[email protected]

In a message dated 8/15/02 1:56:22 PM, abtleo@... writes:

<< But your description, "freaky", strikes me as inappropriate. I grew
up Lutheran, and am presently (and happily) Episcopalian. >>

Lutherans and Episcopalians work hard not to be freaky, though!! <g>

Some Southern Baptists would seem truly freakish to you, I'm sure, if you
hung out with them a while and they explained what they believed and why.
By the true definition of "freak." And there are a LOT of them. And a lot
of them are homeschoolers.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/15/2002 12:55:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
abtleo@... writes:
> However, there are still many people who are
> happily Southern Baptist or Evangelical Lutheran

Brenda,

You got me. I had in mind the regulating bodies of those denominations. I
don't doubt (really and truly) the goodness of the large majority of the
members of those denominations. But, as someone who takes the Gospel
seriously, I find much in the official statements of both denominations
disturbing, and not historically orthodox.

Sincerely,

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Alan & Brenda Leonard

> I am not excusing freaky Southern Baptists,
> or the equally freaky Evangelical Lutheran Church in the US, for the lives
> they destroy, but the bottom line is that the Gospel is based upon Christ's
> righteousness,

Bob,

I think that you have made several interesting points, and of course you are
entitled to your opinion. I will also confess that I have not read ever
post in this thread in its entirety.

You personally find spiritual fulfillment differently than the Southern
Baptists and Lutherans. However, there are still many people who are
happily Southern Baptist or Evangelical Lutheran. I would suggest that the
fact that it works for them makes it an equally valid path to spiritual
fulfillment. If you have specific criticisms of their beliefs, please state
them. But your description, "freaky", strikes me as inappropriate. I grew
up Lutheran, and am presently (and happily) Episcopalian. Please don't
judge my choice of path.

brenda

zenmomma *

>>But, as someone who takes the Gospel seriously, I find much in the
>>official statements of both denominations disturbing, and not historically
>>orthodox.>>

But wouldn't that be *your* interpretation of the gospel that you're taking
seriously? Don't all those other freaky denominations feel just as sincere
and righteous and good in their interpretation? When souls are hanging in
the balance, as they are in Christian-based religions, then the "correct"
interpretation of god's words would seem critically important. What if the
Southern Baptisits or Evangelicals or Mormons or Christian Scientists are
right?

Life is good.
~Mary

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

David and Bonnie Altman

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/15/2002 2:10:57 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
zenmomma@... writes:
> But wouldn't that be *your* interpretation of the gospel that you're taking
> seriously? Don't all those other freaky denominations feel just as sincere
> and righteous and good in their interpretation?

Mary,

What is staggering to witness at this list, is the amount of lives f**ked
over by Christian denominations unwilling to give up control of the working
of salvation (Christ's work, not theirs, by the way); denominations that lay
the burden of salvation on the backs of followers -- a burden that no one can
handle, let alone accomplish. This is where the fundamentalist "Do this,
don't do that ..." comes from; the belief that it is up to us to please God.
*This is the very thing that Jesus preached AGAINST!*

The burden of being righteous gives no hope for the murderer, raised in the
ghetto, forsaken by both parents and his own country. No hope for the wife
whose husband left her with no money and 5 kids and no ability or desire to
check to see if there is "sin in her life that maybe needs to be confessed,"
or that maybe she "needs to get right with God," and "have faith." Have
faith? After that? Get right with God? How does such a person in such a state
even know what goes on in her own heart, let alone tell whether or not her
"sinner's prayer" was sincere?

The difference between the above, and orthodox evangelicalism, is that
orthodoxy teaches that *God has already got right with us!* Period. End of
story. It's not about what you eat, drink, watch, teach, or screw. God is
faithful; God is righteous; God is good; God is holy; God has forgiven us in
Christ; and the goodness of Christ -- not our goodness -- is what gets us to
Heaven. These are all gifts from God that people can do nothing to earn.

Any moral reform in the believer's life is the result of the private inner
workings of the Holy Spirit, and is known as "sanctification." Sanctification
is not man's effort at getting holy, or again, "getting right with God." It
is the exact opposite. It is God working in the believer, patiently, to make
the believer more like God. The intention of sanctification is not to make
the sinner more pleasing to God -- that has already been accomplished by
Christ -- but because holiness is God's nature, and he made man in his image.


Whether it's true or not is another thing altogether. : )

Bob


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

zenmomma *

>>Whether it's true or not is another thing altogether. : ) >>

THAT'S the sentiment I was waiting for, and with a smiley face no less. :o)
As a Taoist I would submit that it doesn't matter if it's true or not. It's
your belief that gives it life.

Life is good.
~Mary


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

debi watson

>> What if the
Southern Baptisits or Evangelicals or Mormons or Christian Scientists are
right?


We are! Debi, smiling angelically, and hoping you all at least snicker instead of getting mad. I'm not trying to be further divisive, just provide a little comic relief. In Canada, we used to have a TV show called "4 on the Floor", and one of the weekly sketches was called "Mr. Canoe Head". It was always introduced as being a "story so outrageous, only a Mormon would believe it!" That line always cracked me up. On another side note, last time I was in Israel, I wanted to see some of the sites (and sights) related to Jesus and His journeys. Imagine my surprise (and snickering) to see places labelled "Catholic Shepherd's Field" "Baptists' Shepherd Field" etc -- I didn't even know the shepherds that were informed by the angels that Christ was born had denominations! Okay, I am being facetious here, but the point is -- why freak out about exactly which field the angels appeared in? Surely the important thing is that they came at all! (If that is what you believe) Some of the posts on this line are fun to read and think about, others spread far more heat than light. Just jumping in (why should you lot have all the fun?)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]