1. If you believe that you are from a line of baptists that were never part of the Historic Christian Church (including catholics and protestants), how do you justify practically every ounce of your orthodoxy coming from the Historic Christian Church? (like the Trinity for example. Though it came from the Bible, our UNDERSTANING of it was shaped by CATHOLICS) Shouldn't you be like the Mormons and have your OWN orthodoxy? Shouldn't your forefathers have contributed SOMETHING to what you believe besides believer's baptism???????????? 2. Is it not arrogance to the inth degree to not CARE what the historic church believed on some passage or doctrine before you haphazardly preach it or post it? Is it not wickedness, really, to pretend you don't need the Body of Christ whih spans nearly two thousand years of history to help you properly interpret the Great Doctrines of the Faith? Is it not this kind of arrogance and wickednes that gives rise to KJVO, condemnation of pants and bobbed hair on women, the preaching of tons of extra-biblical standards, the isolationism and holier than thou attitude and all other forms of immense error we find rampant in "fundamentalism"? 3. Shouldn't good fundamentalists join with us in the condemnation of this wickedness that is rampant in their ranks rather than oppose the condemnation of it? Isn't it like the "peaceful" Muslims who refuse to condemn Jihad? If they really want these things to be quelled in their ranks, shouldn't they join in condemnation of them? 4. Isn't it true that you find this kind of wickedness mostly within the ranks of those who tout the title fundamentalist? I know that there are fundamentalists who don't preach these things but since they don't condemn them with any severity at all it is hard to differentiate them. Regardless it is by and large people, whether rightly of not, who use the title "fundamentalist" who preach this wickedness, is it not?