Sue, sorry I haven't followed this up but Xmas came and I found myself running out of time. I really don't know why the arrows arte missing. I think it has something to do with the way my computer is talking to Andrew's.
Sue wrote Allan, Without the >>>, it's only those of us who've been following this thread closely that would know who's saying what. Time being at a premium for all of us, I'll just comment on a few things you said in your last two emails to Andrew: > The only real authority the Bible has is the authority you bestow upon it yourself. Sue It is Jesus who has bestowed the authority, by His own use of OT scripture, and by the authority of His own teaching. [A] Allan > If you don't follow some instruction that is in the Bible such as stoning your delinguent sons to death, > does that mean you are going against God? > Sue There's nothing in Jesus' recorded teaching that commands me to do that. But OT injunctions such as this simply underline the seriousness of sin, as syariat law does in the Islamic world today. [B] Allan It seems to me that there are 2 problems here. (1) If Jesus is giving the authority to the OT by his own teachings, then surely that is to the whole of the OT and not just the bits we choose to accept as authorative. (2) Since the only records that gives us any reliable information on the life and teachings of Jesus are found within the Bible itself, (the gospel of Thomas a possible exception) isn't this a bit like relying on scripture to justify itself? The same thin occurs when 2 Timothy 3:16 is quoted to prove that the scriptures are inspired by God. What therefore prevents me from writing a book and claiming within it that it is the Word of God? (as others have done) Ultimately, I am suggesting, it always comes down to a faith statement by the individual concerned that these particular writings are duely inspired by God. The authority of the Bible or any other so called sacred writings can only be something that is accepted by those who make the claim that these are the words of the supreme being to whom they testify. Allan > I suspect that Someone has convinced you that the Bible is the word of God. Sue The Someone = the Holy Spirit? [C] Allan I have a problem with this argument. It is not verifiable. I had a woman with me the other day who was claiming certain direct revelations from God via the Holy Spirit. These revelations would seem to be at odds with the sort of things that I see revealed by God, but of course I can't say she hasn't received such revelations because they were very real for her. I can also say that I believe that the Holy Spirit has revealed to me that the Bible is not the actual words of God. Who is right? > I am convinced that God has been speaking (or is being revealed) in many ways > and many different cultures that pre-date our Judeo-Christian history. Sue ... and there are 'evangelicals' who would agree with you, eg Don Richardson ["Eternity in their Hearts"] and several others I've mentioned before. The difference between their position and yours is that they claim the Bible has an authority lacking elsewhere - see [A] and [C]. Allan > As I have made clear in other conversations we have had, I have > no need for the atonement as a doctrine. Sue And perhaps that is something the Muslim world needs to teach us today: that there is such a thing as 'sin' and it needs to be repented of and atoned for. [I'm not saying that the Muslim and Christian understandings of 'sin' are the same, mind you.] Allan > I don't believe that Jesus had to die on the cross to appease an angry God. Sue I don't believe that either. I believe that Jesus [=God] died for the sins committed by me, you and everyone else, as the means of wiping them out and enabling us to have a relationship with Him. That sounds like mercy, rather than anger, to me. Allan I think there is a thin line between the angry God scenario and your argument. The idea of blood sacrifices within the Jewish culture comes from their tribal origins where the sacrifices were made to appease their God who was angry because of their sins. The suggestion that Jesus' death simply atoned for human sin is another way of saying that God was satisfied by the action. Why would a God who is supposed to be all loving require the death of his son before He could forgive human sin? The whole scenario presupposes the sort of God I simply don't believe it is reasonable to believe in any more. It is, I believe, an indication that our faith has not grown in proportion to our knowledge of the universe and our place in it. Grace & Peace Allan ------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
