In Reply to: but who is agreeing? posted by lydia on November 07, 2002 at 05:48:17:
You say that somethings bind Christians and mention a few things, let's look at them:
idolatry is wrong,
sexual immorality is wrong,
that murder is wrong etc...
People define these in many ways and based on that decide how to act. On idolatry, why stop at the images and sculptures in the catholic church? What about the worldly possessions of more fundamentalists groups? The limits in sexual morality have also been redefined to make certain behaviors if not acceptable at least overlooked. In a way it is not Christianity what defines sexual behavior anymore but societal interaction. Finally murder is also defined by societies. The United States, continually proclaiming its Christian roots, is one of the few countries in the world that murders people. Where are all those good Christians crying out to stop that?
My intention is not to bring these to the forefront but to point out that, as with everything else where there is room for interpretation, there will be a range of opinions and interpretations. Look at the people who knwoing the Bible see David Berg as some sort of prophet!!! (well, he was a type of prophet; a false prophet! Ha!)
I do agree with how you end that same line of thought, that "it's up to the indiviual to either leave or find comfort in it. It's never good to point fingers and condemn, but it's not good to point fingers at those condemning and say it's not right." And placing this in reference to Berg, my initial question about his salvation was not that good of a question. I guess it doesn't matter in the long run because he will be judged justly. What matters is its effect in us pointing us towards what we need to know, that he was wrong in teaching what he taught and in living how he lived.