Who's criteria? Great question, jerome.oneil - seems that some groups aren't happy unless they can somehow feel superior to other groups.
For instance, some say Mormons aren't Christians because they see the Book of Mormon as being as important as (or as being a part of) the Holy Bible. Some say any faith tradition not based on Apostolic Succession is invalid. Some say any tradition that does not accept every word of the Bible as literal truth are not good enough.
It all seems rather silly to me - but some religious types would rather get all worked up over doctrine and dogma and theological minutea rather than investing their time and resources doing good things.
For me, the proof is in the pudding - if an individual or group is doing things then they are 'good'. If what they are doing is making themselves feel better about themselves by simply criticizing others, then they are behaving like a wacko cult. James
That pretty much sums up my thinking perfectly. I call it the "My voodoo is better than your voodoo" outlook. It never seems to click that it's all voodoo with them.
I've always felt that the role of the church (of any stripe) had nothing to do with God. I don't believe anyone has the absolute truth, and that God speaks to us each individually. The plan for you isn't the plan for me. Given that, the role of the church is to foster communities where that kind of exploration can thrive. Any church that tells me they know what God's plan is for me has pretty much already failed.
The doctrine and dogma types I refer to as "book worshipers" as they've allowed their book to become a graven image that blocks them from what they're supposed to be looking for.
This peanut brittle thing has me re-evaluating my position, though.
