Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Correction (was Re: Moral reasoning) Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 90 10:47:29 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia Lines: 25 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , mls@sfsup.att.com (Mike Siemon) writes: > In article , ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au > (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > > Holy Spirit cannot lead us into all truth all at once, but can we really > > suppose that the Paraclete, having led us into a truth, would then lead > > us _out_ again? > Are you not begging the question here? Just exactly *which* truths into > which the Spirit led us are we discarding, and WHY do you expect there to > be ANY humanly employable criterion by which we can distinguish Spiritual > Truths from the (honest and sincere and prayerful, but humanly conditioned) > PARTIAL knowledge that Paul says obscures our vision? This was an ever-so-delicate dissent from the Moderator's suggestion that the Holy Spirit can lead the Christian community to changed ethical rules. The truth here that the church appears to have been led into quite early is that slavery is wrong. I'm suggesting that the Church's later acceptance of slavery was _not_ a case of being led by the Holy Spirit. It was precisely my point that some changes in what the Church accepts are *not* guided by the Holy Spirit. -- The Marxists have merely _interpreted_ Marxism in various ways; the point, however, is to _change_ it. -- R. Hochhuth.