511
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + +
Talk:Essay:Adulteress Story (view source)
Revision as of 22:02, March 10, 2008
, 22:02, March 10, 2008no edit summary
:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:: Well put, Fox. I wouldn't know about all that background material (e.g. Ambrose and Augustine), but certainly I've never had a problem with the passage when sceptics have quoted it at me. The Bible was written for 'a "high context" society -- background data is assumed to be known; no need is seen to re-explain things again and again that the readers already know'[http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/doherty200.html]. That is, the people of the time (actually, most cultures throughout time) would have understood that when Jesus referred to those "without sin", He ''could not'' have been meaning ''without any sin at all'', but something more specific and relevant, such as ''sin related to this issue'', whether that be their own infidelities or their sin of setting him up. As such, sceptic use of this passage to teach against the death penalty or against judging another is misplaced in any case, and we don't have to resort to saying that the passage should not be there in order to answer it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:01, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
:::I agree too. I think it's extremely dangerous and misguided to embroil the teachings of Christ into the polarised politics of today. That way leads to fragmentation and internal strive within the broad church and, let's face it, it doesn't need any more of that. This insistence on trying to equate being a good Christian with being a conservative is too ridiculous for words. Christianity is supposed to be about inclusion and tolerance, a couple of traits sorely lacking here. Of course using Christ's teachings to argue about particular issues such as abortion or morality is perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable. But equating them with left and right is simply shallow and not at all theological. While liberals may well be more predisposed to be agnostics or atheists, that by no means makes none of them Christians. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 18:02, 10 March 2008 (EDT)