On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:11 AM, <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> *"I should have thought of this before but, all other questions aside, it
> is far from clear that Mt.23 is relevant to concerns about discussion
> criteria for this list - for the following reason. In that chapter the
> charges against the scribes and Pharisees have to do not with their
> _teaching_ but with their _pracice_. Verse 3 makes that quite explicit at
> the start: "Therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do
> not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach."
>
> Now most of the excessive language that people have complained about on the
> list has to do with ideas that some consider wrongheaded - e.g., YEC.
> Wrong ideas shouldn't be spared criticism & there are biblical texts that
> can be cited in support of such criticism. But Mt.23 isn't among them."*
Of course "their practices" were the myriad _legalistic requirements_ of
the Old Covenant. (The New Covenant was not yet in effect).
The "politically correct" are the "legalists" of today. They don't practice
what they preach, either. (Let me count the ways).
*James 3:2-12* "For we all stumble in many ways. *If anyone does not stumble
in what he says, he is a perfect man,* able to bridle the whole body as
well.
So whose responsibility is it if someone chooses to be offended at the
comments of another "imperfect" man?
One makes a choice to take offense.
Who, other than a PC legalist, would possibly believe that he has _a right *
not* to be offended_?
Lynn
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Feb 17 12:24:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 17 2009 - 12:24:05 EST