matt67

I think your opinion of Tillich is write on. He is dated to some extent and made an impact on religion as is evident from making the cover of Time. I've read some opinions from theologians critical of his work but I have to scratch my head at them and wonder if they read tge work of the same person they do. Theology is as much existential and about us as it claims to be a study of God, I think. He makes scripture valid to modern times whether it is spiriitual or philosophical. What I meant by saying that Jesus puts himself in the position he does has to do with how I see possible outcomes of a given situation. Your right in saying violence isn't a possibility. But I imagine this from the text. Here's Jesus at the home of a Pharisee. We're not told why he's there. Maybe the Pharisee is curious about him and his claims. Maybe he secretly thinks Jesus is who he says he is and doesnt want anyone to know this. Maybe since he is an outstanding member of the community that he will try and "talk sense" into him and tell him to stop all this nonsense about you being who you say you are. So here they are and there's a knock on the door. The Pharisee opens the door and here's a woman who might be known for being a prostitute. Embarrassing situation maybe. Maybe he's upset that she is there. Jesus accepts her as if it were his house she enters. All this is speculation I know but it does have to what they think of him because he's the focus of the story. It is what he thinks that matters to both of them. The woman is all ready saved and righteous. It's the Pharsisee that needs to see this. Right there is no rebuking like in other scenes. If I imagined this scene as a film I would have reaction shots of embarrassment, hesitancy, fear and even anger from the actor playing the Pharisee toward the woman. Jesus cuts to the chase like Tillich does and addresses both of them and shows how personally inbred he is with both of them. He educates both of them and even lifts them out of their old selves to some extent. That's just my reading and Tillich takes it to a higher level about how we can treat others as Jesus seems to.

rivanna, I understand your feeling about Jesus rebuking smelling of evangelism. But not just in this case, but in most, if not all accounts, Jesus is always stuck in the middle of two type of followers, or between believer and non-believer, debating something that has to do with him, whether something they think he should do, or how they should act around him. Though taken as a rebuke, I see him essentially saying, "Dudes, chill out, stop fighting. Here's the way things can be without all the fuss." He draws both sides back to him and his take on it, which without getting too religious, is a more moderate, "middle way" to deal with situations. He never seems to let anyone all the way off the hook, but doesn't really get on their case unless they are hardheaded about not seeing the point he wants to make. He seems to already have sized up the situation and the people and could defuse the situation before it erupts into violence. I appreciate the way Tillich plays off the tension in each scenario and gets to the existential message of it.

I don't believe we have a choice. Does anyone hear really decide to love someone of their own sex or is it a natural tendency? I never had to think about my preference. That would mean that things like incest and pedophilia are innate too. I don't think so. These are results of trauma. Some Christians think that we are inclined to and are incapable of making a moral choice, but I disagree. Basically they think humans are nothing but animals, which is ironic, because they align themselves unwittingly with the "evolutionists" they claim to oppose.

I love Philip Yancey's writing. I don't necessarily see him as PC, but he is definitely taking the right road in terms of bringing diverse Christians together. If anyone is interested in challenging themselves with a diversity of Christian writings I suggest googling Christianity Today Book Awards, which have been given since 1999. There are so many compelling works that are offered as being the best of each year in a range of subjects - apologetics, christian life, spirituality, history, etc. For me, it's been a way to see the diversity of Christian thought which cannot be dismissed if you consider yourself a reasoning and tolerant person. There are books that will make your blood boil, but ones that will make you say "Aha, is that what Reformed theology is about, too?"

glint, yes Tillich's sermons are somewhat dated, but they are still have some impact if you go in his direction. I mean, I started reading John RObinson's Honest to God and got a sense of that impact. Also, there are still some who are critical of Tillich's work, which makes him somewhat relevant. I think the woman was "unacceptable" in terms of social stigma. We can substitute "homosexual", "muslim" "illegal alien" "progressive christian" for "woman" and you have the same relationship. These are people who are seen as being unacceptable, but who are all ready forgiven. I hope I can keep up with the sermons as I feel that his sermons require three or four readings to appreciate them.

Glint study bibles provide a good context for putting some passages in perspective. For example, the story in the John with the adulterous woman. I believe the RSV has a comment that says that this story is not found in some of the earliest manuscripts and that it may have been added. I was shocked to hear this for the first time. I also find study bibles incredibly helpful (I have about three of them which deal with different views - conservative, moderate and liberal) in cross referencing scripture. When Jesus talks about something, it can be cross referenced to something in the OT which is relevant. It also shows something that I think people tend to forget - namely that Jesus preached the gospel, which essentially is the OT. This is the "bible" he knew and preached. Him being the one who fulfilled it he showed us how to go beyond the yoke of the old law. To me, anyway, the rest of the NT is commentary on the four gospels. To me, Paul and the other writers, as well as every theologian for the past 2000 is commentary on the commentary the human attempt to understand Jesus and the new creation is our feeble, human terms.

The whole notion of "the new creation" is outlined more in Hebrews. Rivanna I like that you mention Tillich's distinction about righteousness and self-righteousness, a point that Bonhoeffer develops in "Life Together". Jesus seems to me to have the intuitive sense to never reject sinners, but rightly chastises those who resist him - even his own disciples. I used to think this was the humanity in him, being almost inpatient, but then I've come to realize that he's rightly getting upset because of that resistance as some (even all?) resist his yoke. He's leading us somewhere, but we don't know where so we resist.

Yes he could have. What I never realized about that story was the fact perhaps that the woman was all ready forgiven perhaps by seeing or hearing Jesus or hearing about him. I really feel comfortable with Tillich, though I am aware of the limitations and even wrong turn one can take theologically with him and his integration of existentialism and Christianity. When he refers to going deeper what comes to mind is Genesis 1 with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep - as if from true very beginning, God is penetrating into this material world to form it. I see that theme throughout scripture - the idea of molding, conforming, shaping, creating. Creation is not static at all.

Friday is fine with me, but let's be accommodating if we can for those who don't have it yet.

Maybe give people who are interested a chance to get the book. I'm on the second sermon myself but I have plenty of other reading to get to before we start. But, whatever works for everyone.

Also, if anyone has a nook, you can download it for free from B&N

I;ve been wanted to read Tillich so count me in.

Angel I think it also depends on who you talk to. Some Christians argue that you shouldn't engage in interfaith practices (with Muslims for instance). Some have this notion that contemplative prayer is an influence of Eastern meditation. Some think that Roman Catholicism is syncretic and like celebrating Christmas and Easter are syncretic. Some evangelicals believe that if you are a follower of Christ and you gather in a Church, then you are engaging in a syncretistic practice that blends Christian, Jewish, and Greco-Roman paganism (like priestly classes, preaching from a pulpit, the garb that priests don). For me, I wonder too much maybe about the influence of Greek Philosophy in scripture and the notion of God. Then again, I have a hard time conceiving of God in Hebraic terms. Maybe I think too much. I try and keep my faith as simple as possible and try to balance the need for symbols (not idols) in my worship.

Wayseeker: On the other hand, it is unlikely (but not impossible) that pedophiliacs, rapists, those who commit incest, and sadomasicists will be seeking to join religious communities any time soon. You mean openly as a rapist and a pederast, or openly committing incest? I have no doubt that there are rapists, pederasts, and those who commit incest in the church all ready. The question is, if a sin is exposed, we don't say, hey, that's okay, to each his own because God loves you. We love them as God sees them and hopefully they will see their own sins for what they are and repent. As far as homosexuality, I am skeptical about the Biblical "laws" against it. I don't believe the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was homosexuality, since I am not an ancient Israelite under the yoke of the old covenant, I don't believe in stoning anyone, and, well, I have to not take Paul in saying that homosexuality is unnatural, as what he saw isn't what I see in most relationships homosexuals (or heterosexuals) have in their relationships, though he hits the mark in saying that we can relate unnaturally to one another. I once listened to a debate in which a reformed conservative used as part of his argument against gay marriage what amounted to a social Darwinist theory that gay men and women are truly abominations of natural, even in the Darwinian sense. Okay, I thought. That's a first. I find it terrible that we need to even have this discussion because no one seems to care about the sexual proclivities of heterosexual (adultery, divorce, extramarital and premarital sex) in the church. I might be more accepting of their argument if they demonized people who decided to be celibate (which they don't encourage, mind you) and not get marriage and have little Christian souls to save. It's is also terrible that we cannot tell the different between, as you say, GeorgeW, the difference between sexual orientation and psychological pathologies. Why must people bring up incest when gay marriage is discussed? There is more significant damage and confusion caused by incest than gay marriage. All that said, I do wonder though if we are on a downward spiral too, in thinking that we don't sin in any way when it comes to sexual immorality as we do not really know what the repercussions of our desires are.

Yes and I struggle with that in my own walk. For example, should I accept the notion of God that is grounded in Platonic thought, or is my faith, like all spiritual disciplines, an evolution in humanity? All I am saying is that people need to know their traditions before abandoning them. I personally try to accept everyone on their own terms, not tolerate them.

God loves the world. It may be beyond to realize this in our lives, but God still loves the world. We as Christians are supposed to follow our God. Those who commit heinous crimes are those who have been and are denied love in this world.

People can read whatever they want, but to some extent, yes. I read alot of Christian books from all types - liberal and conservative. When conservatives - I have one person in mind - Ravi Zacharias - who I don't agree with on what he says most of the time - talk about how a Hindu or Buddhist converted to Christianity. In one story, he mentions the conversation he had with a Hindu woman about the idea of nm"sacrifice" in the Bhagavad Gita as opposed to the idea of sacrifice Jesus makes. He claims that the woman did not know where the sacrifice is in the Gita. If I trust him, then it seems that the woman might have been ignorant for sacrifice does exist in the Hindu tradition. It is very different that the idea of sacrifice on Christian thought. It seems that Hinduism failed this woman to some extent. Also, look at the actions of St. Theresa in Bombay. She makes accounts of people who convert to Christianity due to her actions. Did Hinduism fail these people? Were they ignorant of the truth in their own tradition? Similarly, when people leave Christianity is is because they were never told the truth of it? I think so. I'm not saying one religion is right and one is wrong. Even the Dalai Lama tells Christians to be good Christians and not necessarily become Buddhists. If I wanted to become a Buddhist, I would want to read every type of Buddhist thought before deciding what type of Buddhist I wanted to be. Tibetan Buddhism is very different than Zen. Some Buddhists believe in God, some don't. Which one is true? If if doesn't matter, then why doesn't it? I am all for religious pluralism. God manifests itself in all traditions, but unfortunately, syncretism doesn't work, in my opinion.

I recommend Stephen Prothero's All Religions Are Not One. Also I don't like the word "tolerance" because it implies that I have to allow something I don't like. I don't hate other religions. I try to read up on them but spend most of my time on Christian books because I'm a Christian. Most people of other religions are as Christian or more Christian than myself. I think there is truth in all religions, but the differences are what really matter. I think it is dangerous and disrespectful to say that all religions are one. Not saying anyone thinks that here. But similarities among them don't mean that they differ greatly about ideas of salvation, sin, etc. and we can't say that all their differences are not true and that only what they have in common are true.

But we're supposed to be able to love those who are deemed to be unlovable. That's doesn't mean that we will. But Jesus loves us for our failings, numerous as they are. I don't think there is a spectrum of what sin is worse than another. Every sin is an offense to God - no matter if we think it is a sin or not, no matter how minor we think it is. JenellYB you write "I can love a person that may have engaged in such behavior and action, but not "as" a defining element of who they are." I agree, I think. Saying that I love someone who commits a violent crime doesn't mean I think that they did was okay and that they should be released from prison. I don't think, though that anyone deserves the death penalty. I think what Jesus does is to challenge how vulnerable to others we are willing to be. If we see the sin as he sees it, what choice do we have? Compassion and forgiveness or condemnation? Which does God choose? I think forgiveness. Even for those who are supposedly going to hell, there's God right there, pouring out His mercy (or wrath) on them until they are cleansed. If God forgives everyone, maybe we need to try to. God knows that it's tough or downright impossible for us to, but if we really allow the Holy Spirit to infiltrate our souls to conform us, then, I don't know, maybe it will be possible for us to forgive and love. How radical is God's love in that He can forgive us for the sins we commit to other people, though, as I think, all sins are offenses to God.

Would a sin by any other name be as rancid? I think we're all in the same boat, when it comes to our relationship with God. In Christ, there is no male or female...and I think that includes no straight or gay. I am less interesting in who someone chooses to love in committed relationship than what their relationship with God is. I think that we walk the razor's edge when we worry too much about what we are in the flesh than what we REALLY are in the spirit. Sexual immorality is not gender exclusive. Gay men and women can love and be committed and guess what they're normal too! They can also be given over to unnatural desires which separate them from God. But frankly, I don't care about who you choose to love, so long as you love the way God made you to.