The
new reality Jesus proclaimed was nonviolent. That much is clear, not just from the Sermon on the Mount, but his entire life and teaching and, above all, the way he faced his death. His was not merely a tactical or pragmatic nonviolence seized upon because nothing else would have
worked against the Roman empire's near monopoly on violence. Rather, he saw nonviolence as a direct corollary of the nature of God and of the new reality emerging in the world from God. In a verse quoted more than any other from the New Testament during the church's first four
centuries, Jesus taught that God loves everyone, and values all, even those who make themselves God's enemies. We are therefore to do
likewise (Matt. 5:45; cf. Luke 6:35). The Reign of God, the peaceable Kingdom, is (despite the monarchical terms) an order in which the inequity, violence, and male supremacy characteristic of dominator societies are superseded. Thus nonviolence is not just a means to the Kingdom of God; it is a quality of the Kingdom itself. - Walter Wink
Say aspen I see from your signature your a fan of Walter Wink, now I know where you get your love and bubbles trumps doctrine theology.
To bad he passed away it must have been a terrible loss at soulforce
http://www.soulforce.org/
I would like to post a short commentary Mr Winks wrote about biblical homosexuality.
It rather amazing how Mr Winky systematically disarms every instance of homosexual behavior or warning in the bible and justifies it under the umbrella of the LOVE --->>> two men have for one another <<<---
Here's the full commentary
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1265
Biblical Perspectives on Homosexuality
by Walter Wink
No more divisive issue faces the churches of this
country today than the question of ordaining homosexuals. Like the issue of
slavery a century ago, it has the potential for splitting entire denominations.
And like the issue of slavery, the argument revolves around the interpretation
of Scripture. What does the Bible say about homosexuality, and how are we to
apply it to this tormented question?
We may begin by excluding all references to
Sodom in the Old and New Testaments, since the sin of the Sodomites was
homosexual
rape, carried out by heterosexuals intent on humiliating
strangers by treating them “like women,” thus demasculinizing them. (This is
also the case in a similar account in Judges 19-21.) Their brutal gang-rape has
nothing to do with the problem of whether genuine love expressed between consenting
persons of the same sex is legitimate or not. Likewise Deuteronomy 23:17-18
must be pruned from the list, since it most likely refers to a heterosexual
“stud” involved in Canaanite fertility rites that have infiltrated Jewish
worship; the King James Version inaccurately labeled him a “sodomite.”
Several other texts are ambiguous. It is not
clear whether I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy 1:10 refer to the “passive” and
“active” partners in homosexual relationships, or to homosexual and
heterosexual male prostitutes. In short, it is unclear whether the issue is
homosexuality alone, or promiscuity and “sex-for-hire.”
Unequivocal Condemnations
With these texts eliminated, we are left with
three references, all of which unequivocally condemn homosexuality. Leviticus
18:22 states the principle:
“You [masculine] shall not lie-with a male as
with a woman; it is an abomination.” The second (Lev. 20:13) adds the penalty:
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.”
Such an act was regarded as an “abomination” for
several reasons. The Hebrew prescientific understanding was that male semen
contained the whole of nascent life. With no knowledge of eggs and ovulation, it
was assumed that the woman provided only the incubating space. Hence the
spilling of semen for
any nonprocreative purpose -- in coitus
interruptus (Gen. 38:1-11), male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was
considered tantamount to abortion or murder. (Female homosexual acts and
masturbation were consequently not so seriously regarded.) One can appreciate
how a tribe struggling to populate a country in which its people were
outnumbered would value procreation highly, but such values are rendered questionable
in a world facing total annihilation through overpopulation.
In addition, when a man acted like a woman
sexually, male dignity was compromised. It was a
degradation, not only
in regard to himself, but for every other male. The patriarchalism of Hebrew
culture shows its hand in the very formulation of the commandment, since no
similar stricture was formulated to forbid homosexual acts between females. On
top of that is the more universal repugnance heterosexuals tend to feel for
acts and orientations foreign to them. (Left-handedness has evoked something of
the same response in many cultures.)
Whatever the rationale for their formulation,
however, the texts leave no room for maneuvering. Persons committing homosexual
acts are to be executed. The meaning is clear: anyone who wishes to base his or
her beliefs on the witness of the Old Testament must be completely consistent
and demand the death penalty for everyone who performs homosexual acts. This
was in fact the case until fairly recent times -- hence the name “faggots,”
which homosexuals earned while burning at the stake. Even though no tribunal is
likely to execute homosexuals ever again, a shocking number of gays are
murdered by “straights” every year in this country.
The third text is Romans 1:26-27, which, like
Leviticus 18 and 20, unequivocally denounces homosexual behavior:
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion
for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their
own persons the due penalty for their error.
No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction
between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice,
and sexual behavior. He apparently assumes that those whom he condemns are
heterosexual, and are acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or
“exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which is foreign to
them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals
as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, persons for whom having
heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving
up” or “exchanging” their usual sexual orientation.