On 2008-02-10, David <pchristainsen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 5:07 pm, Ian <ian.gro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> If it's nothing to do with Quakerism, why do you keep posting about it
>> to a Quaker newsgroup?
>>
>> Ian
>
> You mis-state as is your custom.
>
> I made it clear for the record.
I'm glad that you have finally grasped what others here were trying to
tell you ;)) But why raise the matter again, in that case?
> -----
>
> BTW, why don't you hum a different tune? Here's what
> I mean. You are an intelligent guy in your field - mathematics.
>
> On SRQ develop a true interest in Christian Origins leading up
> to Quaker/Christian theology on whether or how Jesus Christ
> died for mankind's or your own personal sins.
You are in no position to give assignments to anyone.
> It's not an easy assignment for you, is it? However, it's the way
> my mind works. I daresay that other SRQers may come in
> to agree with me that Jesus Christ did not die for my personal sins.
Hmmm. Seems unlikely you'll get anyone to say that.
> Would they agree that a new theology is needed that still venerates
> Jesus as a symbolic priest
Has anyone ever venerated Jesus as a priest, symbolic or otherwise? He
was not a priest of any sort; he was an amateur unofficial teacher or
rabbi, and a healer, and a preacher, and possibly a carpenter (unless he
never followed Joseph's profession, or the term 'carpenter' had a
vernacular meaning that didn't include actual wood-working).
It would be very un-Christian to venerate any priest, even if you belong
to one of the sects that has priests.
> but acknowledges that divinity can
> reside in a Martin Luther King, for example?
Don't most Quakers (and most Christians, for that matter) believe that
there is 'something of the divine' in everyone?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
|
