Really now. Whatever happened to a sin nature? Why not just simply hold people accountable for what they do. My guess is that there might be some free-thinking Catholics and Buddhists out there too...but I could be wrong... People have been making up their own religions since the beginning of time. And all kinds of people slap the "Christian" label on all kinds of things. If church doctrine could keep sin out, then a lot of little girls and boys who trusted their beloved Priest Chester would be safe and sound around the world today. (yeah, I know that was a cliché attack, but tit for tat, eh?)
Why do people love to find way to claim stories like this for their own personal cause?
I think you missed my point as well. Sola Scriptura, by nature of what it is, allows for this kind of thinking in the Christian realm. That's not to say that the majority of Protestants approve or condone of what these people did in any way, shape, or form; however, holding to a personal interpretation of scripture ALLOWS for such things to happen. And, that's my point. As I said previously, at least when a Catholic goes astray we can without a doubt say, "You've gone astray" because everything is laid out and not left to our own interpretations to distort. Re-read post #14
http://forums.somd.com/threads/3041...lts-in-death?p=5583523&viewfull=1#post5583523
As for tit for tat, if you insist on viewing it that way, then this is the tat. The tit already happened in previous threads that I'm pretty sure you were paying attention to.
They are wrong. We all know that. This isn't hard.
With that said, some of them thought for a multitude of reasons that it was right.
Exactly, *they* thought it was right, so no not all know that, and if we're all allowed to interpret scripture for ourselves, then who can say they were wrong using scripture? No one. You can do so on some subjective moral standard, or a secular legal standard, but you can't do so using scripture. In other words, within Christian boundaries, Protestants have no authority to condemn these people.
So do you think he was defending Catholics by saying this group wasn't a mainline church or was he defending Protestants?
I don't think he was defending anyone. I think he was making a statement about the Word of Life church across the street.
The experts on MSN say it was a cult.
Surely if MSN experts say it, it must be true (pft). Look, if it makes you feel better, then we can call them a cult. That in no way negates my point. If you want to say that Protestantism allows for cults to occur via the Sola Scriptura doctrine, then by all means, we can say that.
Instead of identifying it correctly, you chose to blame Protestants which means that you have an agenda.
First, I don't blame Protestants, I blame the people who did the action. Second, I do hold responsible the doctrine of Protestantism for opening the door for such things to occur (the Pandora's box if you will). If you want to say I blame Protestantism (as opposed to Protestants) for cults, then so be it.
I have no agenda other than pointing out a perfect example of why I dislike the Protestant Sola Scriptura doctrine and it's logical conclusions. I'm not out to convert anyone or say that Protestants aren't Christian

ahem

, or anything of the sort. Your kind of coming across as butt hurt. It would appear that you are feeling defensive when you are used to being on the attack?
The rest of your post is not relevant because you're arguing a straw man. I don't give two shi
ts if you call it a cult or not. My point remains the same. (Although I will say the fact that Mary Alice Crapo and Ronald Enroth had to write a books about it ought to tell you something. Oh, and as a child I was NOT happy going to the Baptist or Presbyterian churches, so they must be a cult! However, I really did love the Episcopalian, Lutheran and Methodist churches, so they must be "mainline".) <---- This is true about my likes and dislike, but I hope you see that as the sarcasm it is regarding your views on how to determine if a church is a cult or not.
I didn't go extensively through the list but maybe you ought to check yourself out and the Catholic church for cult-like tendencies.
But by what authority do you or Ronald Enroth have to lay out the guidelines? Oh that's right, none.
When a Catholic goes beyond Catholic teaching, then they cease to be Catholic and we all know it. When a Catholic commits a crime, we can say with all sincerity and authority "You are a criminal and that is NOT Christian behavior". Catholicism lays it all out without the willy nilly my interpretation-your interpretation crap, and this is my point regarding authority. Protestantism cannot say the same thing. Protestantism has to allow for all kinds of whack Christian ideas because everyone is allowed to interpret for themselves, and we all know that people interpret things very differently from others don't we, chuck?
For the record, I don't hate Protestants; they are my family, my lovers, my friends. (And I really mean that, I'm pretty much the token Catholic amongst all of them). I just happen to hate this particular doctrine because it has created chaos and as a result fractured Christianity -- God is not the author of confusion. I have been waiting over 26 years for someone to logically show me why I'm wrong about Sola Scriptura...I'm still waiting.