" Be prepared for the shark is about to attack. The Lord be with you. "

" And just when this issue was dying down.... "

" Ms. Darling should learn to read. My letter pointed out the errors in all of her statements. I mentioned each of the passages she cites and explained the problems with each one. I guess she prefers to be a hypocrite, upholding one part of Leviticus and ignoring the rest. I guess she is also unable to decide for herself the difference between right and wrong as many did who decided that in regards to slavery and stoning, that even God, the Bible and the Majority are morally wrong for sanctioning the practices. I guess she also doesn't comprehend the concept of ONLY, that the Bible doesn't declare that marriage between a man and woman is the ONLY choice. "

" Good article Rebecca, but I'm sure you'll learn real quick on here that homosexuality is now hereditary,and its not their falt,they were simply born that way. "

" That is what this site and my Letters to the Editor are about Kamfong: teach people the TRUTH, to dispell lies and misinterpretations, open up free and thoughtful dialogue. "

" Suzy Q who is it you are debating here yourself?

Did you say even God, the Bible and the Majority are morally wrong?

Why did you capitize the G in God if you say He is wrong? god can be wrong but God can't be wrong. "

" Susan, well you go girl,There for a minute I almost converted over. "

" AWESOME LETTER, REBECCA!
shumphreys: I will believe the word of God in its ENTIRETY before I will believe your words. You seem to want to distort His words to fit your needs. I am not impressed by your "knowledge" of other religions and books on religion, etc. The idea that we are all gods in our own right and all that new age religious rhetoric is just plain wrong. By the way, who are you to judge Rebecca as a hypocrite? Do you know her? Either way, we are all people and we are all (hypocrites or not) allowed forgiveness. Rebecca's letter trumps any of your past or future posts hands down. Give it up. "

" It also condones baby killing, incest, adultery, jealousy, slaughter of the innocents, war, cheating, selling of children, owning slaves, blowing up entire towns, drowning entire species and every other despicable act man can do to man. Have any of you actually READ the bible? Please tell me, why is their 2 (yes TWO) versions of creation in Genesis?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Our image??? OUR image? Now what do you suppose THAT means?

You all know the Adam, Eve and rib thing already so I don't need to quote that one. "

" I agree with the letter writer, as these are verses straight out of the Bible, they are not open to change. I think Susan Humphreys is attempting to change the Bible to suit her own agenda, which is similar to the False Prophet, although I believe that Islam is really the False Prophet. The Bible clearly states that is wrong for two men or two women to be together, and that a marriage between the two is considered unholy and not from God. As for the whole gay marriage issue, I think that it should be up to the states to decide. In California, the govt. passed a law legalizing gay marriage, and during the election, the people took a vote and voted to ban gay marriage. Now there are some people there claiming "equality", but it is also a question of Democracy. Our Constitution states that you cannot overturn the people's votes. In this instance, the California Courts should keep Prop 8, as it is what the voters' want. If the govt. overturns the people's votes once, they will do it again. Then, we will no longer be a Democracy. As for me, I, along with Miss California, agree that marriage should only be between a man and woman. God works in mysterious ways, only a man and woman can have a baby, hence, the continuance of human life. If everyone was gay, there would be no children or people, or they would all be done through science, test-tube babies, like Brave New Worldish. "

" Very nice, well researched letter, Rebecca. On this subject you have stated Biblical truth. "

" Our image??? OUR image? Now what do you suppose THAT means?


Duhhh

It means God the Father.
God the Son.
God the Holy Spirit. "

" Once again, the point is that this nation is NOT governed according to the Bible, as our founding fathers long ago decided it should not be. "

" Who is distorting the Bible, it isn't me. I report what scholars and theologians say about the texts. You just have to face reality, the Bible does NOT condemn homosexuality or support the persecution of homosexuals. But that aside it still doesn't address the point that intelligent, wise, compassionate people realized that slavery was wrong and defied the folks like those on these threads that said it was in the Bible so it must be right. Homosexuality is as normal and right for some as heterosexuality is for others. There is no way around the facts. "

" Beckey----Gen. 1:26 "And God said let us make man in our own image, after our likeness"--
God is speaking as the Trinity--Father, Son and Holy Spirit--that is the image.
You and I too are triune beings, spirit, soul(mind), and body. CLEAR? We are NOT gods just made in their image and when born again blessed to be called children of God. "

" Mr. Vanatta I capitalized G in God to show that I was referring to that concept of the word. God means different things to different folks but it is still used as a proper name for whatever they consider IT to be. "

" M I don't expect you to believe me. My purpose is to get you to see that there are other interpretations, other beliefs, other ways of being a Christian, other ideas, other TRUTHS. In OTHER words, my soul purpose is to shatter your complacency, and force you to see. "If you have eyes to see and ears to hear." All I have to do is to plant an idea, mother nature will do the rest. "

" Heavens All You Need, you have been hiding (ignoring what is happening in the world around you), we now have designer babies and pretty soon there won't be any need for the male/female "thing". Don't worry men won't become obsolete, women will still need their sperm deposited in a sperm bank. "

" Actually All You Need, our democracy can and has and will continue to overturn the peoples votes, when their laws violate the rights of others. Our democracy was set up to protect the rights of the few from the majority, which is a good thing, since the majority has been morally wrong in the past and is morally wrong on this issue of "gay" marriage. "

" Rebecca, you say that if one repents and turns away from the sin, he/she will be forgiven. Since the Bible also calls divorce an abomination, does that mean the divorced sinners must not only confess their sins but also turn away from their new spouses? Since homosexuals must not engage in their sinful act to be considered forgiven, I assume the same standard must also be applied to those abominable, sinful divorcees. "

" Becky wrote on May 8, 2009 2:46 PM:
" It also condones baby killing, incest, adultery, jealousy, slaughter of the innocents, war, cheating, selling of children, owning slaves, blowing up entire towns, drowning entire species and every other despicable act man can do to man.

It does not condone any of the previous as you would have people to believe. Is context taught anymore in our schools?

Have any of you actually READ the bible? Please tell me, why is their 2 (yes TWO) versions of creation in Genesis?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html

There is only on version. Using a non-believing, nor understanding of the Scriptures site does not help your argument. If the site was respectable at all it would know that (day) as used in Genesis is the word used for a 24 hour day. You have the seven days of creation in Genesis 1:1-2:3. When you get to Genesis 2:4 you go back into the creation days. Kind of like a flash back. Remember the breaks in the Scriptures were added in later. Therefore you would read Genesis 2:3-2:5 as "And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,


Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:

Our image??? OUR image? Now what do you suppose THAT means?

You all know the Adam, Eve and rib thing already so I don't need to quote that one. "

It is speaking of the fact that like God we are three in one. We are body, spirit, and soul. He is body-Christ, spirit-the Holy Spirit, and Soul-the Father. As for who God is speaking of, we know from Hebrews, along from other books he is speaking to Christ. Hope that helps you. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 8, 2009 6:53 AM:
" Ms. Darling should learn to read. My letter pointed out the errors in all of her statements. I mentioned each of the passages she cites and explained the problems with each one. I guess she prefers to be a hypocrite, upholding one part of Leviticus and ignoring the rest. I guess she is also unable to decide for herself the difference between right and wrong as many did who decided that in regards to slavery and stoning, that even God, the Bible and the Majority are morally wrong for sanctioning the practices. I guess she also doesn't comprehend the concept of ONLY, that the Bible doesn't declare that marriage between a man and woman is the ONLY choice. "

Actually you letter did nothing of the sort, and has been proven by myself and others. You just do not like the truth. "

" Hahvahd wrote on May 8, 2009 10:13 PM:
" Rebecca, you say that if one repents and turns away from the sin, he/she will be forgiven. Since the Bible also calls divorce an abomination, does that mean the divorced sinners must not only confess their sins but also turn away from their new spouses? Since homosexuals must not engage in their sinful act to be considered forgiven, I assume the same standard must also be applied to those abominable, sinful divorcees. "

You do know that some divorce is Scriptural right? As for sin, all sin is sin. God says, all sin leads to death. We are the ones who say, this is worse then this. The gift of salvation is for all who want it, but not all do want it. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 8, 2009 11:54 AM:
That is what this site and my Letters to the Editor are about Kamfong: teach people the TRUTH, to dispell lies and misinterpretations, open up free and thoughtful dialogue.


Susan

Have you ever read John 14.6

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.


Don't forget Revelation 22 18.19

18I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Doesn't leave much room for interpitation. "

" Oh My God! shumphreys - you cannot rewrite the bible, you have only proven how unreasonable, unrealistic, and uncouth you are.

The ONE Bible is The God-breathed Truth.

You shumphreys are a false prophet trying to 'teach' everyone your own lies.

May God have mercy on you. "

" Get you fire suits on because here comes some gasoline.

While I have a strong faith in God and Jesus I can not say the same thing for the Bible. I can not help but question if the Bible, the entire Bible is truly the word of God or if parts of it at least are more the word of man. I can not help but question how much of the Bible has been corrupted by man's personal views on issues.

Just a few of the things that leave me wondering about how true to the word of God the Bible is are as follows.

When the early Christian church assembled the Bible they made the decision to leave out the testimonies of several of the original disciples. They also left out the testimony of Mary Magdalen. Further more as "new" evidence has shown us they radically altered her story and omitted many references about her from the writing of those disciples who were included in the Bible.

Next you have the problems associated with oral tradition. Much of what comes to us in the Bible spent years being passed from person to person solely through oral story telling. In many cases in was at least centuries before these stories and lessons were comitted to "paper".

Then you have the issue of translation. Not only were these stories often translated during the oral period they have been translated many times since being written, and just as with English words have different meanings from era to era as well as from region to region, not to mention there are words that are written the same but have very different meanings. Usually you can determine the definition of a word by the context of the sentence but not always. For example if I were to write "He was a minute man." Did I just say he was a small man or that he only lasted for 60 seconds.

The last example I wish to put forth is still common today among churches and that is the clergy within those churches interjection their personal beliefs, be it ones they have come up with themselves or ones they have adopted, into their teachings. One example of this is some churches belief that it is a sin to dance, even though the Bible clearly states that there is a time for all things on Earth as their is in Heaven and even specifically mentions a time to dance.

From the far edge of memory and undoubtedly since Man has walked the Earth he has had an uncanny ability to corrupt, twist and destroy that which is pure and good any time he is allowed to get his hand's upon it. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 8, 2009 11:41 PM:

"As for sin, all sin is sin. God says, all sin leads to death."

What is sin? "

" Wow, shumphreys. But not even close to shattering my non-existent complacency. What is it with you that you feel you KNOW something like that about me? I already know there are many other interpretations of God's word out there but that is all they are ... interpretations ... while the HOLY BIBLE was actually inspired and guided by GOD. Why do you insist on degrading that FACT with futile attempts to shatter us? Mother Nature? (eye roll) "

" Becky: You are being ridiculous concerning: "It also condones baby killing, incest, adultery, jealousy, slaughter of the innocents, war, cheating, selling of children, owning slaves, blowing up entire towns, drowning entire species and every other despicable act man can do to man. Have any of you actually READ the bible? Please tell me, why is their 2 (yes TWO) versions of creation in Genesis?
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html"

blah blah blah please make it stop. And to answer your question in the middle of all that garbage, YES, I have read and do read the BIBLE not some bastardized versions put out there to confuse people in an attempt to keep them from actually realizing TRUTH. "

" Mr. Hendren you carefully ignored the prime difference between Genesis 1 and 2. Who is selectively reading the Bible? Genesis 1 heavens, earth, plants, animals, man. Genesis 2 man, then plants and animals. Both can't be true, one is a lie. OR both are metaphorical, allegorical stories never intended to be read as truths. "

" Ah, yes, herndren, it's time to get back to divorce. Funny, but I don't see many letters to the editor about how divorce needs to be stopped or even prevented--or about how we need a constitutional amendment against it. The reason for that, of course, is that evangelical Christians divorce and remarry as frequently (or more than) anyone else.

Herndren, you use the Matthew passage (5:31-32) as an Escape Clause--conveniently ignoring the fact that Jesus does not mention "unless the marriage is unlawful" elsewhere. Why did he mention it in Matthew? The reason is because this Gospel was written for a Jewish audience.

"It seems, however, that the unlawfulness (porneia) that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev. 18:6-18).

"Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them.

"Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20-29." It was never intended to be used as a loophole allowing for escape from a bad marriage.

In many versions, "porneia" is translated as "sexual immorality" which leads the hopeful evangelical to believe it's referring to sex outside of marriage. However, as discussed above, porneia in this Jewish context means something else entirely. This makes better sense, actually, and would explain why the Evangelical Escape Clause is not used in Mark's Gospel (which was not intended for a Jewish audience).

Open your eyes. If you truly want to follow God's word to the letter, you need to conform to Christ's view on divorce. He did not provide an escape clause; Paul didn't, either (as I documented on the other thread).

If you are divorced and remarried, as so many Christian evangelicals are, by Biblical standards you are living in sin--pure and simple. Maybe you need to leave the homosexuals alone and clean your own house for awhile. Or at least pray about it. "

" ACTUALLY, apostate Humphreys, your letters are designed to teach YOUR VERSION of the the Truth, which you know nothing about. Any attempt to correct your so-called "truths" are met by you with disdain, disgust and argument. You are not a Bible authority, you are simply a woman who is trying to be someone. "

" Rebecca, you are spot on. The core of the Bible's message, however, is the Kingdom of God, ruled by his Son, Christ Jesus. Jesus taught us to pray for that Kingdom at Matthew 6:9,10. It is by means of this kingdom arrangement that humans will be brought into a perfect relationship with God.


Don't let apostate humphreys get you down - she is so into herself and her Agnostic religion (which she will argue is not a religion, prepare yourself for hysterical, ridiculous refutement by her) that she fails to see that Satan has blinded her eyes.


Just sit back and laugh, because that is what most of us are doing. "

" HerChild

According to the bible, God will not have mercey on her.

Rebecca

Great letter, however, you should know by now that Susan and some others will try to distort whatever you and the Bible say. "

" What is sin?

Disobedience of God and the love of evil. "

" What is sin?

Disobedience of God and the love of evil.


Just sit back and laugh, because that is what most of us are doing.

We shouldn't though, her penalty will be so horrible and she will have all eternity to endure it.

Eterity = No end

I always wondered how people with no belief in God of any kind can cope with the loss of a loved one, Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Child actually deal with that death, in their mind, they know thay will never see them again, it just ended. The Christian, on the other hand BELIEVES know that they WILL see their loved one again and have that to keep going on. It's like the Big White Cross in Effingham, no matter who you are, no matter waht religion you believe, even athiest, you know exactly what that cross stands for. It's funny, just rcently I was flying from St. Louis to Indianapolis, at 19000 feet, I saw the cross. What an inspiration. "

" The Truth, I agree mostly with what you said however I cant agree with Just sit back and laugh, because that is what most of us are doing. Susan Humphreys is a sad pathetic misaligned person whose priorities are all wrong. It is not funny but just very heartbreaking that she is so mixed up and missing the important truth and purpose of life. Even sadder are the gullible people who fall into her trap of deceit. However even worse than laughing at her is to patronize her as Crow Woman does. A liberal Christian willing to tolerate all views is more misleading to those seeking the truth than someone who so blatantly and purposely misaligns the truth. Jesus is not tolerant of all views and immorality. Crow Woman is struggling hard to try to justify gay marriage by condemning divorce and remarriage but the point is ill conceived. Jesus made it very clear to the Samaritan woman at the well that He recognized her marriage even though it was her fifth one and asked her to bring her husband of whom He knew she was not living with and made it clear that the Living Water was available to her but the implication was she should be living with her present husband. "

" M and you think your "interpretation" is the TRUTH and all other "interpretations" are lies? You also think that by learning the TRUTH it will "shatter you". That was your word. If the Truth shatters you than you do have a problem and it won't be solved by hiding from it. Face it square on. The Bible was written by men with different agendas, and is a wonderful mix of myth and metaphor, allegory, fact and fantasy, historical accuaracies and inaccuracies and contradictions. It is full of great wisdom for those willing to read it thoughtfully, to look beyond the surface (literal reading) and plumb its depths. When you stop using the Bible to justify the persecution of others, to force laws upon this nation based on YOUR biblical interpretations, than I will stop pestering YOU. And I mean "you" in the broadest sense of the use of the term, the worldly you as in all of you not the singular you alone. Get my drift? "

" Well said Jim 1969, and that is exactly the point I have been trying to get across (or at least one of the points). The Bible however, for all of its problems and flaws is still a darn good read and any one that wants to have an understanding of human civilization had better understand it as well as the teachings and sacred texts of all the other world religions. "

" Medic have you read Matthew 25? All shall be judged by their actions, not by what religion they followed, what church they attended or even whether they pretended to believe in GOD. "

" You had better hope God has mercy on YOU HerChild. I don't rewrite the Bible I just point out what is already there, the parts you choose to ignore, the reality. You can't hide from the TRUTH forever. "

" Mr. Hendren who doesn't like the TRUTH. You object to the reality that Malakos should more accurately be translated as soft, referring to soft, efeminate men, the catamites of pederasts. Are you feeling a bit persecuted here, afraid that it is you the Bible is admonishing against, an effeminate man? The reality is that the Bible from start to finish is admonishing against the abuse and exploitation of others, whether sexual, physical, mental, economical,legal, environmental (since that affects people and animals and the planet) and the failure to share your personal bounty and good fortune with those that aren't as fortunate. Such a lesson is good for all times and all peoples and has been taught by all the worlds great religions and great thinkers. The LAW, the BOOK the law has been written in are distractions, commentary (as Rabbi Hillell pointed out) and take you away from the CORE message, away from God, away from the Kingdom of Heaven, and if you believe in it everlasting life. Or another way to put it you have flat missed the boat Mr. Hendren, you and many others Her Child, The Truth, Medic,..... Jesus himself even told you what was and wasn't important. Or have you missed or forgotten that part? "

" Just sit back and laugh, because that is what most of us are doing. "

Yeah, we are at you. "

" Susan, Jesus has a message for you. Remember it's the words of Jesus! You are of your father the devil and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a liar from the beginning and he is the father of all lie's and there is no truth in him! Anything outside the word of God is a lie! It doesn't matter what theologians say either. What matters is what the word of God says! Heaven and earth will pass away but the Word will not pass away! "

" Sounds like Jon is divorced. lol! "

" medic57 wrote on May 9, 2009 10:55 AM:
" What is sin?

Disobedience of God and the love of evil. "

That seems to be a reasonable answer. It does, however, bring more questions to mind.

How do we judge if we are being disobedient to God?

How do we know what God considers to be evil?

Is it possible that we do things on a continual basis thinking they are ok in Gods eyes, but by His standards we are being disobedient? How are we to tell the difference? "

" deep thoughts 45 wrote on May 10, 2009 12:47 PM:
"Anything outside the word of God is a lie! It doesn't matter what theologians say either. What matters is what the word of God says! Heaven and earth will pass away but the Word will not pass away! "

According to jrhendren, the law has passed away, and Im pretty sure that is part of the Word of God. Im a little confused now as to whether I should believe him or you. You both make pretty good arguments. So has the law passed away or not?

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Ive been outside most of the day and Im fairly certain the earth hasnt passed yet. "

" Jon Vanatta, it's been awhile. I'm not trying to justify gay marriage at all. I'm only pointing out how hypocritical it is for Christians who openly disobey Christ's (and Paul's) teachings re. divorce to speak out against gay marriage.

Take off your homophobic lenses and look at Scripture objectively. You will see no more condemnation of homosexuality than you do of divorce.

If Christ and Paul say not to divorce, and certainly not to remarry, how can you possibly justify it? The ability to rationalize IS amazing.... "

" shumphreys, Apparently YOU need to learn to read. I have watched you (repeatedly as in your post 5/8 @ 6:53am & others) say that so & so needs to learn to read. Take your own advice for a change. When you do learn to read maybe you will see that MY interpretation of the Bible is NOT the only one. You are the one whose "sole purpose" was to shatter me so do not act (there you go twisting more words again) like I said you shattered me. OH PLEASE! shumphreys wrote on May 8, 2009 6:50 PM:
" M I don't expect you to believe me. My purpose is to get you to see that there are other interpretations, other beliefs, other ways of being a Christian, other ideas, other TRUTHS. In OTHER words, my soul purpose is to shatter your complacency, and force you to see. "If you have eyes to see and ears to hear." All I have to do is to plant an idea, mother nature will do the rest. "
By the way, in your sentence the word SOUL should be spelled SOLE....maybe you need to learn to spell as well as learn to read. You have NO reason to be so puffed-up and arrogant so please just stop trying to impress me. If your posts had a voice it would sound like Charlie Brown's teacher .... wuhwahwahwuhwahwuh. Now THAT is probably something you can read. Do me a favor and get over yourself. "

" M. you are not the focus of my writing, in other words my sole purpose is not to shatter YOU. You think far too highly of your self. "

" Actually M I used soul on purpose, it is called a double entendre, something I am sure is beyond your comprehension. "

" And M why would I want to do YOU a favor? I am quite happy pulling your chains, it shows that I am penetrating your hard exterior hide. "

" Deep Thoughts I am afraid you have mixed me up with someone else. I tell the TRUTH and the TRUTH is the WORD and the WORD is God or isn't that what the Bible says? Just because you don't like the TRUTH doesn't make it untrue. Now than who is speaking the TRUTH? Who speaks for those who can't or won't speak for themselves and who is the one casting stones? You have painted yourself into a corner with your half-truths and there is no way out. In other words you seem to be stuck. "

" should i buy canadian or mexican slaves?....tough choice. "

" (2 Timothy 3:13) ...But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.

This describes our apostate "friend", humphreys.

She wouldn't know bible truth if God himself dropped it on her head. "

" Susan I have the authority of God's Word which by the way is not just an old piece of literature that people follow because they need a crutch in life. The Bible has been tried and has been proven to be the Word of God! The historians will tell you that as well as they will tell you of the many proofs that Jesus was here on earth, that he died on the cross and that he rose again on the 3rd day! It's all true and is backed up by many more intelligence than anything that you can bring up in your narrow minded thinking. I'm really backed up in a corner Susan? What the heck? If you would only make sense on a consistent basis then maybe you might get some support from your deep thoughts! "

" destew66 what you are not understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill the law! That means that it is completed! Many Christians try to hold on to the law to try and make their point. It is only because of bad teaching and the refusal to study for themselves and realize what we have been set free from! Jesus came to set people free! The apostle Paul on several occasions was upset with those who wanted to hang on to the old written code. Jesus wrapped it all up with the words "Love your neighbor as yourself". He said that fulfills all the commandments! "

" M wrote on May 10, 2009 10:17 PM:
" shumphreys, Apparently YOU need to learn to read. I have watched you (repeatedly as in your post 5/8 @ 6:53am & others) say that so & so needs to learn to read. Take your own advice for a change. When you do learn to read maybe you will see that MY interpretation of the Bible is NOT the only one. You are the one whose "sole purpose" was to shatter me so do not act (there you go twisting more words again) like I said you shattered me. OH PLEASE! shumphreys wrote on May 8, 2009 6:50 PM:
" M I don't expect you to believe me. My purpose is to get you to see that there are other interpretations, other beliefs, other ways of being a Christian, other ideas, other TRUTHS. In OTHER words, my soul purpose is to shatter your complacency, and force you to see. "If you have eyes to see and ears to hear." All I have to do is to plant an idea, mother nature will do the rest. "
By the way, in your sentence the word SOUL should be spelled SOLE....maybe you need to learn to spell as well as learn to read. You have NO reason to be so puffed-up and arrogant so please just stop trying to impress me. If your posts had a voice it would sound like Charlie Brown's teacher .... wuhwahwahwuhwahwuh. Now THAT is probably something you can read. Do me a favor and get over yourself. "

=====M, we agree wholeheartedly with you.
But know this, shumphreys likes to shred everyone into threads, we just need not let her.

She is as a peacock strutting her stuff, only she hasn't got any stuff.

Also, someone mentioned that she does not resort to name-calling. Wrong. She doesn't come out and say you stupid so & so, but she does condemn and ridicule people on a regular basis, which is not at all being tolerant or respectful of others.

Why do you suppose shumphreys has more posts on these threads than anyone else? She wants to make sure we all know the truth...about her...so that we will pray for her soul. "

" LOL Ms Humphrey's and her JC Glasses again,Only see's what she wants to see.According to her.lol I get a laugh everytime i read her blither LOL roflol "

" Heavens Deep Thoughts, I have certainly never said that Jesus wasn't a real person that was crucified, there are authorities outside the Bible that attest to that. Now as to whether he arose, there is no proof, only your hopes. Now as to whether some of the things he is said to have said are thoughtful, insightful, wise, good advice for today, there is also no doubt. As I have said there is great wisdom within the pages of the Bible for those that will get past the "law", "trying to prove the unprovable", and plumb the depths to find the real "meat", the "jewels", the "pearls" of wisdom. "

" Now than Deep Thoughts, if you don't like having your beliefs challenged than don't challenge other peoples beliefs. You know that is what is meant by the "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." You can NOT prove that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, or that Jesus rose from the dead. Truth has proof, beliefs have no proofs, only hopes. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 11, 2009 7:44 PM:
" You can NOT prove that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, or that Jesus rose from the dead. Truth has proof, beliefs have no proofs, only hopes. "

And you can NOT prove that He doesnt exist, that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, nor that Yeshua didnt rise from the dead.

The Bible has been proven to be true. Many of the Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled, with more yet to be fulfilled. Not all have been fulfilled, which presents a problem for the Jesus fulfilled the law crowd.

Archaeologists have discovered the remains of Noahs Ark and Pharoahs chariots at the bottom of the sea just like it was told in the Scriptures. Those are facts that cant be refuted. Even the devils believe in God.

Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Why do you suppose the devils tremble?


shumphreys wrote on May 11, 2009 7:23 AM:
"I tell the TRUTH and the TRUTH is the WORD and the WORD is God or isn't that what the Bible says?

In one breath you say it cannot be proven that God exists, and in another breath you say the WORD IS GOD. You should consider running for Congress or the Presidency. You would fit right in with the crowd in Washington. Then again, I vaguely remember someone promising it was no longer going to be business as usual in Washington, and sure Bill didnt inhale. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 11, 2009 7:44 PM:
" Now than Deep Thoughts, if you don't like having your beliefs challenged than don't challenge other peoples beliefs. You know that is what is meant by the "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself."

Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

I find it interesting that you quote scripture, yet you quote the mirror image of what it says. That is exactly how the enemy works. Satan knows the scriptures,

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

and he misquotes them like you do.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely die: "

" deep thoughts 45 wrote on May 11, 2009 1:53 PM:
" destew66 what you are not understanding is that Jesus came to fulfill the law! That means that it is completed! Many Christians try to hold on to the law to try and make their point. It is only because of bad teaching and the refusal to study for themselves and realize what we have been set free from! Jesus came to set people free! The apostle Paul on several occasions was upset with those who wanted to hang on to the old written code. Jesus wrapped it all up with the words "Love your neighbor as yourself". He said that fulfills all the commandments! "

Just where do you suppose he came up with that phrase?

Lev 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF: I am the LORD.

Now why would the Messiah be quoting from a law that He is going to do away with?

And why would he stop right in the middle of a verse as He is reading scripture?

Luk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,
Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.
Luk 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.
Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears.

Quoting:

Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
Isa 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, (THIS IS WHERE HE STOPS!) and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Isa 61:3 To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified.

If you will notice after that verse refers to the time that has not yet happened. It has not yet been fulfilled!

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.
Mat 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You stated: It is only because of bad teaching and the refusal to study for themselves and realize what we have been set free from!

I will definitely agree with you on the bad teaching. It is rampant in the churches. The church is so intent on finding reasons not to be obedient to the Word that they fail to stop and ask the question What is the purpose of the law?

Susan is right about one thing. People cant quote part of the law and ignore the rest. That makes them every bit the hypocrites she says they are, and she should know a hypocrite when she sees one.

You yourself dont realize what we have been set free from. Yeshua died on the cross. Why did he die?

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death;

He set us free from the penalty of death. We work, our wages is money. We sin, our wages is death. Yeshua took our paycheck for us. He paid the bill in full. "

" Wow, I am shocked. With all of this the Bible is the absolute word of God bit going on no one other than Susan has commented on the very real possibility that the Bible through the ages has been tainted by one factor or another and that at least some of what we take for the word of God is in fact, at best, an unintentional error of some sort, and at worst an intentional ploy to pass on Man's beliefs in place of God's word. "

" Jim1969 wrote on May 9, 2009 12:58 AM:
" Get you fire suits on because here comes some gasoline.

Not at all, but you might want to look into how the cannon came about. The criteria for which books were chose. It is actually quite fascinating if you like history. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 9, 2009 1:16 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 8, 2009 11:41 PM:

"As for sin, all sin is sin. God says, all sin leads to death."

What is sin? "

Read the Scriptures and you will know. Sorry if I do not take your bait. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 9, 2009 7:28 AM:
" Mr. Hendren you carefully ignored the prime difference between Genesis 1 and 2. Who is selectively reading the Bible? Genesis 1 heavens, earth, plants, animals, man. Genesis 2 man, then plants and animals. Both can't be true, one is a lie. OR both are metaphorical, allegorical stories never intended to be read as truths. "

Actually you are the one who needs to read closer. Specifically verse 8. "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. " - Genesis 2:8. What is that small word there after God? It seems to be "had". Wait that would mean that God had made the garden prior to man. Guess you read over that word. Verse 15 says, "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it." - Genesis 2:15. Now if we do something you hate to do and cross reference these passages we see the garden before man still, then cross reference with Genesis 1, the broader creation version, it all flows. Funny how someone, you, who does not even believe, believes they know so much about the Scriptures. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 11, 2009 11:49 PM:
" dstew66 wrote on May 9, 2009 1:16 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 8, 2009 11:41 PM:

"As for sin, all sin is sin. God says, all sin leads to death."

What is sin? "

Read the Scriptures and you will know. Sorry if I do not take your bait. "

I do read the scriptures. Sin is the transgression of the law (1 John 3:4).

But, we no longer have the law.

So, what is sin?

BTW, nice job on the Genesis analysis. "

" Jim1969 wrote on May 11, 2009 11:47 PM:
" Wow, I am shocked. With all of this the Bible is the absolute word of God bit going on no one other than Susan has commented on the very real possibility that the Bible through the ages has been tainted by one factor or another and that at least some of what we take for the word of God is in fact, at best, an unintentional error of some sort, and at worst an intentional ploy to pass on Man's beliefs in place of God's word. "

Jim, I agree with you. The woman of John 8 is a perfect example (although certainly not the only one). "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 9, 2009 7:36 AM:
" Ah, yes, herndren, it's time to get back to divorce. Funny, but I don't see many letters to the editor about how divorce needs to be stopped or even prevented--or about how we need a constitutional amendment against it. The reason for that, of course, is that evangelical Christians divorce and remarry as frequently (or more than) anyone else.

I guess you do not need to cite your sources. No matter, there have been some that have tried to make divorce illegal:

HARRISBURG -- Legislation was offered in the state Senate Tuesday making it illegal to get a divorce in Pennsylvania. - Pittsburg Tribune, Wednesday, May 7, 2008

In states such as Missouri, they are no fault states. Meaning the marriage is dissolved and their is not "divorce".

Now as your quote "The reason for that, of course, is that evangelical Christians divorce and remarry as frequently (or more than) anyone else." I have already mentioned your lack of citation. You seem to like looking up stats. how about how many married, happy homes there that are Christian, and how many are not Christian. Better not you might not like the answer you get. Another question for you, in your little , non-cited, stat. above, how many of those Christian divorces were from the Catholic side? Are we like Susan and group all together?

Herndren, you use the Matthew passage (5:31-32) as an Escape Clause--conveniently ignoring the fact that Jesus does not mention "unless the marriage is unlawful" elsewhere. Why did he mention it in Matthew? The reason is because this Gospel was written for a Jewish audience.

The Gospels were written for all people, and you might want to read 1 Corinthians 7.

"It seems, however, that the unlawfulness (porneia) that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship (Lev. 18:6-18).

"Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them.

"Matthew's "exceptive clause" is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20-29." It was never intended to be used as a loophole allowing for escape from a bad marriage.

In many versions, "porneia" is translated as "sexual immorality" which leads the hopeful evangelical to believe it's referring to sex outside of marriage. However, as discussed above, porneia in this Jewish context means something else entirely. This makes better sense, actually, and would explain why the Evangelical Escape Clause is not used in Mark's Gospel (which was not intended for a Jewish audience).

Same answer as above, the Gospels, all four were for all, and read 1 Corinthians 7.

Open your eyes. If you truly want to follow God's word to the letter, you need to conform to Christ's view on divorce. He did not provide an escape clause; Paul didn't, either (as I documented on the other thread).

There is only one true reason for divorce, that being unfaithfulness.

If you are divorced and remarried, as so many Christian evangelicals are, by Biblical standards you are living in sin--pure and simple. Maybe you need to leave the homosexuals alone and clean your own house for awhile. Or at least pray about it. "

As a happy married for several years, never divorced Christian I do not know about the actual divorce proceedings, nor do I intend to know them. In my house we have the Lord, and a loving marriage. We have our problems, but nothing that can not be overcame. We are faithful, and love one another. I pray ever day, for the well being of my family, including my homosexual relatives. Maybe you should know more about someone before you start grouping them. Oh and again try some citation. Peace be with you. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 9, 2009 2:45 PM:
" Mr. Hendren who doesn't like the TRUTH.

That would be you.

You object to the reality that Malakos should more accurately be translated as soft, referring to soft, efeminate men, the catamites of pederasts.

So once again you say all feminine men are sinning. Why do you say this, then say you are not later?

Are you feeling a bit persecuted here, afraid that it is you the Bible is admonishing against, an effeminate man? The reality is that the Bible from start to finish is admonishing against the abuse and exploitation of others, whether sexual, physical, mental, economical,legal, environmental (since that affects people and animals and the planet) and the failure to share your personal bounty and good fortune with those that aren't as fortunate. Such a lesson is good for all times and all peoples and has been taught by all the worlds great religions and great thinkers.

I feel no persecution, just sorrow. Sorrow for those who refuse, or will not admit the truth, like yourself. I pray that your eyes will be opened before it is to late.

The LAW, the BOOK the law has been written in are distractions, commentary (as Rabbi Hillell pointed out) and take you away from the CORE message, away from God, away from the Kingdom of Heaven, and if you believe in it everlasting life. Or another way to put it you have flat missed the boat Mr. Hendren, you and many others Her Child, The Truth, Medic,..... Jesus himself even told you what was and wasn't important. Or have you missed or forgotten that part? "

Jesus did and continues to tell us, through his Spirit, what is important. That being, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" - Matthew 22:37-39. Those commandments sum up the entire Scriptures. As for the Law, we are no longer under the Law. The Law has been fulfilled by Christ. It was also given to us for one reason, to know what sin was. All of this is Scriptural. You say, "It's a good read.", yet do not believe in it. You say we have no right to voice our opinion on subjects like homosexuality, however, you believe you do. What gives you the right to decide what is "freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (NOTE ITS "OF" NOT "FROM" RELIGION), and freedom to assemble peacefully? Why is it okay for everyone, but Christians to be Americans? We all know why, because we do not agree with you. You twist and use Scriptures out of context for your own purposes, what ever they maybe. I do not know if you are homosexual yourself, or someone in your family who is. In mine their is, and I am quite offended that you would imply that I do not really love them. I love them greatly, and that is why their sinful lifestyle hurts me so much. Oh and for your information, they to will tell you they are sinning, and know that why they live that way, will not receive the kingdom of God. They are one of those voices you speak for, that really "wishes you'd shut up". Their words not mine. I pray that you will find the Lord, the one true God. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 10, 2009 6:06 PM:
" deep thoughts 45 wrote on May 10, 2009 12:47 PM:
"Anything outside the word of God is a lie! It doesn't matter what theologians say either. What matters is what the word of God says! Heaven and earth will pass away but the Word will not pass away! "

According to jrhendren, the law has passed away, and Im pretty sure that is part of the Word of God. Im a little confused now as to whether I should believe him or you. You both make pretty good arguments. So has the law passed away or not?

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Ive been outside most of the day and Im fairly certain the earth hasnt passed yet. "

The Word is the Scriptures, not the Law itself. I have explained to you regarding the fulfillment of the Law by Christ, and Paul telling us that the Law was given in order to know what sin was. With out the rules, the law, we basically did not know how to play the game. If Christ did not come and fulfill the Law, he lied, since he also says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17and Paul says, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." - Galatians 3:25 If either has lied then all the Scriptures are wrong, but they are not. Christ came and died for us, bring an end to the sacrifices that had to be done for sin. He became the ultimate sacrifice. The forever blood sacrifice, that was prophesied in Genesis. Paul knew, not as a Pharisee named Saul, but after his conversion when he became an apostle of Christ. When he was at Stephen's stoning he condemn him like the rest, just as he had papers to bring other Christians to be killed. Yet on the road to Damascus he met the Lord, and began to follow him. He then preached boldly about Jesus, and the Way. Paul even goes so far to tell Timothy later that it does not matter regarding circumcision, something a Jew took very seriously. "

" Jim1969 wrote on May 11, 2009 11:47 PM:
" Wow, I am shocked. With all of this the Bible is the absolute word of God bit going on no one other than Susan has commented on the very real possibility that the Bible through the ages has been tainted by one factor or another and that at least some of what we take for the word of God is in fact, at best, an unintentional error of some sort, and at worst an intentional ploy to pass on Man's beliefs in place of God's word. "

That is because some of us have studied how the Scriptures came about, and the different translations. Also because we live by faith, and that we know in our hearts the truth,that God is real, and sent his Son for us, and as the Scriptures say, "the truth shall set ye free." The questions for you should be, What if we are right and What is so bad about living a loving, peaceful, sharing, and caring Christian lifestyle? "

" Genesis 2:4 "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground--then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put he man whom he had formed......" Try starting at the beginning and don't take the passage out of context! "

" Notice Dstew I said "or isn't that what the Bible says?" That is called a rhetorical question. And I don't need to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. The proof is on you, if you feel a need to prove that which can't be proven. There are far too many conflicts and errors for the Bible to be TRUTH unless God makes errors in which case God isn't perfect or all powerful or all knowing. Men however do make errors. Men however do tell wonderful stories, allegories, metaphors that were never intended to be read as literal truth only as allegorical, metaphorical and mythical truths. "

" Dstew I wasn't quoting Biblical scripture I was paraphrasing from the Analects of Confucius, Book XV, 23--Tzu-kung asked saying, Is there any single saying that one can act upon all day and every day? The Master said, Perhaps the saying about consideration. 'Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you.' "

" dstew66 wrote on May 11, 2009 10:20 PM to shumphreys:

I find it interesting that you quote scripture, yet you quote the mirror image of what it says. That is exactly how the enemy works. Satan knows the scriptures,

Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

and he misquotes them like you do.

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall NOT surely die: "

(EXACTLY! Thank you dstew66!) "

" Interestingly enough,
shumphreys wrote on May 8, 2009 11:54 AM:
" That is what this site and my Letters to the Editor are about Kamfong: teach people the TRUTH, to dispell lies and misinterpretations, open up free and thoughtful dialogue. "

(Yeah, right, shumphreys truth, which IS lies and misinterpretations of a false prophet = satan.) "

" I just wonder, if Susan believes when we die we all just go to the ground for the worms (I'm sure I saw her make that statement in another post), why spend all this time arguing over religions??? If your eternity doesn't depend on what you believe or how you behave, why bother? "

" jrhendren, my statistics about evangelicals and divorce are from Barna. Since I mention these stats frequently, I don't always cite the source. If you go to their site, or Google "Barna and divorce statistics" you will find all that you need to know. Yes, evangelical "born-again" Christians divorce as much as anyone else--often more so. And not just for reasons of adultery, either--but check it out for yourself. Oddly, Christians of the born-again variety divorce more than those belonging to mainline denominations--go figure.

You probably call yourself a Bible-believing Christian that takes God's law seriously--and literally. But you and people like you do not want to take what he said about divorce literally. Although the scholars who worked with the Catholic Study Bible interpret the Matthew clause in a much more consistent way than those who provide commentary for the NIV--you and most other evangelicals want to believe that it must be wrong.

You are doing EXACTLY the same thing re. divorce as people who interpret Scripture in such a way as to allow for gay marriage. I'm divorced or someone I love is--God doesn't really condemn divorce, does he?

Let's remove the blinders, please--or maybe that log in your eye?

I've seen interesting results from all of this. I attended a church which had a number of divorced people in leadership positions. (Not all of them were divorced because of adultery, either.) What fascinated me was that they circulated a petition in church urging the membership to fight for the marriage amendment and support the sanctity of marriage--what a joke!

On the church's website, a short profile is written about one of the leaders. It's mentioned that this person has a spouse and children--however, children from a previous marriage are not mentioned at all.

Oh, and when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally--I don't know who you are. I am referring to those who call themselves Bible-believing Christians.

Actually, many are only Bible-believing only when it is convenient to be--such as when condemning homosexuality. That's easy, because gay folk are Those Other People. It is sad that you personally cannot acknowledge the hypocrisy of condemning homosexuality yet simultaneously accepting divorce. I feel fairly confident that you would welcome divorced and divorced/remarried people into your congregation. However, I rather doubt that a homosexual couple would be welcome there. What you can't seem to accept is that the divorced couple's relationship is as forbidden as the homosexual couple's relationship is. "

" i'm starting a movement protesting the marriage of left-handed people. left-handed people are a menace to society and should not be able to procreate. the additional expense left-handedness imposes on our country is a bane for modern man. help me eliminate marriage for lefties!.....afterall, they're not like us.

www.ihatelefties.org "

" Oh, jrhendren, I was not implying that you don't love your homosexual relatives. I was only implying that you are a hypocrite. "

" When a couple gets divorced either or both of them can repent. So, if they have repented why should they not be allowed to be members of a church? I don't know of any church who would keep a homosexual from attending if the homosexual repented and honestly wanted to be converted from sin to salvation. If the homosexual just wants acceptance and to continue living a homosexual lifestyle then I can see why a church might not welcome them. It goes against what the church believes in. If the homosexual doesn't agree with the teachings of the church why would they be there in the first place? It would be logical to assume that if they didn't agree with the basics that they are in disagreement and prone to discourage or dissuade others from truth. Like it or not a Pastor has an entire congregation to think about not just one person. Love the sinner but hate the sin. Pastors do more than just preach from a pulpit on Sunday mornings. They also counsel couples and individuals who are struggling with various issues (among other things). They can not condone sin but can and should try to encourage and enlighten the people who are dealing with sin in its multitude of forms. "

" shumphreys, You just continue spinning your lies and BS. One day you will be accountable for all of it. That is the truth no matter how you want to twist it. By the way, whoever compared you to Satan was right. "

" Mom to 3Ds because of the here and now. We are all dependant upon how we and others behave. "

" There is nothing wrong with living a loving, caring lifestyle (whether you are Homosexual, Christian or non-Christian) Mr. Hendren and that is the point of all of this. Too many Christians, you included, are neither loving nor caring, nor Christian in your actions or attitudes towards those that are different from you--homosexuals, people of other religious beliefs or of no belief. "

" Yes, M, one or both parties involved in a divorce can repent. But what does "repent" mean? Surely it means not just saying, "I'm sorry" but also bringing one's life into compliance with God's word, right? That would mean that the divorced person is NOT to remarry.

Since God has forbidden the divorced to remarry, if that person does choose to marry again, the second marriage is not lawful in the sight of God. (Just as a homosexual marriage is not lawful in the sight of God.) According to the Bible, divorced persons who marry again are living in sin--no less so than Adam and Steve down the street.

Homosexuals are told that to repent means to stop sinning--in other words, they must leave their partner. To be consistent, divorced Christians who have remarried should be told to separate from their new spouses.

That was done years ago, but divorce has become so widely accepted you never hear that now. "

" There is NO argument or discussion here. The God of the universe clearly states how He made marriage to be. I've never found a Scripture where He defines how a marital relationship should be between a homosexual couple, as Proverbs 31 & Ephesians 5:22-33 defines a heterosexual couple. Take your arguments up with Him instead...although He WILL win. "

" 061287 wrote on May 12, 2009 2:39 PM:
" There is NO argument or discussion here. The God of the universe clearly states how He made marriage to be. I've never found a Scripture where He defines how a marital relationship should be between a homosexual couple, as Proverbs 31 & Ephesians 5:22-33 defines a heterosexual couple. Take your arguments up with Him instead...although He WILL win. """""



he doesn't exist.... "

" Everyone keeps referencing the bible. Is there no other forms of reference to your stories? No other written facts from Jesus' times? Like death certificates, actual sentences from the trial, execution, burial? No? Wonder why? You all can believe in your fairy tales all you want. I just get sick and tired of your constant drive to shove your myths and legends down my throat and insist that I live in your deleriums. I don't like your god! There are way too many contradictions:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God

If he is the only one, what is he jealous of???? AND....

Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh
(Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians
5:21).

So, which is it? Why is there 2 different rules here? Why is it that God holds us to stricter rules than he cannot even hold to himself? "

" Sorry 161287 as I said there isn't any place in the Bible that says marriage is ONLY between man and woman. The passages you site: Proverbs 31 are about the duties of a wife and Ephesians 22-30 again about the duties of husband and wife. Nowhere does it say that is the ONLY way it HAS to be. "

" Oops that should have been 016287,my fingers don't always hit the right keys! "

" M I am accountable today and everyday, and so are you. AND that is the point, it isn't about life in the hereafter, it is about living a goodly life today. I speak up for those who can't or won't speak for themselves, for those who are in need,for those who are persecuted for being different, who do you speak for? Your self? "

" Hendren, if you've managed to wade through all these comments...you referred me to I Corinthians 7, and I have no idea why since it certainly does not support your liberal attitude towards divorce.

"To the married I give this instruction (not I but the Lord): A wife should not separate from her husband--and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife."

Notice--no escape clause.

Paul goes on to say that believers should not divorce unbelievers, either, if the unbelievers are willing to stay married. If there is separation, it must be the unbeliever's decision to separate. The Christian is not to divorce the unbeliever. "

" You thumpers are gonna love this one. Miss California said that Satan was behind the gay marriage question. Who would have thought Satan would have attended a beauty contest? lol! "

" shumphreys: Will you never learn? The only reason I ever posted anything in regards to Rebecca's letter is because your twisted version of God, the Bible, life and the afterlife should not be left sitting there for someone who may actually be questioning religion or the Bible in earnest. So, I suppose I am speaking FOR someone other than myself. I feel it is appropriate to leave you with one final scripture...should have sooner... & don't bother arguing about whether women fall into this category...you definitely qualify..."Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge." Proverbs 14.7 "

" 'Gay' gene claim suddenly vanishes
American Psychological Association revises statement on homosexuality

A new publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene.

The activist researchers themselves have reluctantly reached that conclusion. There is no gay gene. There is no simple biological pathway to homosexuality.

http://www.narth.com/docs/popmusic.html "

" LOL. Cute, Vanatta. For those who don't know, NARTH is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Nice neutral source, kind of like gays quoting the Human Rights Campaign. "NARTH upholds the rights of individuals with unwanted homosexual attraction to receive effective psychological care and the right of professionals to offer that care." I'm sure NARTH would be open to an unbiased scientific study of homosexuality, riiiiight. Is "live and let live" too difficult for both sides to consider? Gays don't have to force people who think homosexuality is "a sin" to decide it's not, and the latter group doesn't have to "convert" gays. MYOB. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 12, 2009 6:40 AM:
" Genesis 2:4 "In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground; but a stream would rise from the earth, and water the whole face of the ground--then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being. And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east; and there he put he man whom he had formed......" Try starting at the beginning and don't take the passage out of context! "

I am not that would be you. The Scriptures in context still go along with what I said. The only difference is in your version, you leave out the word "had" that appears in the Scriptures. That little word shows that the man was created after, just as the previous Genesis version shows. Here is what is said:
"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The truth is using the Scriptures as a whole shows the creation of Genesis 1 and 2 are indeed the same. Adam and Eve are just basically the flash back into the creation days. It really is that simple. "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 12, 2009 11:06 AM:
" jrhendren, my statistics about evangelicals and divorce are from Barna. Since I mention these stats frequently, I don't always cite the source. If you go to their site, or Google "Barna and divorce statistics" you will find all that you need to know.

I did just that and found from your source, "Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28%), evangelicals (26%), upscale adults (22%), Asians (20%) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and political matters (28%).
Born again Christians who are not evangelical were indistinguishable from the national average on the matter of divorce: 33% have been married and divorced. The survey did not determine if the divorce occurred before or after the person had become born again. However, previous research by Barna has shown that less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage.

Notice the part regarding divorce before or after becoming a christian, that previous research had shown "less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage." Meaning it was part of their old self, their sinful self. That sin was wiped away in God's eyes. What a might and awesome God we serve.

Yes, evangelical "born-again" Christians divorce as much as anyone else--often more so.

To bad your stats, and those you sited from do not agree.


You probably call yourself a Bible-believing Christian that takes God's law seriously--and literally. But you and people like you do not want to take what he said about divorce literally.

I am a bible-believeing Christian, and do you read what I actually write or make it up as you go along? I have already stated that divorce is a sin in fact what I said was, "As for sin, all sin is sin." I have never condoned divorce, I have also not said it was the unforgivable sin. I have said that it is God who judges our salvation, not one another.

Although the scholars who worked with the Catholic Study Bible interpret the Matthew clause in a much more consistent way than those who provide commentary for the NIV--you and most other evangelicals want to believe that it must be wrong.

So now we get the the real point of your problem. It's not divorce, but Catholicism vs. Christianity.

You are doing EXACTLY the same thing re. divorce as people who interpret Scripture in such a way as to allow for gay marriage. I'm divorced or someone I love is--God doesn't really condemn divorce, does he?

I am doing nothing of the sort you should really go back and re-read what I have said on the matter.

I've seen interesting results from all of this. I attended a church which had a number of divorced people in leadership positions. (Not all of them were divorced because of adultery, either.) What fascinated me was that they circulated a petition in church urging the membership to fight for the marriage amendment and support the sanctity of marriage--what a joke!

How many were divorced before coming to Christ? Oh and who is now judging others?

On the church's website, a short profile is written about one of the leaders. It's mentioned that this person has a spouse and children--however, children from a previous marriage are not mentioned at all.

Still not in disagreement, with you. Their are problems with divorce in the church, and the world. People tend to get married and then when it gets hard, call it quits. I personally believe that that is because that is now how we think of things. Oh I am tired of this cell phone so I will get a new one syndrome, if you will.

Oh, and when I said "you" I didn't mean you personally--I don't know who you are. I am referring to those who call themselves Bible-believing Christians.

You said, "If you are divorced and remarried, as so many Christian evangelicals are, by Biblical standards you are living in sin--pure and simple. Maybe you need to leave the homosexuals alone and clean your own house for awhile. Or at least pray about it. " That sure looks like you were talking to me directly, but I will take your word for it.

Actually, many are only Bible-believing only when it is convenient to be--such as when condemning homosexuality. That's easy, because gay folk are Those Other People. It is sad that you personally cannot acknowledge the hypocrisy of condemning homosexuality yet simultaneously accepting divorce. I feel fairly confident that you would welcome divorced and divorced/remarried people into your congregation. However, I rather doubt that a homosexual couple would be welcome there. What you can't seem to accept is that the divorced couple's relationship is as forbidden as the homosexual couple's relationship is. "

You really do not read my posts do you? I will say it again for you. I do not condemn homosexuals, just the act, as in Scripture. I have family that is gay and my closest friend is gay. My family is welcome into my home anytime, and we attended the same church at one time. Quit trying to put words that I am not saying into my mouth. I condemn sin, not the person. Divorce is wrong, just as murder, adultery, lying, homosexual acts, and other sins. Sin is sin, just as God has said. We categorize it, but all sin leads to death. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 11, 2009 7:44 PM:
" Now than Deep Thoughts, if you don't like having your beliefs challenged than don't challenge other peoples beliefs.

Once again Pot or Kettle.

You know that is what is meant by the "do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." You can NOT prove that God exists, that the Bible is the word of God, or that Jesus rose from the dead. Truth has proof, beliefs have no proofs, only hopes. "

Just as you can not prove that God does not exist, that the Bible is not the word of God, or that Jesus did not rise from the dead. As you say "Truth has proof" "

" shumphreys wrote on May 12, 2009 4:00 PM:
"...there isn't any place in the Bible that says marriage is ONLY between man and woman.

First you have God telling Adam and Eve to be fruitful and multiply, which is something a same sex marriage can not do naturally.

As for Scriptures:

"The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.", "So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called 'woman,'for she was taken out of man." ,"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." - Genesis 2:18,21-24

"You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant." - Malachi 2:14

"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." - Matthew 19:4-6

Sounds a lot like only a man and woman to me.

The passages you site: Proverbs 31 are about the duties of a wife and Ephesians 22-30 again about the duties of husband and wife. Nowhere does it say that is the ONLY way it HAS to be. "

Someone is really stretching now. "So what if it only speaks of a man and woman when referring to marriages, and the duties of husband and wife. That does not mean it is the only way." Uh yes it does. Why is same-sex marriage not mentioned, because it is. It is in that true marriage is spoken of. God is telling us same-sex marriage is wrong by not referring to it. By telling us this is what marriage is, he is saying and this is what marriage is not. Again it really is that simple of a concept. "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 12, 2009 4:12 PM:
"Hendren, if you've managed to wade through all these comments...you referred me to I Corinthians 7, and I have no idea why since it certainly does not support your liberal attitude towards divorce.

My liberal attitude that is funny. How many times do you have to tell someone you do not agree with divorce for them to get it. Jesus does say that divorce is exceptable in the case of unfaithfulness. Sincwe you read 1 Corithinas 7 then you seen where Paul tells the church, "Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him." That answers your early remarks about divorced church leaders. That being said, verse 15- 16 says, "But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?" Now Paul is saying this not the Lord he states, but if God did not agree, then it would not be here, and all that Paul ever said would have to be taken as his opinion. Since God spoke through Paul, we must take this as factual and God is in agreement. Look all throughout the Scriptures, if a "man of God" spoke when it was not God's will, he was punished. Why wasn't Paul, if this was not part of God's will? As for my liberal attitude. How do you get that? I have said divorce is wrong except in the case of unfaithfulness just as Christ himself said, "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." - Matthew 19:8-9 Christ is speaking of marital divorce between a man and woman, who has cheated on one another. If they divorce for Hollywood reasons, they are in sin. You are not allowed to get divorced, "because it started getting tough." To bad suck it up. It really saddens me to see so many people rush into marriage. Me and my wife did, and at first it was a rocky road. I am so glad the church I attend will not marry a couple until they go through marriage counseling. That is something I encourage all those engaged to do. I believe it would truly save a lot of marriages from divorce. I would hope even you would agree with me on that. Marriage is taken to lightly now days. As I said earlier, it's that whole "I want a new one" attitude we have now. Marriage is supposed to be for a life time, not a time. How quick people forget that little part of their vows, "...for better or for worst, through the good times and bad, in sickness and in health till death do us part." "

" Harry Potter wrote on May 12, 2009 8:02 PM:
" You thumpers are gonna love this one. Miss California said that Satan was behind the gay marriage question. Who would have thought Satan would have attended a beauty contest? lol! "

Perez Hilton changed his name? LOL

Why thumpers Harry? Why does someone who has a differing point of view need to be called derogatory remarks? This is a serious question not trying to argue, or anything of the sort. I would re ridiculed if I used derogatories toward blacks, gays, liberals, Asians, or another race or sex. So why must it be done? Why not "You "bible-believers" or something of that sort, are gonna love this one. Miss California..."? "

" I have learned M but it is obvious you haven't. It doesn't matter what religion you follow or whether you follow any ALL that matters are your day to day actions, how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them, especially those that are different. If you don't want to have your religious beliefs challenged than don't challenge anyone elses. If you don't like hearing that your sacred text isn't the absolute TRUTH don't denigrate the sacred texts of other religions. There are many pathways through the woods and they ALL lead eventually to the same place, back to that from which we came, ALL paths are of equal value (they can help you become a better person or they can hold you back) each one of us has to follow the path that is right for us wherever it takes us. "

" It was wrong in the first place to think that there would be a single "gay gene", as in a singular gene that determines sexuality. That comes from someone who has no understanding of DNA or genetics or how things entertwine and work together, how traits are turned on or off. That there is no singular gay gene doesn't mean that homosexuality is not biologically caused. "

" An example of interaction of genes is seen in Labrador Retrievers. The Black/yellow trait is carried on one gene and the Chocolate trait is carried on a different gene. The Black trait is dominant and the Chocolate trait is dependant upon what is carried on the black/yellow gene as well as the chocolate gene. Two genes interacting to determine coat color. NO single gene. "

" Becky wrote on May 12, 2009 4:00 PM:
" Everyone keeps referencing the bible. Is there no other forms of reference to your stories? No other written facts from Jesus' times? Like death certificates, actual sentences from the trial, execution, burial? No? Wonder why? You all can believe in your fairy tales all you want. I just get sick and tired of your constant drive to shove your myths and legends down my throat and insist that I live in your deleriums. I don't like your god! There are way too many contradictions:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God

If he is the only one, what is he jealous of???? AND....

Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh
(Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians
5:21).

So, which is it? Why is there 2 different rules here? Why is it that God holds us to stricter rules than he cannot even hold to himself? "


Becky, your confusion is understandable. Reading it at its face there appears to be a contradiction. Lets start out with the dictionary definition of jealous.

jeal⋅ous
adjective
1. feeling resentment against someone because of that person's rivalry, success, or advantages (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his rich brother.
2. feeling resentment because of another's success, advantage, etc. (often fol. by of): He was jealous of his brother's wealth.
3. characterized by or proceeding from suspicious fears or envious resentment: a jealous rage; jealous intrigues.
4. inclined to or troubled by suspicions or fears of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims: a jealous husband.
5. solicitous or vigilant in maintaining or guarding something: The American people are jealous of their freedom.
6. Bible. intolerant of unfaithfulness or rivalry: The Lord is a jealous God.

If you look at these definitions, they can be categorized into two different types of jealousy. The first 3 definitions fit into one category, the last 3 fit into another type.

The common term in the first 3 definitions is resentment. Resentment toward someone because of their success or advantage or feeling resentment towards their success or advantage. In the third definition, we see the word envious. That means to covet. That is against the law of the ten commandments.

Exo 20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his asz, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

What Paul is describing in Galatians 5:20 are things that violate the laws of God (assuming you understand the Messiah didnt do away with them). What jealous means in this context is Thou shalt not covet.

Turning to the passage from Exodus:

Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exo 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Exo 20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

In order to understand this sort of jealousy, we have to understand the relationship of the Creator with His creation.

Isa 54:5 For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Jer 3:20 Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the LORD.

Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they broke, although I was a husband unto them, saith the LORD:

Eze 16:32 But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband!

This relationship is described as a husband and wife relationship, with God being the husband and his chosen people being the wife, or bride. God is a spirit. We are not. In order for us to understand spiritual things He gives us physical examples. Most all of us understand the husband-wife relationship. This is another reason that God does not condone or accept same sex marriages. It is not part of His image. That is the image of fallen man.

Having an understanding of husband wife relationships, we understand that if the wife strays to another and commits adultery, the husband will be jealous, and he has every right to be. That is his wife.

If you look back at Exodus 20:3-4, you will see what causes this jealousy. Having other gods and worshipping graven images. This is idolatry, and idolatry is spiritual adultery. When we, as the chosen children of God, worship other gods, we are committing adultery towards our Husband. Therefore, He is a jealous God/Husband. Definition number 5 above says vigilant in maintaining or guarding something. What husband is not vigilant in maintaining and guarding his marital relationship? "

" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

The Word is the Scriptures, not the Law itself.


I see, so the pavement is the road, not the asphalt itself. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

I have explained to you regarding the fulfillment of the Law by Christ, and Paul telling us that the Law was given in order to know what sin was.

Sin was? Dont you mean sin is? Has the definition of sin changed?

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

If you claim that the law defines what sin was, then your argument against homosexuality is in vain. You are using a law which was to argue what is. By your own words you contradict yourself.

jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

With out the rules, the law, we basically did not know how to play the game.

Again, you speak in the past tense. Is the game over? The law STILL tells us (true believers in Messiah) how to play the game. Sin is STILL the transgression of the law.

Once more, without the law of forbidden sexual relations your argument against homosexuality is in vain. By saying the law has ended, you say the prohibition against same sex relations is ended.

That seems somewhat hypocritical to me. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

If Christ did not come and fulfill the Law, he lied, since he also says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17

Are you not the one who is constantly screaming : CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

If abolish means to put an end to, then in context can fulfill also mean to end?

Think not that I have come to abolish (end) the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish (end) them but to fulfill (end) them.

He didnt come to end them, but he came to end them?

Your explanation makes no sense. Especially in light of the fact that you preach against homosexuality, which comes straight from the Torah. You preach the law, yet claim the law has ended.

Yeshua didnt lie. The lie is the man made, church doctrine that has been handed down from generation to generation and has now landed in your lap. You seem like a fairly intelligent individual from what I have read of your postings. I would challenge you to start looking at what the scriptures actually say as opposed to what you have been taught they say. You will find a tremendous difference. "

" Jrhendren wrote, "Notice the part regarding divorce before or after becoming a christian, that previous research had shown "less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage." Meaning it was part of their old self, their sinful self. That sin was wiped away in God's eyes. What a might and awesome God we serve."

You misread and/or misinterpreted Barna's information. What you're quoting here simply refers back to another well-known truth--most people who accept Christ do it during childhood/youth.

Barna indicates that nearly half of all Americans who accept Jesus Christ as their savior do so before reaching the age of 13 (43%), and that two out of three born again Christians (64%) made that commitment to Christ before their 18th birthday. One out of eight born again people (13%) made their profession of faith while 18 to 21 years old. Less than one out of every four born again Christians (23%) embraced Christ after their twenty-first birthday. Barna noted that these figures are consistent with similar studies it has conducted during the past twenty years.

Sorry, Hendren, you can't wiggle out of the obvious quite that easily. You would like to think it was part of their "old self," wouldn't you? Too bad, but you misunderstood what was being said.

From your other comment, even if you tease out "evangelicals" from "born-again" Christians," and get the 26%, that's still one in four.

"So now we get the the real point of your problem. It's not divorce, but Catholicism vs. Christianity."

There is no Catholicism vs. Christianity; Catholicism IS Christianity, at least one division of it. As I said before, you need to study the history of your faith OUTSIDE the little bit that you've learned.

Yes, your view of divorce is quite liberal. Even if your interpretation of "porneia" were correct, why do you think Jesus forgot to mention it in Mark? Or why does Paul forget to mention it in I Corinthians 7? Seems like it would be important enough to remember....

His emphasis was on NOT divorcing rather than providing an exception. Moses had provided the exception, Jesus, with his "but I say to you" was taking back the sacred. You have twisted the meaning of Christ's statements, looking for a loophole.

You just can't handle divorced people being on the same plane as a committed gay couple, can you?

And you have ignored the obvious, that most evangelical Christians who divorce are divorcing/marrying again for reasons other than adultery. Are you going to tell these people, who technically are living in sin (their subsequent marriage, forbidden in Scripture thus in the eyes of God, unlawful), that they are not going to inherit the kingdom of God? Probably not....

I don't expect you to admit the obvious. But I can tell you that plenty of homosexuals are aware of this blatant hypocrisy in evangelical circles, and that is one reason why they have no wish to listen to your religious beliefs. "

" Mr. Hendren I didn't leave out the word "had" in Genesis 2 you can blame the VERSION of the Bible that I use. Now whose version is correct and whose version isn't? Or are both incorrect? Or are both metaphorical/allegorical in which concepts of correct and incorrect don't apply? Was your version of the Bible written specifically in an attempt to get around the discrepancy? Oh and Mr. Hendren I am not the only one that noticed the difference between Genesis 1 and 2 so there must be many other Bibles out there that have my translation and not yours. "

" And Mr. Hendren one doesn't have to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. The proof if it is important to you is on you to prove that something exists. "

" The key word to your argument for male/female marriage is as you said it "sounds like". That isn't evidence Mr. Hendren, that is reading more into the words than what is there. That is making an ASSUMPTION, that this was Gods only intention. No where does it expressly say that male can't marry male or female marry female. Note also that there are also many different kinds of marriage mentioned in the Bible (not just the one man one woman model)polygamous marriage, Genesis 16:3Hagar was Abram's second wife while Sarah was still alive. Levirate Marriage: a man would marry his dead brother's wife Deuteronomy 25: 5-10 Then there is the problem of the story of David and Jonathan, I Samuel 18:21 Jonathan's father referred to David as his son in law. "Sounds like" same sex marriage to me. "

" so....is abraham lincoln wandering around in hell because he was bi-sexual? "

" Does David marrying Sauls's daughter Michal sound like same sex marrriage? Or does David's lust for Bathsheba sound like a homosexual? (Vickie) Does God's forgiveness and acceptance of David after adultery and murder to cover it up sound like God can't forgive an adulter? God forgives homosexuals too if they confess their sin and repent. Homosexual marriage is not approved in the Bible. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 9:15 AM:
" Becky wrote on May 12, 2009 4:00 PM:
" Everyone keeps referencing the bible. Is there no other forms of reference to your stories? No other written facts from Jesus' times? Like death certificates, actual sentences from the trial, execution, burial? No? Wonder why? You all can believe in your fairy tales all you want. I just get sick and tired of your constant drive to shove your myths and legends down my throat and insist that I live in your deleriums. I don't like your god! There are way too many contradictions:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God

If he is the only one, what is he jealous of????

There are many false gods we worship. For some its money, cars, power, and a lifestyle. For others they are actual people like a president, celebrity, Buddha, Mohammad, or other being.

Jealousy is listed by the apostle Paul as a work of the flesh
(Galatians 5:20); it will keep one from entering into heaven (Galatians
5:21).
So, which is it? Why is there 2 different rules here? Why is it that God holds us to stricter rules than he cannot even hold to himself? "

The simple answer is is because he has that right. He is the one true God, the one who created us. His jealousy is righteous where are is not. We are jealous over things of the flesh, where his jealousy stems over the things of the spirit. In Galatians God Paul is speaking of our sinful nature. The fact that we put the flesh before spiritual things. God created all the things that we get jealous about, and then we show him no respect, no homage for what we have. We just say, "I want what he has." His jealousy is not of the flesh as ours, and therefor is an entirely different type of jealousy. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 10:42 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

The Word is the Scriptures, not the Law itself.

I did not see where I said this, but it is true. The Word of God is the Scriptures, and not just the Law. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 11:08 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

I have explained to you regarding the fulfillment of the Law by Christ, and Paul telling us that the Law was given in order to know what sin was.

Sin was? Dont you mean sin is? Has the definition of sin changed?

Mal 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

I meant was in the sense that that we learn what sin was when the Law was given. We knew there was a right and a wrong. Paul says, "Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Galatians 3:23-25, and "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law." - Romans 7:7

If you claim that the law defines what sin was, then your argument against homosexuality is in vain. You are using a law which was to argue what is. By your own words you contradict yourself.

No I am using the words of Paul. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Unlike some I have said it is as the Scriptures say, the sin is the act, not the person, or feminine men.

jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

With out the rules, the law, we basically did not know how to play the game.

Again, you speak in the past tense. Is the game over? The law STILL tells us (true believers in Messiah) how to play the game. Sin is STILL the transgression of the law.

Once again we are no longer under the Law. This is not in the past tense. The rules have been revised. Christ reinstated a large part of the Law in his teachings. He even went made them stricter in some cases. The biggest problem is is that the Law itself had changed. Over the years the ruler of the Law had added to the Law even though it was never mentioned by God. We can not be saved through the Law, only by grace, and faith in Christ. That is the reason Christ came. He came to fulfill the Law, and make salvation possible.

Once more, without the law of forbidden sexual relations your argument against homosexuality is in vain. By saying the law has ended, you say the prohibition against same sex relations is ended.

That seems somewhat hypocritical to me. "

I have said no such thing, as I have pointed out. Homosexual sin, not the person, is mentioned in the New Testament also. The act of homosexuality is forbidden by God, not me but God himself. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 11:26 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

If Christ did not come and fulfill the Law, he lied, since he also says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." - Matthew 5:17

Are you not the one who is constantly screaming : CONTEXT! CONTEXT! CONTEXT!

If abolish means to put an end to, then in context can fulfill also mean to end?

Think not that I have come to abolish (end) the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish (end) them but to fulfill (end) them.

He didnt come to end them, but he came to end them?

Your explanation makes no sense.

Actually why explanation makes perfect sense when cross-referenced, and taken in context. You are the one trying to make the Scriptures say something they do not. You are the one trying to make two different words say the same thing. The Greek word for fulfill used here does not mean end as you would like it to do. You are the one calling Christ and Paul liers not me.

Especially in light of the fact that you preach against homosexuality, which comes straight from the Torah. You preach the law, yet claim the law has ended.

I preach the truth, and have shown you that homosexuality is not just in the Law.

Yeshua didnt lie. The lie is the man made, church doctrine that has been handed down from generation to generation and has now landed in your lap. You seem like a fairly intelligent individual from what I have read of your postings. I would challenge you to start looking at what the scriptures actually say as opposed to what you have been taught they say. You will find a tremendous difference. "

I have done my own research into the Scriptures for over 20 years, that included my formal education. I have learned to question everything someone says, as the Scriptures say to do. I have looked into the original languages. I have always used all the Scriptures and not just the parts I want. I have gone into the Scriptures before and found I was wrong, and am the first to admit when I am. Only this time the Scriptures agree with my conclusions. The New Covenant says those committing homosexual acts will not inherit the kingdom of God. They also tell us we are under grace, and not the Law. Facts are facts, and can not be changed no matter how much one wants them to. "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 13, 2009 2:19 PM:
" Jrhendren wrote, "Notice the part regarding divorce before or after becoming a christian, that previous research had shown "less than two out of every ten people who accept Christ as their savior do so after their first marriage." Meaning it was part of their old self, their sinful self. That sin was wiped away in God's eyes. What a might and awesome God we serve."

You misread and/or misinterpreted Barna's information. What you're quoting here simply refers back to another well-known truth--most people who accept Christ do it during childhood/youth.

I quoted it directly. Try again.
Sorry, Hendren, you can't wiggle out of the obvious quite that easily. You would like to think it was part of their "old self," wouldn't you? Too bad, but you misunderstood what was being said.

I am not trying to wiggle out of anything. I looked at the site you said to and then copied directly what it said. How is that wiggling?

From your other comment, even if you tease out "evangelicals" from "born-again" Christians," and get the 26%, that's still one in four.

"So now we get the the real point of your problem. It's not divorce, but Catholicism vs. Christianity."

There is no Catholicism vs. Christianity; Catholicism IS Christianity, at least one division of it. As I said before, you need to study the history of your faith OUTSIDE the little bit that you've learned.

Catholicism and Christianity have many similarities, but are not the same.

Yes, your view of divorce is quite liberal. Even if your interpretation of "porneia" were correct, why do you think Jesus forgot to mention it in Mark? Or why does Paul forget to mention it in I Corinthians 7? Seems like it would be important enough to remember....

Since each gospel was written for an intended reason, Mark did not see it as needed. Others did, mention it however.

His emphasis was on NOT divorcing rather than providing an exception. Moses had provided the exception, Jesus, with his "but I say to you" was taking back the sacred. You have twisted the meaning of Christ's statements, looking for a loophole.

He said, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." - Matthew 5:32. Read it again, "...except for marital unfaithfulness..." I will say it again, divorce is wrong, as all sin is wrong. Jesus himself said it was wrong, but in the case of marital unfaithfulness. Not me but our Lord, said it. Why are you having so much trouble with this? Why can you not understand I am not for divorce, hate divorce, and have seen divorce destroy families. It is wrong, as all sin is.

You just can't handle divorced people being on the same plane as a committed gay couple, can you?

Sin is sin, how many times co I have to say it?

And you have ignored the obvious, that most evangelical Christians who divorce are divorcing/marrying again for reasons other than adultery. Are you going to tell these people, who technically are living in sin (their subsequent marriage, forbidden in Scripture thus in the eyes of God, unlawful), that they are not going to inherit the kingdom of God? Probably not....

If the divorce was not because of unfaithfulness they are sinning. As for if they are not going to inherit the kingdom of God, I judge no ones salvation. All I can say as I would to a acting homosexual, "You are not living right, and are in danger of not inheriting the kingdom of God." As I can by Scripture if they call themselves Christians. In fact, I had neighbors who lived together, and called themselves Christians. One divorced their spouse because of unfaithfulness, and the others had died. I told them they needed to get married or one of them move out because they were living in sin. I like our Lord, hate divorce. God never intended on divorce, but he told Moses if it happened it should only be for this reason, and Christ in his sermon said the same thing. Divorce is supposed to be forever, and if you divorce for any reason, besides marital unfaithfulness causes her to commit adultery. - paraphrase of Matthew 5:32

I don't expect you to admit the obvious. But I can tell you that plenty of homosexuals are aware of this blatant hypocrisy in evangelical circles, and that is one reason why they have no wish to listen to your religious beliefs. "

That is their right not to listen, that does not make it wrong however. I can not help but believe that this subject touches you closer to home then you let on. That of course is your business and only your business. I just wish you would see, that not everyone believes as you perceive them to. God does not hate the homosexual, nor the divorcee, he hates the sin. God loves all, as do I, or at least I try. Their is no hypocrisy as once again, all sin is sin and leads to death, and we have all sinned one way or another. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 13, 2009 3:35 PM:
" Mr. Hendren I didn't leave out the word "had" in Genesis 2 you can blame the VERSION of the Bible that I use. Now whose version is correct and whose version isn't? Or are both incorrect?

Well when you look at the most reliable versions, (versions-more then one), the word had is there.

Or are both metaphorical/allegorical in which concepts of correct and incorrect don't apply? Was your version of the Bible written specifically in an attempt to get around the discrepancy?

You really stretch to get things your way don't you. That's right all the other versions of the Bible were written to get around your version. Give me a break. Do you need to take a break or something, your making no sense now.

Oh and Mr. Hendren I am not the only one that noticed the difference between Genesis 1 and 2 so there must be many other Bibles out there that have my translation and not yours. "

Actually, most have my version. Try reading something on how the Scriptures came about. They are quite fascinating a read. If you like history, you like them.


shumphreys wrote on May 13, 2009 3:39 PM:
" And Mr. Hendren one doesn't have to prove that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist. The proof if it is important to you is on you to prove that something exists. "

If you are so sure God does not exist, then why do you quote from his word in your arguments? In fact, why do you argue about him at all? Why not sit back and watch us "idiots" make fools of ourselves? Sounds to me like someone has some doubts in herself. In order for you to be 100% right, you indeed would have to show the non-existence. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 13, 2009 3:53 PM:
" The key word to your argument for male/female marriage is as you said it "sounds like". That isn't evidence Mr. Hendren, that is reading more into the words than what is there. That is making an ASSUMPTION, that this was Gods only intention. No where does it expressly say that male can't marry male or female marry female.

It does by not saying it is okay. Every example of marriage is between man and woman. You would be the one trying to read into it. You are the one ASSUMING that God had another way of marriage he just forgot to mention it. Come on, your better then that. You say "Christians" add to the Scriptures then do the same thing.

Note also that there are also many different kinds of marriage mentioned in the Bible (not just the one man one woman model)polygamous marriage, Genesis 16:3Hagar was Abram's second wife while Sarah was still alive. Levirate Marriage: a man would marry his dead brother's wife Deuteronomy 25: 5-10

Yep and in all cases it was man and woman, thank you for proving my point.

Then there is the problem of the story of David and Jonathan, I Samuel 18:21 Jonathan's father referred to David as his son in law. "Sounds like" same sex marriage to me. "

You forgot the first part of the verse I will post it for you.
"Saul thought, "I will give her to him that she may become a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him " Therefore Saul said to David, "For a second time you may be my son-in-law today."

Married Jonathan's sister making his a son-in-law, sounds like man-woman to me. Now as for a "second time you may be may son-in-law today." Saul is referring this: "Then Saul said to David, "Here is my older daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife, only be a valiant man for me and fight the LORD'S battles " For Saul thought, "My hand shall not be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him." But David said to Saul, "Who am I, and what is my life or my father's family in Israel, that I should be the king's son-in-law?" - 1 Samuel 18:17-18 Looks like if you would have looked back a few verses you would have seen what was meant my the passage. That Saul had already offered his older daughter to David. Sorry but have to say you were caught in that web you tried to deceive. "

" father bob wrote on May 13, 2009 4:18 PM:
" so....is abraham lincoln wandering around in hell because he was bi-sexual? "

Do not know since he was not bi-sexual. Maybe you should do some studying of history and a person before you comment it would help your arguments. Except you only enter the conversation after its began with little comments that make no sense, so never mind. "

" The point Mr. Hendren, since you don't "get" it, is that a polygamus marriage is not ONE man ONE woman, it is ONE man and MANY women, quite different. Now about David and Jonathan, the rest of the story. Lets see they are described as embracing, weeping together, hugging and kissing each other. The Hebrew words used to describe their relationship are the same words used to describe opposite sex relationships. They make time alone together and affirm their love for each other. They both did eventually marry women, but as the example Her Child offerred "Gay" men do marry the opposite sex because of societal pressures and do try to live a "straight" life. It doesn't change who they are, they TRUE identity. The story is a great one, when you read the whole thing. "

" Mr. Hendren how many times do I have to tell you that eventhough the Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God it is still a good book and vital for everyone to read and understand IF they want to have an understanding of where we have been, where we are going as a nation. For better and worse religion has played and will continue to play a major role in our world and people need to have a basic understanding ALL the worlds religions. It is full of great human insight into how people behave and ought to behave. AND that is why I continue to argue about "God", and how people abuse and misuse the Bible and their religion to justify the persecution of those that are different. "

" You have no way of knowing whether Lincoln was gay or bisexual, JR. There is evidence to suggest that he may have been -- his passionate letters to the young man with whom he shared a bed for four years, for example. Read C.A. Tripp's "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" and educate yourself on some history. "

" shumphreys: I will believe the word of God in its ENTIRETY before I will believe your words. You seem to want to distort His words to fit your needs.


So does Satan. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 14, 2009 2:38 AM:
" father bob wrote on May 13, 2009 4:18 PM:
" so....is abraham lincoln wandering around in hell because he was bi-sexual? "

Do not know since he was not bi-sexual. Maybe you should do some studying of history and a person before you comment it would help your arguments. Except you only enter the conversation after its began with little comments that make no sense, so never mind. """""



LMAO!!.....did i strike a nerve?

YOU my friend need to do some research. lincoln WAS indeed bi-sexual in the very least, if not gay. america's greatest president had a long-term relationship with Joshua Speed, and shared his bed with David Derickson, captain of his bodyguards. his letters to Speed are most revealing. "

" Saying that Abraham Lincoln's being gay or bi-sexual does not fit into many evangelical Christians' schema. Therefore, this statement must be false. "

" Even though I was not involved in the conversation about Genesis 1 and 2, I would like to jump in and mention that 2:8 in the New American Standard Version (one of the most literal versions) reads:

And the LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

The New King James Version likewise reads, "The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden...."

The New International Version inserts the "had" into this passage. Some scholars believe that the NIV's use of the pluperfect tense ("had planted"), is apparently an attempt to harmonise these verses with chapter 1) and is without linguistic justification.

My Key Word Study Bible reads, "It is well known that there are actually two accounts of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis, but this need not cause us to conclude that they are incompatible....The 2 sections actually complement each other. 1:1-2:4a presents a wide-angle view of all 7 days of creation and deals with the creation of man and woman as a single act. Then in 2:4b-24 the author zooms in on the sixth day, giving details....The separate origins of man and woman are brought into sharp focus. Therefore, chapters 1 and 2 are not chronological but 2:4b-24 presents (the information) in greater detail....

Anyway, relying on one translation for understanding--or one "brand" of scholarship--is not a good idea. "

" Careful, fb. You're gonna get the right wing kooks all worked up with that one.

Here's another thought, after seeing how Bush and his chief henchman Cheney literally destroyed the Republican Party, do you think he might claim he was now a Libertarian too? I have noticed that most of the closeted gays in politics that get outed usually turn out to be Republicans. At least Barney Frank is honest about his orientation unlike Craig the toe tapper, Foley the page chaser and Limbaugh of male prostitute chaser. Wonder why that is? "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 10:46 AM:
" Saying that Abraham Lincoln's being gay or bi-sexual does not fit into many evangelical Christians' schema. Therefore, this statement must be false. """"



great observation. "

" Harry Potter wrote on May 14, 2009 2:50 PM:
"At least Barney Frank is honest about his orientation unlike Craig the toe tapper, Foley the page chaser and Limbaugh of male prostitute chaser. Wonder why that is? """""


they're playin' the DL "

" Jim1969 wrote on May 9, 2009 12:58 AM:

" Get you fire suits on because here comes some gasoline.

While I have a strong faith in God and Jesus I can not say the same thing for the Bible.


Sorry, you can't have one without the other. "

" JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 12:29 AM:
" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 10:42 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

The Word is the Scriptures, not the Law itself.

I did not see where I said this, but it is true. The Word of God is the Scriptures, and not just the Law. "

If you will scroll up to May 12 at 1:01 AM you will see where you said this. However, I noticed that when you said it this time you added the word just before the law. That I can agree with. The Law is part of the Word which is the Scriptures.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 11:08 AM:

No I am using the words of Paul. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Unlike some I have said it is as the Scriptures say, the sin is the act, not the person, or feminine men.

I understand you are using the words of Paul. Let me ask you this. What is Paul teaching from? The Book of Acts?

He is teaching from the Old Testament. The New Testament didnt exist. The Messiah, Paul, and the rest all taught from the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. That is all they had.

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

What Scriptures were the Bereans searching to see if Pauls teachings were true? Again, the only Scriptures they had were the Old Testament. The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was teaching them was true. If what Paul was teaching them could not be verified in the Old Testament, he would have been labeled a false prophet. That is the same way we have to approach the New Testament. If the New Testament teaching does not line up with what is written in the Old Testament, then the New Testament teaching is incorrect. I am not saying the New Testament is incorrect, although there are certainly errors, but the interpretation and teaching of the doctrine is incorrect.


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Once again we are no longer under the Law.

How exactly do you explain under the law?


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Christ reinstated a large part of the Law in his teachings. He even went made them stricter in some cases.

If I understand Christian doctrine, the law was nailed to the cross and that is when the law was fulfilled. How is it that the Messiah reinstated any part of the law when it had yet to be fulfilled? Does not something have to be ended BEFORE it can be reinstated?

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
The biggest problem is that the Law itself had changed.

Again, I see a slight problem here.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.

Mal 3:6 For I am Yahweh, I CHANGE NOT;

If the Word was God, and God changes not, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Word changes not. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. We are in agreement that the law is a part of the Word.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
We can not be saved through the Law, only by grace, and faith in Christ. That is the reason Christ came.

AMEN! I agree. The law does not now nor has it ever been here for salvation. Salvation has been through grace from the very beginning of time.

Gen 15:6 And he (Abram) believed in Yahweh; and he (Yahweh) counted it to him (Abram) for righteousness.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Yahweh. And Nathan said unto David, Yahweh also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We all know that David committed the sins of adultery and murder. The penalty, according to the law, is death. This is an example of grace. Grace didnt begin at the cross. Grace has always existed. So whos blood covered Davids sins. The same blood that covers yours and mine. Yahshuas! The patriarchs of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming salvation of the Messiah the same way we look back on it. That same blood covers the sins from Adam to the end of time. All we have to do is have faith. Grace has nothing to do with keeping the law. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 14, 2009 6:59 AM:
" The point Mr. Hendren, since you don't "get" it, is that a polygamus marriage is not ONE man ONE woman, it is ONE man and MANY women, quite different.

One man more then one wife. I get it. Not one man and one man or many men. Also if you look at your Biblical history mutiple marriages in most cases, not all, but most were over land, peace treaties, and such. Their are cases like that of Jacob who had more then one wife, because he was tricked, but even then he slept with one at a time.

Now about David and Jonathan, the rest of the story. Lets see they are described as embracing, weeping together, hugging and kissing each other.

They become one in the spirit the Scriptures say, but that is not one in the flesh, or had sex. They kissed and hugged. Oh no all men, especially the French are now gay. Well at least according to you again. Once again if you look at the traditions of that time, this is common. David bowed to Johnathan and they kissed three times. A common practice at that time. It was a sign of his submission and respect. I hug my brothers in Christ, does that mean I want to have "relations" with them? No, it is a sign of affection. You are talking about a friendship the same as when to friends go to war. They depended on each other, lived and died for each other. Why would you try to make something showing men that it is okay to have a softer side into something it's not. Oh that's right you are the one who said "soft" men do not inherit the kingdom.

The Hebrew words used to describe their relationship are the same words used to describe opposite sex relationships.

They are indeed the words used to show respect, humility, and submission.

They make time alone together and affirm their love for each other. They both did eventually marry women, but as the example Her Child offerred "Gay" men do marry the opposite sex because of societal pressures and do try to live a "straight" life. It doesn't change who they are, they TRUE identity. The story is a great one, when you read the whole thing. "

It is indeed a great story. A story that shows men they can be tough and yet care for their brother. David was not pressured into a "straight" life that is absurd. He became king and could have done anything he wanted. You are trying to make him into the first womanizing homosexual. You might want to look up the different meanings for the word "love". "

" The Question wrote on May 14, 2009 7:46 AM:
" You have no way of knowing whether Lincoln was gay or bisexual, JR. There is evidence to suggest that he may have been -- his passionate letters to the young man with whom he shared a bed for four years, for example. Read C.A. Tripp's "The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln" and educate yourself on some history. "

I know more of Lincoln sir then you will ever. The "evidence" you speak of has been shown to be false with motives behind it. The evidence most used is the fact that he slept in the same bed as other men. A common practice at that time, to stay warm, and the fact that their were so few beds. I know that with you since he is was a Republican he is automatically evil, but afraid you are wrong. "

" father bob wrote on May 14, 2009 9:30 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 14, 2009 2:38 AM:
" father bob wrote on May 13, 2009 4:18 PM:
" so....is abraham lincoln wandering around in hell because he was bi-sexual? "

Do not know since he was not bi-sexual. Maybe you should do some studying of history and a person before you comment it would help your arguments. Except you only enter the conversation after its began with little comments that make no sense, so never mind. """""



LMAO!!.....did i strike a nerve?

YOU my friend need to do some research. lincoln WAS indeed bi-sexual in the very least, if not gay. america's greatest president had a long-term relationship with Joshua Speed, and shared his bed with David Derickson, captain of his bodyguards. his letters to Speed are most revealing. "

You did strike a nerve, something you usually can not. The evidence had either been found to be false, and/or from people like, Larry Kramer, who had an agenda at hand. As I stated previously, I know you believe all Republicans past and present as evil, but that is not so. Their have been just as many good and bad on both sides.
I guess all those men that traveled the court circuits in those days were gay, sleeping together. Since every letter he ever wrote had affectionate tones to it whether to man or woman he must have been a real horn dog. Give me a break. Go find someone else to bother. "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 10:46 AM:
" Saying that Abraham Lincoln's being gay or bi-sexual does not fit into many evangelical Christians' schema. Therefore, this statement must be false. "

You forgot into history either. "

" father bob wrote on May 14, 2009 2:53 PM:
" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 10:46 AM:
" Saying that Abraham Lincoln's being gay or bi-sexual does not fit into many evangelical Christians' schema. Therefore, this statement must be false. """"

great observation. "

Look once again bob comments on someones comment because he can not make a full thoughtful argument on his own. "

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 1:00 PM:
" Even though I was not involved in the conversation about Genesis 1 and 2, I would like to jump in and mention that 2:8 in the New American Standard Version (one of the most literal versions) reads:

And the LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

The New King James Version likewise reads, "The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden...."

The New International Version inserts the "had" into this passage. Some scholars believe that the NIV's use of the pluperfect tense ("had planted"), is apparently an attempt to harmonise these verses with chapter 1) and is without linguistic justification.

Read the passage in full. "The LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden...." Eastward in Eden? Wait, in order to plant a garden in Eden then Eden must have already been there. If it was already there, then it had already been created before the man. Which once again goes along with the original creation story. Not causing it to harmonize, because it does a great job itself.

My Key Word Study Bible reads, "It is well known that there are actually two accounts of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis, but this need not cause us to conclude that they are incompatible....The 2 sections actually complement each other. 1:1-2:4a presents a wide-angle view of all 7 days of creation and deals with the creation of man and woman as a single act. Then in 2:4b-24 the author zooms in on the sixth day, giving details....The separate origins of man and woman are brought into sharp focus. Therefore, chapters 1 and 2 are not chronological but 2:4b-24 presents (the information) in greater detail....

Umm...that is what I said all along. Chapter 2 goes back like a flash back into more detail.

Anyway, relying on one translation for understanding--or one "brand" of scholarship--is not a good idea. "

I agree that is why each translation is good to have, and going back into the Greek and Aramaic/Hebrew is a great tool. "

" " dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 10:42 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 12, 2009 1:01 AM:

The Word is the Scriptures, not the Law itself.

I did not see where I said this, but it is true. The Word of God is the Scriptures, and not just the Law. "

If you will scroll up to May 12 at 1:01 AM you will see where you said this. However, I noticed that when you said it this time you added the word just before the law. That I can agree with. The Law is part of the Word which is the Scriptures.

I looked at the wrong time sorry for my mistake. As for my comment I meant this first time to say "just". That Law is important, for it shows us the Christ. Never the less, we are still not under the Law.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
" dstew66 wrote on May 13, 2009 11:08 AM:

No I am using the words of Paul. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? 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." - 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Unlike some I have said it is as the Scriptures say, the sin is the act, not the person, or feminine men.

I understand you are using the words of Paul. Let me ask you this. What is Paul teaching from? The Book of Acts?

The passage to the people of Corinth is from his learning of Christ.

He is teaching from the Old Testament. The New Testament didnt exist. The Messiah, Paul, and the rest all taught from the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings. That is all they had.

So the Paul lied when he said we were no longer under the Law. Why then should I believe anything else he said?

Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

What Scriptures were the Bereans searching to see if Pauls teachings were true? Again, the only Scriptures they had were the Old Testament. The Bereans searched the Old Testament to see if what Paul was teaching them was true. If what Paul was teaching them could not be verified in the Old Testament, he would have been labeled a false prophet.

They were teaching of who Christ was, which the Old Testament showed who was. We see what was being taught in verse 2 and 3: "And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, "This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ." - Acts 17:2-3 He was not preaching them the Law, but of the good news of Christ.

That is the same way we have to approach the New Testament. If the New Testament teaching does not line up with what is written in the Old Testament, then the New Testament teaching is incorrect. I am not saying the New Testament is incorrect, although there are certainly errors, but the interpretation and teaching of the doctrine is incorrect.

True but we are not to teach that we are under the Law, as we are not. Just as I have shown Paul was teaching of Christ, and showing in the Scriptures that which regarded Christ. The Hebrew writer, who could have been Paul, even says the Old Covanant had faults: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.", - Hebrews 8:7 and "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." - Hebrew 8:13. Also in Hebrews we read: "For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?" - Hebrews 10:1-2 In other words if we are still under the Law, then we are behind on sacrifices, because we should still be sacrificing and Christ's death was nothing. His death was the ultimate sacrifice. "Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away. But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts." - 2 Corinthians 3:12-15. That veil does not cover our hearts because Christ has removed it. Praise be to God forever and ever!!


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Once again we are no longer under the Law.

How exactly do you explain under the law?


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Christ reinstated a large part of the Law in his teachings. He even went made them stricter in some cases.

If I understand Christian doctrine, the law was nailed to the cross and that is when the law was fulfilled. How is it that the Messiah reinstated any part of the law when it had yet to be fulfilled? Does not something have to be ended BEFORE it can be reinstated?

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
The biggest problem is that the Law itself had changed.

Again, I see a slight problem here.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.

Mal 3:6 For I am Yahweh, I CHANGE NOT;

If the Word was God, and God changes not, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Word changes not. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. We are in agreement that the law is a part of the Word.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
We can not be saved through the Law, only by grace, and faith in Christ. That is the reason Christ came.

AMEN! I agree. The law does not now nor has it ever been here for salvation. Salvation has been through grace from the very beginning of time.

Gen 15:6 And he (Abram) believed in Yahweh; and he (Yahweh) counted it to him (Abram) for righteousness.

Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh.

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Yahweh. And Nathan said unto David, Yahweh also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We all know that David committed the sins of adultery and murder. The penalty, according to the law, is death. This is an example of grace. Grace didnt begin at the cross. Grace has always existed. So whos blood covered Davids sins. The same blood that covers yours and mine. Yahshuas! The patriarchs of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming salvation of the Messiah the same way we look back on it. That same blood covers the sins from Adam to the end of time. All we have to do is have faith. Grace has nothing to do with keeping the law. " "

" Sorry I hit the post comment to soon.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Once again we are no longer under the Law.

How exactly do you explain under the law?

We are no longer under the restrictions of the Law, but those of the New Covenant. Most of which are the same. We no longer have such things as food restrictions, or circumcision. These are but two examples. We also no longer have to bring a blood sacrifice for our sins, because Christ has done that for us. He became our ultimate sacrifice.


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
Christ reinstated a large part of the Law in his teachings. He even went made them stricter in some cases.

If I understand Christian doctrine, the law was nailed to the cross and that is when the law was fulfilled. How is it that the Messiah reinstated any part of the law when it had yet to be fulfilled? Does not something have to be ended BEFORE it can be reinstated?

The Jesus' teachings were for then and now. He taught how we should truly be. The apostles went on to preach his word, and their words were the same as he taught. That is part of the reason for the gospels. The books following the four gospels teach the same as Christ taught while he was here. He fulfilled the Law by even coming here, as the Old Testament is really all about his coming, all the way back to Genesis 3


JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
The biggest problem is that the Law itself had changed.

Again, I see a slight problem here.

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD WAS GOD.

Mal 3:6 For I am Yahweh, I CHANGE NOT;

If the Word was God, and God changes not, then the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn is that the Word changes not. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. We are in agreement that the law is a part of the Word.

Read my entire comment on the subject. Man changed the Law. He added to it. Such things as you could not carry food with you on the Sabbath, because that was work, but if it was sown into your garment then it was okay. The religious leaders started adding to the Law for their own personal gains, something that unfortunately still goes on. God did not change the Law, man did. The Law became so "perverse" as God knew it would, he made a New Covenant with man.

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 1:37 AM:
We can not be saved through the Law, only by grace, and faith in Christ. That is the reason Christ came.

AMEN! I agree. The law does not now nor has it ever been here for salvation. Salvation has been through grace from the very beginning of time.

Hey we agreed on something. I believe we agree more then either of us realize.

2Sa 12:13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against Yahweh. And Nathan said unto David, Yahweh also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

We all know that David committed the sins of adultery and murder. The penalty, according to the law, is death. This is an example of grace. Grace didnt begin at the cross. Grace has always existed. So whos blood covered Davids sins. The same blood that covers yours and mine. Yahshuas! The patriarchs of the Old Testament looked forward to the coming salvation of the Messiah the same way we look back on it. That same blood covers the sins from Adam to the end of time. All we have to do is have faith. Grace has nothing to do with keeping the law.

I agree. It is impossible to keep all the Law, again why Christ came. Followers of Christ are covered by the blood of Christ, and his blood is the only thing that saves us. Our faith in him allows us the free gift of God's grace. Isn't our God Awesome and Great? "

" jrhendren wrote on May 15, 2009 12:16 AM:
" father bob wrote on May 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Look once again bob comments on someones comment because he can not make a full thoughtful argument on his own. """""



LMAO!....hey einstein, i can confirm my agreement in a few words.

whereas, your rants and tirades take paragraphs of babbling drivel we've all heard time and time again. truthfully, i think most people never bother to read your waste of bandwidth.....you should try a fresh approach. "

" Wonder what all the "bible thumpers" who come knocking on my door would do if I showed up at their doors preaching about there being no god? Come to the church of St. Mattress every Sunday morning and be well rested! "

" Boy Mr. Hendren you do reach to make things fit, "eastward in Eden" is read as eastward in (a place called) Eden not in the eastern part of Eden. Quite different meanings. "

" Just an opinion wrote on May 15, 2009 2:32 PM:
" Wonder what all the "bible thumpers" who come knocking on my door would do if I showed up at their doors preaching about there being no god? Come to the church of St. Mattress every Sunday morning and be well rested! "

Invite you in, and hopefully have a meaningful conversation, without the derogatory remarks. "

" shumphreys wrote on May 15, 2009 3:21 PM:
" Boy Mr. Hendren you do reach to make things fit, "eastward in Eden" is read as eastward in (a place called) Eden not in the eastern part of Eden. Quite different meanings. "

The point still remains it was already created before man, in fact your definition makes it even clearer. Thank you for proving my point once again. "

" father bob wrote on May 15, 2009 9:15 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 15, 2009 12:16 AM:
" father bob wrote on May 14, 2009 2:53 PM

Look once again bob comments on someones comment because he can not make a full thoughtful argument on his own. """""

LMAO!....hey einstein, i can confirm my agreement in a few words.

whereas, your rants and tirades take paragraphs of babbling drivel we've all heard time and time again. truthfully, i think most people never bother to read your waste of bandwidth.....you should try a fresh approach. "

You must read them to comment, as do others, so once again your remarks are without merit. "

" jrhendren wrote on May 15, 2009 1:19 AM:

"Our faith in him allows us the free gift of God's grace. Isn't our God Awesome and Great?"

Yes, it does, and yes, He is.

Alas! I only pray that you will soon see what I have been trying to show you.

Yah Bless! "

" Just an opinion wrote on May 15, 2009 2:32 PM:
" Wonder what all the "bible thumpers" who come knocking on my door would do if I showed up at their doors preaching about there being no god? Come to the church of St. Mattress every Sunday morning and be well rested! "

:-) *HAHAHAHA!* :-)
Well Mr/Mrs. Opinion...we'd inbite (oops, for your sake, I meant to write invite) you to dinner of course, and we surely would enjoy your company as well, *LOL!* "

" No Mr. Hendren that does not mean that it was already created before man. You are stretching and about to snap. "

" dstew66 wrote on May 16, 2009 12:08 AM:
" jrhendren wrote on May 15, 2009 1:19 AM:

"Our faith in him allows us the free gift of God's grace. Isn't our God Awesome and Great?"

Yes, it does, and yes, He is.

Alas! I only pray that you will soon see what I have been trying to show you.

Yah Bless! "

As I do for you and all those who have not found Christ. "

" God might say: Life isn't about arguing about my existence on a computer or your differences in beliefs, take a chill pill and live and be productive "