<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">Siarlys,<BR>
Wonderful response! I think you absolutely make your point and I totally agree.<BR>
Layne<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 5/30/04 8:10:04 PM, gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE CITE STYLE="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px" TYPE="CITE"></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2">On Sat, 29 May 2004 23:07:41 -0700 gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net writes:<BR>
>SOUL JOURNEY<BR>
<BR>
<<RESPONSE BELOW>><BR>
<BR>
>Ephesians 4:17-24<BR>
<BR>
<<CITATION DELETED, SINCE EVERYONE HAS SEEN IT ALREADY>><BR>
><BR>
>STEALING OR BORROWING?<BR>
<BR>
<<STORY DELETED, SINCE EVERYONE HAS SEEN IT ALREADY>><BR>
<BR>
>LINKS:<BR>
>Right & Wrong: A Case For Moral Absolutes<BR>
>http://www.discoveryseries.org/q1107/<BR>
><BR>
>bottom line: New views on sin don't change God's standard.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
>What you propose Siarlys, is to personalizing the Bible for self<BR>
>without recognizing God's absolute truths. That's TERRIBLY wrong!<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Now, whoever you are, you have failed to sign your name. As several other<BR>
discussion participants have pointed out, that's terribly wrong.<BR>
<BR>
You also fail to identify WHAT I, or anyone, have contributed to any<BR>
discussion which is "personalizing the Bible for self without recognizing<BR>
God's absolute truths."<BR>
<BR>
But I will try, briefly, to respond anyway. God is absolute. God said "I<BR>
am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, I change not." I can't recall<BR>
anything I have ever said which denies that truth.<BR>
<BR>
I HAVE said that everyone must READ Scripture for themselves -- which is<BR>
fundamental to the Protestant Reformation, even before that to Wycliffe's<BR>
translation of the Bible into English, to the motivation for doing the<BR>
King James translation. The Roman Catholic Church has for the past few<BR>
centuries also recognized the value of printing the Bible in vernacular<BR>
languages, not keeping it in Latin while the priests and the bishops tell<BR>
people what they need to know about what is in it.<BR>
<BR>
Unless you get some hedonistic pleasure out of reading the Bible, or you<BR>
read it for purely literary interest, the purpose of reading it is not<BR>
"for self." It is to bring your self closer to what God has in mind. As<BR>
the modern Gospel song says "What God has for me is for me." That doesn't<BR>
mean I am the center of the universe, it means I need to find what God<BR>
has for me and follow it.<BR>
<BR>
What I have denied is that any human authority can tell any other human<BR>
being WHAT it is that the Bible says, or what it means. God knows, and<BR>
God's word is true, but no bishop, no patriarch, no theologian, no priest<BR>
or pastor, is God's representative on earth. All of the above are<BR>
falliable human beings. They have their places and purposes, but it is<BR>
not to beat us over the head with a Bible and say "do it my way."<BR>
<BR>
This is why it is dangerous to equate moral law with the law of the<BR>
state. It may or may not be sinful to "borrow" a fellow student's bicycle<BR>
without permission. But if a campus, or a local court, imposes penalties,<BR>
it is not for sinful behavior, but for violating a secular law adopted<BR>
through some legal process by a majority of those concerned.<BR>
<BR>
Thomas Aquinas wrote that the moral law will not always be the same as<BR>
the civil law. Some moral laws have to be established by persuasion, not<BR>
by criminal penalties. Some unacceptable behavior has to be limited by<BR>
physical penalties, enforced through some consistent legal process.<BR>
<BR>
The student who thought it OK to borrow a bicycle: the material wrong is,<BR>
when the owner expects the bike to be there to ride across campus, it<BR>
won't, because someone else "borrowed" it. That may be worth imposing a<BR>
penalty for. Most of us would also agree there is a strong case for<BR>
calling such "borrowing" a violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not<BR>
steal." However, I personally consider reciting the Pledge of Allegiance,<BR>
with or without the words "under God," a violation of the Second<BR>
Commandment. Does this mean that you should be prohibited from reciting<BR>
it?<BR>
<BR>
There are absolute moral truths, but they are not simple or easy to<BR>
learn, or to cultivate, and are not always possible for humans to<BR>
enforce. God generally builds in automatic enforcement without the need<BR>
for human retaliation or special miracles.<BR>
<BR>
Siarlys<BR>
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"><BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" FACE="Geneva" FAMILY="SANSSERIF" SIZE="2"></FONT></HTML>