Walter W*nk - (surely not Orn! ed). I can't really be bothered with the scriptures themselves Orn - preferring to rely on Francis and others who have done the work. I have seen and heard (actually at the knee of a Mullah - an exceptionally gentle man I hope is still my friend after many years) similar in Islam, especially the need to relate to modern conditions (almost like methodological marxism). I'd say a bit the same of the hand you have disclosed and am grateful you have. Deconstruction gets to a lot of these places, especially in its considerations of violence, the 'scratching pen' and so on (and on). One biblical passage that haunts me is Numbers 31. Here Moses, by modern standards, is a gruesome war criminal (the only ones to get to stay alive are the virgin women, surprise, surprise), seen later in Norman harrowings and genocides all over before and past the text. The Scottish 'Law of Innocents' is in part a response to utterly dreadful slayings, and an attempt to regulate them. The idea of a religion changing with new knowledge is a good one; I am much less concerned with the origin of such thinking than to cherish it and regret in despair we have not found means to be in its wider spirit. The spirit has been around for eons, in such question as whether Jesus owned the clothes he wore, though even these have been turned to ghastly political purpose. Blair could no doubt turn such writing to reasons to invade Iran! There is great hospitality in such interpretations and scholarship. If I can listen as an 'atheist', one has to wonder why so many ancient-text thumpers cannot?
On 31 Jan, 17:51, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Talk about serendipity! I just came across this article on the > facebook page of a recently connected grade school friend. He was one > of the brightest people I knew back then. He taught me chess when we > were 5. He himself went on to complete seminary training and practiced > most of his adult life. Now he is the executive director of a > Christian Center. > > For the record, I claim to know little about Christianity and do not > embrace much of what little I do understand about many of its tenets. > I still find this article to be quite clear, well thought out and a > clear rebuttal to free thinkers who deny the changing nature of > religious thought. Also, in no way should this be construed as me > acting as a Christian apologist; rather, it is to, as Neil so deftly > pointed out, place all thought under the microscope. > > http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink > > From the above article: > > “…What Jesus gives us is a critique of domination in all its forms, a > critique that can be turned on the Bible itself. The Bible thus > contains the principles of its own correction. We are freed from > bibliolatry, the worship of the Bible. It is restored to its proper > place as witness to the Word of God. And that word is a Person, not a > book…” – from Homosexuality and the Bible > by The Rev. Dr. Walter Wink -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
