"misapplication," "poor exegesis," "true understanding," "meant to be,"
"highest good." You use this language always as if it were not deeply
problematic but a simple set of categories that you know. All of these
posts from you are circular arguments because they continually offer as
proof what is in fact set of premises you have simply asserted.
PLEASE do not repeat them to me. I know it all already, know it all.
Others are not subject to the controlling metaphors of one set of
beliefs and may not wish to be coerced. Perhaps sometime you will be
fortunate enough to be approached by many on the street hoping to save
you from your mistakes and prevent your own destruction by showing you
the Hindu way or the Jewish way or the Muslim way or the Agnostic way or
any way at all to listen--not to your own discourse--instead of declaim.
I have never felt that the list was a place to try to determine what
others say, because we will all say what we say, but using it to
evangelize is, I deeply believe, inappropriate. It is becoming an
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/08/04 3:08 PM >>>
Remember also, Marcia, that accepting Christ was meant to be the natural
progression of Judaism. So taking this detail and applying it across the
board is a misapplication and poor exegesis.
For a true understanding of love, a I Corinthians 13 kind of
understanding needs to be balanced with a John 3:23-24 understanding,
among others. Love is not shallow acceptance but commitment to another's
>>> [log in to unmask] 11/07/04 11:25AM >>>
This is in response to Will's post about his friend who was unhappy
being approached on the street by those wishing to "save her," as I
think the phrase goes. Will told her and us that proselytizing showed
love. Another point of view can be found to the Boston University
website. Conversion and the role of proselytizing are part of the
Protestant sermon of Oct 31: