From: Debbie Mann (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:51:38 EDT
Agreed. And one could argue that if we are living in love, then we don't
need to know the rest. God judges, we don't - end of story.
I doubt that many of us here are capable of leaving the matter there.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On
Behalf Of Don Winterstein
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:07 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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 10:49:43 EDT