Had I intended to inform jews about the meaning they should hold in Leviticus, you’d probably feel just as disturbed as I was when Ms. Rishell characterized chapter three of that book as an example of christian charity. I can appreciate evangelism, but only when it’s informed.

I wish scripture had never come up in that debate. I had thought there might be an opportunity in this to share the Word and have something good come of this, but God’s plan in all of this continues to elude my understanding.

The Bible doesn’t belong to just you and those who interpret it as you do. There are many sincere people who disagree about the meaning of Scriptural passages.

For me Levictictus has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus’ sacrifice. It is the holy Law that was given to the ancient Hebrews. Period.

To you it is something completely different. Fine, we disagree. Yet we are both well meaning and sincere people of faith. If Jeanette Rishell’s use of and understanding of Holy Scripture differs from yours, fine. Debate it. Disagreement is valid

But don’t put her down for it. The Bible doesn’t just belong to you. Or to me, for that matter.

It would be better for Ms. Rishell to refrain from quoting the Bible until her understanding of it is more fully established, and she can use that understanding to better serve the Lord.

And by the way, your reference is to Luke 6:31. There’s a lot more in that beautiful chapter, and it’s always worth revisiting that one. It’s another easy read, and a good beginner passage.

I think it comes down to the golden rule — “due unto others as you would have them due unto you.” Perhpas you think it is ok to belittle and ridicule a person on an almost non-stop basis, as you’ve done with Jeannette for the last several months. Maybe you don’t think it is unfair. Fine. We differ on that point. However, I think you go beyond the pale when you question the sincerity of her spiritual and religous convictions by accusing her of making opportunistic use of the Bible. You may disagree with her interpretation of the scriptures — a legitimate point of difference. However, since you can’t see into her soul, you don’t have any basis for knowing whether she is sincere or not. Suggesting that she is in a state of grave sin becasue she hears a call to social justice in the Bible, a call that puts her in the company of people like Dorothy Day, founder of the Catholic Social Worker movement, doesn’t make her a sinner, it just makes her somebody who looks at the Bible in a different way than you do.
I acknowledge the sincerity and passion of your convictions. Is it so much for you to do the same for Jeannette?

And no, it’s hard for me to take her seriously on this when she starts throwing out random Bible passages without understanding what they mean in order to make political hay. I hope she’ll take notice of what I’ve said and do better, if for no other reason than it’s her soul that’s at stake.

Do you think it is somewhat ironic that suddenly, after months of subjecting Jeannette to non-stop ridicule and cruel mocking that is in its savage tone very unchristian, that she should really take your concern about her use of the Bible as something you are seriously concerned about. Then, without knowing her personally, without even so much as one normal human conversation with her, you accuse her of pretending to be more spiritual and introspective than she is. I have no doubt about the sincerity of both your political views and religous convictions. But haven’t you spewed enough vile on Jeannette Rishell. Can you at least grant her the sincerity of her moral and spiritual convictions. Or is even that small concession to her humanity too much for you to muster in your zeal to carry out what has become a personal vendetta against somebody who has never done you any harm.