Greetings Sue Et al.
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. I have a general policy that I avoid quoting Bible verses as part of an argument because I do not believe the Bible should be used in that manner. Here I am, I broke my rule (whip whip) and as you have pointed out, there are other verses which give a different point of view. Firstly, I think is is difficult to associate what Paul is addressing in his letter to the Corinthians with whether or not the foundational truth of God that I find in JC is present in Wican teachings. For a start, Paul is obviously addressing a particular problem that was associated with the church at Corinth. We can develop some assumptions from his letter as to what that might be, but they remain that, assumptions. It would seem that there may have been some form of hiearchy developing depending on who baptised whom. I confess that I have also taken the verse in Mark 9:40 out of context, but it does come from a question about others who were performing miracles in Jesus name but were not direct followers of Jesus. While I know that this is not the exact situation we are talking about here, I think it is probably closer that the one in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23 where Jesus is being accused of casting out evil by the power of evil. Grace & Peace. Allan >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 ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
