mrscorie (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

I am agreeing with you. To be honest I think people interpret the Bible to what they want it to say. Or they stress the sins that they want to stress when one sin is not more of a sin than another.

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

So church involvement in worldly issues is pretty standard. There are other records of priests interposing themselves between soldiers during war. During the civil rights movement it was the churches that led the fight for equal rights. So when you say this man is teaching false docturine, nothing could be further from the truth.

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Throughout history many of the Christian churches stood up for the rights of the poor and the innocent. Whether the agressor or oppressor be from the government or just a mob. That ties back to Jesus protecting those couldn't defend themselves even though these people may have broken the law. ie. He who is without sin cast the first stone. During the middle ages the Catholic church started the practice of granting santuary to protect the weak and the helpless.

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Oh well let's see he has 4 degress in biblical understanding and has been an accomplished minister for over 36 years. He is recognized by theologians around the world as being one of the greatest biblical scolars of our time. And you are? I don't mean to be rude here but to dismiss he creditials with none of your own is a bit arrogant. I have studied the bible for over 30 years and I fully understand his meaning.

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

No actually he isn't Paul's meanings were specific to that era in time. The bible speaks on many things some are very specific to events, and some are so broad they convey unviersal understanding. If you read Ez 28 then you will understand what Wright is driving at. If you study the prophets, you will also understand what Wright is doing. So no, it isn't false teachings.

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

and the political arena. That is a standard of the bible and every single prophet has done it. Now as to you comment about politicking. He wasn't politicking he was speaking and dessenting against things he felts were against the core of God's teachings. That is not unconstitutional and should not be used as a weapon to remove the church's tax exempt status. These issues are at the core human rights issues and thus the pervue of the church. continued

Ryooken (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Actually it does. If you want to biblical relevance you can start with Exodus. Now as a minister you know that theologians differ greatly on what is and isn't ordained as permitted by God. Rabinicous teachings speak on the difference between what God allows vs what God endorses for his people. However, that's a debate you and I can have offline. Back to political vs religion. Most ministers will state that in prophetics all of the prophets spoke to power both in the religious continued.

saltandsavor (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

bryallen: As I've said to many on here:You've taken several "blocks" to make a point & attempt to be understood. You asked & responded to questions, & had an opportunity to clarify & respond. REV WRIGHT HAS NOT.What makes you think, after seeing a few clips from a 36+ yr long, complex ministry, that you fully understand, & can call into question & CONDEMN a man who has dedicated his life to studying God's Word & ministering to His people?HIS qualifications are documented. And yours?

05dabest (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

your a minister????

bryallen87 (January 1, 1970 at 7:29 am)

Here is my argument in a nut shell.If a man makes an arrangement based on the Bible, in this instance,but is proven to be wrong in his knowledge of the Bible, should we take his arguments seriously?I believe this principle applies to other documents, such as the Constitution and such.This man is wrong when it comes to the Bible, and because his arguments are based out of his flawed knowledge, we should not take him seriously. That's my point.