tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777750410141759635.post8041849217085924214..comments2008-05-06T08:31:18.546-04:00Tony W. Cartledgehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04890640429983888869noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777750410141759635.post-46875878382753527592008-05-05T19:56:00.000-04:002008-05-05T19:56:00.000-04:00Didn't the fundies come after the missionaries that "voiced" their various disagreements with the Creed 'O 2000? Yeah, I think they did. <BR/><BR/>Lets not pretend that the Fundamentalist takeover is anything good. It isn't. This stuff at Fullerton is right in line with the SBC stuff.<BR/><BR/>Tim DahlTim Dahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16740864358924812874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4777750410141759635.post-91167205127181613462008-05-05T09:40:00.000-04:002008-05-05T09:40:00.000-04:00Dr. Cartledge,<BR/><BR/>Uh, I believe your application of this Prof signing a loyalty agreement to the M's signing the BF&M is a little like comparing apples to bananas. <BR/><BR/>1.) I do not recall anything in the BF&M that calls for the one signing to defend it's principles.<BR/><BR/>2.) I do recall that M's were able to voice their various disagreements with the BF&M in statements as they signed it.<BR/><BR/>Your comparison seems to lack the usual logic that I am used to in your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/>TimTim Rogershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02909751217844312917noreply@blogger.com