[Peace-discuss] RE: Wesley etc.

[John W.]

At 09:33 PM 2/19/2006, Phil Stinard wrote:

>Hi Karen,
>
>If you look at what Jesus said, some of it was about interpretations being 
>off (e. g. dietary codes), and some of it reiterated previous teachings 
>(e. g. on divorce and sexual morality).  If you are going to discard some 
>teachings, then what are your standards for doing so, and why believe any 
>of it?  Jesus clearly modified some of the Old Testament teachings, for 
>instance where He told the Pharisees "let he who is without sin cast the 
>first stone" at the adultress, but then He told the adultress, "Go and sin 
>no more."  I would apply the same standard to homosexuality, speaking the 
>truth in love.  As Bob said, you have to use your brain in order to 
>interpret the Bible.
>
>As for representing all Christians, I clearly said that those were my 
>beliefs, and I backed them up with scriptures.  However, I'd be willing to 
>wager that more than "a small percentage of all Christians" believe that 
>the Bible is the inspired word of God.  And even if that were the case, it 
>wouldn't bother me.  It's better to be right than be popular.
>
>--Phil

And then there was the wag who said, "You can be right, or you can be 
close."  :-)




>>From: Karen Medina <kmedina at uiuc.edu>
>>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] RE: Wesley etc.
>>To: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>Message-ID: <43F77CD5.7080605 at uiuc.edu>
>>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>>
>>Phil Stinard wrote:
>> > I think that one thing we need  to do when speaking about issues of 
>> good and evil is to define them.
>> > When I speak of good and evil, I define them in terms of what is
>> > pleasing and what is displeasing to God, as revealed in the Bible.
>>
>>I think you will find major differences throughout the Bible including
>>some very drastic contradictions. And one has to remember that we were
>>getting it all wrong and that is part of the reason Jesus was sent. Many
>>of Jesus' recorded actions were all about telling the interpreters of
>>the Scriptures that their interpretations were off.
>>
>>"In many of its details, the Bible is simply wrong! Epilepsy is not
>>caused by demon possession. David did not write the Psalms. The earth is
>>not the center of the universe. [...the Bible's] verses have been used
>>to affirm war, slavery, segregation and apartheid. It defines women as
>>inferior creatures and suggests that homosexual persons be put to death."
>>
>>George W. Bush implies that he, through the use of the Bible, has the
>>correct definitions for good and evil. He uses the Bible to justify his
>>actions. He continues to have a strong backing by many churches who
>>claim to interpret the Bible directly. I think he and they are very wrong.
>>
>>There are even contradictions in the Gospels, even so I believe the
>>message of Christ was that we are to love each other, even on the
>>Sabbath and even in our judging and punishing (our throwing of stones at
>>sinners). If we interpret the entirety of the Scriptures with a message
>>of love and compassion for each other in mind, it does help resolve some
>>contradictions.
>>
>>And dear Phil, please remember that your fundamental interpretations of
>>Christianity represents only a small percentage of all Christians. Be
>>careful when you claim to represent all of us.
>>
>>Peace,
>>-karen medina