Fiona
us, agreeing ? heaven forbid :)
Well, lets not get too carried away here, because I'm about to don my biblical storm troopers uniform and come 'afta ya' :)
Now, you said one thing "Endlessly refutable, internally inconsistent, and open to many interpretations etc" Wellllll dear girl, I absolutely 'blitzkrieg' that idea. If it were the case, then our language should be put in a granny's home. I'd like to see you apply that little set of whiz bang ideas to say "Romans" ? or 1Corinthians ?

I haven't really done much 'selective' quoting, but in terms of 'most relevant' I've mentioned Romans 1 because it is a) crystal clear and b) it was intended to be a systematic account of the condition of man and his need for divine grace. And indeed it IS those things ...on steroids :)

A very central message of the New Testament is that we love Him because HE first loved us. Paul recognizes the futility of life without Christ, and Bishop Spong would do well to read more of Paul and less of his own ponderings :).. no, I'm not a fan of bishop Spong by any means. (I'm not a fan of Pastor Fred Phelps either) I AM fan of Tony Campolo, while I have some reservations about some of his views.

Friends,
Jim Wallace primary issues why Christians should be involved in politcs are: 1. Overcoming poverty, 2. Overcoming war, 3. Overcoming social injustice. These major problems are not solved merely by political will but by revolutionary social change in attitude.

For example the abolition of slavery occurred similtaneously with a dramatic Christian Revival that was contemporary with William Wilberforce, and the dramatic spiritual conversion of the slave trader - John Newton who wrote the words of "Amazing Grace". The thinking of the time was saturated with Paul's Theology that; in the Church there is neither male of female, slave nor free, as all persons were equally loved by God. Harriet Becher Stowe writings of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" summed up the sentiments of the slaves and impacted the consciences of those unjustly treating slaves as tools or animals of labour. A proper teaching of the theology of the Christian NT with passion as a message from our Creator has and will change a society.

The niave assumption that war is caused by poverty cannot explain the Third Reich, or Japanese Imperialism. It is blatently obvious other attitudes motivated their agenda. The fact is the anxiety and displacement of persons by war is one reason for poverty, another is lack of education or resources to deal with the environment. You can give charity to some people all their life and they will never attempt to build a sustainable food source. This also happens here in Australia. Change their minds and give hope of building their own world will take them off Charity.

These major problems will only be overcome with a spiritual awakening and the sweat of the brow. Poverty does not cause war, greed causes war, as does unjust oppression of the weak. The real answer is one of the mind and spirit, and not one of enforced law and the allocation of funds. There is a real need of personal enlightenment and politicians are rarely in the forefront of spiritual change.

Fiona,

You seem to be espousing a post-modern deconstructive view of language where meaning is determined by the reader rather than the writer.

The meaning of the Bible is determined by those who wrote it (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). While most of Scripture is pretty straight-forward, there are a few passages where it is more difficult to determine the author's meaning due to the time and culture gap between Biblical times and modern times. However, with some careful study, thorough research and hard work it is possible to understand these as well.

Psalm 53:1 says: "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, and their ways are vile"

How many different ways can this be understood?

Rom 1:26-27 says: "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

How do you interpret this?

You said: "By all means live your life according to the interpretation you wish to apply to those parts of the bible to which you want to give most weight. May it serve you well. Just don't impose."

This is classical relativism. Do you realise that your statement contradicts itself?

Do you not see that by telling Boaz not to impose, you are imposing on Boaz? Why is Boaz forbidden to impose but you see no problem with imposing your view on him?

You add: "There is no evidence that your interpretations and opinions are more correct, more proper, more blessed or more morally virtuous than mine."

In other words, you believe Boaz is wrong and you are right, and so its not simply a case of both interpretations being equally valid - you think yours is superior.

If you want evidence that my interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is superior to yours then I'd only be too happy to take you through a thorough exegesis of the text.

Let me see if I can work this out; Boaz is right,Fiona is wrong; no, mollydukes is right and I'm wrong.... no maybe Xena is right and Aslan is wrong; no that's not it... Garra is right and pericles is wrong.

Everybody is right and everybody is wrong.

That is it!

Religion cancels itself out.

Aslan, what Fiona is probably doing is establishing a personal "Boundary". Doing so might be phrased in terms of asking David to get his nose out of her life it but it is more likely to be about a desire to exercise some control/responsibility over how she lives her own life.

Doing so is a very healthy thing to do. It is very different to attempting to impose your will on other peoples lives (regardless of what tricks can be played with semantics).

There are some good books available on the topic, try the books by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend for a christian perspective.

As for the rest, I've come across plenty of fools who believe in the christian god (and plenty who don't). Quoting a verse of the bible does not make it so.

If you want evidence that Aslan suffers from a superiority complex, look no further than this:

"If you want evidence that my interpretation of Romans 1:26-27 is superior to yours then I'd only be too happy to take you through a thorough exegesis of the text."

Ringtail is right religion will eat itself.