Re: the obligation to object
Re: the obligation to object
Putting words onto a screen tends to remove the sense of personal interaction which comes from face to face encounter. Cyber conversations have to work very hard to convey tone - which otherwise can easily be misinterpreted.
‘Very contentless’ was a repetition of a serious point I have been making - perhaps too insistently. ‘Anarchic biblical hermeneutic’ was how the use and application of scripture to life and practice seemed to me in the light of Andrew’s interpretive model. It’s the exact opposite of the exegesis which has gone into constructing the model - which is detailed and methodical.
Neither phrases were intended as a jibe - but the larger point is that the pursuit of debate has been getting obsessive, in hindsight almost like stalking, and I think that calls for greater restraint on my part.
Say a little prayer for me as I plod up Guildford’s High Street in my thermal underwear and Arctic weather gear on the annual ‘walk of witness’ this morning.
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Jet (26/04/2008 - 03:49)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Len Hjalmarson (21/04/2008 - 23:38)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (22/04/2008 - 01:39)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Len Hjalmarson (22/04/2008 - 19:49)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (22/04/2008 - 01:39)
- but not to square one? By: samlcarr (22/03/2008 - 21:43)
- Jesus is not the whole story By: Andrew Perriman (24/03/2008 - 14:07)
- Re: Jesus is not the whole story By: samlcarr (24/03/2008 - 21:21)
- Re: Jesus is not the whole story By: Andrew Perriman (25/03/2008 - 11:54)
- Re: Jesus is not the whole story By: samlcarr (24/03/2008 - 21:21)
- Jesus is not the whole story By: Andrew Perriman (24/03/2008 - 14:07)
- the obligation to object By: john (20/03/2008 - 12:10)
- Re: the obligation to object By: Andrew Perriman (20/03/2008 - 19:04)
- Re: the obligation to object By: peter wilkinson (21/03/2008 - 11:11)
- Re: the obligation to object By: Andrew Perriman (20/03/2008 - 19:04)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: randplaty (19/03/2008 - 03:05)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 11:26)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Jacob (18/03/2008 - 23:53)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 00:23)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 10:57)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 11:42)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 18:49)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 21:47)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (20/03/2008 - 11:57)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 21:47)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 18:49)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 11:42)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 10:57)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (19/03/2008 - 00:07)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: peter wilkinson (19/03/2008 - 00:23)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Ilana (18/03/2008 - 23:13)
- Re: We have to go back, but not to square one By: Andrew Perriman (18/03/2008 - 23:59)

Contradictions in the Gospels: Problems or Opportunities?
Day One: A Sir Toby's Creation Myth
A Generous Orthdoxy - Brian McLaren
The Lost World of Genesis One - John H. Walton