Jonathan (and Allan) Sorry this has taken awhile to be sent ... So long that you have most probably forgotten the discussion that was started.
There are a number of reason's for the delay, mainly I needed some time to recover from Allan's and your emails and prayerfully consider what was being discussed. While that process is on going I do have some thoughts which I should share now. Firstly I think that the discussion we started showed very quickly, as in within 2 posts (and which has been echoed subsquently in Allan's response to the Gay Minsiters, sic, thread) was that at the heart of the discussion's causing the most grief within the UCA is a clash of belief systems'. Each of us, (Allan, yourself & myself) have revealed a part of our underlying belief systems, and they are very different. My first reaction to reading Allan & your responses to my post's was very strong, but as I prayerfully pondered I realised that while we could continue the discussion about what each of us believes, in someway seeking to 'change' or 'correct' the other person's views, it would end up as Allan pointed out in his discription of 2 sides seeking to convince the other of the rightness of their belief's. That is, it would become rather frustrating for each side of the debate because it would seem that the debate was going nowhere fast. Sound familiar? To me there are 5 options to seeking a way forward. We must acknowledge that either 1 You are right and I am wrong 2 I am right and you are wrong 3 We are both wrong 4 We are both right 5 We are both right and both wrong In my musings as well I have been reminded of 2 books I have been reading, Walter Martin's 'Kingdom of the Cults' (which I haven't finished as yet) and Unveiling Islam by Ergun Mehmet Caner & Emir Fethi Caner. Walter Martin talks at the start of his book about how 2 very different belief systems can seemingly reach agreement while not actually reaching agreement due to each systems' use of common words which have very different meanings in each system. In Unveiling Islam the author's showed me that while I had always considered as a strong possibility that Allah & Yahweh are the same God, the characteristic's of each as described in the central books of each faith revealed very different god's. They also discussed the fact that Islam's view of prayer etc was very different to the Christian view, and that for a Christian & Muslim to enter into a effective theological discussion they must first understand each other's theological viewpoint. One of the things that I remember strongly from my Uni day's, was the fact that in any paper's I had to do, I had to ensure that I defined each of the terms I was using clearly and concisely, so that the reader could understand what it was I was saying, by understanding where I was coming from. This then I feel is at the heart of the grief being felt in the Uniting Church, Are those on both sides of the debate actually debating from the same set of definitions? How do we define the central terms of our belief systems? It's my understanding that the early church did so by using creed's etc, and I believe that the Basis of Union document defines the core terms of the Uniting Church as understood by the founders of the church. But how many members of the church have read and accepted or rejected these definitions? Is this really important to our discussions? I believe it is, for to call myself Christian and have a discussion with you about Christian issues means that I assume that we have the same core belief's about what it means to be a Christian. But as our discussion's have started to show, our understanding's of what it means to be a Christian are very different. So which of us is correct? Are we in fact talking not about the same God but very different god's, much like the difference between Yahweh & Allah. To finish off, I know there is a lot more I could say, and there is a lot in what I have said, so I'll just say this as a closing comment. My belief system is that there is an ultimate being which is God, but that like a group of pygmie's encoutering an elephant in the jungle at night, each of us has a limited experience of God, we make assumptions as to the reality of who/what God is, and in part we are right, but because of our limited experience's our view is also filled with inaccuracies. By seeking to share with others we can begin to get a clearer picture of God, but this only works if we are all talking about the same elephant. It doesn't work if I am talking about an 'elephant' and you are talking about a 'lion' ... Well I'll stop there, Yours Andrew Swenson -----Original Message----- From: JonathanWArthur [mailto:JonathanWArthur] Sent: Friday, 6 August 2004 1:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Using the bible Hello Andrew, There is a lot here. I have made just some brief responses as to how I see things. I am happy to pick up on one or two matters and discuss in more detail. "Andrew Swenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The God that I have begun to get to know is not a God which I would >describe as tolerant, the OT show's time and time again how God doesn't >tolerate the actions of the Isrealites when they turn away from being >in relationship with him. I think the writers of the OT misunderstood the nature of God. For example, I do not believe God ever commanded the Israelites to go to war against the the other nations, let alone attempt genocide. >Jesus himself while loving many sinners, is shown in the Gospel's to be >very intolerant of sin and the actions of sinners, for instance the >number of times he berated the religious establishment for their >hipocrasy The only people I see Jesus being intolerant of are those who were intolerant of others. But this raises the question of how can you stand up against intolerance without becoming intolerant yourself? I don't know the answer to this one??? Anyone else have thoughts on this?? >If God was a tolerant God, why would Jesus need to have been sacrificed? >Surely God would have been able to tolerate our sin and enter into >relationship with us anyway. Jesus did not need to be sacrificed. I think your last sentence comes close to my views. God's grace means God has *always* forgiven sins and embraced us in a relationship regardless of what we do or who we are. It was the scandal and heresy of this idea that put Jesus into conflict with the religous hierarchy resulting in his murder. >This train of thought then got me thinking that maybe there is an even >bigger question behind your question about how we use the bible, a >question of how do we see God? Yes. I think the two are related but I think the bible issue comes first. Until we put aside the bible as the sole/primary revelation of God (and as Allan asks - what justification is there for this?), we are not really free to understand God differently. As I said, I am happy to pick up on one or two points and discuss them in more detail. Cheers, Jonathan __________________________________________________________________ Switch to Netscape Internet Service. As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register Netscape. Just the Net You Need. New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups. Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp ------------------------------------------------------ - 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 ------------------------------------------------------
