Subject: Re: [rw] Is Robert Weiss the only orthodox Christian?
From: <LIBRBA@BYUVM.BITNET>

In article <C5vGyD.H7s@acsu.buffalo.edu>, psyrobtw@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert
Weiss) says:
>
>     "Orthodox" is a compound word. It comes from 'orthos' (straight, true,
>     right) and from 'doxa' (opinion, doctrine, teaching). I use orthodox to
>     refer to 'right teaching.' Right teaching is derived from letting God
>     speak to us through the Bible. This can be from reading simple truths
>     in the Scriptures and by using the Bible to interpret the Bible.

  Thanks for the etymology lesson, but I actually know what "orthodox" means.
You're avoiding my question, however, which was: From what body of theology
does your version of orthodoxy come?  You seem to simply be saying that
whatever *you* understand the Bible to say is "orthodox."

>ra> Who is that "holds that" Luke meant what you said he meant?
>
>     I think that it is apparent from reading the Scriptures that are
>     pertinent.

  You are obviously mistaken, since many, many people have read the Bible and
many do not agree with you on this point.  Once again, Robert, is your
interpretation the only "correct" or "orthodox" one?

>ra> Whenever your personal interpretation of Biblical passages is
>ra> challenged, your only response seems to be that one needs merely to
>ra> "look at the Bible" in order to see the truth, but what of those who
>ra> see Biblical things differently from you?
>

>     I seem to be seeing from you the notion that any difference in how one
>     views the Bible is somehow legitimate, except, or course, for the stuff
>     that I glean from it. Put forward a contrary view and perhaps we can
>     have a discussion on that topic. But to decry something that I put
>     forward, without putting forward something else to discuss, and to
>     dismiss what I put forward while giving credence to other alleged views
>     that have yet to be put forward is simply being contentious.

   This whole string began as a response to your attacks on Mormonism; no one
is attacking your personal beliefs, only your tendency to present them as
"orthodoxy."  I don't much care *what* you believe about the Bible; just don't
present you personal understanding as the only "orthodox" one.

>
>ra> Are we to simply assume that you are the only one who really
>ra> understands it?
>
>     If you believe that something that I have drawn from Scripture is
>     wrong, then please, show me from Scripture where it is wrong.  Simply
>     stating that there are other views is not a proof. Show it to me from
>     Scripture and then we can go on.

   I have never attacked your specific beliefs -- that's *your* approach,
remember?
    Stating that other people who depend solely on the Bible have other views
is indeed proof that the Bible can be interpreted many ways, which has been
my whole point all along.  The specifics of your belief are your business;
just don't pretend that they are anything more than your personal
intepretation, and be careful about crying "heresy" based on your private
belief system.

>=============================
>Robert Weiss
>psyrobtw@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

--
Rick Anderson  librba@BYUVM.BITNET
