Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chris land who wrote (70911)	1/5/2000 8:33:00 PM
From: Thomas C. White	Respond to of 108807

Oh, so your saying that people can preach a different gospel and not be accursed. Ahem...that's "you're" saying, is it not? No, not at all. Within the context of Christianity, the four synoptic gospels are generally considered to be unimpeachable. There were various gnostic versions being bandied about early on, also ones that were probably "edited" in order to support various mystical offshoot sects of early Christianity, as well as the versions which were used by the Judaicizers. None have apparently survived to the present, other than in fragments, probably with good reason, and so normally one would be expected to rely upon these texts exclusively. What I am simply saying is that you are misusing scripture to your own ends. Michael M merely made a statement that basically embodies the long accepted Protestant concept of free will, that each person is responsible for faith, for his or her own actions. That conscience and belief are, in the end, an individual matter. This is a basic tenet of almost all Protestant creeds since Luther. Although perhaps I am wrong, and if so, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of this idea. You retaliated in a rather bellicose fashion by accusing him of "preaching a different gospel" (which, given the nature of Paul's well documented intent in Galatians, and the issues that embroiled the church at the time, would strike any religious scholar as a laughable misuse of Paul's letter), and further that he was "accursed" for it. You felt it necessary to add that Paul would undoubtedly curse him to his face. This would seem a rather extreme position for you to take, unless you mean to imply that you have been having some very nice chats with Paul of late, and he let you in on the secret.