolutely backward. I don’t know who you have been listening to, but I spent the better part of 9 yers reading books and articles and researching textual criticism. Erasmus’ text was not even the Textus Receptus. That was a designation given later to a text that was based on Erasmus’ and had been corrected. The textual theory behind the original Greek New Testament that Westcott and Hort compiled is a far superior textual method than Erasmus. It does not matter how great the scholars were who translated the KJV, it was a horrendous Greek text compared to the most recent ones that other English versions are based on. The UBS and NA are excellent and produced by the most painstakingly accurate textual scholars. DO they have disagreements? Yes, but Erasmus had no one to help him, and he was in a rush to be the first Greet text printed, and he made some bad blunders. So, as another has said, please get your facts straight before you pontificate.

There is so much “scholarship” on SFL that many of them can’t agree with each other on the issues of textual criticism. We could write an entire book on the errors of just this comment. In fact, Dean Burgon has written an irrefutable book on the matters of the texts used by Westcott and Hort (The Revision Revised, and Causes of Corruption in the New Testament). And the scholarship of the “UBS” texts are so “scholarly” that they omitted the entire book of Revelation on most of their texts, even though “Bob” here would merely claim “do they have disagreements?”, I would have to say the omission of entire books of the Bible is a pretty big “disagreement”. And then of course, the NA didn’t just stop at NA1, or NA 20, or NA 27 (the most popular used  being NA28), the “scholarship” is so advanced that they have to keep revising NA (Nestle-Aland) texts every few years or so.

It is worthy of note that NASB scholar-even with his “accredited” degree-Frank Logsdon, said the following about his involvement in translating the NASB:

“I’m in trouble; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”

Logsdon renounced his involvement in the translation of the NASB and began defending the KJV.

Other so-called scholars like James White have attempted to down-play Logsdon’s involvement by making accusations and straw-man arguments that KJVO proponents have never claimed for Logsdon. Regardless of the debate of whether Logsdon was “co-founder” of the Lockman Foundation, or NASB Committee (critics can’t make up their mind as to which accusations to stick to), there is no question Dr. Logsdon was an integral part of the process, that he was a recognized scholar in the field of Greek and Hebrew (with an ACCREDITED degree), and that he was formerly against the KJV and capitulated TO the KJV after objectively reviewing all of the evidence from David Otis Fuller, Dean Burgon et al, facts that all the KJVO critics are unwilling to admit.

What is equally ironic about the ensuing comments posted from the SFL article is that there is no evidence that any of the readers themselves have ANY degree, let alone accredited ones. So should their comments all be summarily dismissed for lacking the qualifications to critique the “unqualified” Bible scholars from “Non Accredited” schools?

Accreditation is nothing more than a group of fallible humans agreeing on what they believe should be taught in public institutions, and how they should be taught. Most accrediting agencies are biased by default against the exclusive claims of Christianity, and therefore are not even remotely “qualified” to make a judgment on what should and/or should not be taught in regards to matters of Biblical beliefs. The majority of curriculums in a public institution, with the exception of technical/vocational trade schools, are humanist and replete with anti-Christian sentiment. Hardly an appropriate environment for any student who has a desire to be in ministry and learn the word of God. Yet liberals and back-slidden anti-fundamentalists seek to impose standards on believers that Christ Himself did not impose on the very first group of people He chose to lead His church.

Let the Bible speak on the matter of the “wise” and “higher learning” of the statist sponsored standards of education.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 Corinthians 1:18-31:

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

——————-

There are @ 17 grammatical errors contained in this article. We will award you the Award of Pedantic Scholarship if you can find all 17.

J/A

Anti Fundamentalist Blame Game

A contributor on the SFL site made the following comment:

This whole conversation seems to support something I have noticed for a while since leaving fundamentalism: many former Fundies brought the attitude and spirit of fundamentalism with them when they left, i.e, hatred, anger, arrogance and believing if you don’t agree 100% with them, then you are an enemy.

It is an attitude that is held throughout all of the antifundamentalist groups: that the IFB made them who they are. The IFB forced them to become bitter, full of “hatred, anger, arrogance” because the “spirit of fundamentalist” overpowered their will.

Something that I have noticed within fundamentalism is that a person that was an angry person while they were a fundamentalist, continues to be an angry person when they leave fundamentalism. It is ironic how often they accuse Baptists of “blaming victims” and then they blame everyone but themselves for how they act.

It is not the “spirit of fundamentalist” that causes an ex-fundamentalist to be “arrogant”. You are an arrogant person BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ARROGANT PERSON.

Yet this is nothing new to history. When Eve at the fruit, she blamed the serpent. When God confronted Adam, he blamed Eve.

“And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Genesis 3:12

Notice how the subject went from Adam to “the man said”. Sin was now a problem that would affect all of his posterity. And with the infection of sin, came with it the denial of culpability for ones actions.

And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? Gen 4:9

Those who left fundamentalism carried with them their own self righteousness, and continue to act out of their own self righteousness. They are by far, better than any “fundy” they will ever meet again, and will relentlessly assassinate the character of all fundamentalists to prove it.

Sure there are a small handful of Baptist leaders who have executed their own self righteousness and pleasured themselves at the expense of others, but when I hear someone who makes such broad brush accusations against Baptists on how self righteous, angry, resentful, hateful and arrogant they are, I can’t help but think “Those people are not in the church anymore. You can find them all at the Stuff Fundies Like and Do Right websites”!

We all have an innate desire to be right, recognized, and revered(pride). This is why you see such personal attacks offered by the “Do Right” and SFL crowds and those like Darrell Dow who disguise their vitriol as satire. They have a desire to be right about their accusations without any regard for what the truth is or simply admitting they don’t know. Arguments like this on forms are common, where the commenter is defending a position that he/she claims to be right about, and rather than risk the embarrassment of being wrong,  begins ad hominem attacks against their opponent. That strong desire to be right fears exposure, flees truth, and blames others, and avoids discussions about the Bible because there’s a chance that the sword (Heb 4:12) may lay their motives wide open.

The Jews used to have a saying, “The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children’s teeth are set on edge”. Ezekiel 18:2. Psychology still uses this today. Because your parents ate sour grapes, you became a rebel and anything you do is not sin because it’s really your parents fault. Because Mrs Doe didn’t shake your hand at church, she hates you and is avoiding you on purpose because your shoes don’t match. The preacher was bad so it’s his fault that I act like a heathen.

To this God replies:

As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

If I mistreat my wife and say something unkind, it’s MY fault, not hers. If I lose my temper and yell at my children, it’s MY fault, not theirs. If I had an argument in church and am still upset about it, and take it out on a co-worker, it’s MY fault, I sinned. There are times when I get into heated debates with my own brothers and say things I should not say. Is it their fault for provoking me? Doesn’t matter, I am responsible for my reaction, AND SO ARE YOU.

The “spirit of fundamentalism” did not cause you to be angry, hateful and arrogant: YOU DID. If you never set foot again in another Baptist church, you will still have the same problem: YOU.

Although this article is directed at a particular audience, don’t think that any of the rest are exempt from this. I have been equally guilty of blaming someone or something else for something I did and I’m sure many readers have as well. But if you are a Christian, then you know the misery of living in denial of your responsibility for your own actions. It is a cancer that causes the emotional responses we see from the antifundamentalists, and a response that will destroy your marriage, your family, and your friendships, and your fellowship with God.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10

J/A

Darrell Dow Criticizing Baptist Preacher For Encouraging Belief In God

It’s not enough that Darrell Dow of Stuff Fundies Like to encourage marijuana usage on his site that claims to help survivors of “IFB abuse” in a post that generated over 150 likes on Facebook (the most on his page this year), but today he posts an excerpt from Baptist Evangelist Allen Domelle criticizing Domelle’s admonition to be careful of doubt. [1]

This is what Domelle said:

You must understand that one of the greatest tools Satan uses is unbelief. If he can get you to simply doubt, then he can win the battle. God is a God of absolutes. God does not want us to live in a world of unbelief. God plainly tells us in His Word what is right and wrong. You must be careful that you don’t allow unbelief to cloud your judgment and miss the blessings of God.
–Allen Domelle

This comment was preceded by Stuffed Undies Like founder Darrell Dow’s quip:

So much for doubt being part of faith, I guess.

As I have stated in an article before on this site, Darrell wouldn’t know a Bible verse if it cooked him dinner, and this is just more evidence of the blundering attempts that Darrell makes to vilify Baptists. Hard to believe he wrote a book called “Fundamental Flaws” of the IFB churches and “how to fix them” when he can’t even accurately define something as simple as faith and unbelief.

Darrell seems to equate the Bible’s recording of statements by those who expressed unbelief or doubt as a Biblical endorsement for a lack of faith. Nevertheless, Darrell’s quote itself is erroneous on its face. It’s like arguing that darkness is necessary for the existence of light. Darkness is the absence of light, light is not the cause of darkness. Unbelief is the result of not believing. Faith is not the cause of unbelief. Faith cures doubt, but the presence of doubt is not necessary for their to be belief. For me to believe that my car is sitting in my garage does not require me to doubt that it is not.

For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Romans 3:3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

But with a name like Dow, I can see how someone with his lack of spiritual insight can confuse such a theory with Taoism (pronounced Dowism, ironically!) and it’s yin and yang concept.

Which Way Did He Go, George?

What does the Bible have to say about doubt and unbelief?

And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? Matthew 14:31

And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Hebrews 3:18-19

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. Hebrews 4:11

Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. Romans 11:20

And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again. Romans 11:23

And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief. Matthew 13:58

Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23

And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. Luke 12:29

Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them. Acts 10:20

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. 1 Timothy 2:8

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Mark 16:14

Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Titus 1:15

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8

It’s pretty pathetic  when someone becomes so desperate for fodder against Baptists they are willing to take statements of preachers encouraging others to have faith in God and turn them into satire.

More Stupidity From the Peanut Gallery at Stuffed Undies Like

This week in search of some intelligent life over at the Stuffed Undies Like website, I found just another typical example of how the anti-fundamentalist crowd and disgruntled ex-“fundies” misrepresent Baptists and in this instance just blatantly lie about what a Baptist preacher said.

The SFL’s Unholy See, Darrell Dow, posted a video of a Baptist pastor, Marvin Smith, telling a story about a deacon imprisoned for sexual abuse. [1] Darrell title’s the video on his Facebook page  “Marvin Smith tells us what causes men to become child molesters. (Hint: It’s Internet porn)”.

I’m wondering if we watched the same video or did I get the URL wrong? It’s a 2:32 minute video, surely it wouldn’t be that hard for Darrell and all of those accredited-degree wielding geniuses who are all members of the most astute and dignified universities of America (I’m making assumptions about the degrees since they put so much emphasis on it, I must assume they all themselves have degrees) to find the reference where the pastor blames subjects abuse on internet porn.

At the 54 second mark, Marvin states that the deacon admitted that his internet life was messed up. At the 2:26 mark, Marvin states that the man walked after the imagination of his heart. Not once in this 2 minute video excerpt does this pastor blame the deacons actions on just the internet porn.

Perhaps the SFL crowd is angry about the reference to internet porn because they would prefer not to have internet porn censored. There is a common theme in counseling circles called “GIGO-Garbage In, Garbage Out” and this is certainly a Biblical concept [And my sincere apologies for the use of the term “Biblical”, that’s a term that the SFL crowd and the “do righters” say is “fundy language”]. Proverbs 23:7 says “as a man thinketh in his heart, so is he”. Jesus said that if a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery. Matthew 5:28. Job said he made a covenant with his eyes, why then should he look on a maid. Job 31:1. And David said “I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes”. Psalm 101:3. And Jesus said out of the heart proceeds evil. Mark 7:21.

So how is what this pastor said somehow in error? Not only did he not say what Darrell said he did, what he said was perfectly legitimate. If a person saturates their mind with garbage and does not “cast down imagination” (2 Cor 10:4-5) ultimately he will act on those imaginations. But I suspect that with the type of crowd that critiqued this excerpt, they want to separate porn from actions of immorality so that they can justify watching it themselves since adultery and fornication are not considered crimes and they tend to limit their slander of fundamentalism against church members who have been convicted of breaking sex crime laws.

Peanut Gallery

Darrell has a peanut gallery where comments can be posted so I figure we’d post a few to show how utterly depraved and ignorant this crowd is.

BASSENCO March 7, 2013 at 7:06 am

So this guy candidly acknowledges that he knew the guy was unrepentant, that he told the wife the man was unrepentant, and YET HE NEVER ENACTED CHURCH DISCIPLINE against a man engaged in gross sin who was unrepentant. That’s a Baptist for you! Everything except the remedy commanded in Scripture.

Next, the Lord Jesus taught that it is not what goes into a man that defiles him, but what proceeds from his heart. A child molester is not coerced to molest because of porn. His wicked heart prompts him to molest.

This comment is from Jeri Massi, the self-proclaimed correcter of any doctrine written or preached by a fundamentalist. For Jeri Massi, if it’s not in the stars (and I mean that literally as she even uses astrology to bet on fights) it’s not in the Bible.

Now of the 2 minutes we heard, the pastor merely said he talked to the deacon AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM PRISON. The deacon had not done anything wrong YET, so just how is a pastor supposed to administer church discipline? This isn’t Hollywood where punishment occurs before a crime is committed. The pastor did what he should have and told his wife to keep him away from their children. Isn’t that part of what the anti-fundamentalist crowd always complains about, is that the pastor never says anything? This pastor is in an independent Baptist church talking about sexual abuse. I guess that fact slipped the minds of everyone of the accusers on the SFL page since they commonly accuse Baptists of never talking about these issues in church.

Yet somehow, the anti-fundamentalist commentators find a way to malign this pastor’s character for doing the right thing: warning those close to the deacon that this man is not fit to be around children. What the wife does with that information can not be controlled by the pastor. We don’t know where the abuse took place, and can only assume that it took place in their home (which is out of the pastors reach) because had it happened in the church, the wife would likely not have had to tell the pastor about his subsequent offense.

Furthermore, the pastor says that “I talked to A deacon of A fundamental Baptist church” (emphasis added). It does not appear that Marvin is the pastor of the Central Baptist Church where this was recorded, and since the subject he spoke of was not directly under his authority, he was not in a position to dictate church discipline if an offense had been committed.

And then, Jeri finishes her comment by repeating what the pastor said and acting as if he didn’t say it! Had the pastor exercised any church discipline, they probably would have criticized that, too.

That’s a Baptist critic for you.

*********

Kreine March 7, 2013 at 12:45 am

And after having watched the vid, I call baloney on the guy’s story. Too many details changed. Song leader to deacon, children to grandchildren, knew the couple previously from a town, wife had to move to that town…

So just how many details does one need to get right in a 2 minutes video?! The preacher said he talked to the man after he was released from prison, he didn’t say that he was currently a deacon. And, small churches often can have a deacon be both a deacon and a song leader.

Of course, Kreine changed his/her tune, when someone else said it is not that “incoherent” and then claimed that her own father was both a deacon and song leader. But his/her own words were “TOO MANY DETAILS CHANGED. SONG LEADER TO DEACON”. Kreine’s post emphatic about the apparent contradiction and even used it as the  basis to call the story “baloney”.

I certainly hope “Kreine” isn’t one of SFL’s Harvard Alumni.

*********

Big Gary March 7, 2013 at 12:02 pm

To make the analogy clearer:
Most child molesters wear clothes. Nudists could argue that wearing clothes puts a person on the path to child molestation …

Child Molesters also comb their hair, so that would make everyone that combs their hair a potential child molester. That is one of the most ridiculous analogies I have ever heard. Clothes are not directly related to sexual gratification unless you have a clothing fetish. There’s a reason that a Child Molester watches porn instead of reading the Kohl’s clothing catalog.

And what’s worse about this comment is that the next poster said it made sense!

I’m assuming those two graduated from Yale.

*********

Now here is a guy that actually made some sense proving that there is hope lurking among the restless disaffected SFL crowd:

Mr Jenkins March 7, 2013 at 11:13 pm

Yet another post that just proves that you people really are off your rockers. I have no idea what this video is about since I haven’t even watched it. But, it sounds as if a Baptist is trying to say that things like abuse are bad and that porn is unhealthy. Three-hundred-sixty-four days a year you people come on here and complain about being a victim of this pastor and a victim of that IFB person. In some cases I’m sure you actually are telling the truth and have a legitimate right to complain. But, now that an IFB person is apparently saying that sexual abuse is wrong and that porn is unhealthy, all of a sudden you think that sexual abuse is way overblown, not that big of a deal, and that porn is great and something we should all have the right to engage in with great gusto. Porn is a scourge and more harmful than probably most people realize. Years ago a person had to go out to a bad neighborhood and buy it, hoping no one saw you. Now it is available for free and in the privacy of your home at any time or day of the year with no challenge at all. It has corrupted the morals of our country and world and will only continue to do so. Just because an IFB person says porn is bad, you suddently turn into a Jekyll-Hyde character and all of a sudden stop your crusade “against IFB abuse” and now claim, “How dare anyone stop me from accessing as much porn as possible and saying I can’t enjoy as much sexual unrestraint as I want!” The hypocrisy of this blog is just stunning.

And of course, something a die-hard Darrellite can never do is admit when they are either wrong or when their hypocrisy is pointed out, so they do what they do best, attack the poster and change the subject to something else with “but what about…” non sequitur debates.

And we’re nearing the finish line with Dr Fundystand Proctologist (No he’s not a real proctologist, he just plays one on SFL where scores of people with fake profiles can accuse others of being fake. To be “real” you must have your certified SFL Fake ID profile).

Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist March 7, 2013 at 12:37 am

Assuming this guy is telling the truth (which I don’t), how does he qualify as a behavioral specialist? This is a common theme in fundy preaching: just basically making things up. Hey, let’s all play “Spot the Missing Major Premise”! I love that game…

So now only a “behavior specialist” can claim that porn is bad? I can see the rebellious children now; “Mom, I don’t have to go to bed and get 8 hours of sleep before school, are you a behavior specialist?”  Since the Procto wants to play, how about play “Spot the Missing Major Premise From a Two Minute Edited Excerpt”.

Dr Fundystan obviously got his earned doctorate from Stanford. 

I wonder if “behavior specialists” that disagree with each other cancel each other out! I mean, should a person see a cognitive therapist or a psychotherapist?

And of course we know that “behavioral therapists” are well above immorality and beyond reproach. (See Abuse By Psychiatrists on our Facebook page.)

We have not given up all hope though, if evolutionists are dumb enough to keep looking for missing links, I guess we’ll continue our search for a few ourselves over at the Stuffed Undies Like crowd to find some kind of connection between a human being and common sense.

 

Darrell Dow and Fundamental Flaws of His Fundamental Flaws Book

Coming Soon. After I finish some other articles, I will opine on the notes taken from reading Darrell Dow’s “book” Fundamental Flaws.

In the mean time, I perused a response that Darrell gave to Mike Duran, who criticized Darrell’s Stuffed Undies Like website (or Stuff Fundies Like, I prefer the former definition, it better suits their inflated egos) as being among several evangelical hate-mongers in an article titled, “The Evangelical Hate Machine”. Several SFL members whined that Mike was unfair, therefore Mike granted Darrell an interview to allow Darrell to explain himself and defend his website. (Interview Here)

Darrell did nothing to refute the claims that Mike made that Darrell is a “hater”. Darrell merely attempts to mask his “hate” as laughter, much like a serial killer laughing at his victims for begging for mercy. He states that “laughter conquers your fear”. It is ironic that he says that there is so little of Christ in Baptist sermons, songs, or standards, but then claims the purpose of his website is to promote laughter as a therepeutic aid to conquering fear. I thought fear was conquered through Christ, not laughter (2 Tim 1:7, Acts 20:24, Acts 21:13, Hebrews 2:15, Romans 8:15, I John 4:18). In fact, isn’t there a verse in the Bible that says “even in laughter the heart is sorrowful”? (Proverbs 14:13). Furthermore, the type of jesting that Darrell promotes is specifically prohibited in Scripture. Eph 5:4.

What is telling though about his response is his stated goal for his followers:

My goal in pointing out the flaws, the missteps, the error, the cruelty, the heresy, and the narrow-mindedness is not to drive people away from the church but to draw them back from their small, splintered sect and back into fellowship with the larger community” (emphasis added)

Darrell does not say what he means by the “larger community”, but if that “community” consists of the same atheists, homosexuals, lesbians, agnostics, Buddhists, Catholics, Charismatics that he sponsors, promotes, and supports in his group, then Darrell needs to take a number and wait in line behind the Pope and his father (John 8:44) who have the same goals.

Darrell has yet to give an accurate description of what fundamentalists, Baptists in particular, believe. He makes use of repeated sweeping generalizations of the motives of fundamental Baptists with absolutely no evidence to support his claims:

You also would have to understand the power structures and cults of personality that drive most fundamentalist organizations. If you’ve never belonged to a church or gone to a college where you were taught that disobeying the slightest rule of the leadership (sometimes up to and including how you make your bed) was a direct affront to God himself then it’s hard to explain. This shared experience of being in these low-trust and high-stress environments is one of the key factors that forms the basis for the community we have here. (emphasis added to the sweeping generalizations).

And just what are those “power structures” and what are the “cults of personality” that “drive most fundamentalist organizations ? He doesn’t say, just paints fundamentalism with his own broad brush, but then whines when an another author allegedly did the same to him. Where is the evidence that any fundamentalist taught that failure to make ones bed is a direct affront to God? References please.

And the “shared experiences”? Shared by who? The atheists, homosexuals, dope addicts, whiskey guzzling party animals that complain about any rule whatsoever let alone any rule in a college : that “shared experience” crowd? And since Darrell claims to want to promote Christ, where can we find these fine examples of this cult of personality in all fundamentalist churches? Would it be under the subject of “Non-Believer Safe Space: A safe space for atheists and agnostics to discuss their beliefs” on his blog site? Or perhaps it’s in the music category where Darrell Dow has a video of what he is listening to, Dusty Springfield’s secular “Son of a Preacher Man” (here) (remember now, Darrell says he doesn’t see much of  Christ in any of the fundamentalist Baptist songs) or perhaps it’s described in the lyrics of the Metallica song he is listening to on post #8 of the same thread called “Don’t Tread On Me” (last I knew, Metallica was no where near “Christ in the songs”type of band). In fact, there’s not one Christian song on that page. (What a HYPOCRITE).

Darrell is a snake that attempts to veil his jabs at fundamentalism as harmless satire disguised as “therapy”. While fundamentalist’s certainly have their own issues, it is not because that is what is taught in fundamentalism, it is because of an egotistical, flesh-driven hypocrite that fails to follow what IS taught. There are some fundamentalists like Jack Schaap who taught blatantly heretical doctrines, but the positive history of fundamentalism and the trail of blood from which the Baptist church came far exceeds the recent abominable  history made by the few recalcitrant examples that have brought shame to it. People like Darrell Dow are mere closet practical atheists that capitalize on the opportunity to smear fundmentalists when any of among millions make a mistake whether it be the commission of a felony, or a fundamentalist mother that requires her children make their beds.

P.S. emails that accuse of me of supporting heretics simply because I disagree with YOU will be properly filed in our new “whiny anti fundamentalist” folder.