From: Sondra Brasile (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:21:51 EDT
Exactly Moorad, well put, and when people were sinning He didn't turn a
blind eye, He neither condemned or rejected but said, "Go and sin no more".
It was the religious folk who sinned, justified and continued to be self-
righteous instead of humbling themselves and calling sin, sin that He got
furious with and chastised repeatedly. He was not very *nice*, but did He
sin by getting angry with them and trying to set them straight? I don't
think so. The "law of love" does not turn a blind eye toward sin or try to
make sinners comfortable in their sin, but says "Go and sin no more".
>From: "Alexanian, Moorad" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>To: "Don Winterstein" <email@example.com>, "ASA" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
>"Dick Fischer" <email@example.com>
>Subject: RE: Is everybody saved?
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 09:31:20 -0400
>One who does not know Jesus does not know what loves is. A long time ago, a
>Rabbi indicated at a Bar Mitzvah that all that Jesus had said was already
>in the Old Testament---there was a large contingence of Christians present
>and the Rabbi looked at us as he said that. Now I know better.
>In the OT, one has “You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge
>against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as
>yourself; I am the LORD.” Lev. 19:18.
>Contrast that to the words of Jesus "A new commandment I give to you, that
>you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one
>another.” John 13:34.
>Christ set the example of what love is!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Don Winterstein [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wed 6/4/2003 7:07 AM
> To: ASA; Dick Fischer
> Subject: Re: Is everybody saved?
> It's a mistake to assume that the law of love and compassion is the easy,
>watered-down way. As Jesus pointed out in his Sermon on the Mount, the law
>of love is much more restrictive than any set of rules and regulations,
>partly because it specifies that the motives are every bit as important as
>the acts. It also specifies that the big picture is more important than
>the details: Love is not love if it does not take temporal and eternal
>consequences into account. Love is not love without commitment and
> So the law of love is rigid indeed, but the things it's rigid about are
>sometimes different from the things specified in the written rules and
>regulations. Christians living under love have freedom to set priorities
>different from those living under the laws.
> Dick Fischer wrote in part:
> Debbie Mann wrote:
> It's one thing to say that some of the Bible may be allegorical or
>explained in terms of false scientific premises. It's something else
>entirely to say that no matter when it was written or who wrote it we can
>take the pretty parts and leave the rest alone. Some of it begs for
>interpretation. Other parts don't. I believe it was Jenkins who said, when
>you can - take it literally.
> Where does it start Debbie? When apologists think they have to explain
>away parts of the Old Testament because they aren't dedicated enough to
>figure it out or even listen to someone who has, that establishes a pattern
>which can carry right into the New Testament.
> Add that to our innate feelings of compassion for all people everywhere,
>and you have a watered-down gospel - acceptable to any shade of faith and
>all categories of unrepentant sinners.
> I argue hard for a literal Genesis illuminated by historical evidence not
>because it is important in and of itself, but because that too can
>establish a pattern of taking the entirety of Scripture at full face value.
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:22:10 EDT