John, I did’t remember posting the
quote below, and have no idea what you are talking about. Izzy
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 22,
2004 8:04 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] from
O'Reilley to you
In a message dated 9/21/2004 7:58:12 AM Pacific Daylight
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"It is a sense of one religion being a true religion," Miller
said. "He
has made a choice. But it is very complicated. It involves emotions.
And you are in fact negating something in favor of something else. That
makes it a difficult thing when you set it up in public that way."
This is exactly where we all go wrong (IMO). If we believe that the
"image of God" (Gen 1:26-27). is a shared and vital sense
of community .........................(the picture),
if we believe that the experience of God is intimately related to our
benevolent activity in and with that community (Isa 58:9-11), that the
only undeniable manifestation of God's presence is our interaction with one
another (I John 4:12), that the requirements of the "law" are
fulfilled in our offering to God and to our fellow man (I John 1:21)
.....(the activity),
then we will see the value and benefit in Jame's definition of "pure and
undefiled religion" (James 1:27).
........................ (the reality).
Absolutely nowhere in scripture is "pure and undefiled religion"
given the definition that is implicit in the above rabbinical
comment. The choice we have to make is bound up in the sharing of
God's love and bounty with others or not. Accepting that
Christ is the Son of God in the flesh opens the door to the confident pursuit
of the hope that lies within each of us -- but it is
not the only judgment factor on that day when God judges man through Jesus
Christ (Rom 2:16).
The search for the true church, for right religion, for "truth" as
defined by some sort of systematic theology, is indefensible in light of
biblical teaching as expressed in the above.
a brother
John
