Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RobRoy
... Make sense? ...
Yes. I think so. Thank you for the clarification. But I wouldn't want to call such a description Christian, or at least not Christian in any orthodox tradition: the body is sacred in the Christian tradition, hence the incarnation, bodily resurrection etc., etc.

What you propose sounds vaguely anabaptist, or like, say, the Cathars or Bogomils or grrr-nostic traditions etc.

No big deal. Reasonable people can disagree and all that. I should have paid more attention in Sunday school.
57 posted on 02/05/2002 4:39:28 AM PST by Asclepius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: Asclepius
>>But I wouldn't want to call such a description Christian, or at least not Christian in any orthodox tradition: the body is sacred in the Christian tradition, hence the incarnation, bodily resurrection etc., etc. <<

Yes, I agree. It's kind of like saying, I wouldn't call believing the earth is round as "Christian," but one can be a Christian and believe the earth is flat or round.

My main point is that I cannot find anything in His word that says what I suggest is not true. Kind of like, when some argued that the world could be round and not the center of the universe, the Church ex-communicated them when, in fact, there was nothing in the bible that said it was. It was merely the Churches miss-interpretation of his word.

Those round-earthers were busting paradigms, as I am. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong or right. I just want to nail down not only what the Word says is sacred, but how, and in what way - and how have we altered it to mean more than it actually says, as the Earth-is-the-center people did back then.

59 posted on 02/05/2002 5:47:54 AM PST by RobRoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson