Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2306Re: coercion to join ex-gay ministries?

Expand Messages
  • calldon2k
    Jun 10, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In exexgayministry@y..., "nojam75" <nojam75@y...> asked:

      > How would you define modernist?

      Hi Norm,

      I did not use the term "modernist"...you did. Maybe you should give
      your definition so I will know exactly what you are talking about.
      However, I would consider extreme "liberal" more the opposite of the
      ultra-legalistic fundamentalist. How would you differenciate between
      liberal and modernist?

      > > >However, Evangelism was developed as
      > > > the more marketable form of fundamentalism in our consumer
      > > culture.
      > >
      > > "Developed" by whom? That comment is based upon a lack of
      > > understanding of BOTH!
      > In the 20th century context, American Evangelism was refined by
      > church leaders who were attempting to keep Christianity relevant to
      > American society.

      Again, refined by WHAT church leaders? I would consider
      myself "evangelical" in that I tell folks about Jesus. I believe in
      the more traditional "fundamentals" of the faith so, I guess I would
      be called a fundamentalist in the purest sense but I am NOT a
      legalist in any sense!

      I don't mean to be contencious. I just think we have different
      definitions for the same words we are both using.

      > > Norm, you seem to have lumped all non-"modernists" into the same
      > > category. Believe me, they are not the same...
      > I am well aware that there are differing variations of
      > fundamentalism -- I was not trying to distinguish between the
      > of gray. My main issue I have with fundamentalism is its attempt
      > define Christianity to a specific set of doctrines -- which no one
      > in 2000 years has successfully established.

      Sure, some HAVE established those doctrines. THAT may be the problem
      with those who disagree with those doctrines! Over the centuries,
      there HAVE BEEN groups of believers who accepted most of
      those "fundamental" doctrines.

      > Instead of establishing fundamentals, we should recognize that fact
      > that each of us are equipped and enabled to discover our own
      > relationship with God. The Bible and religion are tools to assist,
      > but it's ridiculous to say the message of life can boiled down to a
      > specific set of doctrines.

      It is obviously ridiculous to you. However other believers would
      disagree with you on that! I never implied that "the message of
      life" can be boiled down to a specific set of doctrines alone.

      Of course, that is why you consider yourself a modernist and I do NOT
      consider myself a modernist.

      No problem.

    • Show all 16 messages in this topic