Hi
Judy, let me paraphrase/periphrase "there is no sacred vs profane", as that is a
dualism perhaps unfamiliar to you, which uses the word "profane" differently
than the texts you mention below. "There is no sacred vs
profane" means that life is not divided into two compartments, a
spiritual/religious/faithy/Bibley compartment on the one hand and everything
else on the other. It means there is no part of life which is not affected by
our relationship with God; there is no sphere of activity over which he does not
have the supreme claim, or to which he is not relevant.
I'm
confident we would agree on that.
Debbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 11:54 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Good News!Must confess that I didn't have much clue about what Avram and Josef was trying to say. But seemingly this is another example of how tradition conflicts with or makes of no effect the truth of scripture.There is a very clear separation of sacred vs profane all through the scriptures and this is an area that Israel violated constantly - Will we or won't we learn from their example (1 Cor 10:6; Heb 4:3-6)?Therefore thus says the Lord, if thou return, then will I bring thee again and thou shalt stand before me; and if thou take forth the precious from the vile, thou shalt be as my mouth; let them return unto thee; but return not thou unto them (Jeremiah 15:19)Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they shown difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my sabbaths, and I am profaned among them (Ezekiel 22:26)And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean. And in controversy they shall stand in judgment; and they shall judge it according to my judgments, and they shall keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies, and they shall hallow my sabbaths. (Ezekiel 44:23) judytOn Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:07:07 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:[Debbie] Yes, David, of course anything can be done wrongly. The better the thing is, the easier it is to do it wrongly.
A good example of what I am talking about is Slade's and my interpretation of Avram and Josef. We certainly didn't say the same thing (and moreover he said something way superior to, more intelligible and less oblique than, what I did), but if you follow us both out to the end it is clear that there is fundamental agreement--or at the very least, compatibility--without sameness. Try it:
a) there is no sacred vs profane
b) Torah-study takes in all of life
From: David Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Excellent post, Debbie, but please do reconsider some of your syntax to line
up with Biblical language.
For example, you wrote:
> The apostles Paul and James (to go back to a previous post)
> ultimately believed in the same Good News, but in emphasizing
> different things they didn't say the same thing; they said
> complementary things.
Based upon 1 Cor. 1:10 and Acts 15 and Acts 21, I would say that Paul and
James did speak the same thing. They had the same mind and were in unity of
speech. In the context of what you are saying above, I agree with you, but
at the same time I am concerned that using the syntax of "they didn't say
the same thing" cuts across the syntax of Scripture. My concern is that
people will use what you are saying to justify actual disagreements that are
not complementary. In other words, they will be open to the relativism of
our modern educational system which allows people to believe whatever they
want. The assumption is that whatever they believe will fit in and be
relevant in some way. It does not even have to be something that actually
fits somewhere.
It is important for us to see how our perspectives, when they are accurate
of the truth, actually fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. If they do fit
together in complementary fashion, then we see the whole, and we see how we
have the same mind and how we do speak the same things. In fact, if someone
were to contradict James, Paul would probably speak up for him and justify
his teachings. Likewise with James. When Jews in Jerusalem maligned Paul
and misrepresented him, James would speak up for him (hence the situation in
Acts 21).
Debbie wrote:
> They certainly don't sound the same;
They don't sound the same when taken out of context and put in a different
context. They do sound the same when they are fit together in a whole and
understood in relationship to one another.
Debbie wrote:
> We can't use sameness as a necessary
> condition of rightness. To me that seems
> a scary direction to move in.
Excellent point. This distinguishes dogma from analysis. Much of
Christianity has missed it in relying upon dogma and using sameness as a
condition of rightness. Very excellent point.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
