On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:43:45 +1100, Lindsay Brash wrote:

>G'day All,
>
>I have a question each for Allan and Andrew - hope that doesn't push your 
>dialogue off the rails :-)

[I hope you don't mind me butting in Lindsay, but I have a question
for Allan, and a comment for you, and your abbreviated version is
easier to handle than the AA-AL dialogue.]
 
>At 09:27 PM 11/01/04 +1100, aleggett wrote:
>>[AL
>>No. I have no hang ups with Wican teaching if it teaches what I believe is 
>>the foundational truth of God and life that is revealed in JC. Isn't there 
>>something about "those who are not against us are for us"?

Allan, surely you have to balance Mark 9:40 as you've quoted, against
Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23
"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with
me scatters."
noting the contexts, and noting that in the Luke version of the Mark
passage the pronoun is "you" not "us":
Luke 9:50: "Do not stop him," Jesus said, "for whoever is not against
you is for you." 

Isn't this akin to Paul's words to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 1
& 3 about claiming to follow Paul or Apollos? Therefore, balancing
these, I think we are warned against sectarianism, and exhorted to be
Christ-centred. I would be interested in your thoughts on Mt 12:30/ Lk
11:23.

>Allan, what about "No one comes to the father but through me [JC]."  I say 
>this not as a trump card, but because I am genuinely interested in your 
>belief system.
>
>>AA
>>OK. I don't believe that any reasonable person would honestly decide to 
>>stone their child on the basis of the passage you quote. If I did believe 
>>this, I'd have a problem. But I don't believe this, and you don't either. 
>>That's my basis for dismissing the example.
>>
>>So it seems to me that we agree that the Bible does *not* tell anyone in 
>>this day and age to stone their child. If that's true, then even if I give 
>>it absolute authority, I still won't do this, and neither will anyone else.
>
>Andrew, I'm curious about your use of the phrase "in this day and age".  Do 
>you believe that the Bible was telling certain people in a certain time 
>and/or place that they should, indeed *must*, stone their child?  I can't 
>believe in that sort of God, but on the other hand I can't believe that I 
>have a higher morality than God, so to me the only conclusion is to 
>discount the authority of some parts of the Bible.
>
>But I'm interested to know how you resolve that problem.
>
>Leviticus doesn't come up in the lectionary very often, so maybe substitute 
>the account of Abraham making a sacrifice of Isaac.  In a similar way, I 
>can't believe in a God that would *ever* ask a person to put their child to 
>death (and changing the request at the last minute doesn't alter that).
>
>Kind regards,
>Lindsay Brash
>Armidale NSW.

As I use Scripture Union notes, rather than the lectionary, Leviticus
in its entirety does come up regularly. I must admit I don't enjoy it
much, and have to read it in tandem with the NT. But I do think it has
a place today, especially with syariat law being so much in the news
in recent years. I think in addressing Islam it certainly has its
place, and I think Islam has something to remind us Christians about -
namely the holiness of God and the seriousness of sin.

Genesis 22 is a different matter IMO, as a pointer [forgotten the
correct word] to the Lamb of God that "The Lord Will Provide" [Gen
22:14].
This was particularly brought home to me several years ago when the
Laskar Jihad in Ambon stoned a member to death for rape, and, if we
can believe the LJ commander, the young man was begging to be stoned
"to atone for his sin".

I think we in the West have absorbed the Cross so much into our
culture that we forget what it has achieved. 

Peace and Joy,
Sue






Sue Bolton
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------------------------------
- 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
------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to