Struggling to come to terms with something I have read in the bible.

[strange]

That's dependent on Jesus being God.



Yes, he'd be upset at THAT. Not at whether or not homosexual marriage is legalized or not. "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's."

I think he'd personally disagree with homosexuality, but if he's in line with many other Sages, he'd probably believe that chastity was essential for the highest spiritual growth.

Chastity was considered a higher spiritual existence but celebacy, the priesthood was more godly.

 

[strange]

Were did you get this definition from? Please

Paul was not the author of any writings attributed to him whether Gospel or Epistle. When these writing were written, Paul was long gone. As in a generation or two.

 

[free spirit]

To STRANGE

By the number of posts and the dept of them I can see that you have been doing some research, rather like a lawyer prepares to defend a guilt client before the court. Yes I must agree with you sex is normal among homosexuals, for if they thought it was not normal they would not be doing it, however the Scriptures are clear on the matter, regardless if you believe them or not. your research was very intricate in places I found you hard to follow, especially when you wrangle about words.
In 2 Timothy 2; 14 - 15, we read, "remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a Workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.'
The following scripture of Romans 1: 18 to 32, among other things clearly shows that homosexuality is everything but normal or natural, A good lawyer cam make it appear a natural and normal act but the judge with whom the good lawyer as to deal with can see straight through the good lawyer. I have taken the liberty of adding words in the upper case that I deem necessary to make the scripture easier to understand, for we read.
18 for the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is PLEASING TO God is evident within US; for God made it evident to ALL OF US,
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that WE ALL are without excuse.
21 BUT even though ALL MEN knew God, SOME did not honour him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF IDOLATRY (they are all included in the sin of covet, or lusts)
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their CONSCIENCE might be dishonoured WITHIN them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own PERSONALITY the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things, which are not proper.
29 being filled with all unrighteousness,
30 slanderers, arrogant, boastful,
31 without understanding untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.
32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Which part don't you understand, for if you do not believe what is written and leave it at that, you have my most sincere respects for who am I to tell you what is right. But if you want to twist the word of holiness to justify your unnatural passion, then I must respectfully oppose your plan.

 

[strange]

To STRANGE

By the number of posts and the dept of them I can see that you have been doing some research, rather like a lawyer prepares to defend a guilt client before the court. Yes I must agree with you sex is normal among homosexuals, for if they thought it was not normal they would not be doing it, however the Scriptures are clear on the matter, regardless if you believe them or not. your research was very intricate in places I found you hard to follow, especially when you wrangle about words.
In 2 Timothy 2; 14 - 15, we read, "remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless, and leads to the ruin of the hearers. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a Workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth.'
The following scripture of Romans 1: 18 to 32, among other things clearly shows that homosexuality is everything but normal or natural, A good lawyer cam make it appear a natural and normal act but the judge with whom the good lawyer as to deal with can see straight through the good lawyer. I have taken the liberty of adding words in the upper case that I deem necessary to make the scripture easier to understand, for we read.
18 for the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is PLEASING TO God is evident within US; for God made it evident to ALL OF US,
20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that WE ALL are without excuse.
21 BUT even though ALL MEN knew God, SOME did not honour him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. THERE ARE MANY FORMS OF IDOLATRY (they are all included in the sin of covet, or lusts)
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their CONSCIENCE might be dishonoured WITHIN them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the women and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own PERSONALITY the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things, which are not proper.
29 being filled with all unrighteousness,
30 slanderers, arrogant, boastful,
31 without understanding untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.
32 and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Which part don't you understand, for if you do not believe what is written and leave it at that, you have my most sincere respects for who am I to tell you what is right. But if you want to twist the word of holiness to justify your unnatural passion, then I must respectfully oppose your plan.

You make your point clear. But what I write is not solely my own but comes from many that have studied the scriptures. The part that I understand is that you are probably a literalist and that simplistic form of interpreting the Bible is without regard to history or the social understanding of the times. For me, a literalist could not be more wrong. As for my passions, I am not a homosexual. I am a Christian. I have studied the Bible now for 30 years, often for hours a day. I study the Masters of literature and theology. I read from modern authors that have the education to translate the Bible. I was mentored by a Pastor, an interim Pastor and an intern Pastor of the ELCA and learned that my way of interpretation was not just mine but that of many others.

If the debate on scriptural issues becomes difficult for you because I negate what you say is right then you need to step back not me.

 

[free spirit]

You make your point clear. But what I write is not solely my own but comes from many that have studied the scriptures. The part that I understand is that you are probably a literalist and that simplistic form of interpreting the Bible is without regard to history or the social understanding of the times. For me, a literalist could not be more wrong. As for my passions, I am not a homosexual. I am a Christian. I have studied the Bible now for 30 years, often for hours a day. I study the Masters of literature and theology. I read from modern authors that have the education to translate the Bible. I was mentored by a Pastor, an interim Pastor and an intern Pastor of the ELCA and learned that my way of interpretation was not just mine but that of many others.

If the debate on scriptural issues becomes difficult for you because I negate what you say is right then you need to step back not me.

Well something has to be taken literal, and other things not, but the secret is to know when, obviously you have taken to agree with the flavour of the times.
My conviction stands on the righteousness and the wisdom of my conscience, enlighten by the sacred scriptures for we read in 1st. Corinthians 2: 9 - 10, "But just as it is written. Things which eye hath not seen and ear has not heard. And which have not entered the hear of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. for to us God revealed them through the spirit; for the spirit searches all things, even the depths of God."
Yes I am a simple man, like the ones that Jesus chose to be his disciples, I qualified not because of my education, nor because I was holy, but in spite of it. For we read in 1st. Corinthians 1: 26 to 29, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the uneducated men of the world to shame the wise. and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things, which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despise, god has chosen the things that are not coveted, that he might nullify the things that are. That no man should boast before God."
There will come a time (as it is written) when we will step back and unrighteousness will have free reign, but that time has not yet arrived, so you will have to put up with me interjecting.
Please note there is no safety in numbers with God, on the contrary more often than not you stand alone.
And if you follow man you will repeat their errors, I urge you to trust your holy conscience.

 

[Quagmire]

If you do not love yourself you cannot love your brother, love has no pride

Then why did you equate it to pride?

 

[DallasApple]

Then why did you equate it to pride?

[/color][/size]

Yeah..dont you have to kind have a little pride if you love your self? Or am I mixed up?

Love

Dallas

 

[Quagmire]

Yeah..dont you have to kind have a little pride if you love your self? Or am I mixed up?

Love

Dallas

Thing is; Tumbleweed said, "All I see is relentless pride" and Free Spirit answered, "Yes, I do love myself".

So obviously he considers the two interchangible, which, as I pointed out, is about as anti-biblical as you can get.

 

[DallasApple]

Thing is; Tumbleweed said, "All I see is relentless pride" and Free Spirit answered, "Yes, I do love myself".

So obviously he considers the two interchangible, which, as I pointed out, is about as anti-biblical as you can get.

Yeah..We arent supposes to love our selves relentlessly ..Its one thing to have self respect or something..basic stuff..but I thought we were supposed to love others..YES as we love oursleves...So as much as you love your self is how much you should love all others..Not easy I admit it..But you arent supposed to run around being in love with your self.Maybe if you love others first it would help a little..I dont know...

anyway..

Love

Dalals

 

[Riverwolf]

Well something has to be taken literal, and other things not, but the secret is to know when, obviously you have taken to agree with the flavour of the times.
My conviction stands on the righteousness and the wisdom of my conscience, enlighten by the sacred scriptures for we read in 1st. Corinthians 2: 9 - 10, "But just as it is written. Things which eye hath not seen and ear has not heard. And which have not entered the hear of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. for to us God revealed them through the spirit; for the spirit searches all things, even the depths of God."
Yes I am a simple man, like the ones that Jesus chose to be his disciples, I qualified not because of my education, nor because I was holy, but in spite of it. For we read in 1st. Corinthians 1: 26 to 29, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the uneducated men of the world to shame the wise. and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things, which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despise, god has chosen the things that are not coveted, that he might nullify the things that are. That no man should boast before God."
There will come a time (as it is written) when we will step back and unrighteousness will have free reign, but that time has not yet arrived, so you will have to put up with me interjecting.
Please note there is no safety in numbers with God, on the contrary more often than not you stand alone.
And if you follow man you will repeat their errors, I urge you to trust your holy conscience.

How many times (or ways) do we have to say it? Each person's conscience is different!

You want to know my opinion on Paul's statement? He was unwise himself (quite clear in his writings), so he made it look like being foolish was better than being smart to save himself the trouble of educating himself.

So far, the unwise has not shamed the wise. It's ALWAYS been the other way around. Jesus was wise, so he shamed the educated but unwise pharisees and scribes. But because some of his disciples were thick, they often had great trouble understanding what he was saying. (At least according to the gospels.)

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah..We arent supposes to love our selves relentlessly ..Its one thing to have self respect or something..basic stuff..but I thought we were supposed to love others..YES as we love oursleves...So as much as you love your self is how much you should love all others..Not easy I admit it..But you arent supposed to run around being in love with your self.Maybe if you love others first it would help a little..I dont know...

anyway..

Love

Dalals

Self-esteem is important. Beyond that, pride can be dangerous.

 

[free spirit]

Yeah..We arent supposes to love our selves relentlessly ..Its one thing to have self respect or something..basic stuff..but I thought we were supposed to love others..YES as we love oursleves...So as much as you love your self is how much you should love all others..Not easy I admit it..But you arent supposed to run around being in love with your self.Maybe if you love others first it would help a little..I dont know...

anyway..

Love

Dalals

[/QUOTE]
Keep on trying Dallas, you almost got it.

 

[Quagmire]

[/QUOTE]
Keep on trying Dallas, you almost got it.

And you completely missed it.

My point I mean.

 

[free spirit]

Then why did you equate it to pride?

[/color][/size]

Yes pride is a bad word to describe love. But when you have love you have an inner joy, which makes you exuberant and you are proud of yourself to have it. well i am doing my best to explain it.

 

[free spirit]

How many times (or ways) do we have to say it? Each person's conscience is different!

considering that your conscience is you spirit and your personality is your soul, it is hard to separate, however the conscience is independent from your personality so i tend to think that basically all consciences are practically the same.

You want to know my opinion on Paul's statement? He was unwise himself (quite clear in his writings), so he made it look like being foolish was better than being smart to save himself the trouble of educating himself.

yes if he was not what he said he was he would be unwise but you know what i trust his advise.

So far, the unwise has not shamed the wise. It's ALWAYS been the other way around. Jesus was wise, so he shamed the educated but unwise pharisees and scribes. But because some of his disciples were thick, they often had great trouble understanding what he was saying. (At least according to the gospels.)

[/QUOTE]
all wisdom and knowledge is in Christ, so if an uneducated person is in Christ he acquire more wisdom than the educated ones.

 

[strange]

Well something has to be taken literal, and other things not, but the secret is to know when, obviously you have taken to agree with the flavour of the times.
My conviction stands on the righteousness and the wisdom of my conscience, enlighten by the sacred scriptures for we read in 1st. Corinthians 2: 9 - 10, "But just as it is written. Things which eye hath not seen and ear has not heard. And which have not entered the hear of man, all that God has prepared for those who love him. for to us God revealed them through the spirit; for the spirit searches all things, even the depths of God."
Yes I am a simple man, like the ones that Jesus chose to be his disciples, I qualified not because of my education, nor because I was holy, but in spite of it. For we read in 1st. Corinthians 1: 26 to 29, "For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the uneducated men of the world to shame the wise. and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things, which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despise, god has chosen the things that are not coveted, that he might nullify the things that are. That no man should boast before God."
There will come a time (as it is written) when we will step back and unrighteousness will have free reign, but that time has not yet arrived, so you will have to put up with me interjecting.
Please note there is no safety in numbers with God, on the contrary more often than not you stand alone.
And if you follow man you will repeat their errors, I urge you to trust your holy conscience.

"By analyzing the differences between historical, legendary, and mythical elements in the Gospel reports, historical research has given systematic theology a tool for dealing with the christological symbols of the Bible. Systematic theology cannot escape this task, since it is through these symbols that theology from the very begining has tried to give "logos" of the Christian message in order to show its rationality. Some christological symbols used in the New Testament are: Son of David, Son of Man, Heavenly Man, Messiah, Son of God, Kyrios, Logos. There are still others of less significance. They develop in the following four steps: The first to be mentioned is that these symbols have arisen and grown in their own religiuos culture and language. The second is the use of these symbols by those to whom they had become alive as expressions of their self-interpretation and as answers to the questions implied in their existential predicament. The third is used to interpret the event on which Christainaity is based. The fourth is their distortion by popular superstition, supported by theological literalism and supranaturalism. . ." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. II, pp. 108, 109.

". . . Literalism takes the fourth step by imagining a transcedent being who, once upon a time, was sent down from his heavenly place and transmuted into a man. In this way a true and powerful symbol becomes an absurd story, and the Christ becomes a half-god, a particular being between God and man." Ibid., pp. 109.

"Being the Son of God means representing the essential unity between God and man under the conditions of existence and re-establishing this unity in all those who participate in his being. The symbol becomes distorted if it is taken literally and a human family situation is projected into the inner life of the divine. Literalists often ask whether one believes that "Jesus was the Son of God." Those who ask this question think that they know what the term "Son of God" means and that the only problem is whether this known designation can be attributed to the man Jesus of Nazareth. If the question is asked in this way, it cannot be answered, because either an affirmative or a negaticve answer would be wrong. The only way to answer the question is to ask another one, namely, What do you mean if you use the term "Son of God"? If one receives a literalistic answer to this question, one must reject it as superstitious. If one receives an answer which affirms the symbolic character of the term "Son of God," the meaining of this symbol can then be discussed. Much harm has been done in Christianity by a literalistic understanding of the symbol "Son of God." Ibid., pp. 110

"The symbols have been greatly distorted and consequently were rejected by many because of a literalism which makes them absurd and non-existential. Their power must be re-established by a reinterpretation which unites cosmic and existential qualities and makes it evident that a symbol is based on things and events and participates in the power of that which it symbolizes. Therefore, symbols cannot be replaced at will; they must be interpreted as long as they are alive." Ibid., pp. 164, 165.

The above theology from Paul Tillich shows how literalism is causing Christological symbolism to become dead.

I could have quoted the same Scripture to you claiming that it was you that falls short of a holy conscience. The difference is how we interpret the Bible.

 

[free spirit]

"By analyzing the differences between historical, legendary, and mythical elements in the Gospel reports, historical research has given systematic theology a tool for dealing with the christological symbols of the Bible. Systematic theology cannot escape this task, since it is through these symbols that theology from the very begining has tried to give "logos" of the Christian message in order to show its rationality. Some christological symbols used in the New Testament are: Son of David, Son of Man, Heavenly Man, Messiah, Son of God, Kyrios, Logos. There are still others of less significance. They develop in the following four steps: The first to be mentioned is that these symbols have arisen and grown in their own religiuos culture and language. The second is the use of these symbols by those to whom they had become alive as expressions of their self-interpretation and as answers to the questions implied in their existential predicament. The third is used to interpret the event on which Christainaity is based. The fourth is their distortion by popular superstition, supported by theological literalism and supranaturalism. . ." Systematic Theology, Paul Tillich, Vol. II, pp. 108, 109.

". . . Literalism takes the fourth step by imagining a transcedent being who, once upon a time, was sent down from his heavenly place and transmuted into a man. In this way a true and powerful symbol becomes an absurd story, and the Christ becomes a half-god, a particular being between God and man." Ibid., pp. 109.

"Being the Son of God means representing the essential unity between God and man under the conditions of existence and re-establishing this unity in all those who participate in his being. The symbol becomes distorted if it is taken literally and a human family situation is projected into the inner life of the divine. Literalists often ask whether one believes that "Jesus was the Son of God." Those who ask this question think that they know what the term "Son of God" means and that the only problem is whether this known designation can be attributed to the man Jesus of Nazareth. If the question is asked in this way, it cannot be answered, because either an affirmative or a negaticve answer would be wrong. The only way to answer the question is to ask another one, namely, What do you mean if you use the term "Son of God"? If one receives a literalistic answer to this question, one must reject it as superstitious. If one receives an answer which affirms the symbolic character of the term "Son of God," the meaining of this symbol can then be discussed. Much harm has been done in Christianity by a literalistic understanding of the symbol "Son of God." Ibid., pp. 110

"The symbols have been greatly distorted and consequently were rejected by many because of a literalism which makes them absurd and non-existential. Their power must be re-established by a reinterpretation which unites cosmic and existential qualities and makes it evident that a symbol is based on things and events and participates in the power of that which it symbolizes. Therefore, symbols cannot be replaced at will; they must be interpreted as long as they are alive." Ibid., pp. 164, 165.

The above theology from Paul Tillich shows how literalism is causing Christological symbolism to become dead.

I could have quoted the same Scripture to you claiming that it was you that falls short of a holy conscience. The difference is how we interpret the Bible.

Yes I understand you now, the theology that you have so eagerly absorbed has made religion for you a profession devoid of God's life. Please take a break from those dead teachings, for we read in Galatians 4: 17, "they eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out ( from understanding) in order that you may seek them."
From what you write I am certain that you do not believe that there is a Holy Spirit that can guide you into all truth, and that the Son of God has became a symbol and a theory for you, I am so sad to hear that, you cannot imagine; tell me, is this Paul Tillich an apostle, are you certain that he has the credentials from God.
And for me I do not interpret the New Testament I do not need to, for I understand it by the grace of God.
The following article is an example of my understanding.
(V) In Matthew 27 – 52 – 53, we trustfully read: “And the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

I believe that the above two verses reports something that never took place, therefore those lies are used to divert our attention from the Lord, because it is impossible for it to have occurred before or after the resurrection of the Lord, for we read in 2nd Timothy 2 – 18, “Men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some.”
In Acts 2 – 29, Peter says, “Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.” So Peter effectively says some time after the day of Pentecost that the body of David is still in his tomb. (Confirmed by ACTS 2 – 30 to 36,) Therefore it is reasonable for us to assume that if the body of King David did not qualify for that alleged resurrection we can be certain that it never took place.

In addition to that, the numbers of anomaly that those two verses contain are also an indication that our Lord never dictated them. Because:

1) The resurrection of the body will take place on the last day, John 11 – 24, and 1st Corinthians 15 – 52, also read all of chapter 20 of “Revelation.”

2) It should be obvious to anyone that even if those verses in Matthew were true, they are written in the wrong place and therefore are not in harmony with what was actually taking place. (For Jesus had just died, and the alleged resurrection supposedly took place after his resurrection, so why write it there?)

3) And if the alleged resurrection was after the Lord resurrection why is it conveniently connected with the strange natural things that where happening in relation with the Son’s of God death? (Like the earthquake etc. etc.)

4) And if those verses were true the resurrection of our Lord with his heavenly body would become one of many, and no longer one of a kind.

5) Any Christian writer would have known that Jerusalem was no longer the “holy city,” because the presence of God was no longer in the temple, read Matthew 23 – 38, and the city’s destruction had been foretold, read Mark 13 – 2.

6) We should also consider that the above verses do nothing to advance the knowledge of God, but they are used extensively by the untaught to promote their own useless fantasies. For those who do not understand the word preach best through their fleshly imagination by abandoning themselves to colourfully speculate what supposedly Jesus did while he was dead in the tomb.
2nd Corinthians 10 – 4 – 5, says it all: “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the Knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”
In other words speculations are to be treated with the contempt they deserve, but the truth is supported by a variety of thought (or scriptures) which are relevant to our every day lives and behaviour pleasing to Christ.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Free Spirit.....the bottom line is... your religion, your dogma, your way of life does not and should not dictate how others should live. Religious laws, which christians don't follow themselves, should not be government policy.

 

[Riverwolf]

considering that your conscience is you spirit and your personality is your soul, it is hard to separate, however the conscience is independent from your personality so i tend to think that basically all consciences are practically the same.

The conscience is simply the voice in our heads that tells us what to do and what not to do, carried over from early childhood when parents served as the conscience.

yes if he was not what he said he was he would be unwise but you know what i trust his advise.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, your punctuation is so bad.

all wisdom and knowledge is in Christ, so if an uneducated person is in Christ he acquire more wisdom than the educated ones.

Then how come you have not shamed or refuted us, yet?

 

[strange]

Yes I understand you now, the theology that you have so eagerly absorbed has made religion for you a profession devoid of God's life. Please take a break from those dead teachings, for we read in Galatians 4: 17, "they eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out ( from understanding) in order that you may seek them."
From what you write I am certain that you do not believe that there is a Holy Spirit that can guide you into all truth, and that the Son of God has became a symbol and a theory for you, I am so sad to hear that, you cannot imagine; tell me, is this Paul Tillich an apostle, are you certain that he has the credentials from God.
And for me I do not interpret the New Testament I do not need to, for I understand it by the grace of God.
The following article is an example of my understanding.
of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.”
In other words speculations are to be treated with the contempt they deserve, but the truth is supported by a variety of thought (or scriptures) which are relevant to our every day lives and behaviour pleasing to Christ.

Yes, your obstinacy could not be any more than it is. Tillich an apostle? Give me a break. He was a great theologian of the last century. Personally, I have read only one other theologian with the genius of Tillich, Thomas Aquinas. Don't know what credentials from God are, let alone what you think God's credentials are; besides it should never be about what you think are God's credentials.

If I was interested in your quoted article I would have liked to research the author. In the future please list your acknowledgement.

Note that your flavor of interpreting the Bible is a meager attempt at interpreting the Bible. It could be so much more. I know that you are attempting to protect the Word of God in your literalists truth. But quite frankly, your interpretation lacks in scholastic endeavor that you have missed the real message God gives mankind. It taints your understanding and really places you in the sad state you say i'm in.