Homosexuality and the Bible

Homosexuality and the Bible

There are 36057 comments on the www.smh.com.au story from Aug 15, 2011, titled Homosexuality and the Bible. In it, www.smh.com.au reports that:

Given the ongoing debate about same-sex marriage, it is time I looked at the two Testaments to remind myself why belief is so hard for me to embrace.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.smh.com.au.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22486 Nov 19, 2013
Merv the Perv wrote:
Hey Stan, the bible condemns a great many other things besides homosexuality, yet the majority of those other condemnations are blithely ignored by twenty-first century christians.
How do you account for the fact that SOME christians, yourself obviously included, focus on homosexuality to the absolute exclusion of everything else the bible says you should not do?
The bible is fundamentally a load of trash, and under no circumstances should be used to guide morals or behaviour for modern human beings.
If biblicists are going to quote Old Law with respect to executing homosexuals, then why don't they quote verses which prescribe the death penalty for a wide variety of acts other than homosexuality?

All of the following warrant execution:

striking your father or mother Ex.21:15
kidnapping Ex. 21:6 RSV
cursing your father or mother Ex. 21:17 RSV, Lev. 20:9
touching a mountain Ex. 19:12 RSV
allowing your ox to gore someone Ex. 21:29
lying with a beast Ex. 22:19 RSV, Lev. 20:15-16
sacrificing to other gods Ex. 22:20 RSV
failing to observe the Sabbath Ex. 31:14-15
drinking strong drinks while in the tabernacle Lev. 10:9
committing adultery Lev. 20:10 RSV, Deut. 22:22
lying with your father's wife Lev. 20:11 RSV
lying with your daughter-in-law Lev. 20:12 RSV
being a medium or a wizard Lev. 20:27 RSV
being a witch Ex. 22:18
being a priest's daughter and becoming a whore Lev. 21:9 RSV
Blaspheming the name of the Lord Lev. 24:16
cursing Lev. 24:14 RSV
coming near the priesthood Num. 3:10
being a stranger who comes near the congregation's tabernacle Num. 3:38
gathering sticks on the Sabbath Num. 15:32-35
serving or worshipping other gods Deut. 17:2-5 RSV
showing contempt for the Lord's priest or judge Deut. 17:12 NIV
failing to obey one's parents Deut. 21:18-21
not being a virgin on your wedding day Deut. 22:20-21 NIV
being a betrothed virgin who did not cry out when seduced Deut. 22:23-24
having relations with your wife and her mother Lev. 20:14
telling people to seek other gods Deut. 13:2,5
being a false prophet Deut. 18:20

Biblicists teach, preach, and attempt to reach others with many OT moralisms, but are not adverse to selectivety using that which suits their interests. If they like an OT verse, they expound it; if they don't, they say that's from the Old Law and we aren't under the Old Law anymore. But aren't the Ten Commandments part of the Old Law? Yes, they say, but we are obligated to follow them because they are reported in the NT (Matt. 19:16-18, Mark 10:17-19, and Luke 18:18-22). People who assert as much should note that Jesus omitted half of the Ten Commanments. But even if they had been present, we would still be under all the Old Law, including the Decalogue, according to Christ ("And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of law to fail"--Luke 16:17, see also Matt. 5:18-19). If "sin is transgression of the law", as 1 John 3:4 says, then Christians should be following all of the Old Law.

Since: Feb 09

Location hidden

#22487 Nov 19, 2013
Merv the Perv wrote:
Hey Stan, the bible condemns a great many other things besides homosexuality, yet the majority of those other condemnations are blithely ignored by twenty-first century christians.
How do you account for the fact that SOME christians, yourself obviously included, focus on homosexuality to the absolute exclusion of everything else the bible says you should not do?
The bible is fundamentally a load of trash, and under no circumstances should be used to guide morals or behaviour for modern human beings.
Pekin Il AKA Stan, is a pew warming brain dead sociopathic reprobate who can not be reasoned with.
Stan

Pekin, IL

#22488 Nov 19, 2013
Reverend Alan wrote:
<quoted text>
Pekin Il AKA Stan, is a pew warming brain dead sociopathic reprobate who can not be reasoned with.
Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.

Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
I Corinthians 6:9(NIV)- Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)- "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted."
Jude 1:6-7 (NASB)- And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

There is no logical case against this reality.
Pock Suppet

Sydney, Australia

#22490 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
... Religion that conflicts with the Bible is not Christianity....
Fools begone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone blatantly stupid enough to make this kind of claim, knows virtually nothing about the bible, religion or history. In fact, it is quite apparent that Stan is quite ignorant of precisely what's in the bible.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
... The vast bulk of Christianity agrees with Stan.
But please, tell what is in the Bible that conflicts with his claim....
If you had specifically said EVANGELICAL Christianity, I might almost have notionally conceded that to you, but with reservations.

However, many moderate Christians seem content to accept that there are inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors in the "Bible". This is largely overcome by treating it in part as allegorical and metaphorical. Because of this, no religion can apply biblical doctrine absolutely without running into severe problems with modern expectations of secular morality. Does your church participate in stoning people for adultery, or killing children who are rebellious/abusive towards their parents, or killing others not of your faith, or killing people who work on Sunday, etc, etc, etc??? Therefore, because all religion accepts such compromises with biblical doctrine, no religion completely and absolutely adheres to doctrine - yours included. So, according to Stan's claim, neither of you are truly Christian.
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
... Smile.
Do you really think those stupid little facial gesture verbs you finish your posts with makes up for your being a complete arsehole?

Now off you go KiMare, as I fully expect you to feverishly work on some crass and flippant reply which totally ignores the points made in the argument, and doing so largely by insulting the arguer. That appears to be your only discussion technique.
Pock Suppet

Sydney, Australia

#22491 Nov 19, 2013
On "the Bible" itself, which specific version is definitive?

Warning: This is a trick question, because no extant version of the bible in use today is -
* complete,
* free from translation bias,
* free from interpretation bias,
* free from selectivity of content,
* free from forged content,
* was compiled from a single reliable source,
and a whole host of other taints too numerous to list here.

Let's watch some truly dishonest responses fly about over this post!!!

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22492 Nov 19, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
If you had specifically said EVANGELICAL Christianity, I might almost have notionally conceded that to you, but with reservations.
However, many moderate Christians seem content to accept that there are inconsistencies, contradictions and factual errors in the "Bible". This is largely overcome by treating it in part as allegorical and metaphorical. Because of this, no religion can apply biblical doctrine absolutely without running into severe problems with modern expectations of secular morality. Does your church participate in stoning people for adultery, or killing children who are rebellious/abusive towards their parents, or killing others not of your faith, or killing people who work on Sunday, etc, etc, etc??? Therefore, because all religion accepts such compromises with biblical doctrine, no religion completely and absolutely adheres to doctrine - yours included. So, according to Stan's claim, neither of you are truly Christian.
<quoted text>
Do you really think those stupid little facial gesture verbs you finish your posts with makes up for your being a complete arsehole?
Now off you go KiMare, as I fully expect you to feverishly work on some crass and flippant reply which totally ignores the points made in the argument, and doing so largely by insulting the arguer. That appears to be your only discussion technique.
What a pile of ignorant crock.

If you had one iota of honesty and a Sunday School knowledge of what the Bible says, you would not use the examples you do.

Neither Jews nor Christians practice certain parts of the OT for Biblical reasons, not secular pressures. Nor is there a dispute between traditional, evangelical or fundamental Christians about those things.

Smile.

Smirk.

Snicker.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22493 Nov 19, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
On "the Bible" itself, which specific version is definitive?
Warning: This is a trick question, because no extant version of the bible in use today is -
* complete,
* free from translation bias,
* free from interpretation bias,
* free from selectivity of content,
* free from forged content,
* was compiled from a single reliable source,
and a whole host of other taints too numerous to list here.
Let's watch some truly dishonest responses fly about over this post!!!
Stuff this silly stupid question up that hole where your brains fell out.

There is not a single book of antiquity that would not face the same challenges that translating the Bible does, IF any single one came marginally close to the popularity of the Bible.

Smile.
Lucifer

Salt Lake City, UT

#22494 Nov 19, 2013
For those of you that brainwashed into think there is a god and that he gives a shit about ANYONE on this planet you are truly lost
Pock Suppet

Sydney, Australia

#22495 Nov 19, 2013
Lucifer wrote:
For those of you that brainwashed into think there is a god and that he gives a shit about ANYONE on this planet you are truly lost
BINGO!

You got it exactly right my friend.
Lucifer

Salt Lake City, UT

#22496 Nov 19, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
<quoted text>
BINGO!
You got it exactly right my friend.
well at least there are still free thinking individuals in the world that don't need systems of control to play a part in their lives

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22497 Nov 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
What a pile of ignorant crock.
If you had one iota of honesty and a Sunday School knowledge of what the Bible says, you would not use the examples you do.
Neither Jews nor Christians practice certain parts of the OT for Biblical reasons, not secular pressures. Nor is there a dispute between traditional, evangelical or fundamental Christians about those things.
Smile.
Smirk.
Snicker.
No. With regard to post #22492, he is exactly right and you, Kim, have cornered yourself in folly.

These who try to run everyone else's life with the axiom that scriptural concepts must remain unchallenged and unchanged and must be understood just as they were originally transmitted have a simple, significant problem.

These people live today, not 2000 - 4000 years ago. Especially, considering new understandings of the Human psyche, scripture must be read in context of the spanning of both periods of time - as in the underpinnings of the Early Church
AND
in Light of modern day realizations.

How easily and conveniently we forget that Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the truth and the Life."

Do both the common Christian and the Christian mystic somehow have to make excuses for not having to believe Him? Not if we are to regard Him as a Human Being, which I assure you is how He regarded Himself.

*****

If one is to take what He says of Himself, which the Christian disciple is bound under His yoke to do, truth - even modern scientific, medical-genetic-psychological- thermodynamic-supercosmic and subatomic truth - must be recognized as being of the very same essence of what Jesus Christ was, IS and forever shall be.

Then and only then are we permitted to accept the humility to become the Human Beings that he believes we CAN become.

Children of the I AM.

*****

And yes, we will marry them, even the same-sex couples who come to us seeking the Sacrament of Marriage, when we find them sincere and trusting and reserving in love, committed in companionship to each other.

We will Bless them and bind them in heaven and in earth.

That IS the truth.

Rev. Ken

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#22498 Nov 19, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
No. With regard to post #22492, he is exactly right and you, Kim, have cornered yourself in folly.
These who try to run everyone else's life with the axiom that scriptural concepts must remain unchallenged and unchanged and must be understood just as they were originally transmitted have a simple, significant problem.
These people live today, not 2000 - 4000 years ago. Especially, considering new understandings of the Human psyche, scripture must be read in context of the spanning of both periods of time - as in the underpinnings of the Early Church
AND
in Light of modern day realizations.
How easily and conveniently we forget that Jesus Christ said, "I am the Way, the truth and the Life."
Do both the common Christian and the Christian mystic somehow have to make excuses for not having to believe Him? Not if we are to regard Him as a Human Being, which I assure you is how He regarded Himself.
*****
If one is to take what He says of Himself, which the Christian disciple is bound under His yoke to do, truth - even modern scientific, medical-genetic-psychological- thermodynamic-supercosmic and subatomic truth - must be recognized as being of the very same essence of what Jesus Christ was, IS and forever shall be.
Then and only then are we permitted to accept the humility to become the Human Beings that he believes we CAN become.
Children of the I AM.
*****
And yes, we will marry them, even the same-sex couples who come to us seeking the Sacrament of Marriage, when we find them sincere and trusting and reserving in love, committed in companionship to each other.
We will Bless them and bind them in heaven and in earth.
That IS the truth.
Rev. Ken
I've never stated how I interpret the Bible. You and others have asserted that falsely. Surprise, surprise.

I have however, simply used the Bible to expose your lies.

You have every freedom to violate what the Bible says as long as you are allowed. I will continue to point out the conflict.

The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and woman.

At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.

At it's most extravagant expression, marriage is the reunion of the very roots of humanity. A male and female union, creating an unmatchable expression of humanity on any level of comparison.

Ss marriage can and will only ever be an oxymoron.
Pat

Pekin, IL

#22499 Nov 19, 2013
Pock Suppet wrote:
On "the Bible" itself, which specific version is definitive?
Warning: This is a trick question, because no extant version of the bible in use today is -
* complete,
* free from translation bias,
* free from interpretation bias,
* free from selectivity of content,
* free from forged content,
* was compiled from a single reliable source,
and a whole host of other taints too numerous to list here.
Let's watch some truly dishonest responses fly about over this post!!!
EVERY translation of the Bible supports the Bible's many condemnations of all homosexual behavior, and that is the subject here.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22500 Nov 19, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>EVERY translation of the Bible supports the Bible's many condemnations of all homosexual behavior, and that is the subject here.
LOL!!!.... Your name changes,....

but, you are a broken record.

Since: Aug 09

Location hidden

#22501 Nov 19, 2013
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never stated how I interpret the Bible. You and others have asserted that falsely. Surprise, surprise.
I have however, simply used the Bible to expose your lies.
You have every freedom to violate what the Bible says as long as you are allowed. I will continue to point out the conflict.
The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and woman.
At it's most basic essence, marriage is a cross cultural constraint on evolutionary mating behavior.
At it's most extravagant expression, marriage is the reunion of the very roots of humanity. A male and female union, creating an unmatchable expression of humanity on any level of comparison.
Ss marriage can and will only ever be an oxymoron.
On the contrary!

You regularly and repeatedly interpret the Bible.

Your interpretations of what is written and what is NOT written in Matthew 19 are an example that everyone who reads these posts is already aware.

You regularly try to justify your concepts of reality by those same interpretations. But, your justifications leave something to be desired, don't they?! Yes. They do.

You have just done this, again, in your post above, even while denying it, saying, "The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and a woman."

Well then, just what is it that the Bible clearly and consistently does NOT speak of in terms of same-sex marriage? I ask this very simple question because, regardless of your limited understanding of what a marriage can be, that which is more than what you had previously understood to be is still very much a possibility - even a reality that you cannot yet bring yourself to believe.

However, take faith. Jesus Christ hasn't taken the opportunity to teach you everything He knows, just yet.

You live in the forest, with a Giant Sequoia growing through your eye, Kim. But, don't worry. The Master Lumberjack with the Big Chainsaw is working His Way toward you.

Rev. Ken
Lucifer

Salt Lake City, UT

#22502 Nov 19, 2013
RevKen wrote:
<quoted text>
On the contrary!
You regularly and repeatedly interpret the Bible.
Your interpretations of what is written and what is NOT written in Matthew 19 are an example that everyone who reads these posts is already aware.
You regularly try to justify your concepts of reality by those same interpretations. But, your justifications leave something to be desired, don't they?! Yes. They do.
You have just done this, again, in your post above, even while denying it, saying, "The Bible clearly and consistently speaks of marriage between a man and a woman."
Well then, just what is it that the Bible clearly and consistently does NOT speak of in terms of same-sex marriage? I ask this very simple question because, regardless of your limited understanding of what a marriage can be, that which is more than what you had previously understood to be is still very much a possibility - even a reality that you cannot yet bring yourself to believe.
However, take faith. Jesus Christ hasn't taken the opportunity to teach you everything He knows, just yet.
You live in the forest, with a Giant Sequoia growing through your eye, Kim. But, don't worry. The Master Lumberjack with the Big Chainsaw is working His Way toward you.
Rev. Ken
let me ask you this; how long have you been a "reverend" spewing this propaganda and lies about the afterlife and also "gods will"? I'm just a wee bit concernicus that your on a website that is very sexually explicit (especially with minors) and yet your preaching about god?? I smell a pedophile, you sir should go away and f*ck off and once you are a way should f*ck off again and again till you get back here then f*ck off some more

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22503 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
There is a logical case against this reality.

#2158
Since the definition of the Word of God is of such great importance in any discussion in this forum I submit this excerpt from Systematic Theology, by Paul Tillich, Vol. I., pp. 122,123.

"c) The word as a medium of revelation and the question of the inner word.--The importance of the "word," not only for the idea of revelation, but for almost every theological doctrine, is so great that a "theological semantics" is urgently needed. Within the theological system there are several places where semantic [pertaining to the meanings of words] questions must be asked and answered. Man's rational structure cannot be understood without the word in which he grasps the rational structure of reality. Revelation cannot be understood without the word as a medium of revelation. The knowledge of God cannot be described except through a semantic analysis of the symbolic word. The symbols "Word of God" and "Logos" cannot be understood in their various meanings without an insight into the general nature of the word. The biblical message cannot be interpreted without semantic and hermeneutic [Unfolding the signification; of or pertaining to interpretation; exegetical; explanatory; as, hermeneutic theology, or the art of expounding the Scriptures; a hermeneutic phrase.] principles. The preaching of the church presupposes an understanding of the expressive and denotative functions of the word in addition to its communicative function. Under these circumstances it is not suprising that an attempt has been made to reduce the whole of theology to an enlarged doctrine of the "Word of God" (Barth). But if this is done, "word" must be used with such a wide meaning that every divine self-manifestation can be subsumed under it, or revelation must be restricted to the spoken word and the specific sense of the term "word" is lost; in the second case the specific sense is preserved, but God is prevented from any nonvocal self-manifestation. This, however, contradicts not only the meaning of God's power but also the religious symbolism inside and outside the biblical literature, which uses seeing, feeling, and tasting as often as hearing in describing the experience of the divine presence. Therefore, "word" can only be made the all-embracing symbol of the divine self-manifestation if the divine "Word" can be seen and tasted as well as heard. The Christian doctrine of the Incarnation of the Logos includes the paradox that the Word has become an object of vision and touch (see below, pp.157 ff.)."

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22504 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2084
and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she

22
Thou shalt not lie with
mankind,
as
with
womankind:
it
[is]
abomination.

Westminster Leningrad Codex http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinea ...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abhorr ...

What about anything above gives you license to condemn homosexuality as a sin?

So, you refuse to answer the above question. Tell me where the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin.

I will accept that homosexuality is a sin when you can prove that the Bible says it is a sin.

If you cannot, then you must back down from your statement that homosexuality is a sin and state what the Bible does say about homosexuality. If you must use scripture then scripture must verify scripture.

IT DOES NOT CONDEMN NOR SUPPORT HOMOSEXUALITY!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22505 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:
Leviticus 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2085
Note that the mechanical translation uses "abhorrence" and is translated "abomination." Look up the definition of "abhorrence." Now, given the two translations how is it that you interpret 18:22 to say homosexuality is a sin? Do not, not answer this question. If you have any honor, you will explain your interpretation.

Legitimate translation: Leviticus 20:25,26.

and·with
male not you-shall-lie-down beds-of woman abhorrence she

and·you(p)-cseparate between
the·beast the·clean to·the·unclean and·between
the·flyer

the·unclean to·the·clean and·not
you(p)-shall-make-abominable »
souls-of·you(p) in·the·beast

and·in·the·flyer and·in·anything which she-is-moving the·ground which
I-cseparated for·you(p)

and·you(p)-become to·me holy-ones that holy
I
Yahweh and·I-am-cseparating »·you(p)
from
the·peoples to·to-become-of for·me

25
Ye shall therefore put
difference between clean
beasts and unclean, and
between unclean fowls and
clean: and ye shall not make
your souls abominable by
beast, or by fowl, or by any
manner of living thing that
creepeth on the ground,
which I have separated
from you as unclean.

26
And ye shall be holy
unto me: for I the LORD
[am] holy, and have severed
you from [other] people,
that ye should be mine.

Lacon, I give you Leviticus 20:25,26 for scriptures definition of abomination.

Again, no reference to sin.

Do you not know how to interpret scripture?

Tell me, teach me how to read scripture!

Since: Jun 13

Anchorage, AK

#22506 Nov 19, 2013
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>Your sick insults and projects don't hide the fact that you can make no case for your horrible hate based cause.
Face reality, the Bible forever condemns all homosexual behavior, repeatedly, and in the plainest of terms:

There is no logical case against this reality.
#2177
"It is obvious that the word as a medium of revelation, the "Word of God," is not a word of information about otherwise hidden truth. If it were this, if revelation were information, no ''transparency" of language would be needed. Ordinary language, transmitting no "sound" of ultimacy, could give information about "divine matters." Such information would be of cognitive and perhaps of ethical interest, but it would lack all the characteristics, of revelation. It would not have the power of grasping, shaking, and transforming, the power which is attributed to the "Word of God."

"If the word as a medium of revelation is not information, it cannot be spoken apart from revelatory events in nature, history, and man. The word is not a medium of revelation in addition to the other mediums; it is a necessary element in all forms of revelation. Since man is man through the power of the word, nothing really human can be so without the word, whether it be spoken or silent. When the prophets spoke, they spoke about the "great deeds of God," the revelatory events in the history of Israel. When the apostles spoke, they spoke about the one great deed of God, The revelatory event which is called Jesus, the Christ. When the priests and seers and mystics in paganism gave holy oracles and created sacred writings, they were giving interpretations of a Spiritual reality which they had entered after having left ordinary reality. Being procedes speaking, and the revelatory reality precedes and determines the revelatory word. A collection of assumed divine revelations concerning "faith and morals" without a revelatory event which they interpret is a lawbook with divine authorization, but it is not the Word of God, and it has no revelatory power. Neither the Ten Commandments nor the great commandment is revelatory if separated from the divine covenant with Israel or from the presence of the Kingdom of God in the covenant with Israel or from the presence of the Kingdom of God in the Christ. These commandments were meant and should be taken as interpretations of the new reality, not as orders directed against the old reality. They are descriptions and not laws. The same is true of the doctrines. They are not revealed doctrines, but there are revelatory events and situations which can be described in doctrinal terms. Ecclesiastical doctrines are meaningless if separated from the revelatory situation out of which they have grown. The "Word of God" contains neither revealed commandments nor revealed doctrines; it accompanies and interprets revelatory situations."
Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. I, pp. 124, 125.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Magistrate who said gay couples aren't as good ... 2 min Wondering 75
News Church says gay teacher fired by Miami Catholic... 3 min Wondering 76
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 32 min Tre H 18,794
News Are Gay Dads 'Treating Women as Mere Breeding M... 48 min Concerned 13
News "Ex-Gay" Speaker Invited by HCFA Draws Protest 53 min Ted Haggard s Mas... 12
News Gay Bermudian man reveals why he wona t be goin... 54 min Rainbow Kid 2
News Arkansas to pay attorney for same-sex couples i... 55 min Wondering 22
News Bill seeks to bar companies from citing religio... 2 hr Wondering 100
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 3 hr Chester NE 27,401
More from around the web