JG-TC.com > Opinion > LETTER: Biblical tale more about treatment of strangers

TODAY'S HEADLINES

SPECIAL SECTION

ONLINE POLL

ONLINE EXTRAS

Shop Smart, Shop Local

SITE TOOLS

OTHER LINKS

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Lee Enterprises

Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:45 PM CDT
LETTER: Biblical tale more about treatment of strangers

SUSAN HUMPHREYS, Oakland

I am pleased Mr. Albin asked me about Sodom and Gomorrah. This notion persists that homosexuality is particularly abhorrent to God because He destroyed Sodom for it. Does the Bible really say that?

The story of Sodom starts in Gen. 13:13 continues in 18:20-21, 19:1-9. There are many other references: Isaiah 3:8-9, Jeremiah 23:14...

The entire story is best described as being about the abusive treatment of strangers. The phrase “that we may know them” refers to a sexual act of subjugation more frequently carried out by heterosexual males, gang rape, not consenting relationships between same sex couples. But don’t take my word for it, Google Sodom and Gomorrah, or go directly to glow.cc/isa/sodom for a detailed analysis of the passages.

Why did God destroy Sodom? Ezekial 16:46-48 and lines 49-50 “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; ...” The guilt wasn’t homosexual behavior. What were those “abominable things?”

Many claim that “homosexual behavior” is the worst of sins and that homosexuals are an abomination to God. Sexual sins of any kind are considered abominations, see Leviticus 18:18-30. All of Leviticus is about do’s and do nots, selecting homosexuality as a greater sin/abomination than any other and ignoring/denying the rest is hypocritical. If you ignore one in the list you got to ignore them all, if you don’t wish to be a hypocrite.

In Proverbs 11:1 and 20:10, dishonest practices are named as an abomination. Six abominations are mentioned in Proverbs 6:16-19 “There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family.” Homosexuality is not in the list. Even Prayer is an abomination in Proverbs 28:9, “When one will not listen to the law, even one’s prayers are an abomination.” A thorough listing would show that self-righteousness, greed, lying appear more often as abominations than references to homosexual behavior.

Any way you look at it, the Bible does not support the persecution of homosexuals which includes their right to marry.

SUSAN HUMPHREYS

Oakland

Add your comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login? (requires cookies)
	Forgot Your Password?

Not already registered?
Then click Here.

Comment policy:

JG-TC.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed. Comments posted on Saturday may not be reviewed until Sunday afternoon.

In order to keep the page a set width, long lines (mostly long links) will be chopped. Try putting spaces in your links or consider using tinyurl.com to make a smaller link that you can include.

We will never edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to remove comments that violate our code of conduct.

No comment may contain:

* Potentially libelous statements; such as accusing somebody of a crime, defamation of character, or statements that can harm somebody's reputation.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults, threats, harassment or inciting violence.
* Commercial product promotions.

If you have any questions, please contact our moderator.

Tom Andres wrote on May 13, 2009 11:28 PM:

" Michael Strange, I'd like to introduce you to Susan Humphreys; Michael, Susan; Susan, Michael. I thought maybe the two of you could form a close consort, maybe down a few beers somewhere in private and solve the world's problems over the weekend.

What, thank you? Oh, no problem ... really. Youre the perfect couple. You know, like two lost ships meeting in the night one with a broken compass and the other with no rudder. Its one of those meant-to-be things. Aw, but Im probably being too romantic here. Lets just see what comes of it. "

Jim1969 wrote on May 13, 2009 11:33 PM:

" The Bible really does not support the persecution of anyone for anything.

Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone. "

JRHENDREN wrote on May 14, 2009 12:06 AM:

" You really need stop with these fabrications of yours. You have been shown time and time again regarding the Law, yet you try and put everyone under it again. We are no longer under the Law. You continue to use the Bible in your defense, yet you do not even agree with it. You misquote Scriptures, and try to make words mean things they do not mean. You go and condemn all feminine men with your statements then turn around and say you did not say that. You say just because God shows us the formula for marriage, but it does not specifically say not between a man and man or woman and woman, then it is okay. That in its self is absurd. No one has claimed homosexual acts is the worst sin, on the contrary all sin is sin. Humans categorize it God says it all leads to the same thing, death. All of your quotes above are from the Old Testament, wonder why none from the New? That's right you are trying to make everyone under the Law, even though Christ fulfilled the Law, and Paul says we are no longer under the Law. You really ought to read the entire Bible and use it in context for your arguments you would get so much farther. Well actually not, since then you would see the truth and be unable to twist the Scriptures to say as you wish. "

shumphreys wrote on May 14, 2009 7:33 AM:

" Mr. Hendren in my first letter I addressed the three New Testament passages that folks generally say refer to homosexuality or have you forgotten? This letter is a direct answer to a question raised by another writer. Surely he deserved an honest straight forward answer? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 8:14 AM:

" What is she misquoting, Hendren? I've looked up each of those Scriptures previously, and she has reproduced them accurately.

Maybe you simply don't like to think about Scripture's claim that gossips, liars, and arrogant people are as detestable to God as homosexuals are? (Paul says pretty much the same thing in the New Testament, by the way, so you can't make that tired old excuse about "not being under the Law.")

Jesus followed the pattern of the Old Testament which condemned, again and again, social injustice and oppression. Have you even read the Old Testament?? Believe it or not, according to the Bible, God is as much (if not more so) against these things as he is against homosexual practices. This passage from Ezekiel makes the point clear--it's just you really don't want to see it that way because it does not go along with what you've been taught over the years.

Why is that so hard for you (and so many like you) to get? Have you even read Jesus's words? He does not "abolish" these old ideals, instead he reinforces them. (By the way, you still haven't shown me where he says anything about homosexuality. I'm still waiting.)

Anyway, I hope you will confront the habitual gossips and troublemakers in your church and tell them they won't be inheriting the kingdom of God. Funny, but I've been in church a long time and have heard very few sermons along those lines. And you can find so many habitual gossips and troublemakers there! I guess it's easier (and safer) to talk about the "abomination" most people aren't into. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 8:19 AM:

" You know, Hendren, what bothers me most is how people try to turn Jesus into a Republican, gay-bashing, war-mongering, all-American white good ol' boy...and you don't even realize it. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 14, 2009 8:38 AM:

" Tom, sorry to see that you relapsed, and I though you promised to give up trying to tell jokes or be funny.(sorry, I couldn't help myself). "

medic57 wrote on May 14, 2009 9:06 AM:

" Ahh yes, once again Rev. Humphries has misread the entire story because she knows absolutely nothing about what she is reading. "

medic57 wrote on May 14, 2009 9:08 AM:

" Susan

The "Strangers" you speak of, were Angels that God had sent to tell Lot to get out of town, they were not visiting for tea. "

jayce wrote on May 14, 2009 9:19 AM:

" It is so sad to see a non-christian trying to explain the bible to others and has No spiritual (heart) understanding. The bible CAN be read as a good book with parts you don't agree with and equal to other books if you ve no God given eyes and heart to understand. I feel sorry for you shumpries, I pray that the eyes of your understanding will be enlightened.... "

father bob wrote on May 14, 2009 9:19 AM:

" great letter susan....good to see our resident hatemonger and bigot didn't miss his cheap shot. keep up the good fight! "

Interested Observer wrote on May 14, 2009 10:46 AM:

" When do we enact legislation to make stoning people to death for wearing cotton/rayon-mixed clothing, if we're going to legislate Biblically? "

The Question wrote on May 14, 2009 10:52 AM:

" Good job, Susan. Scholarship always gets the fundies' undies in a twist. "

The Question wrote on May 14, 2009 10:54 AM:

" The Bible really does not support the persecution of anyone for anything.
----
Except for all those men, women and children whom God orders slain, of course, Jim. "

medic57 wrote on May 14, 2009 11:44 AM:

" Susan

Jesus does love everyone, including homosexuals, however, after their life is over, they will live in a place with no air conditioning if they do not turn away from their lifestyle. "

middle of road wrote on May 14, 2009 12:33 PM:

" golly medic isn't your arm sore from throwing so many stones? "

Tom Andres wrote on May 14, 2009 12:35 PM:

" Harry, relapsed? Hey, I was just trying to create a little Kumbaya between two lost souls to distract them so the rest of us could discuss other stuff, like Obama the war monger.

By the way, Harry, it's "thought", not "though". Have a nice day. LOL "

CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 1:04 PM:

" "Jesus does love everyone, including homosexuals, however, after their life is over, they will live in a place with no air conditioning if they do not turn away from their lifestyle."

I guess they'll have plenty of company in the warm place, Medic, including cheats, divorced/remarried people, gossips, liars, slanderers, and troublemakers in general. Let's be sure and include everybody.... "

medic57 wrote on May 14, 2009 1:17 PM:

" middle of road

It's not throwing stones to say what the bible does. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 14, 2009 2:25 PM:

" Thanks of the spelling lesson, Tom. And that ain't funny. Well, maybe a little funny.

Any "thoughts" on Hannity reneging on his promise to get waterboarded for the troops? Come on now, unlike most of your right wing brethren, you usually don't run from tough questions. Did Hannity put his foot in his mouth, or what? "

Tom Andres wrote on May 14, 2009 4:51 PM:

" Harry, you meant "Thanks for ...", right? LOL

Honestly, I have no clue what you're talking about with the waterboarding thing. Of course, you're not going to believe this, but I don't watch Hannity very much at all, and I never catch his radio show (don't even know if he still has it). I'm sure I would agree with his "take" on most issues, but I do get tired of his seemingly whiny diatribes, and aggravating interruptions of his guests. Same with O'Reilly. You could almost say they're not good listeners and perhaps a little too self-important.

Now, Beck, I do get a kick out of him! In his very odd way, he makes more sense than many of the right wing types all added together. Actually, I wouldn't label Beck as "right wing". In my humble opinion, Beck's primary label is "American". Would you agree with that? "

Harry Potter wrote on May 14, 2009 6:54 PM:

" Would you agree with that...

No. I don't care for Beck at all.

While I don't agree with him on a lot of issues, I do like to watch Huckabee.

I like listening to all commentators, both right and left, but I agree Hannity is a bit to whiny for me too.

But I do congratulate you on catching another one of my errors. And hey, without spellcheck I would be lost. You think it's bad now, wait till I try to post and spell check is out of commission.

Now don't try to tell me you don't know about Hannity's promise to be waterboarded to raise money for the troops, Tom. I've only brought it up about 50 times in the last week or so. Just to clarify, Hannity said he would undergo waterboarding to raise money for the the troops, but so far has reneged on that promise. One commentator on another network has publicly offered him 30 thousand dollars to do it, but Hannity remains silent on the issue. Sort of like Billo's promise to apologise on the air if no WMD's were found. "

Hahvahd wrote on May 14, 2009 7:03 PM:

" Medic, I enjoyed the first part of your post, "Jesus does love everyone, including homosexuals" and then you had to ruin it by lapsing into judgments of others with your comments about who will be in hell. (I figure that's up to God and Jesus, not to me, anyway, so I try not to worry about who'll make the cut.)

I wish these threads on religion would focus more on the love of our Creator instead of the judgments of us flawed creatures here on earth. Maybe that kind of discussion would win over more souls than all of the endless condemnation and bickering would. "

Jim1969 wrote on May 14, 2009 7:46 PM:

" Except for all those men, women and children whom God orders slain, of course, Jim. "

I would call that more prosecution than persecution. "

Tom Andres wrote on May 14, 2009 10:21 PM:

" I like Huckabee, and would have much preferred him to McCain. (Not much difference between McCain and Obama - except for their running mates.) Huckabee got my attention when he came out in support of The Fair Tax - a total reform of the federal tax system, repeal of the 16th Amendment, and eliminating the IRS.

On the Hannity waterboard thing, what I meant by "having no clue" is that I have never heard him say anything about it. Yes, of course, I've seen several of your (nitpicky) posts on the subject. If he said he was going to submit to waterboarding, then he ought to do it.

What I really enjoy about Beck is that he goes after politicians on both sides of the aisle. He's a little off the wall at times, but I do believe his only agenda is to restore the USA to its original successes. "

jrhendren wrote on May 14, 2009 11:32 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 8:14 AM:
" What is she misquoting, Hendren? I've looked up each of those Scriptures previously, and she has reproduced them accurately.

Try the post in another thread were she blatantly left out previous verses to make it look as if Saul had given Johnathan to David as a husband. The leaving out of words like "had" to make Scripture say different. The trying to change complete meaning of words, and in turn making it worse then it is with the whole feminine thing. Need more?

Maybe you simply don't like to think about Scripture's claim that gossips, liars, and arrogant people are as detestable to God as homosexuals are?

You are something. I have said from day one all sin is sin. You really need to actually read an entire post, not just part.

(Paul says pretty much the same thing in the New Testament, by the way, so you can't make that tired old excuse about "not being under the Law.")

Paul is the one who says we are no longer under the Law. You know I don't usually by into all this "she is this name also" stuff, but I am starting to wonder.

Jesus followed the pattern of the Old Testament which condemned, again and again, social injustice and oppression. Have you even read the Old Testament?? Believe it or not, according to the Bible, God is as much (if not more so) against these things as he is against homosexual practices.

That my friend is an out and out lie. All sin is the same to God, that is why the Scriptures say, "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Romans 6:23 We categorize sin in levels, all sin keeps us from God, luckily for us he sent his Son to pay our price.

This passage from Ezekiel makes the point clear--it's just you really don't want to see it that way because it does not go along with what you've been taught over the years.

What passage?

Why is that so hard for you (and so many like you) to get? Have you even read Jesus's words? He does not "abolish" these old ideals, instead he reinforces them. (By the way, you still haven't shown me where he says anything about homosexuality. I'm still waiting.)

Do you not believe that Paul brought the Word of God to us. You must not, because other wise you would believe what he says in 1 Corithians 6:9. You must also not believe in the Trinity, or you would also say that God's Word is Christ's Word also.

Anyway, I hope you will confront the habitual gossips and troublemakers in your church and tell them they won't be inheriting the kingdom of God. Funny, but I've been in church a long time and have heard very few sermons along those lines. And you can find so many habitual gossips and troublemakers there! I guess it's easier (and safer) to talk about the "abomination" most people aren't into. "

I hope you will also learn forgiveness as Christ will forgive you. All men continue to sin, whether in Christ or not. The thing is those in Christ have been washed with the blood and can come to him and he will make them clean once again. I guess though you do not believe that. Their is also the fact that no one is trying to pass legislation making these sins acceptable. As for not hearing these subjects preached in your church, time to look for a new church. Maybe a good Bible believing church. I also find it funny how you are doing the same thing you accuse me, without knowing me, as doing. You yell about divorce, gossip, and other sins, yet this one you seem to want to give a pass to. Wonder why? "

jrhendren wrote on May 14, 2009 11:35 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 8:19 AM:
" You know, Hendren, what bothers me most is how people try to turn Jesus into a Republican, gay-bashing, war-mongering, all-American white good ol' boy...and you don't even realize it. "

I agree their are a lot that do just that, and unfortunatly they use the title "Christian". Great example is the nuts in Kansas. He actually was an olive skinned, loving, peaceful, non-political, Jewish man, who did hate evil as we all should. "

jrhendren wrote on May 14, 2009 11:38 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 14, 2009 1:04 PM:
" "Jesus does love everyone, including homosexuals, however, after their life is over, they will live in a place with no air conditioning if they do not turn away from their lifestyle."

I guess they'll have plenty of company in the warm place, Medic, including cheats, divorced/remarried people, gossips, liars, slanderers, and troublemakers in general. Let's be sure and include everybody.... "
----------------------------------------

Medic don't even try I have told CrowWoman over and over all sin is sin, but she just does not get it. The topic is regarding homosexual sin not divorce, or others. She just has trouble reading some sentences. "

shumphreys wrote on May 15, 2009 3:10 PM:

" Heavens Medic the fact is the passage isn't about WHO the strangers were it was about the gang rape of strangers. the sins of Sodom weren't about homosexuals it was about sexual abuse and exploitation, social abuse and exploitation, economic abuse and exploitation. The story is about ABUSE and EXPLOITATION and NOT HELPING those in need. "

shumphreys wrote on May 15, 2009 3:14 PM:

" I am afraid Medic that you will be the one in that place with no air conditioning while the considerate,socially responsible, compassionate homosexual enjoys the good life in heaven (if there is a heaven). "

jrhendren wrote on May 15, 2009 11:40 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 15, 2009 3:10 PM:
" Heavens Medic the fact is the passage isn't about WHO the strangers were it was about the gang rape of strangers. the sins of Sodom weren't about homosexuals it was about sexual abuse and exploitation, social abuse and exploitation, economic abuse and exploitation. The story is about ABUSE and EXPLOITATION and NOT HELPING those in need. "

That's right and that's why the Scriptures say, "Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodomboth young and oldsurrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." - Genesis 19:4-5. Wait all the men old and young wanted to have sex with these male visitors. Not sure what you definition is but that sounds a lot like a homosexual act to me, male on male sex. If it was just sexual carnage they were after then why did they not accept Lot's daughters in trade? Still sounding like homosexual sex to me. Then you also have Jude in the New Testament that says, "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." - Jude 1:7. This does not sound like, "social abuse and exploitation, economic abuse and exploitation". It does sound like sexual abuse, but then when you cross reference Scriptures, something you admitted before you do not do, you clearly see their sin. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 16, 2009 11:26 AM:

" I think you're missing Susan's point, Hendren. She is simply relating how Scripture emphasizes Sodom's sins. All you have to do is read it--there are a host of O.T. passages re. Sodom "and her daughters." It's sort of funny, really; you're not rejecting Susan's words, you're rejecting Scripture itself...the parts you apparently haven't read...the parts that don't fit in with your little conservative Christian scenario.

Ezekiel 16:48-49 makes it clear that selfishness and oppression were among the reasons that Sodom was taken out. The context of the Isaiah passage (remember that word, Context?) makes the same indication. Remember, Scripture refers to cheating and being haughty as "abominations." Why didn't Isaiah and Ezekiel stress the homosexual acts? Ezekiel especially did not mince words when it came to making sexual references.

There are many references to Sodom in the O.T.; you can Google as easily as I can, so I won't take the time to list the 17 I read. Certain themes are repeated, time and again: pride, idolatry, oppression, not helping the needy. This obsession with homosexuality is YOUR obsession, Hendren, not the Lord's.

Even in the New Testament, in the passage from Jude--why are you adding to Scripture with the words "and perversion" in Jude 1:7? The Greek word translated here as "fornication" is "porneia" and had a distinctly heterosexual connotation; and the "strange flesh" was a reference to angels, or "sons of God," that WOMEN had sex with [see Genesis 6:1-4] according to Jewish tradition.

The pparent answer, as previously mentioned, is that God is not nearly as interested in speaking out against homosexuality as you are. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 16, 2009 11:40 AM:

" "You yell about divorce, gossip, and other sins, yet this one you seem to want to give a pass to. Wonder why?"

Hendren, do you know how many times homosexuality is mentioned in the entire Bible? 12 or 13 times, maybe? In comparison, the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times. Wonder why?

Your words remind me why so many people think Christians are hateful and bigoted. I am not giving "a pass" to anything. However, as I've told Jon Vanatta, I have to speak out when people distort what the Bible says--as you have been doing.

Your biases (and those of other fundamentalist Christians) keep gay people in the shadows, and often away from God himself. That is SO wrong, and if God is what you believe him to be, you may one day stand before him and give account of how you threw out stumbling blocks that kept people away from him.

Fortunately, God is merciful.... "

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:33 PM:

" Mr. Hendren that is called gang rape, the only way men can rape other men is by sodomizing them. The act is sodomy, the passage is NOT about homosexuality or homosexual men. Rape is not about a consenting sexual relationship between same sex humans, rape is about subjugation and abuse, force and power. "

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:35 PM:

" They did not accept Lots daughters in trade because they weren't the ones that needed to be shown who was in power, the strangers were the ones that had to be put in their place. If it had been about sex than Lots daughters would have been favored. "

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:39 PM:

" Of course it doesn't sound like SOCIAL abuse Mr. Hendren that passage is about SEXUAL abuse and exploitation just as the words Malakos and Arsenokoites (catamites and pederasts) are about abusive and exploitative relationships. The sexual sins are many and are spelled out, as I pointed out in Leviticas, with no one action being any worse than any other. AND as I pointed out if you ignore one from the list, claim it is no longer binding, than you have to ignore them all, IF you don't want to be a hypocrite. "

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:41 PM:

" Of course I cross reference scriptures Mr. Hendren, I keep pointing out those that contradict the ones you mention! Or haven't you noticed? "

zerocool wrote on May 17, 2009 10:37 AM:

" Wow Susan, you REALLY have no idea how to interpet (as you say) the Bible, do you? You don't understand ANYTHING you read in the Bible because you don't have God's guidance while reading it. You will NEVER get any of the Christians here to switch to your beliefs and we will never get you to switch to our beliefs.

What I don't understand is this, if, (as you say) you believe in freedom of speech and choice, why do you instigate arguments such as this one, why not instead write an article that doesn't start out so negatively. Of all the letters written to the JG-TC by Christians and Reverands, almost none EVER start out as yours do, and why is it, that, of all the people on these Blogs, you're the ONLY one that understands what the Bible really means, how many times have you told people, you need to READ or REREAD yous, or The Bibles passages, that NONE of us seem to understand it as you do.

Now Susan, if you can PROVE to me that the Bible is just a book full of myths and stories and mis-interpetations and persecutions and nothing else. I'll be glad to leave my beliefs behind and belive yours instead.
Keep in mind 2 (two) things.

1. You recently said that The Bible is full of great Wisdom for all, you also recently said that The Bible is full of Myths and stories not to be believed.
Sorry Susan, can't be both.

2. In my 52 years (so far) on this planet, I have seen, or been told of, just a very few things that can't be explained by science or ANYTHING except GOD, I really don't think HE allows us to see to much that we can't understand, what would be the point, we can't understand how, what se saw, happened. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 12:40 PM:

" Jrhendren, you may say that "sin is sin" but which sin motivates you to speak out? Which sin generates nearly all letters to the editor? The answer is obvious.

Back to the evangelical Christian stance on divorce/remarriage and the passages in Matthew. Why would "pornea" be translated as marital unfaithfulness when there were other words that meant adultery and could be used instead?

The obvious answer is that it is a translation/interpretation error. This view is, as I said before, reinforced by the fact that this exception was only used in Matthew, which was intended for a Jewish audience.

Maybe you're not old enough to realize it, but divorce and remarriage were once regarded as sinful, even scandalous. This was before the practice became so common among Christians and the implications of it needed to be rationalized away. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 8:54 PM:

" Nearly 120 years ago, conservative Christians were opposing a woman's right to vote--from Robert Dabney against Women's Suffrage:

"What then, in the next place, will be the effect of this fundamental change when it shall be established? The obvious answer is, that it will destroy Christianity and civilization in America....What those influences will be may be learned by every one who reverences the Christian Scriptures, from this fact, that the theory of Womens Rights is sheer infidelity. It directly impugns the authority and the justice of these Scriptures. They speak in no uncertain tones. The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. v. 23).

"How utterly opposed is all this to the levelling doctrine of your Radical. Women are here consigned to a social subordination, and expressly excluded from ruling offices, on grounds of their sex, and a divine ordination based by God upon a transaction which happened nearly six thousand years ago!

"Now the politics which denounce all this as a natural injustice and self-evident folly cannot be expected to reverence these Scriptures; they must and will flout their whole authority. We must then make up our minds in accepting Womens Rights to surrender our Bibles, and have an atheistic Government."

Some of these arguments sound strangely familiar, almost as if they have been recycled for the current controversies. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 9:29 PM:

" Not all that long ago, conservative Christians rallied to support slavery in this country.

Mid-1800's estimates reported 80,000 slaves owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists and 250,000 by Methodists. Anglicans probably owned most of the rest of the nearly 4 million blacks held in serfdom in the United States at the outbreak of the Civil War.

Historian Larry Hise notes in his book Pro-Slavery that ministers 'wrote almost half of all defences of slavery published in America.' He listed 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals.

Susan Boggs, a black runaway interviewed in Canada in 1863, said of the religious slave masters: 'Why the man that baptized me had a colored woman tied up in his yard to whip when he got home that very Sunday and her mother...was in church hearing him preach. He preached, "You must obey your masters and be good servants." That is the greater part of the sermon, when they preach to the colored folks....'"

Jrhendren, Jon Vanatta, etc., it has always been the way of conservative Christianity to support the status quo, even when it is evil. Any change in the status quo is believed to threaten the very foundation of society--and biblical faith. The current fixation on oppressing homosexuals is the most current example. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 6:56 AM:

" Zerocool, Of course a book that is mythological, prose, fiction,biographical, can be full of great wisdom, haven't you ever read our great American Classics, "The Old Man and the Sea", "For Whom the Bell Tolls", "Siddhartha", "Walden", "East of Eden", "The Grapes of Wrath", "To Kill a Mockingbird",.........the list is endless. Even those wonderful Harry Potter books. ALL full of wise lessons on life, thoughts on the human condition, and thoughts on God/s. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 6:59 AM:

" AND Zerocool I don't care one bit what you believe, all I care about is how you treat your fellow man, ALL of them, because that impacts me directly. If you want to believe in a myth and a fantasy that is your choice, your freedom.AND "how you treat your fellow man" is a main theme of the Biblical teachings as well as a main theme of the teachings of ALL the worlds great religions and philosophical traditions. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 7:02 AM:

" AND Zerocool, the Bible is full of contradictions (hence the unending arguments over meaning), there are outright errors such as the description of the font where PI would not be PI if the description were true, to the conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis I and II, to historical errors. The Bible is a wonderful mix of myth and metaphor, prose and poetry, fact and fiction. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 7:05 AM:

" Fundamentalist Christians like to talk about how America was founded as a Christian nation....

The Puritans viewed themselves as God's special people, replacing national Israel. Nowhere do the dangers of this assumption become more clear than in the Puritans' treatment of the native Americans. Since the Puritans considered themselves God's chosen people, they concluded that they had the right to take the land from the heathen Indians. The American Indians were the "new Canaanites" in America's "Promised Land." The fruit of Puritan theology was brutal. They saw their mission as convert these "Canaanites" to Christianity; failing that, it was acceptable to slaughter them in the name of Christ.

For example, the Puritan massacres of the Pequot Indian tribe on May 26, 1637, and again on July 14, 1637, were deemed by the Puritans to be directed by God -- Captain John Mason declared, "God laughed his Enemies and the Enemies of his People to Scorn, making them as a fiery Oven ... Thus did the Lord judge among the Heathen, filling the Place with dead Bodies" (Segal and Stinenback, Puritans, Indians, and Manifest Destiny, pp. 111-112, 134-135). Converting the pagans for God was acceptable to the Puritans, but killing the pagans for the Lord was also acceptable!

Defenders of the Puritans claim that it was the hostility of the Pequots that led to their unfortunate demise. But the Pequots were one of the most tranquil tribes in New England. History reveals that their "hostility" did not manifest itself until they were hunted like animals. For argument sake, let's say that the Pequots were the instigators of hostilities, virtual savages if you will (which they were not). Does this justify hunting them down, slaughtering the men, women, and children in their sleep, and then doing it again six weeks later to finish the job!? (Not exactly "battlefield" victories!) Moreover, the Puritans claimed it was in obedience to God that these pagans were slaughtered!

Here the reasoning of the Puritans defies logic and a sense of common decency, let alone Christian principles. Captain John Underhill also wrote of the Pequot slaughter: "Sometimes the Scripture declareth women and children must perish with their parents ... We have sufficient light from the Word of God for our proceedings." What an incredible testimony for one claiming to be a Christian! "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 7:06 AM:

" AND zerocool I have no delusions about getting folks like Mr. Hendren or you or some of the other posters to switch their positions. They aren't the ones I am writing for. They do help reinforce my points of how intolerant Christianity has become. My purpose is to expose the hypocrisy,to get people to see that the BIBLE and Christianity do NOT have to be intolerant and negative and to get those who are OPEN minded to THINK and explore and read for themselves. Which is why I mention sources, and good books and send folks to the internet for MORE information. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 18, 2009 7:43 AM:

" CrowWoman and Susan, thank you for your ongoing messages. You two have done a great job in pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of some one here.

In fairness to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, I would say that is their right to express that view. I just don't happen to believe that. Most educated people have accepted the idea that it is not a choice, but then again we have a lot of people that think the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that man and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time. Crow Woman is right, the thumpers have chosen our gay neighbors as their current whipping boy. I have to wonder how long this will go on. Just look at how long they justified slavery, and to their shame used religion to do it. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 9:00 AM:

" HP, I think attitudes toward homosexuality are changing, especially among young people--even Christian young people. People who are gay will take their place in the mainstream of American society. It's going to take awhile, because they have been and will remain a minority of the population.

About what I write--the odd thing is that many people believe I could not be a Christian because I make these comments. Perhaps I should write more about Christians who consistently live out the Gospel. Usually, though, they aren't especially visible, and rarely are the ones making the headlines. "

zerocool wrote on May 18, 2009 10:02 AM:

" Most educated people have accepted the idea that it is not a choice,

Educated People? Educated people have been the cause of almost every man made tradgedy in the history of the world. Educated People created "The Bomb", Educated People have caused every war in the history of war, Educated People run countries into the ground, Educated People.... Well, need I go on?

Also, while I DO believe the Bible is God's inspired word, I also believe that The Universe (while no one knows it's age) is much older that 10,000 years old, a very rudimentary understanding of Astronomy proves to me that it is much older. I am not a moron like some might think.

But Educated People, while I have the highest re-gard for education, with all due respect, Educated people have done a GREAT job of ru(I)ning the world.
Although it was a movie, remember the movie Young Abe Lincoln with Henry Fonda, in the movie, during the trial he is questioning a potential juror, the man admits he is not educated or very smart, what did Abe say? You're honest, that's the kind of man I want on a jury.

Remember Harry, un-educated people do 99% of the worlds work, unfortuneately, un-educated people also look to higher educated people to teach them, and that would be fine, except for, when trying to shape new minds, the new minds also get whatever moral info some idiot profs throw at them.

Remember the Jet Airplane, a person with a PHD designs it, a person with a Masters builds it, a person with a Bachelor's Degree Flys it and a person with a GED maintains it.

GED = Good Enough Diploma

BS = Bull Sh_t

MS = More Sh_t

PHD = Piles Higher and Deeper

Robert Oppinheimer (arguably, one of the MOST educated people ever) famously recalled the Bhagavad Gita: "If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one." and "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

An educated man said, I am become death. At least he was smart also, and there IS a difference.

Also, as Susan said, The Bible is a wonderful mix of myth and metaphor, prose and poetry, fact and fiction.

Opps, forgot, she also said wisdom.
Now going by HER definition of the Bible, it truely would be very hard to understand.

But what do I know, she is probably more educated than I am. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 18, 2009 11:36 AM:

" But what do I know, she is probably more educated than I am. "

Funny how there seems to be more bias toward the educated from the uneducated than the other way around. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 3:15 PM:

" Zerocool educated people discovered penicillin, that mosquitoes carried malaria, (for better and worse) the pesticides and herbicides that enable our farmers to be so productive as well as the understanding of genetics to breed disease and insect resistant and highly productive crops, they wrote our constitution and bill of rights, devised our court system and public school and higher education systems (even with all its problems our public schools still are good at mass education of the populace),....I could go on and on. When you eat dinner tonight thank an educated person. "

father bob wrote on May 18, 2009 3:37 PM:

" zerocool wrote on May 18, 2009 10:02 AM:
" Most educated people have accepted the idea that it is not a choice,

Educated People? Educated people have been the cause of almost every man made tradgedy in the history of the world.""""

bit of an inferiority complex? "

zerocool wrote on May 18, 2009 4:16 PM:

" Funny how there seems to be more bias toward the educated from the uneducated than the other way around.

So, uneducated people are biased? What does it cost to go to college these days?

LakeLand?
U of I?
Harvard?

The medium, MEDIUM income in the US is about 46 thou a year, Now, have a wife, 2 or 3 kids, a modest house, a decent used car (2, if you're lucky), pay all of your bills and try to send just 1 child to college, and Pray to God that you don't have 1 child that is disabled or sick, (and trust me) if you have a sick child, or something is wrong with one, sooner or later, you'll get on your knees.
If you don't ever have that problem, then you're a fool for not getting on your knees and thanking God.

You might be right Harry, maybe more uneducated people tend to be biased than educated people, do you know why? Duhhh, there are about 80% more uneducated people than educated people. Uneducated people do over 90% of the work in the world.

Typically, not always, but Typically, entitled people go to college. You know the type, those who think their better because their better off. My apologies to the others. (of which there are a lot less)

For years my dad hated Muhammed Ali, not because he was black, or Muslim, but he hated him for (as he called it) dodging the draft, then one day he heard Ali speak about the draft, what he said changed dads mind, (which trust me, did, get changed very often) he heard Ali say, why should I fight in your war, I can't drink out of your water fountain.
Was dad uneducated? You tell me, he didn't finish 7th grade, he worked on a trash truck for more years than I can count, he also worked on the RailRoad for over 44 years, why the trash truck? He had to take care of us 6 in our family, plus his mom and dad, 2 brothers and 1 sister. Was dad uneducated? Without a doubt. Was dad biased? You betcha, however, if you could prove to him that he was wrong, he would change his mind.

Dad could have easily been that juror that Abe Lincoln wanted in the movie. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 4:50 PM:

" Whether you like it or not Zerocool higher education is now a necessity not a privelege. Those hard working jobs you seem to be so fond of are also low pay jobs and many that were available in your fathers day are now obsolete and more are being made obsolete each decade. You may not have noticed but there are very few opportunities for "unskilled/uneducated" workers. "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 4:53 PM:

" Don't feel bad CrowWoman Jesus himself would not be considered a "Christian" by many of the folks on these pages so you are in good company. At least the Jesus that I have come to understand from the Bible and many other sources! "

shumphreys wrote on May 18, 2009 4:56 PM:

" The times are changing Mr. Potter I think that is why the Repubs are having such a hard time with Obama,
he-- has indeed frozen over, a black man has been elected president, the "immoral" majority has brought about the collapse of capitalism and the republican party, what is next? "

M wrote on May 18, 2009 5:12 PM:

" We need more people in the world like "zerocool". "

CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 5:47 PM:

" zerocool, my Dad worked night and day (literally) at a chemical factory. He had a high school education but always felt he barely squeaked by. Dad ended up with asbestosis and is practically deaf, among other problems--mostly resulting from the work he did. He nearly suffocated from gas leaks at the plant more than once.

He did all of this so his three children could have better prospects than he had. We all graduated from college. (All of us are unemployed right now, but still--we graduated, two of us with "More Sh--" degrees.)

My Dad would struggle if he had to write an essay or learn a foreign language, but he had the creativity and intelligence to take a radiator from one car, tinker with it, and rebuild it into another car. (This happened to be my first car, which he kept running for a number of years beyond its time.)

To make a long post shorter, we disagree among ourselves and with our Dad on a lot of things. He says things I know he'd never say if he'd been exposed to more ideas. Still, we would never look down on him--or our Mom, for that matter--just because they chose not to pursue higher education. I have not forgotten where I came from, and the personal cost involved in my aspirations for higher education. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 18, 2009 7:54 PM:

" zerocool, thank you for your post at 4:16 PM today. It sounds like you and I came from similar backgrounds.

My dad was also an uneducated man, and for that reason struggled to see all of his kids (4) get through college. Like your dad, he worked side jobs and on weekends, after working all week in a hot dirty factory. My mother cleaned other peoples houses to help put food on the table, while they somehow managed to pay tuition for my siblings. Even though he only had an 8th grade education, my Dad was without a doubt the smartest man I have ever known. I remember him helping my older sisters with their advanced math classes. He would set down with them and read through their textbooks and help them figure the answers out. He managed to get all of my siblings through college, but I was stubborn and wanted to do it on my own. I managed to pick up a couple of degrees along the way. I don't have sympathy for those who say they can't afford college. I know I did it by scrubbing toilets and mopping floors, and any odd job I could get my hands on. If a person wants to go bad enough, they will find the way. Not everyone gets to go to Harvard. To this day, I have the utmost respect for those who do menial labor for a living. I have not forgotten where I came from. Perhaps that is why I seem to have a driving need to defend the working people out there.

I have a friend who amassed a lot of money over the years by working his butt off at factory jobs and investing his money in real estate. He was extremely successful. A while back I told him how proud I was of him for all that he had done with his life. He turned to me and said something that really surprised me. He said the difference between him and I was that I had been fortunate enough to have a career that I truly loved and he wished that he had gone on to college so he too could have have had the type of career that he enjoyed. He then said he would trade all that he has, which is considerable, to have had a career like mine, even though he is certainly better off financially than I will ever be.

No college is not for everyone, there are alternatives such as trade schools, trade union apprenticeships etc. but as our friend Susan points out, it's going to be difficult in the future to get a good paying job without some type of advanced education.

My education has allowed me to have a very fulfilling career.

Sorry for being such a gasbag, but after reading your post, I started taking a trip down memory lane. Reading about your dad made me think of my dad who passed on 20 years ago. Like your dad he was a giant of a man, and I miss his wisdom and love everyday. He was so proud of all of his children's accomplishments, and I wish I had done a better job of telling him how thankful I am for all that he did for his family, and how proud I always was of him. Again, zerocool thanks for your post. "

zerocool wrote on May 18, 2009 8:32 PM:

" Crowwoman

My dad HAD asbestosis too, we put him in the ground 2 years ago. I truely pray you don't have to anytime soon.

Susan, you said;

At least the Jesus that I have come to understand from the Bible and many other sources!

Well now, there's your entire problem, the last 4 words in that sentence. That alone explains your views.

CrowWoman also wrote;

My Dad would struggle if he had to write an essay or learn a foreign language, but he had the creativity and intelligence to take a radiator from one car, tinker with it, and rebuild it into another car.

We all learned how to do things like that in the 60's and 70's, my cars were held together with chicken wire, pipe strap and duct tape, ussually installed by me, when I was in my teens.

CrowWoman, wrote; Still, we would never look down on him--or our Mom, for that matter--just because they chose not to pursue higher education.

Chose? Chose? I don't believe my mom or dad ever CHOSE no to further their education, they didn't have that choice.

By the way CrowWoman, you must have missed this paragraph in my post.

Typically, not always, but Typically, entitled people go to college. You know the type, those who think their better because their better off. My apologies to the others. (of which there are a lot less) "

zerocool wrote on May 18, 2009 9:54 PM:

" Harry

Not to pat myself on the back, but once, years ago, before mom and dad were gone, I had the idea to write a letter to the editor thanking them for everything they had ever done for me and telling them how I could not have got anywhere without there help.

The looks on their faces the day that paper came out would have made just as good a picture as the Raising of the Flag at Iwo Jima. Now, I wrote the letter for them, but the fallout that I experienced from the public was unimaginable. I never would have thought of that.

Don't misunderstand me, I have the highest regards for Higher Education, but if it isn't mixed with common sense and morals, it is absolutely worthless.

Now, I don't make near as much money as I need to, but I truely love what I do.

By the way Susan, if everyone is educated, who would do all of the sh_t work, remember what Judge Smhells told his caddy in Caddyshack when the boy said he couldn't afford to go to college!!! Welllll, the world needs ditch diggers too.

Susan, as far as the Repubs having a hard time, check this out.

A recent study showed this.

Americans grow happier as they age, surveys find. And a new Pew Research Center survey shows the tendency is holding up as the economy tanks.
Happiness is a complex thing. Past studies have found that happiness is partly inherited, that Republicans are happier than Democrats, and that old men tend to be happier than old women.

Ironic, isn't it. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 10:13 PM:

" I am sorry to hear about your father, zerocool. Mine is still doing okay, but I believe everyone he worked with in the Insulation unit has died of mesothelioma or lung cancer.

I read the study you mentioned in your post. My guess is that Republicans are happier because they tend to be more religious than Democrats, with stronger church affiliations. (I had thought it would be because they had more money & security, but I read that the researchers controlled for that.) Anyway, in past studies religious people have been shown to be happier than non-religious people, so that would fit.

Why older men are happier than older women, I can't imagine.

Anyway, zerocool and HP--enjoyed reading the comments, each of you talking about your father. Great posts. "

jrhendren wrote on May 18, 2009 11:56 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 16, 2009 11:26 AM:
" I think you're missing Susan's point, Hendren. She is simply relating how Scripture emphasizes Sodom's sins. All you have to do is read it--there are a host of O.T. passages re. Sodom "and her daughters." It's sort of funny, really; you're not rejecting Susan's words, you're rejecting Scripture itself...the parts you apparently haven't read...the parts that don't fit in with your little conservative Christian scenario.

I am not rejecting Scriptures, that would be you/Susan. Scripture is quite clear in both the Old and New Testaments regarding homosexual acts.

Ezekiel 16:48-49 makes it clear that selfishness and oppression were among the reasons that Sodom was taken out.

You left out verse 50 "They were haughty and did detestable things before me." - Ezekiel 16:50. Detestable things before me, isn't homosexual acts one of those listed as detestable? Use all the verses.

The context of the Isaiah passage (remember that word, Context?) makes the same indication. Remember, Scripture refers to cheating and being haughty as "abominations." Why didn't Isaiah and Ezekiel stress the homosexual acts? Ezekiel especially did not mince words when it came to making sexual references.

Again "detestable things", he did mention it, you just left it out.

There are many references to Sodom in the O.T.; you can Google as easily as I can, so I won't take the time to list the 17 I read.

Of course you won't then you would have to cite yourself and see where you are wrong, just as you did above.

Certain themes are repeated, time and again: pride, idolatry, oppression, not helping the needy. This obsession with homosexuality is YOUR obsession, Hendren, not the Lord's.

That's right I wrote the Scriptures. You figured it out. In a previous life I wrote them all knowing that one day homosexuality would be an issue of the 21 century. I wrote:
" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22
"'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." - Leviticus 20:13
"While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, "Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him." - Judges 19:22
"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
"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorwho is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." - Romans 1:25-27 and of course I wrote
"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" - 1 Corinthians 16:9

Of course I did not write these. They are all from the Word of God. His Scriptures not mine. It is not an obsession of any sort. It is the topic of this letter, and so I am staying with topic. The person with an obsession is Susan. Everyone of her letters has this topic in it. See the archives of her letters. If the topic would have been, "The Bible condones Divorce for any reason", I would hate stated it does not. I would have shown the Biblical proof, as I have here, why it does not.

Even in the New Testament, in the passage from Jude--why are you adding to Scripture with the words "and perversion" in Jude 1:7? The Greek word translated here as "fornication" is "porneia" and had a distinctly heterosexual connotation; and the "strange flesh" was a reference to angels, or "sons of God," that WOMEN had sex with [see Genesis 6:1-4] according to Jewish tradition.

You can twist Scripture as you wish, but it still says what you do not want it to. "Porneia" is also the word used for homosexuality. When cross-referenced with other Scriptures, my argument stands.

The pparent answer, as previously mentioned, is that God is not nearly as interested in speaking out against homosexuality as you are. "

I have already showed you the above Scriptures that are from his Word not mine, and I will once again say, and hope you catch this time. God hates all sin, not the person, but the sin. We categorize it, not him. Homosexual acts are no worse then any other sin to him. They all lead to death. Why do you try to make some sins worse then others? "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 12:05 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 16, 2009 11:40 AM:
" "You yell about divorce, gossip, and other sins, yet this one you seem to want to give a pass to. Wonder why?"

Hendren, do you know how many times homosexuality is mentioned in the entire Bible? 12 or 13 times, maybe? In comparison, the sin of hatred is mentioned 21 times, lying and false testimony 30, greed, avarice and covetousness 40, theft 42, adultery 52, murder 57, self-righteousness 79, and idolatry 169 times. Wonder why?

Did you know money is mentioned more then even love. Once again though, you say this sin is worse, and this goes here on the list. All sin is sin, it does not matter if it is mentioned 1 time of 100, it's still sin. Why can you not grasp that?

Your words remind me why so many people think Christians are hateful and bigoted. I am not giving "a pass" to anything. However, as I've told Jon Vanatta, I have to speak out when people distort what the Bible says--as you have been doing.

I have not distorted the Scriptures at all that would once again be you/Susan. I just simple state the Scripture, you try and say it is not what it is really saying. If it said, "the sky was blue." You two would argue, "What it meant was a sky blue with a slight gray tent, because the sky is never just blue." I have said all along that homosexual acts are sin as, drunkenness, adultery, murder, lying, and all other sins. It would be you that wants to make a certain sin, (divorce), the unforgivable sin. Makes one wonder if you were done wrong.

Your biases (and those of other fundamentalist Christians) keep gay people in the shadows, and often away from God himself. That is SO wrong, and if God is what you believe him to be, you may one day stand before him and give account of how you threw out stumbling blocks that kept people away from him.

Is it nice in imaginary land? I have never tried to "keep gay people in the shadows". You know nothing about me. I have already told you of those who live a gay lifestyle who are a part of my family and friends. You once again are reaching for an argument.

Fortunately, God is merciful.... "

Yes he is. None of us deserve him, yet his gift is truly free. What an awesome God he is!!! "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 12:16 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:33 PM:
" Mr. Hendren that is called gang rape, the only way men can rape other men is by sodomizing them. The act is sodomy, the passage is NOT about homosexuality or homosexual men. Rape is not about a consenting sexual relationship between same sex humans, rape is about subjugation and abuse, force and power. "

As you like to say, "you might want to reread that." It is a gang rape, however it is a homosexual gang rape.

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:35 PM:
" They did not accept Lots daughters in trade because they weren't the ones that needed to be shown who was in power, the strangers were the ones that had to be put in their place. If it had been about sex than Lots daughters would have been favored. "

No they would not. If the people were all about power and showing it by sex. Then why did they never rape Lot or his family? Using your logic they should have been raped too to show who was in power in the town. Your line "hey did not accept Lots daughters in trade because they weren't the ones that needed to be shown who was in power" is illogical with your argument of the verses. Of course the Scriptures say "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." - Genesis 19:5. The New Susan Translation says, "They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can (show them who is in power." - The book of Susan

You said, "If it had been about sex than Lots daughters would have been favored.". Not in the case of homosexuality among men. The women were not there, not mentioned just the towns men, old and young. Gay men not interested in virgin women, that's not really a new concept is it. It does not take a genius to figure out why they may not have been interested, and you blamed me of reaching before.

You said I was reaching. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 12:23 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:39 PM:
" Of course it doesn't sound like SOCIAL abuse Mr. Hendren that passage is about SEXUAL abuse and exploitation just as the words Malakos and Arsenokoites (catamites and pederasts) are about abusive and exploitative relationships.

Which is it, sexual abuse or social power. Make up your mind. First you said it was all about showing them it was about power. Now you say it was sexual abuse, even though you said, "They did not accept Lots daughters in trade because they weren't the ones that needed to be shown who was in power....If it had been about sex than Lots daughters would have been favored. " Please make up your mind.

The sexual sins are many and are spelled out, as I pointed out in Leviticas, with no one action being any worse than any other. AND as I pointed out if you ignore one from the list, claim it is no longer binding, than you have to ignore them all, IF you don't want to be a hypocrite. "

I have been the one saying all sin is sin from the beginning. Why do you/CrowWoman not read entire posts? Is it because you are so argumentative you just look for things you do not like? I have also explained to you about no longer being under the Law, but since you do not actually believe in the Word of God, it might be hard for you to comprehend.

shumphreys wrote on May 16, 2009 1:41 PM:
" Of course I cross reference scriptures Mr. Hendren, I keep pointing out those that contradict the ones you mention! Or haven't you noticed? "

Actually you do not. You do however, not finish passages, leaving out key verses. Like that of David's first offering of a wife, you made to sound as if it was Jonathan offered. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 12:46 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 12:40 PM:
" Jrhendren, you may say that "sin is sin" but which sin motivates you to speak out? Which sin generates nearly all letters to the editor? The answer is obvious.

From Susan, homosexuality. From others usually political. As for me all sin motivates me to speak out. That is probably why I have preached and written sermons on so many different sins. In the case here with these posts it is homosexuality, because that is the topic at hand. If it was on a different sin, it would be that sin. How about you? You seem to have a one track mind regarding sin.

Back to the evangelical Christian stance on divorce/remarriage and the passages in Matthew. Why would "pornea" be translated as marital unfaithfulness when there were other words that meant adultery and could be used instead?

The obvious answer is that it is a translation/interpretation error. This view is, as I said before, reinforced by the fact that this exception was only used in Matthew, which was intended for a Jewish audience.

It is not used only in Matthew, and we see the ever famous, "It must be a translation/interpretation error." This has to be the most famous cop out. Those schooled in translation, and interpretation, who can read the original languages, are not as intelligent in these practices as you/Susan. I guess since I changed my own oil that now makes me a car expert, by your logic.

Maybe you're not old enough to realize it, but divorce and remarriage were once regarded as sinful, even scandalous. This was before the practice became so common among Christians and the implications of it needed to be rationalized away. "

I do know they were scandalous, and are still considered sinful, except in unfaithfulness. You like to attack the Christian church, however you do not mention how the Catholic church acts as if divorce is the "unforgivable" sin or how they classify sin. "The Catholic Church divided sin into two principal categories: "venial", which are relatively minor, and could be forgiven through any sacramental or sacraments of the church, and the more severe "capital" or mortal sin." - Wikipedia. If you are going to attack the Christian church on it's views lets play fair. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 12:53 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 8:54 PM:
" Nearly 120 years ago, conservative Christians were opposing a woman's right to vote--from Robert Dabney against Women's Suffrage:

"What then, in the next place, will be the effect of this fundamental change when it shall be established? The obvious answer is, that it will destroy Christianity and civilization in America....What those influences will be may be learned by every one who reverences the Christian Scriptures, from this fact, that the theory of Womens Rights is sheer infidelity. It directly impugns the authority and the justice of these Scriptures. They speak in no uncertain tones. The husband is the head of the wife (Eph. v. 23).

"How utterly opposed is all this to the levelling doctrine of your Radical. Women are here consigned to a social subordination, and expressly excluded from ruling offices, on grounds of their sex, and a divine ordination based by God upon a transaction which happened nearly six thousand years ago!

"Now the politics which denounce all this as a natural injustice and self-evident folly cannot be expected to reverence these Scriptures; they must and will flout their whole authority. We must then make up our minds in accepting Womens Rights to surrender our Bibles, and have an atheistic Government."

Some of these arguments sound strangely familiar, almost as if they have been recycled for the current controversies.

Give me a break. Do some research. The churches he was affiliated with have denounced his racist views. Funny you went clear back to the 1800's to find someone to agree with you. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 1:06 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 9:29 PM:
" Not all that long ago, conservative Christians rallied to support slavery in this country.

Mid-1800's estimates reported 80,000 slaves owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists and 250,000 by Methodists. Anglicans probably owned most of the rest of the nearly 4 million blacks held in serfdom in the United States at the outbreak of the Civil War.

Historian Larry Hise notes in his book Pro-Slavery that ministers 'wrote almost half of all defences of slavery published in America.' He listed 275 men of the cloth who used the Bible to prove that white people were entitled to own black people as work animals.

There we go use someone who is anti-religion, who believes Christians were the cause of the Holocaust, and says was worse then Hitler, as a reference.

Susan Boggs, a black runaway interviewed in Canada in 1863, said of the religious slave masters: 'Why the man that baptized me had a colored woman tied up in his yard to whip when he got home that very Sunday and her mother...was in church hearing him preach. He preached, "You must obey your masters and be good servants." That is the greater part of the sermon, when they preach to the colored folks....'"

We now know that slavery mentioned in the Scriptures, do to better manuscripts found after slavery, that the slaves of the Bible were that of indentured servants. A practice that is still done today. They worked off a debt, or to learn a trade as an apprentice. The South was wrong in their beliefs of slaves. Once again you group all "Christians" as horrible slave owner. I guess those that fought against slavery were not Christians. I guess my Grandfather was not either then since he fought for the slaves. I guess all those non-christian abolitionist are in Hell. Maybe, just maybe their were those who claim to be Christians on both sides. Just as what we have today. Oh and by the way it was the ones who fought against slavery that won, not those who were for it. Something to thing about.

Jrhendren, Jon Vanatta, etc., it has always been the way of conservative Christianity to support the status quo, even when it is evil. Any change in the status quo is believed to threaten the very foundation of society--and biblical faith. The current fixation on oppressing homosexuals is the most current example. "

This is an out and out lie. Their have been "Christian" and non-Christians on both sides of every issue. Quit trying to group all together. By the way the man who freed the slaves, conservative Christian, and the man who brought equal rights, would be considered now days as a Catholic (religious), conservative. Maybe you should stick with facts and not half-truths. "

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

" Harry Potter wrote on May 18, 2009 7:43 AM:
" CrowWoman and Susan, thank you for your ongoing messages. You two have done a great job in pointing out the hypocrisy and inconsistencies of some one here.

I would guess you are speaking of me, and would have to greatly disagree with you. The great thing is we can disagree in this country.

In fairness to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, I would say that is their right to express that view. I just don't happen to believe that.

Which you are entitled to do.

Most educated people have accepted the idea that it is not a choice, but then again we have a lot of people that think the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that man and dinosaurs inhabited the earth at the same time. Crow Woman is right, the thumpers have chosen our gay neighbors as their current whipping boy. I have to wonder how long this will go on. Just look at how long they justified slavery, and to their shame used religion to do it. "

Harry, you are better then that. Surely you are not one who will group all Christians together like those two? Surely you do not believe that all "Christians" justified slavery, like that in the United States? I would expect that from these two, but you. You really believe no Christians were on the side of the North, or were abolitionist? "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 1:17 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 7:05 AM:
" Fundamentalist Christians like to talk about how America was founded as a Christian nation....

Once again the "see this is all Christians, and only Christians" yet nothing about the Catholic Churches history. Wonder why? "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 1:20 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 18, 2009 5:47 PM:
" zerocool, my Dad worked night and day (literally) at a chemical factory. He had a high school education but always felt he barely squeaked by. Dad ended up with asbestosis and is practically deaf, among other problems--mostly resulting from the work he did. He nearly suffocated from gas leaks at the plant more than once.

All the arguing a side, your Dad sounds like he was a great man, who truly loved his family. I am not saying this as a father, but as a son, "GOD BLESS ALL THE DADS OUT THERE!!!" Those men who went without so we could go with. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 1:32 AM:

" A little fun fact for all those speaking of educated and not educated. "most millionaires come from the ranks of B and C students. Their success comes from the "people skills" to manage, lead and inspire." - Thomas Stanley, "The Millionaire Mind" Something to break the tension, and off topic. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:02 AM:

" Mr. Hendren are you aware that Catholics are Christians? In your one post it sounds as though you think they aren't? Crow Woman and I and others on these posts have never and do NOT condemn all Christians, we do not tar and feather ALL with the same brush, that appears to be your tactic. I however do think that it is time to expose those that abuse and misuse their religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the "other", those that are different. AND Mr. Hendren that has been my position for three years on these posts. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:06 AM:

" Mr. Hendren respecting ALL others will NOT destroy Christianity, America,or our way of life. That concept/foundation--respect and equal rights for all is what Christianity, America and our way of life is built upon. Your failure to understand that simple fact/concept is what is damaging America, undermining Christianity and threatening Our Way of Life. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 7:06 AM:

" Hendren, the abolitionists (at least in the U.S.) were the Christian liberals of their time. Some, such as the Quakers, were pacifists.

If you wanted Christian orthodoxy, you had to look to the south. These were the fundamentalists and conservatives of their day. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 7:14 AM:

" Give me a break. Do some research. The churches he was affiliated with have denounced his racist views. Funny you went clear back to the 1800's to find someone to agree with you."

I think you missed the point, J.R. I was showing you how Christian conservatives worked to deny women the right to vote, just as they worked to keep slavery institutionalized in their society, just as they felt they had the right to exterminate the native peoples of the land, just as (more recently) they felt--and many still feel--blacks don't deserve equal rights, and just as most of them feel homosexual people don't deserve rights equal to the rest of us.

These historical events reflect a theme, there is a commonality among those who opposed...basically, human rights. The mentality hasn't changed, only the cause du jour.

Oh, I haven't mentioned Catholics much because you and Vanatta aren't Catholics. I'm well aware of the atrocities they committed in the New World and the Old. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Mr. Hendren the words are about sexual abuse but you have to be able to understand what sexual abuse is about. Sexual abuse isn't about social power, as in power to govern, social status, it is about power as in force and subjugation and physical dominance. Social power is about status, sexual abuse is about force and domination. I understand that for your simple mind complex concepts are difficult to grasp. The difference is between beating someone to a pulp with your bare hands and brow beating them with your words. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 19, 2009 8:10 AM:

" Harry, you are better then that. Surely you are not one who will group all Christians together like those two? Surely you do not believe that all "Christians" justified slavery, like that in the United States? I would expect that from these two, but you. You really believe no Christians were on the side of the North, or were abolitionist? "

First of all, I don't think Susan or CrowWoman have ever said all Christians are bad. If they did, I missed it. I think that is what you want to think about them.

As for myself, of course I don't think all Christians are bad. Because I have never shared my personal beliefs on this site, no one on this site knows what my views on religion are. They are personal and will remain that way. I was merely making the point that there are too many Christian hypocrites out there. There are good and bad people on both sides. I just have a natural aversion towards hypocrisy, and see it all too often from those who constantly spout their views, such as the hatred for our gay brothers and sisters. Another of my pet peeves are the TV preachers who beg for money and appear to live the life style of the rich and famous, such as Benny Hinn, Pat Robertson and Orel Roberts and his son etc. I sometimes think they do that to perpetuate their own lavish life style and not to spread Christianity.

Lastly, I watched a so called preacher on TV a while back, mocking gay men. He was standing near the altar and swishing around and lisping and exhibiting all the stereotypical actions of a gay person. The sad part is that those in the crowd were roaring with laughter at his cruel antics. For me, that was just too much. "

zerocool wrote on May 19, 2009 8:18 AM:

" jrhendren

I realize that I don't have a life, but dude! (yest, I grew up in the 60's) you really don't have a life. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 10:36 AM:

" Lastly, I watched a so called preacher on TV a while back, mocking gay men. He was standing near the altar and swishing around and lisping and exhibiting all the stereotypical actions of a gay person. The sad part is that those in the crowd were roaring with laughter at his cruel antics...."

Exactly, and you can be sure this type of thing happens in congregations across the country. Meanwhile, also in congregations across the country, you have gay people sitting among those who are ridiculing them, desperately hoping no one will notice they are DIFFERENT.

They are Christians, too, but they're hiding out in the closet. In general, they are married, have children, and do not stand out. They have learned to behave straight. They have gone to counseling sessions time and again in order to be healed--just so they can eventually be straight. Some have undergone aversion (as in shock) therapy so they won't be subjected to those satanic thoughts. Or at least as many of them. And if they keep at it long enough, maybe--just maybe--they'll really turn into straight people. Then, they can truly be accepted by their Christian brothers and sisters.

That's when they're feeling optimistic. Other times, they simply feel like ending it all.

No, Hendren, Christians do not persecute gay folk or keep them in the shadows at all.... "

The Curious wrote on May 19, 2009 11:00 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:02 AM:
" Mr. Hendren are you aware that Catholics are Christians? In your one post it sounds as though you think they aren't? Crow Woman and I and others on these posts have never and do NOT condemn all Christians, we do not tar and feather ALL with the same brush, that appears to be your tactic. I however do think that it is time to expose those that abuse and misuse their religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the "other", those that are different. AND Mr. Hendren that has been my position for three years on these posts. "

mshumpty- you are so blind to your own actions and words! For THREE years all you have done is misuse your non- religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the "other", those that are different.

It's so sad to see that you have done the same damn thing for three years, and claim to be doing the opposite, and standing up for those who don't speak up. Hogwash, you stiffly stand up and use your harsh words to persecute all who don't hold the same views as you.

And to all who have been torn apart by mshumpty, let's pray for him/her to be a blessing instead of a curse because he/she is really sick and bored with this God-given life. "

The Curious wrote on May 19, 2009 11:05 AM:

" CrowWoman, great name for you, stick your teeth into the naive & dying and shred them, just as mshumpty, great job, not! Obviously you're the same person who split. So sad that you don't have a life besides the one on here. "

father bob wrote on May 19, 2009 11:44 AM:

" whew!.....looks like someone's determined to paraphrase the entire old and new testaments here on the JG-TC's dime.

think i'll just wait 'til the movie comes out.... "

The Question wrote on May 19, 2009 12:41 PM:

" Hey, Christians, go ahead and hate your gay neighbor. Go ahead and cheat a friend. Do it in the name of heaven. You can justify it in the end. "

Hahvahd wrote on May 19, 2009 1:52 PM:

" zerocool, please don't assume that all educated people are snobs. My dad had a 10th grade education and my mom an 8th grade education, and they are my heroes. I know first-hand the sacrifices they made so that I could have more opportunities than they ever enjoyed. My dad worked 12 hour days, 6-7 days a week as a truck driver, and my mom worked endlessly as a wife and mother to raise the 6 of us. I know what it is like to see intelligent people who cannot afford to go to school. Of the 6 of us kids, 3 have college degrees, and the 3rd got hers when she was in her mid-40's having put herself through school after working as a bank teller for 20+ years. I know about working hard -- I worked as a cleaning girl all through high school and college to buy my own clothes and pay my personal expenses because it was all Dad and Mom could do to pay the tuition and fees for college.

I now have a Master's Degree and teach at EIU, and while I do see a fair number of students who seem to have been born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouths, I see far more who have stories similar to my own. Maybe back in my parents' day (they were both born during the Great Depression), college was an elitist thing, but today there are countless lower- and lower-middle class students who work and struggle yet somehow manage to earn that BS or MS or PhD. I'm sure they find more value and meaning to their studies than what you expressed in your dismissive post.

Not all educated people are "educated idiots," as I've heard some posters on here label them; in fact, I would say the majority are quite intelligent AND have common sense, too. Similarly, I think most people who lack a formal education aren't in that situation because they are stupid, but because they lacked opportunities, or because they weren't encouraged to pursue their education. But the world HAS changed; it's harder and harder for people like my dad and mom to get by at all. Even on a job at double the minimum wage, you're still earning around $30,000 a year, which isn't enough to put a roof over a family's head, food on the table, and the lights on anymore.

Your comment about B and C students making up most of the millionaires may be true, but notice that they STILL were STUDENTS or they wouldn't have grades connected to their stories. . . . "

Hahvahd wrote on May 19, 2009 2:02 PM:

" jrhendren said . . . a bunch of stuff that most people aren't reading anymore, for the sheer volume of it. Also, it gets confusing, jr, when half your posts are what other people said, but you don't use quotation marks and labels to show which are the things someone else said and which are your ideas. We have to sift through the post, and sometimes go back and reread what others said to distinguish their words from yours. I tried that for awhile but eventually gave up because it's so time-consuming. Heck, I'M long-winded, but you give new meaning to the term. . . . "

Hammbone wrote on May 19, 2009 2:39 PM:

" Blah Blah Blah, Yawns "

Hammbone wrote on May 19, 2009 2:41 PM:

" Another sermon from the "Gold Plated" soap box, "

Harry Potter wrote on May 19, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Women and blacks have come a long way and are overcoming discrimination, segregation and bigotry in spite of the opposition of many so called conservative Christians, and I have no doubt that our homosexual neighbors will someday do the same. The Vanattas of the world are dying out, and their hateful views are dying with them. I find it refreshing that so many young people don't hold the same hateful views as their parents do when it comes to these types of issues. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 3:25 PM:

" What is your problem Mr. Curious? Telling folks NOT to persecute others is persecuting others? Is that what you are saying? As I have pointed out before the nation that tolerates intolerance will be destroyed by it. Are you bothered to discover that the Bible does NOT justify the way you have been using it all these years? Are we "shredding people apart" by telling them the TRUTH that the Bible has been mistranslated, misinterpreted and that there are many different versions? Are we destroying people's fantasies by saying that the underlying theme throughout the Bible and ALL the worlds religions is about abuse, injustice, exploitation, and persecution--how you treat your fellow man? Just what is it that you object too? Try being specific. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 3:53 PM:

" Or Mr. Curious do you object to Crow Woman demonstrating a kinder more compassionate form of Christianity? A form that respects other religious beliefs and their followers, a form that respects ALL people, that takes the "judge not that ye be not judged" to heart, a form that is open to knowledge, science, thinking, contemplation, a form that truly tries to practice the Golden Rule of "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself", a form that sees the Bible for what it is--conflicting statements, errors in fact, a mixture of beautiful poetry and prose, fact and fiction, allegorical story and metaphor--in short full of great wisdom. "

shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 3:55 PM:

" Or Mr. Curious do you object to the FREE and OPEN discussion of ideas YOU do NOT AGREE with? "

zerocool wrote on May 19, 2009 4:03 PM:

" The Question

WOW, way to much Billy Jack.

Hahvahd wrote:

I think most people who lack a formal education aren't in that situation because they are stupid, but because they lacked opportunities.

HHHMMM, seems I heard that one before, oh yeah, I said it.

Hahvahd also wrote:

Your comment about B and C students making up most of the millionaires may be true.

Funny, I can't find my quote where I said that. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 11:03 PM:

" To The Curious: Looking over your comments from other threads, past and present, I've noticed that you don't often comment on the topic being discussed. Rather, you seem to concentrate on attacking Susan H., while occasionally taking a shot at Hahvahd or myself.

Apparently, what we say disturbs you a great deal. Actually, I don't think it's what we're saying that bugs you, but what you're reading into our comments. Anyhow...we're here. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:33 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:02 AM:
" Mr. Hendren are you aware that Catholics are Christians?"

Are you aware that their are major differences in the Christian Church, and Catholic Church?

"In your one post it sounds as though you think they aren't? Crow Woman and I and others on these posts have never and do NOT condemn all Christians, we do not tar and feather ALL with the same brush, that appears to be your tactic. "

You don't lets see:
CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 8:54 PM:
" Nearly 120 years ago, conservative Christians were opposing a woman's right to vote--from Robert Dabney against Women's Suffrage: - (sounds like all consevative Christians to me, must have miss typed the word "some")

CrowWoman wrote on May 17, 2009 9:29 PM:
" Not all that long ago, conservative Christians rallied to support slavery in this country. - (Again forgot the "some")

CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 7:14 AM:
I was showing you how Christian conservatives worked to deny women the right to vote, just as they worked to keep slavery institutionalized in their society, just as they felt they had the right to exterminate the native peoples of the land"

Everyone of the above are grouping all Christians.

"I however do think that it is time to expose those that abuse and misuse their religion to promote fear and hate and justify the persecution of the "other", those that are different. AND Mr. Hendren that has been my position for three years on these posts. "

That is fine, and it should be pointed out when it is true. However, no one is encouraging the persecution of "others", as you say it is going on. Also if you are, be fair, the Catholic church has, yet it is not mentioned. You just want to group all religions together. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:37 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 19, 2009 7:06 AM:
" Mr. Hendren respecting ALL others will NOT destroy Christianity, America,or our way of life. That concept/foundation--respect and equal rights for all is what Christianity, America and our way of life is built upon. Your failure to understand that simple fact/concept is what is damaging America, undermining Christianity and threatening Our Way of Life. "

No, that would be you agenda that does. You want freedom of speech as long as it goes along with your belief. If someone says different they are intolerant and "damaging America". All men/women deserve the same respect. No one is encouraging persecution of others except those who speak out against you. You then encourage their persecution. That they need to shut up. Why? Isn't America supposed to be the place where everyone is entitled to their own opinion? I can voice my concerns regarding homosexual activity, just as you can, because we live in America. Heck, in some countries neither of us would be allowed to voice an opinion. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:46 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 7:06 AM:
" Hendren, the abolitionists (at least in the U.S.) were the Christian liberals of their time. Some, such as the Quakers, were pacifists."

The slave system aroused little protest until the 18th century, when rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man, and Quaker and other evangelical religious groups condemned it as un-Christian. - Wikipedia. I guess other "evangelical religious groups" were not conservative or real Christians. All throughout history you have Christian leaders doing away with slavery. You might also want to do some research on what was considered liberalism at that time. Even though this is off topic, and just trying to make it once again political.

If you wanted Christian orthodoxy, you had to look to the south. These were the fundamentalists and conservatives of their day. "

As stated do some research on liberalism and conservatives of that time. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:51 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 7:14 AM:
" Give me a break. Do some research. The churches he was affiliated with have denounced his racist views. Funny you went clear back to the 1800's to find someone to agree with you."

I think you missed the point, J.R. I was showing you how Christian conservatives worked to deny women the right to vote, just as they worked to keep slavery institutionalized in their society, just as they felt they had the right to exterminate the native peoples of the land, just as (more recently) they felt--and many still feel--blacks don't deserve equal rights, and just as most of them feel homosexual people don't deserve rights equal to the rest of us.

I got your point only "Christians" want woman below them, slavery back, and gays dead. Unfortunately you are completely off base. You can only go after Christianity. Funny no mention on how Buddhism, or Hinduism treat women, gays, and others, just Christians. Wonder again why that is?

"These historical events reflect a theme, there is a commonality among those who opposed...basically, human rights. The mentality hasn't changed, only the cause du jour."

Again, since you are for equality why not the mention of other religions?

Oh, I haven't mentioned Catholics much because you and Vanatta aren't Catholics. I'm well aware of the atrocities they committed in the New World and the Old. "

One must believe that you yourself are Catholic, and therefor has something to do with them being left out. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:57 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on May 19, 2009 8:10 AM:
As for myself, of course I don't think all Christians are bad....I was merely making the point that there are too many Christian hypocrites out there. There are good and bad people on both sides...."

I would agree with you entirely. Their are to many on both sides who do neither of their causes any good. I just get aggravated when, as I believe has, these crooks are still called "Christians", when they are obviously not. Christ never said, "Take um for all they got." That is what a lot of these so called "evangelist" do. As for the preacher making fun of gays, he will pay for his sins someday. What he did is disgusting, and in no way what Christ preached. "

jrhendren wrote on May 19, 2009 11:58 PM:

" zerocool wrote on May 19, 2009 8:18 AM:
" jrhendren

I realize that I don't have a life, but dude! (yest, I grew up in the 60's) you really don't have a life. "

Why? "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 12:03 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 10:36 AM:
" Lastly, I watched a so called preacher on TV a while back, mocking gay men...."

Exactly, and you can be sure this type of thing happens in congregations across the country. Meanwhile, also in congregations across the country, you have gay people sitting among those who are ridiculing them, desperately hoping no one will notice they are DIFFERENT.

They are Christians, too, but they're hiding out in the closet. In general, they are married, have children, and do not stand out. They have learned to behave straight. They have gone to counseling sessions time and again in order to be healed--just so they can eventually be straight. Some have undergone aversion (as in shock) therapy so they won't be subjected to those satanic thoughts. Or at least as many of them. And if they keep at it long enough, maybe--just maybe--they'll really turn into straight people. Then, they can truly be accepted by their Christian brothers and sisters.

That's when they're feeling optimistic. Other times, they simply feel like ending it all.

No, Hendren, Christians do not persecute gay folk or keep them in the shadows at all....

Nice rant! Once again all Christians are bad. I guess since I do not agree with some, not all, but some on both sides of the aisle, that of those in Congress are haters, anti-Americans, and racists. Some are some are not, but as you do, we can just group them all together. "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 12:04 AM:

" father bob wrote on May 19, 2009 11:44 AM:
" whew!.....looks like someone's determined to paraphrase the entire old and new testaments here on the JG-TC's dime.

think i'll just wait 'til the movie comes out.... "

I know I wish Ms/Mrs Humphreys would quit doing just that. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:04 AM:

" Mr. Hendren "Conservative Christians" are NOT ALL Christians. Honestly read what is written. I might also add thank heaven "Conservative Christians" are NOT representative of ALL Christians. Now about the Catholic church, they invented Christianity, so even if there form is different from yours they are still Christians. AND since they came first perhaps they have a greater claim on the title than YOU! "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:11 AM:

" You complain that I ONLY pick on Christians and then you say I want to group all religions together. Hm, you do seem to have trouble making up your mind. Mr. Hendren I have NEVER denied or hindered a persons right to speak up, their freedom of speech or religion. Having a better argument than you is not hindering your rights. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:14 AM:

" You really are blind Mr. Hendren if you think people in this country are NOT being persecuted for: 1. not being Christians 2. not being the "right" kind of Christian 3. their sexual orientation 4. for choosing to have an abortion 5. for their race, color of their skin, ethnicity As the Bible says you are blind and cannot see, you have ears and cannot hear. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Mr. Hendren we have been over this "you are picking ONLY on Christians" bit time and time again. MANY, MANY times we use the word religion or religious groups which by the way includes ALL religious groups. We have also pointed out that on these particular pages we are discussing Christianity because there aren't any Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (that have identified themselves) joining in the fray. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:24 AM:

" Sorry Mr. Hendren my missives are miniscule compared to yours. I prefer to mention the coordinates of a verse, and a BRIEF synopsis and let folks look up the full text for themself. I actually want to encourage folks to read the Bible and THINK. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Jrhendren wrote, "One must believe that you yourself are Catholic, and therefor has something to do with them being left out."

I told you why I wasn't focusing on the Catholics; you even quoted what I said before you posted your own message! If I were Catholic I would certainly say so. There is much about their take on the faith that I admire, including spiritual depth, imagery, concern for social welfare, and a whole lot more. I personally believe, with the Reformation, people threw out the baby with the bath water.

However, there is a rigidity in their hierarchy that seems creaky and old, and I simply cannot embrace some of their theological beliefs.

Roman Catholicism IS Christian, however; the Catholics were here first, and the Protestant groups split off from them. Where do you think the Bible came from? The early Catholics decided at their councils what books would be in the Scriptural canon and what ones would be left out. Agree with them or not, you certainly are indebted to them.

The truth is, early church writings support their practices much more than they support any of ours (in Protestant denominations). They have a history that goes directly back to the apostles; we do not have that.

Anyway, I've known several Catholics quite well, and two of the most moving worship services I've ever attended were in Catholic settings.

Besides, their core beliefs are basically the same as your own: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Again, it's just some of their doctrinal extras that I have trouble with.

The rest of what you wrote does not make sense to me; I still don't believe you're getting the point I was trying to make. Go back and re-read what I wrote, if you're interested; if not, that's okay as well. Unlike Susan, I don't have the patience to repeat myself again and again. "

zerocool wrote on May 20, 2009 10:21 AM:

" As the Bible says you are blind and cannot see, you have ears and cannot hear.

So Susan, where exactly does it say that in tThe Bible? "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 12:39 PM:

" Note Zerocool I did not use quotation marks so the words are paraphrased. But look up Psalm 115 and you will see where the "content" comes from. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 12:54 PM:

" An interesting bit of information:

George Whitefield is the man who is often credited with bringing revivalist fundamentalism to America. He toured the American colonies preaching the message of fundamentalist Christianity winning many converts. His campaign was called The Great Awakening but what is forgotten, or ignored, is that Whitefield didnt just support slavery he actively extended it.

The state of Georgia, where Whitefield preached and established an orphanage, prohibited slavery. But in 1749 there was a move to legalize the ownership and trading of human beings and the great evangelical leader George Whitefield was a leader of that campign. His orphanage owned slaves and upon Whitefields death those slaves were bequeathed as property to the Countess of Huntingdon, a benefactor of Whitefield who helped pay for his revival campaigns and was a major benefactor of the British evangelical movement.

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says that the few evangelicals who took an interest in the enslaved focused exclusively on the Africans spiritual welfare. Slaves, in accordance with the New Testament, were told to accept their bondage and improve their spiritual condition.

If one group deserves praise in the fight against slavery it is not the evangelicals. It is the Quakers. This sect is not evangelical in any sense of the word and was often persecuted by evangelicals for their teachings. But Quakers consistently opposed slavery, which is one reason for the persecution they suffered at the hands of orthodox believers. Quakers were petitioning parliament to abolish slavery while the evangelicals were still counting the profits from the trade.

The campaign to portray evangelicals as the force behind abolitionism is a false one. And even the major evangelical influences on Wilberforce, Whitefield and Newton, were slavers. Newtons conversion didnt stop his slave trading as is claimed by the Religious Right. And Whitefield was a major leader of the campaign to bring slavery to the state of Georgia.

Thanks to George Whitefield by 1810 there were over 100,000 slaves in the state of Georgia. And by the time of the Civil War there were close to half a million. It is probably not an exaggeration to say that this prominent evangelical revivalist alone made it possible to enslave over 1 million people from the time he pushed for the legalization of slavery in Georgia until it was abolished by the Civil War just over a century later. Evangelicals ought not celebrate and sing Amazing Grace too loudly. Their history in the slave trade is far, far dirtier than they are admitting. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 4:35 PM:

" I enjoy your "tidbits" of history Crow Woman. There are quite a few who prefer to ignore history or try to revise it to suit their purposes. "

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 4:41 PM:

" It is also curious that the same folks that try to rewrite history are also the same ones that try to rewrite the laws of science. I wonder why they are so afraid to face reality, afraid of the TRUTH? "

The Question wrote on May 20, 2009 4:49 PM:

" The 2,600-page report of an investigation into Ireland's Catholic-run institutions says priests and nuns terrorized thousands of boys and girls in workhouse-style schools for decades and government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.
There's that "goodness" and "kindness" and "morality" you Christians are always talking about, hard at work. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 6:38 PM:

" I think, Susan, that part of the problem is that people are unaware that there is a history beyond what they've been taught. What we read as children in the textbooks was usually romanticized. Sometimes, efforts to de-romanticize it go to extremes as well, I feel, such as what happened recently with the Lincoln marker situation.

It's time-consuming but useful to look at history from a variety of angles, or from all sides of a controversial topic. Reality might be tucked away somewhere among the extremes. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 6:41 PM:

" Sounds like evil and betrayal to me, Question, from the religious and government authorities alike. I hope there are still people around who can be held accountable for what happened. "

HisChild wrote on May 20, 2009 8:00 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 4:35 PM:
"There are quite a few who prefer to ignore history or try to revise it to suit their purposes. "

You're hysterically funny considering you've been doing exactly that! :-) "

zerocool wrote on May 20, 2009 9:07 PM:

" Wow, if I wrote as many blogs as jrhendren does, I would probably accidently use more than 1 of my nic's and then be in real trouble. "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 11:27 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:04 AM:
" Mr. Hendren "Conservative Christians" are NOT ALL Christians. Honestly read what is written. I might also add thank heaven "Conservative Christians" are NOT representative of ALL Christians.

Oh I'm sorry, they are just Christians who do not agree with your views, and therefore not true Christians. Likewise, It's good all Liberal Christians are not representative of ALL Christians. (I can make it political too.)

"Now about the Catholic church, they invented Christianity, so even if there form is different from yours they are still Christians. AND since they came first perhaps they have a greater claim on the title than YOU! "

So they were Catholic in Antioch. "and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." - Acts 11:26. Not to mention the meaning of "Christian" is "Christ follower"
Christian: Greek Word: cristiano
Transliterated Word: Christianos
Phonetic Spelling: khris-tee-an-os'
Definition: 1. Christian, a follower of Christ - Greek/English Dictionary

Since the Apostles and Disciples of Christ were his followers guess what they were, right "Christians", way before the establishment of the Catholic Church. "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 11:32 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:11 AM:
" You complain that I ONLY pick on Christians and then you say I want to group all religions together. Hm, you do seem to have trouble making up your mind. Mr. Hendren I have NEVER denied or hindered a persons right to speak up, their freedom of speech or religion. Having a better argument than you is not hindering your rights. "

Nice twist of what I said. Also you have never had a better argument then me without deception. You group all of those who call themselves "Christian" together is what I said. You say those who do not live a true Christian lifestyle, like those in the "Kansas Cult" who call themselves Christian as one of us. You most certainly do "hindered a persons right to speak up, their freedom of speech or religion", when you tell us we should not be allowed to believe as we believe, and that we are stupid for following a "unreal God", as you do. "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 11:35 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:14 AM:
" You really are blind Mr. Hendren if you think people in this country are NOT being persecuted for: 1. not being Christians 2. not being the "right" kind of Christian 3. their sexual orientation 4. for choosing to have an abortion 5. for their race, color of their skin, ethnicity As the Bible says you are blind and cannot see, you have ears and cannot hear. "

Never said they were not, except not on the scale you would have all to believe. The problem is you are blaming the wrong people. Where does the Bible say I am blind, you know the Bible, the book you believe to be full of myths? That's right you just paraphrase it all. By the way how do you justify using a book you do not believe in, to make you points? "

jrhendren wrote on May 20, 2009 11:42 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:20 AM:
" Mr. Hendren we have been over this "you are picking ONLY on Christians" bit time and time again. MANY, MANY times we use the word religion or religious groups which by the way includes ALL religious groups. We have also pointed out that on these particular pages we are discussing Christianity because there aren't any Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews (that have identified themselves) joining in the fray. "

Yes, but you did not add them into your original comments either, just Christians. There other religions that persecute others for more. So why not mention them?

shumphreys wrote on May 20, 2009 7:24 AM:
" Sorry Mr. Hendren my missives are miniscule compared to yours. I prefer to mention the coordinates of a verse, and a BRIEF synopsis and let folks look up the full text for themself. I actually want to encourage folks to read the Bible and THINK. "

No you tend to give your interpretation, knowing good and well most will not look up what you have said. (Example: Your comments on David). You do not want others to think for themselves, you want them to only think as you. I have said before, we all have the right to believe as we wish. You say we can only believe as you wish. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 12:02 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 9:15 AM:
" Jrhendren wrote, "One must believe that you yourself are Catholic, and therefor has something to do with them being left out."

I told you why I wasn't focusing on the Catholics;.."

Because we are not Catholic. Yet you/Susan are wanting equality for all and speak for all?

"Roman Catholicism IS Christian, however; the Catholics were here first, and the Protestant groups split off from them. Where do you think the Bible came from? The early Catholics decided at their councils what books would be in the Scriptural canon and what ones would be left out. Agree with them or not, you certainly are indebted to them."

SO as I asked Susan, those in Antioch were Catholic, along with the Apostles and Disciples who followed Christ? Since Christian means "Christ Follower".

"The truth is, early church writings support their practices much more than they support any of ours (in Protestant denominations). They have a history that goes directly back to the apostles; we do not have that."

I am guessing you are going with the Catholic belief of Peter as the first apostle. Which is only taught in Catholicism. It also has no backing except in their own belief, no Biblical backing that is.

"Anyway, I've known several Catholics quite well, and two of the most moving worship services I've ever attended were in Catholic settings.
Besides, their core beliefs are basically the same as your own: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. Again, it's just some of their doctrinal extras that I have trouble with."

Except the fact that you must speak to a priest, not God directly, the categorizing of sins, the almost worship of the Pope, Mary and other "saints", instead of Christ, you are saved by grace through works, not faith, sins are forgiven in purgatory, not by the grace of God. These are just a few of the large amount of differences in the two.

"The rest of what you wrote does not make sense to me; ..."

Did not make sense or you have no argument? "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 12:04 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 20, 2009 12:54 PM:
" An interesting bit of information:..."

Once again a stab at Christians, but you and Susan are all for equality, and never take personal jabs. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 12:06 AM:

" zerocool wrote on May 20, 2009 9:07 PM:
" Wow, if I wrote as many blogs as jrhendren does, I would probably accidently use more than 1 of my nic's and then be in real trouble. "

That is why I only have one, and I work overnight, and have the time. "

zerocool wrote on May 21, 2009 1:46 AM:

" Question

It's a well known fact the there has been problems with Catholic Priests for many years, some "ODD" facts.

Catholic Priests cannot marry

A lot of Catholic Priests are Homosexuals

Some Catholic Priests abuse boys

hhhmmm.

Do the math. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 6:20 AM:

" Elsewhere, Jrhendren wrote, "When I felt like putting a bullet in my head one day, and my Bible fell to the floor and I read that God loves me, it clicked that day."

J.R., as a former suicide hotline worker, I am thankful that God intervened in your life in a way that spoke clearly to you. Many who believe, myself included, can speak of encounters that we knew, in our heart of hearts, that were orchestrated by God.

This type of proof cannot be verified by science, but that does not make it any less real and true.

A critical step you need to take in your journey of faith is to accept that Christians who do not believe as you believe likewise have real and true encounters with God. For example, the bereaved Catholic girl who senses the Virgin Mary comforting her....Or the gay Christian who senses the presence of Christ during his worship service.

To affirm your own experience with Christ as real, and simultaneously claim that someone else's (Catholic or gay Christian, for example) experience could not be real would be the height of arrogance, wouldn't it?

What is the alternative? To say that the Catholic who receives the peace of God through her experience with the Virgin Mary is suffering from satanic deception? (I've heard that one.) Or that the gay person sensing Christ's presence during worship is sensing something else entirely?

It would take a lot of nerve to make that claim, I think. Once again, we can't stuff God into the little box of our biases and preconceptions. " "

CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 6:36 AM:

" Not a stab at Christians, J.R., but still another stab at hypocrisy.

Very interesting. You would have us believe that people like George Whitefield, responsible for the suffering of millions--simply because he believed the same as you do, the tenets of evangelical Christianity--this guy and folks like him were the "real Christians"...while those who had differing doctrine, yet followed (and follow today) Christ's gospel of peace--they are not real Christians? Amazing.

You're in a very strange position, J.R., defending people (Whitefield, Puritan founders) who caused unimaginable suffering--just because they otherwise practiced a brand of Christianity that is familiar to you.

Now, I'm not going to say that revivalist Whitefield was not a real Christian, or that the Puritan Indian-killers (revered by today's conservative Christians) were not real Christians...but were they living out the Gospel? I don't think so!

God apparently tolerates a lot of error. If you can give the slavery-embracing revivalists and Indian-killing Puritans a free pass, who were all practicing murderous evil as a lifestyle, maybe you should extend that pass to the Catholics, gay believers, and all the others who (according to you) are not real Christians. "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:17 AM:

" Of course I want people to believe/accept my point of you. Why on earth would I be writing if I didn't? Why on earth would I work at perfecting my arguments, checking my facts, doing my research if I didn't want to present a position that can withstand any attacks. Whether people check sources, is their problem, and maybe yours, not mine. "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:20 AM:

" And Mr. Hendren telling the TRUTH about history whether human history (even when the subject is about one particular group of people is not picking on that group. You can NOT hide from the facts, you can NOT twist them to present a more pretty picture, you can only face the TRUTH head on and pledge to do better next time, as an individual or as a group or as a nation. "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:25 AM:

" One reason Mr. Hendren we are addressing the problems with the abuse and misuse of Christianity here is that PEACE, winning the War on Terror, has to start at home. We don't have much affect on world religious attitudes BUT we can and we must work at changing local attitudes towards others, those that are different. World Peace starts at home. "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Mr. Hendren as you say Christian simply means Christ follower. So what makes a Christian a Christian in your book? Catholics and Mormons both follow Christ are they Christians? Crow Woman is obviously a Christ follower is she a Christian? Or we might ask what makes for a "Good Christian" as opposed to a not so good Christian? "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:37 AM:

" As to the Bible Mr. Hendren I have told you before that the Bible is a good book, full of great wisdom and for better and worse has been used to justify the greatest attrocities committed by men AND used to bring out the BEST in men. Crow Woman has pointed out several historical incidents in this country where it has been used to justify the persecution of others. The recent Irish church scandal is another example of how religion and a book can be used to bring out the worst in people. Whether we like it or not religion, Christianity and all the world religions, the Bible and all the world's sacred texts have played and will continue to play a big part in this world and ALL of us had better come to understand and appreciate ALL the worlds religions and all their sacred texts. "

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:41 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren do you know what catholic means? Perhaps you should look it up, do a little historical research. You might just learn why they took on that name. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 11:21 AM:

" Did not make sense or you have no argument?"

J.R., there is no logical argument against irrationality; I am not trying to argue with you. You might say I am trying to pry your eyes open, if anything.

You really have no standing to discuss the Catholic viewpoint, since you never refer to what they say they believe--rather, you tell us what you've heard they believe. Before you talk any further about Catholicism, check out one of their apologetics websites. Then, you can present your anti-Catholic points intelligently, if you so desire.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

About Scripture's role in the Catholic church, try:

http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

That should get you started. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 11:33 AM:

" Oh, I forgot this one:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

That should keep you awake for awhile, especially if you want to go to their forum and start a discussion. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 11:40 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 6:20 AM:
A critical step you need to take in your journey of faith is to accept that Christians who do not believe as you believe likewise have real and true encounters with God. For example, the bereaved Catholic girl who senses the Virgin Mary comforting her....Or the gay Christian who senses the presence of Christ during his worship service."

I have never that those you mention could not have an encounter with God. On the contrary I believe God speaks to us all in his own special way. From the Atheist who sees or has one little encounter that makes them say, "whoa, maybe I should look into this more, to the person who get their full facilities long enough to tell their family good bye, before dying. Everyone, no matter their belief can talk to God. We are however, to test the spirits to see if they are truely from God.

"To affirm your own experience with Christ as real, and simultaneously claim that someone else's (Catholic or gay Christian, for example) experience could not be real would be the height of arrogance, wouldn't it? What is the alternative? To say that the Catholic who receives the peace of God through her experience with the Virgin Mary is suffering from satanic deception? (I've heard that one.) Or that the gay person sensing Christ's presence during worship is sensing something else entirely?

It would take a lot of nerve to make that claim, I think. Once again, we can't stuff God into the little box of our biases and preconceptions. " "

I have never made such claims. I have and do believe that the Catholic church puts to much eCrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 6:20 AM:
" Elsewhere, Jrhendren wrote, "When I felt like putting a bullet in my head one day, and my Bible fell to the floor and I read that God loves me, it clicked that day."

J.R., as a former suicide hotline worker, I am thankful that God intervened in your life in a way that spoke clearly to you. Many who believe, myself included, can speak of encounters that we knew, in our heart of hearts, that were orchestrated by God.

This type of proof cannot be verified by science, but that does not make it any less real and true.

A critical step you need to take in your journey of faith is to accept that Christians who do not believe as you believe likewise have real and true encounters with God. For example, the bereaved Catholic girl who senses the Virgin Mary comforting her....Or the gay Christian who senses the presence of Christ during his worship service.

To affirm your own experience with Christ as real, and simultaneously claim that someone else's (Catholic or gay Christian, for example) experience could not be real would be the height of arrogance, wouldn't it?

What is the alternative? To say that the Catholic who receives the peace of God through her experience with the Virgin Mary is suffering from satanic deception? (I've heard that one.) Or that the gay person sensing Christ's presence during worship is sensing something else entirely?

It would take a lot of nerve to make that claim, I think. Once again, we can't stuff God into the little box of our biases and preconceptions." "

I have never made theses claims, I do however feel the Catholic church emphasizes Mary to much. Also it is not stuffing God in a box, when you are going by his own Word. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 11:49 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 6:36 AM:
" Not a stab at Christians, J.R., but still another stab at hypocrisy.

Very interesting. You would have us believe that people like George Whitefield, responsible for the suffering of millions--simply because he believed the same as you do, the tenets of evangelical Christianity--this guy and folks like him were the "real Christians"...while those who had differing doctrine, yet followed (and follow today) Christ's gospel of peace--they are not real Christians? Amazing."

What are you talking about? I did not defend them, quite the opposite. I have stated over and over again, that just because someone calls themselves Christian does not make them a Christian. I have also never condoned slavery, so how I am defending him is absurd.

You're in a very strange position, J.R., defending people (Whitefield, Puritan founders) who caused unimaginable suffering--just because they otherwise practiced a brand of Christianity that is familiar to you.

More out and out lies on your part, as I never defended him. What I have said was to you referring to all Christians as for slavery, anti-woman suffrage, and other wrong doings. Quit trying to twist my words.

Now, I'm not going to say that revivalist Whitefield was not a real Christian, or that the Puritan Indian-killers (revered by today's conservative Christians) were not real Christians...but were they living out the Gospel? I don't think so!

I would agree to a point, now I will not condemn them as all sin, (except you and Susan so it seems).

God apparently tolerates a lot of error. If you can give the slavery-embracing revivalists and Indian-killing Puritans a free pass, who were all practicing murderous evil as a lifestyle, maybe you should extend that pass to the Catholics, gay believers, and all the others who (according to you) are not real Christians. "

Anyone who calls themselves Christian, but does not even try to live as the Scriptures say, is not a Christian. Sorry to burst your bubble. Notice I said, "does not even try to live as the Scriptures say", because we all sin everyday. Only Christ was sinless. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 11:51 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:17 AM:
" Of course I want people to believe/accept my point of you. Why on earth would I be writing if I didn't? Why on earth would I work at perfecting my arguments, checking my facts, doing my research if I didn't want to present a position that can withstand any attacks. Whether people check sources, is their problem, and maybe yours, not mine. "

You might want to work harder at perfecting your fact, and doing research. Since most of your facts are half-truths, and references are highly bias. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 11:55 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:20 AM:
" And Mr. Hendren telling the TRUTH about history whether human history (even when the subject is about one particular group of people is not picking on that group. You can NOT hide from the facts, you can NOT twist them to present a more pretty picture, you can only face the TRUTH head on and pledge to do better next time, as an individual or as a group or as a nation. "

I do nothing nothing of the sort. I have never hid behind my beliefs. I have stated that their are those in the past and now, who call themselves Christian who are not. If I call myself a bird, but do not do as a bird, I am not a bird. You have the problem with twisting, facts, refer again to your David/Jonathan fact. I state the Scriptures, you reinterpret the Scriptures to fit your own beliefs. The Christian church has not done right every time, why, because of man. "

jrhendren wrote on May 21, 2009 11:59 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:25 AM:
" One reason Mr. Hendren we are addressing the problems with the abuse and misuse of Christianity here is that PEACE, winning the War on Terror, has to start at home. We don't have much affect on world religious attitudes BUT we can and we must work at changing local attitudes towards others, those that are different. World Peace starts at home. "

Your address was on homosexuality, now the war on terror. Which are you fighting for? Peace does not mean sit back and let others take over either. Peace and freedom comes at a price. A price that I can proudly say my family has fought for before we were even a nation. It is not Christians who are cutting heads off and putting them on stakes. It is not Christians who are burning bodies and dragging them through the streets. The war on terror is not a "holy war", for us, it's a war on cowards, not Muslims. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 12:12 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:32 AM:
" Mr. Hendren as you say Christian simply means Christ follower. So what makes a Christian a Christian in your book?"

Ummm... a little book called the Bible. If you are not trying to follow it, your not even trying to follow the Scriptures, without twisting to fit your doctrine, then how can one call themselves Christian.

"Catholics and Mormons both follow Christ are they Christians? Crow Woman is obviously a Christ follower is she a Christian? Or we might ask what makes for a "Good Christian" as opposed to a not so good Christian? "

You might want to look into the Mormon church more, they do not exactly follow the Christ of the Bible. If she was excusing sin, and not following the Word to the best of her ability I would question her. The problem is I will not fall into your bated trap here. It is not my place to say who is and who is not. That would be you two. You two are the ones saying he is not and he is. I say, those who are not trying to follow the Word, are not. I will say to you this, I do not believe you to be, for the fact you mock the Word. That of course is my opinion. If you claim to be the Scriptures do say I along with others should rebuke you of your ways, with Scripture.

shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:37 AM:
" As to the Bible Mr. Hendren I have told you before that the Bible is a good book, full of great wisdom..."

Yet you mock it calling it fairy tales. Sounds like you want your cake and to eat it too.

"...and for better and worse has been used to justify the greatest attrocities committed by men AND used to bring out the BEST in men. Crow Woman has pointed out several historical incidents in this country where it has been used to justify the persecution of others. The recent Irish church scandal is another example of how religion and a book can be used to bring out the worst in people. Whether we like it or not religion, Christianity and all the world religions, the Bible and all the world's sacred texts have played and will continue to play a big part in this world and ALL of us had better come to understand and appreciate ALL the worlds religions and all their sacred texts. "

You are wrong here, as usual. I do not have to change my beliefs in order for others who believe different to be appreciated. Why should I change how I believe so that you can feel better? Would you like it if I said you had to change the way you believe to make me feel better? Of course not, the Constitution gives me just as much right to exercise my beliefs as you. Their is only one God, and all will bow to him one day, and profess him as the One True God, and I can and will believe it till the day I die, and live with him in Paradise. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 12:21 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 21, 2009 7:41 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren do you know what catholic means? Perhaps you should look it up, do a little historical research. You might just learn why they took on that name. "

Catholic is an adjective derived from the Greek adjective καθολικός (katholikos), meaning "universal"

Christian, as used in the book of Acts means Christ follower. Thank you for proving once again my point. Oh and Catholic is used no where in the Scriptures, unlike Christian. I know the Catholic Church likes to say that the Apostles started the first Catholic Church, and since their is a Greek word for Catholic, wonder why it was never used, or why Acts does not say, "they were first called Catholic in Antioch." Also they were not originally called Catholic before that either but where referred to as "The Way". Also Christians was at first a derogatory word used by non-believers in Christ, latter adapted by "Christians". You might want to do some research yourself.
Now their are some churches who use the word catholic, (lower case "c"), to refer to the unity of the church, but they do not consider themselves part of the Catholic, (upper case "c"), church. You again might want to do some research yourself, next time. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 12:33 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 11:21 AM:
" Did not make sense or you have no argument?"

J.R., there is no logical argument against irrationality; I am not trying to argue with you. You might say I am trying to pry your eyes open, if anything.

You really have no standing to discuss the Catholic viewpoint, since you never refer to what they say they believe--rather, you tell us what you've heard they believe. Before you talk any further about Catholicism, check out one of their apologetics websites. Then, you can present your anti-Catholic points intelligently, if you so desire.

My viewpoint comes from those who attend the Catholic Church, former Catholics, and present/past priests of the Catholic Church. I guess they would not know though. Wait, you are actually telling me to use bias sites to look up information.

I did look at your links, and as stated bias. Including such things as "all bishops can and must trace themselves to the apostles. Anyone who does not is a heretic," Impossible to do first, and secondly, the first elders or bishops, were not apostles of Christ, but disciples of Christ. They have no proof of Peter as the first Pope, except that they need him to be. I know this will bring haters, but the Pope is just a man, nothing special. Of course a Catholic website is not going to say, "We do not believe in this even though the Scriptures say....". That is stupid to even thank they would. Why do you think I went to those who have been there? "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 12:41 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 21, 2009 11:33 AM:
" Oh, I forgot this one:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

That should keep you awake for awhile, especially if you want to go to their forum and start a discussion. "

I looked at this one to. Thank you it made me even happier not to be Catholic, since it talks about how the Bible is not exactly inspired and then twist it to say Christ established the Church in the way the Catholic church is. Problem being he did not such thing, in fact, the apostles set up elders and deacons. Nor did Christ say that only priest could talk to God for you. He taught all the people how to pray. "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:22 AM:

" Mr. Hendren Christian has also been used as a derogatory term, so has Jew, so what else is new? Honestly, the Carholic church and Eastern Orthodox church were here before the Protestant church. The fact is that the Bible was put together by what became the Catholic church. You may like to think that YOU are the TRUE Christian and represent the TRUE Christian church but what you have shown us of your thinking shows that you aren't. The first Christians (as in the original Christ followers) were practicing Jews. Jesus was a Jew and felt strongly that the laws should be followed. Are you a practicing Jew? "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:27 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I am NOT a Christian and have never claimed to be nor pretended to be one. I am a Gnostic Taoist. Now than WHO decides what is or is NOT the word of God, what is or is NOT the RIGHT interpretation of Gods word? It certainly isn't you, you have shown us that you don't fully understand the TRUE meaning behind the stories. As to Mormons you should read about them and read the Book of Mormon and not listen to rumors. "

Harry Potter wrote on May 22, 2009 7:28 AM:

" Wait, you are actually telling me to use bias sites to look up information.

Why not? For the most part, that's what the thumpers on this site do, especially Vannata. I suppose you didn't see the sites he listed to "prove" Planned Parenthood is some sort of an "evil" organization? "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:31 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren the REAL Christians, TRUE Christ followers, would never have paid attention to a Book, they were mostly illiterate, and the only "scriptures" available to them as you pointed out much earlier were what we call the Old Testament scriptures. So if you really think that YOU are a Christian, TRUE Christ follower you'd have to throw out the New Testament. "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:38 AM:

" Mr. Hendren don't go into past family history, I also can trace my lineage way back. One of my great + Grandmothers was a Harrison, ever hear of them? One signed the Declaration of Independance and two were Presidents. Then another Grandmother was a Buchanan and still other relatives were Loyalists that fled to Nova Scotia after the Revolution and another Grandmother was a Cherokee and...... Let's not compare family history as a way of proving who is a "Better" American. "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:46 AM:

" The issue Mr. Hendren is respect for ALL people, even those that are different from you, that includes Homosexuals, Muslims, "the enemy", atheists, Gnostic Taoists (me)....... Peace starts at home by teaching our children to respect and honor the rights of ALL people. By teaching that the "Rule of Law" is not just a clever jingo but that it stands for MORAL principles that are UNIVERSAL, they are NOT Christian principles, they are held by people of all nations and all backgrounds and all religious and non-religious traditions. If you can't respect your neighbor you certainly won't respect those from other nations. Learning respect for others is the first step towards World Peace and Jesus was completely aware of that. You can see it in his teachings. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." "Turn the other cheek." The parable of the "Good Samaritan". "The least you do to one of these who is my brother you do unto me." ............ "

medic57 wrote on May 22, 2009 8:42 AM:

" Jesus was a Jew and felt strongly that the laws should be followed. Are you a practicing Jew? "

Susan, if you knew anything about the bible, you would know that we are to follow the New Testament ever since Jesus died and came back to life.

That's your problem, you DON'T understand the bible.

As far as reletives go, Da_n, now you are related to all of this country's fathers, a while back, you compared yourself to Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandella.

Some Genes there, is there any room left there for ego. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 9:11 AM:

" Susan, if you knew anything about the bible, you would know that we are to follow the New Testament ever since Jesus died and came back to life."

Medic, there was no New Testament for several hundred years after Jesus' death and resurrection; look it up, and you'll see. There were only letters and manuscripts that were passed around. Whenever the New Testament refers to Scripture, it is always referring to the Old Testament; that's all the Scripture that existed during that time. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 9:15 AM:

" Speaking of ancestry, I found out recently that I am a descended from someone called "Irish John." He came over and sold all the booze he had on his boat to help finance the American fight against the British. It must have been quite a bit of liquor, because he ended up with a nice little pile of money for the American cause. "

CHILL! wrote on May 22, 2009 10:07 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:38 AM:

Let's not compare family history as a way of proving who is a "Better" American. "

LOL! LOL! LOL!
Well of course not, let's not compare, let's just look at shumphreys aka Sybil on her pedestal of peace for herself above all others! LOL! "

CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 10:28 AM:

" J.R., you wrote, "I did look at your links, and as stated bias."

Yes, if you're going to talk about what people believe, it is ideal to go straight to the source.

J.R., you also wrote, "...I believe God speaks to us all in his own special way....Everyone, no matter their belief can talk to God. We are however, to test the spirits to see if they are truely from God."

Well, at least there's hope; you apparently grant that people who do not believe as you do can communicate with God.

Eventually, if you travel around, you will find that there's disagreement even among Christians who believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant. Some believe "once saved, always saved" while others believe people can turn away from the faith.

Some believe that God chooses some people for salvation and simultaneously predestines other people to the warm place. Others believe that salvation is open to all who believe; that God knows who will be saved but does not actively choose some (and not choose others).

Some, again Bible-believing Protestant Christians, believe that baptism is a part of salvation. Others claim that baptism is a work of the flesh that, while it should be done out of obedience, is not necessary for salvation.

Some Christians believe that speaking in tongues is part of baptism by the Holy Spirit and "completes" Christianity. Others believe that God does not work that way anymore.

Some Christians maintain that baptism of the Holy Spirit brings about instant and entire sanctification, and that original sin is eradicated. Others believe that sanctification is a gradual process and perfection is never reached in this life.

There are other examples of doctrinal differences I cannot think of right now.

So, J.R., who's right and who's wrong? These are all doctrinal differences AMONG people you would consider "real" Christians. They all believe the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word. They all use Scripture to support these extremely different interpretations--just as you do. And, like you, they believe their interpretations are the correct ones. They believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in understanding the Bible.

Who is right, and who is wrong here? How do you know? "

HerChild wrote on May 22, 2009 10:53 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:38 AM:
" Mr. Hendren don't go into past family history, I also can trace my lineage way back. One of my great + Grandmothers ....."

No Mr. Hendren, don't go into past family history, but allow me to! I just want you to see mine and see how superior I am to everyone.

Of course I am related to all of those past important people, but you wouldn't know that either unless you went back and re-read all of my past posts in the last three years.

You may now rub my feet since you are bowing down at them anyway. They are so sore from all the toxic sludge that I am so full of it exudes out of my mouth. "

The Curious wrote on May 22, 2009 11:11 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 11:03 PM:
" To The Curious: Looking over your comments from other threads, past and present, I've noticed that you don't often comment on the topic being discussed. Rather, you seem to concentrate on attacking Susan H., while occasionally taking a shot at Hahvahd or myself."

Sorry CrowWoman, you obviously did not dig deep enough to see the TRUTH, lol! "

CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 12:23 PM:

" J.R., a history lesson about how your Bible came to be:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806fea2.asp

"In 382 Pope Damasus convoked a synod which produced the Roman Code. The Roman Code identified a list of scriptural books identical to the Council of Trent's formally defined canon. In 393 the Council of Hippo reiterated the list, as did the First Council of Carthage four years later. In 405 Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to Exsuperius, the bishop of Toulouse, listing the same books as Scripture. The list was given again in 419 at the Second Council of Carthage.

After roughly three centuries of prayer and discussion, the Church essentially solved the problem (of including or not including contested books) during a forty-year burst of activity. In the Old Testament, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, parts of Esther (chapters 11-16), and parts of Daniel (3:24-90 and 13, 14) were recognized as inspired.

In the New Testament, the Church accepted Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Each of the decrees and councils provided the same list of Scripture. No council or papal decree gave a different list. While Athanasius and Jerome had some sympathy toward the Jewish unwillingness to accept the Old Testament deuterocanonical books, both bowed to the authority of the Church, accepting her definitions of Scripture. By 450 today's list of inspired books was almost universally accepted in the Western Church. Mark 16:9-20, Luke 22:43-44, and John 5:4, 8:1-11, while not in the earliest manuscripts, eventually would be accepted.

"Consider the ramifications if the authority of the Body of Christ since 382 is wrong. If Trent's Sacrasancta decree incorrectly added Old Testament deuterocanonical books, how do we know it correctly defined the New Testament canon? After all, the arguments against the New Testament books are identical to those against the Old: Jewish scholars rejected New Testament writings, and Trent added them to Scripture to support flawed theology. Luther made an argument similar to this when he attacked Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, and 2 Peter, and he seriously considered "throwing Jimmy [the epistle of James] into the fire" because it contradicted his faith-alone theology. Standing in judgment of Scripture, Luther called James "an epistle full of straw," while regarding all five of these books as quasi-canonical.

Interestingly, Luther did not completely discard the deuterocanonical Old Testament books he attacked, he merely relegated them to an appendix between the Old and New Testaments. For three hundred years, many Protestant translations retained this appendix because the books were recognized as useful for moral instruction. Indeed, the Protestant kings of England imposed the death penalty on anyone who omitted the deuterocanonical appendix. The books were discarded completely only as late as 1827, by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

Now, you may not want to believe this info because it comes from a Catholic source. But you might be surprised to find out that those "false" Catholic books were included even in Protestant Bibles until fairly recent times. "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 12:50 PM:

" Sorry Medic no relation to Nelson Mandela, and actually I never compared myself to him or to any others. I just said that you and others keep ascribing such virtues to me that it places me in good company, the company of those that speak out against oppression. "

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 12:53 PM:

" The other point about ancestry Medic is that it is totally irrelevant. All that matters is who each one of us is here and now, the principles we standup for. Ancestry is just as irrelevant as your religious belief or nonbelief. ALL that matters is how YOU treat your fellow man, especially those that are different from you. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 12:54 PM:

" Maybe not, Curious one, maybe not. And that is the truth indeed. :~) "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:13 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:22 AM:
" Mr. Hendren Christian has also been used as a derogatory term, so has Jew, so what else is new? Honestly, the Carholic church and Eastern Orthodox church were here before the Protestant church. The fact is that the Bible was put together by what became the Catholic church. You may like to think that YOU are the TRUE Christian and represent the TRUE Christian church but what you have shown us of your thinking shows that you aren't. The first Christians (as in the original Christ followers) were practicing Jews. Jesus was a Jew and felt strongly that the laws should be followed. Are you a practicing Jew? "

So now the O.T. writers were Catholic. I never knew that. Christians are not Jews, nor Americans, Japanese, Chinese, or any other nationality. If you read the Book of Acts, you will see that on the day of Pentecost, there were several different nationalities there. Later we see Greek, non-Jewish, converts to Christianity, along with Romans who were not Jewish. Your statements say that you must only be a Jew to be a Christian. I will not go into the Law and Jesus, since this has been covered before. This Catholic church was not the first church as that mentioned in the Bible. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:23 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:27 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I am NOT a Christian and have never claimed to be nor pretended to be one. I am a Gnostic Taoist. Now than WHO decides what is or is NOT the word of God, what is or is NOT the RIGHT interpretation of Gods word? It certainly isn't you, you have shown us that you don't fully understand the TRUE meaning behind the stories. As to Mormons you should read about them and read the Book of Mormon and not listen to rumors. "

First I have shown just the opposite that I do know how to interpret, though not as good as I would like that is why I continue to study. Secondly who get to decide, each individual person as God wants, unlike you who say we can only believe as you. Third, I have read the Book of Mormon, have you? If you did you would see the falseness of it. You would see the worship of Moroni. You would see that the witnesses to Joseph Smith's discovery were all relatives of his in some fashion. It includes a visit to America by Christ, a second coming before the Second coming if you will. They falsely translates "other sheep" of John 10:16 to mean those in America and not the Gentiles, as it is. There are many more disagreements between the Scriptures and the Book of Mormon. I have spoke to missionaries from the Mormon church. They visited several times including for lunch. They were invited by me into my house anytime. Unfortunately, I was "black balled" by the Mormon church as a heretic and they no longer are allowed to visit I have been told. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:26 PM:

" Harry Potter wrote on May 22, 2009 7:28 AM:
" Wait, you are actually telling me to use bias sites to look up information.

Why not? For the most part, that's what the thumpers on this site do, especially Vannata. I suppose you didn't see the sites he listed to "prove" Planned Parenthood is some sort of an "evil" organization? "

There is a difference in a site that has proof, I do not know if Vannata's did or not, but in general, to a site that just states this is this. A site that agrees with your view point is not exactly bias, but if it has nothing to backup what it is saying then it is. I hope you understand the difference I am speaking of. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:35 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:31 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren the REAL Christians, TRUE Christ followers, would never have paid attention to a Book, they were mostly illiterate, and the only "scriptures" available to them as you pointed out much earlier were what we call the Old Testament scriptures. So if you really think that YOU are a Christian, TRUE Christ follower you'd have to throw out the New Testament. "

Once again someone who does not understand Christianity telling Christians how to live. The New Testament/Covenant is how we are to live. We are no longer under the Old Covenant. Those like Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and Timothy taught from the Old Testament to show the prophesy fulfillment of a Messiah in Jesus. They were not teaching the Law, but of Christ. On the day of Pentecost covenant changed from the Old to the New. The apostles speak of it even.
Now about them being illiterate. Funny how someone who believes in such equality believes those who were, if they were, illiterate to be less then others. A little hypocritical isn't it?

shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:38 AM:
" Mr. Hendren don't go into past family history, I also can trace my lineage way back. One of my great + Grandmothers was a Harrison, ever hear of them? One signed the Declaration of Independance and two were Presidents. Then another Grandmother was a Buchanan and still other relatives were Loyalists that fled to Nova Scotia after the Revolution and another Grandmother was a Cherokee and...... Let's not compare family history as a way of proving who is a "Better" American. "

I am not using family history to prove better Americanism. One mention of being proud of my family heritage you get that I am trying to say I'm a better American. Someone is paranoid. Maybe you should take some time off from telling everyone how wrong they are and how right you are. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:38 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 12:23 PM:
" J.R., a history lesson about how your Bible came to be:"

I know how the Bible came to be. I have taken the classes, and studied myself, have you? Looks to me you read a Catholic site and then say, "see!" Then go and accuse others of doing as you have done. The church of the Bible is not the Catholic Church, and Peter was not the first Pope. Sorry to disappoint you, and your Catholic beliefs. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:46 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 7:46 AM:
" The issue Mr. Hendren is respect for ALL people, even those that are different from you, that includes Homosexuals, Muslims, "the enemy", atheists, Gnostic Taoists (me)....... Peace starts at home by teaching our children to respect and honor the rights of ALL people. By teaching that the "Rule of Law" is not just a clever jingo but that it stands for MORAL principles that are UNIVERSAL, they are NOT Christian principles, they are held by people of all nations and all backgrounds and all religious and non-religious traditions. If you can't respect your neighbor you certainly won't respect those from other nations. Learning respect for others is the first step towards World Peace and Jesus was completely aware of that. You can see it in his teachings. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." "Turn the other cheek." The parable of the "Good Samaritan". "The least you do to one of these who is my brother you do unto me." ............ "

When Christ was asked what the greatest commandment was he said, "...'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. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself...." - Matthew 22:37-39. We are to respect all people and love all as you say is true. However, we are not to okay sin, and let it go on without saying anything. That is not respect, that is not love. Now that being said, you tell me to follow what the Scriptures say, Scriptures you yourself do not believe in. Why? Why should I listen to someone who does not even know the Scriptures, trying to tell me what the Scriptures say? I know you know of the Scriptures, but their meaning that is what you lack, even Satan knows the Scriptures, just not the meaning. "

jrhendren wrote on May 22, 2009 11:56 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 22, 2009 10:28 AM

Well, at least there's hope; you apparently grant that people who do not believe as you do can communicate with God.

All have the right to speak to God, anytime they want. We have one mediator to God, that is Christ, no one else.
________________________________________

"Eventually, if you travel around, you will find that there's disagreement even among Christians who believe the Bible is inspired and inerrant. Some believe "once saved, always saved" while others believe people can turn away from the faith.

Some believe that God chooses some people for salvation and simultaneously predestines other people to the warm place. Others believe that salvation is open to all who believe; that God knows who will be saved but does not actively choose some (and not choose others).

Some, again Bible-believing Protestant Christians, believe that baptism is a part of salvation. Others claim that baptism is a work of the flesh that, while it should be done out of obedience, is not necessary for salvation.

Some Christians believe that speaking in tongues is part of baptism by the Holy Spirit and "completes" Christianity. Others believe that God does not work that way anymore.

Some Christians maintain that baptism of the Holy Spirit brings about instant and entire sanctification, and that original sin is eradicated. Others believe that sanctification is a gradual process and perfection is never reached in this life.

There are other examples of doctrinal differences I cannot think of right now.

So, J.R., who's right and who's wrong? These are all doctrinal differences AMONG people you would consider "real" Christians. They all believe the Bible is God's inspired, inerrant Word. They all use Scripture to support these extremely different interpretations--just as you do. And, like you, they believe their interpretations are the correct ones. They believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in understanding the Bible.

Who is right, and who is wrong here? How do you know? "

How do we know, like the song says, "because the Bible tells us so". I will take the bait, and go with one of your examples. Baptism is part of salvation. The Scrptures are quite clear on that. It is not the baptism itself, but the act of faith, the symbolism, the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Acts 2:38 says clearly that forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit happen at baptism, "Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38. We also know that "baptism" in the Greek means to immerse. 1 Peter says, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ," - 1 Peter 3:21 again makes this clear. So again, "Who is right, and who is wrong here? How do you know?" Simple the Scriptures tell us the answer to every question about salvation. "

jrhendren wrote on May 23, 2009 12:00 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 22, 2009 12:53 PM:
" The other point about ancestry Medic is that it is totally irrelevant. All that matters is who each one of us is here and now, the principles we standup for. Ancestry is just as irrelevant as your religious belief or nonbelief. ALL that matters is how YOU treat your fellow man, especially those that are different from you. "

Little off topic,but then you have done that already, but you are once again wrong. Your ancestry is who you are. If your family has been liers, and cheats all their lives then no one is going to trust you either, until you can show different. Your traits, your upbringing comes from who your family was, and your future family will be. "

medic57 wrote on May 23, 2009 1:27 AM:

" Gnostic Taoist?

Good God Susan, do you have any idea what you claim to believe? Where to even start.

You believe in bi-sexual Immortal Beings? And they are also non gender, although, if they are bi-sexual, they cannot also be non-gender.

You also believe that Jehovah is a false god.

So, your (religion) is based on this statement.

The traditional concept of Archons Major implied that these Beings were androgynous. The Gnostic Pagan School visualizes them as embodying one or more manifestations of the primordial Yin and Yang, Shiva and Shakti, Male and Female cosmic energies emanating from AMUN.

Susan, do you really take yourself seriously?

As Vinnie Barbarino once said,

Don't make me laugh, HA, HA, HA. "

medic57 wrote on May 23, 2009 1:31 AM:

" Almost forgot Susan, and you think the Bible is hooey? "

Harry Potter wrote on May 23, 2009 7:19 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 19, 2009 11:03 PM:
" To The Curious: Looking over your comments from other threads, past and present, I've noticed that you don't often comment on the topic being discussed. Rather, you seem to concentrate on attacking Susan H., while occasionally taking a shot at Hahvahd or myself."

That's what some folks do when the lack the intellect to put forth a logical rebuttal when the disagree with what other say. CW. "

shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:42 AM:

" Heavens Medic those folks are Gnostic Christians. You are behind the times. A Gnostic is just someone who seeks knowledge. That is what gnostic means. And about the Bible you are just as bad as Mr. Vanata. You know that I think the Bible is a good book, full of great wisdom, for those that are willing to plumb its depths. So why do you create such fabricated statements about what I think? Do you think it will get you points in heaven? "

shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:43 AM:

" There have, by the way, been Gnostics in every religious tradition just as there have been mystics and fundamentalists in ALL religious traditions. "

shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:46 AM:

" You said it Mr. Hendren, "until you can show different". We are ALL to be judged by our own merits. We aren't responsible for our ancestors actions nor are we accountable for them. We are only accountable for our OWN actions. "

shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:54 AM:

" The "meaning" of the scriptures is key as you said Mr. Hendren and just what is that meaning? There is a message underlying the scriptures that you know is there but you don't practice. It is the same message taught by ALL the worlds great religions. If they all have come up with the same idea there must be something to it, wouldn't you think? AND just what is that idea Mr. Hendren, what is the "meaning" of the scriptures?--It isn't 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 from you. If you believe the scriptures Mr. Hendren Jesus tells you not to cast the first stone. And yes even Satan (if there is a Satan)could/would know the scriptures. And who is Satan Mr. Hendren. It isn't me, I speak up for the rights of ALL people and you don't. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 23, 2009 10:47 AM:

" "How do we know, like the song says, "because the Bible tells us so". I will take the bait, and go with one of your examples. Baptism is part of salvation. The Scrptures are quite clear on that...."

No, J.R., the Scriptures are NOT clear on that. If they were, you would not have the Baptist denomination, along with a host of other denominations (evangelical and conservative Christian denominations, by the way) that believe salvation is important, certainly an act of obedience, yet not a part of salvation itself.

Nor are the Scriptures clear on the other issues I mentioned previously. If they were clear, you would not have even evangelical, conservative Christians disagreeing on what the Bible says.

You are convinced that you are right; so are the Baptists; the Reformed & conservative Presbyterians; the Wesleyan and Nazarene denominations; the Church of God denominations; and all the conservative, Bible-believing folks I'm leaving out, including the believers who claim to be non-denominational. All believe they are right. They can quote verses just as easily as you can to support their positions.

Obviously, not everyone can be right.

Oh, your views on baptism are those of the Restoration movement. I thought you said somewhere that you were Baptist. Maybe I'm mistaken. I can tell you (having been in several Baptist churches) that Baptists do NOT believe that baptism is part of salvation. They refer to people who believe that way as non-Christians who are looking to "works of the flesh" to save them....They have the Scriptures to support that view, too.

How can you be sure your interpretation is the correct one?

I would ask, does it even matter? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 23, 2009 12:22 PM:

" Mr. Hendren, this may come as a surprise to you, but some people have a crisis of conscience when it dawns on them that the Bible isn't clear on the issues I mentioned earlier (the role of baptism; predestination vs. free will; etc.). Realizing that "sola Scriptura" (Scripture alone) is inadequate for understanding the truth, many of these people convert to Catholicism. (These converts include Baptist and Assemblies of God ministers, among many others.) After all, the oldest writings pertaining to the church are not Anabaptist, Anglican, Baptist, Reformed, etc....

Unless one was around while Scripture was being written, there's simply no way to know the nuances of its meaning, its exact cultural context, and what it meant to the people who wrote it. To say that the Holy Spirit is guiding one to know the truth, about baptism or whatever, is silly. Why would the Holy Spirit guide so many well-meaning, Bible-reverent Christians to so many different conclusions?

I can understand why people choose to convert to Catholicism but did not take that path myself. To me, these doctrinal differences are not all that important. I believe in one truth, but that we're all more or less approximating it.

What is much more clear is how we are supposed to treat each other. Scripture makes that crystal-clear. We are supposed to love our neighbor as ourself, care for widows and orphans, etc., etc. We are supposed to avoid behaviors that hurt ourselves and others. In this regard, I feel safe saying that the Holy Spirit led me to visit a sick neighbor, donate to a mission--or even to stick up for maligned people.

It seems maybe that the Holy Spirit is more interested in our behavior than in the doctrinal particulars of what we believe? "

Rohn Gordon wrote on May 23, 2009 9:14 PM:

" I just searched Gnostic Taoist the very first link I opened said this > "Buddhatvam Yosityonisamasritam.", right then I decided that I might be talked into looking at this religion. "

jrhendren wrote on May 24, 2009 3:46 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:46 AM:
" You said it Mr. Hendren, "until you can show different". We are ALL to be judged by our own merits. We aren't responsible for our ancestors actions nor are we accountable for them. We are only accountable for our OWN actions. "

We are saved by grace not by works. Therefore not our merits.

shumphreys wrote on May 23, 2009 9:54 AM:
" The "meaning" of the scriptures is key as you said Mr. Hendren and just what is that meaning? There is a message underlying the scriptures that you know is there but you don't practice. It is the same message taught by ALL the worlds great religions. If they all have come up with the same idea there must be something to it, wouldn't you think? AND just what is that idea Mr. Hendren, what is the "meaning" of the scriptures?--It isn't 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 from you. If you believe the scriptures Mr. Hendren Jesus tells you not to cast the first stone. And yes even Satan (if there is a Satan)could/would know the scriptures. And who is Satan Mr. Hendren. It isn't me, I speak up for the rights of ALL people and you don't. "

All those who do not follow the one True God are followers of Satan. As for treating others well being something you do. Then why do you tell people who follow Christ as "thumpers", and "intolerant", when you know that is not the truth. If you truly believe as say, then you should be a follower of Christ. Since everything you claim are Christian beliefs, then I suppose you must be a hidden Christian. It's okay to be a Christian. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 24, 2009 12:54 PM:

" J.R., you seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that "We are saved by grace not by works. Therefore not our merits." When I brought up the Indian-murdering Puritans and slavery-mongering Whitefiel, you said, "I will not condemn them as all sin." Repeatedly, you have said that sin is sin. You wrote that, "All men continue to sin, whether in Christ or not. The thing is those in Christ have been washed with the blood and can come to him and he will make them clean once again."

Yet, at the same time, you claim that those who do not live a "true Christian lifestyle" are not really Christian. Your comments about Phelps and his followers in Kansas read as follows: "You say those who do not live a true Christian lifestyle, like those in the "Kansas Cult" who call themselves Christian as one of us."

You said, while discussing slaver-revivalist Whitefield, "I have stated over and over again, that just because someone calls themselves Christian does not make them a Christian."

So, J.R., which is it? Would you classify the Puritan Indian-murderers and the prejudiced, slavery-upholding revivalists as true Christians, or not? After all--and I assume the same is true for Phelps and his church--they believed they were saved, and by grace (not works).

Can you answer that question directly, instead of bringing up how wrong the Catholics are?

Are you telling me you believe the Puritans and revivalists were real Christians, because they believed in grace through faith, etc., in spite of the sinful, murderous lifestyles they practiced? Again, let's leave the Catholics out of the discussion for now. The Puritans and revivalists' faith was very similar to your own. "

shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:10 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I am not talking about "being saved". That is a matter of personal belief and it is up for debate as to whether one is saved by grace (in which case all will be saved, whatever their religion, sexual preference, etc. otherwise it won't be grace) or by a combination of grace and living a good life by "treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated", or by predestination (it has already been determined who will and who won't be saved and nothing you can do, no amount of prayers, church attendance or good actions towards others can change your destiny). Being saved is an issue of belief and faith. I however have been talking about living a goodly life, being a goodly person, in order to be happier and more productive in THIS life. "

shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:17 AM:

" Mr. Hendren saying that others who don't follow YOUR concept of God are followers of Satan is intolerant and deserves to be challenged and the errors in your theology exposed. As I have been pointing out the concept that one should treat his fellow man with respect, honor his human rights is a UNIVERSAL concept NOT a Christian concept. The expression of "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself" is found in the Analects of Confuscius, found in the writings of Ancient Greeks--Pittacus, Thales, Sextus the Pythagorean, Isocrates, Epictetus, Epicurus, was mentioned by Rabbi Hillell as the substance of the Torah (all the rest being commentary), long before Jesus ever mentioned the concept. "

shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:20 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren it is far better to move beyond Christianity or any specific religion, to be a GNOSTIC. Once you do you are freed from blind obedience to human doctrines, fear mongering, and can accept and embrace life and the world as it is (and ones self) I might add. "

shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:26 AM:

" You are absolutely right Crow Woman, and Mr. Hendren is one of those people having a crises of conscience, discovering for the first time (perhaps) that there are other ways to interpret and understand the Bible that are just as valid or just as wrong (depending on what the person does with what he learns) as his way. I agree with you completely, it really doesn't matter what interpretation a person believes is TRUTH, as Rabbi Hillell says all that is commentary. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 25, 2009 10:02 AM:

" J.R. must be on vacation. I'm sure he'll have more to say on these topics at some point, though.

Susan, if he isn't having that "crisis of conscience" yet, he should be. All of the examples I mentioned to J.R. of contradictory beliefs were taken from the beliefs of Christians who are Bible literalists. I intentionally excluded those that would have represented more liberal Christian views. "

medic57 wrote on May 26, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Strike a nerve with your religion did I Susan? "

shumphreys wrote on May 26, 2009 8:10 AM:

" Mr. Gordon if you "google" Gnostic Taoist you would discover a great variety of sites. Perhaps you just don't know where to look. "

shumphreys wrote on May 26, 2009 10:37 AM:

" Honestly Medic, grow up. Gnostic Taoism is NOT a religion. There is NO central organization, NO doctrine, NO priests or ministers,NO churches or sacred shrines. Gnostic Taoism is a way of THINKING, of SEEING the World and our place in it, a way of LIVING and getting the most out of this life. Your foolishness doesn't strike nerves it does however cause me to shake my head at your foolishness. "

shumphreys wrote on May 26, 2009 11:27 AM:

" AND let's see if I can strike one of your nerves Medic. You believe in a God that makes bets with the Devil for the fun of it, is jealous, destroys whole cities rather than take the time to teach them a better way to behave, encourages the raping of virgins, need I continue? That's some God you believe in and put your trust in. How do you know he won't turn on you? "

7X6Z9 wrote on May 26, 2009 3:10 PM:

" As long as mankind has freewill there will always be evil in the world. That is why humanity turns to God. "

medic57 wrote on May 26, 2009 7:00 PM:

" Susan

God did not make bets with the devil for the fun of it, (I assume you're speaking of Job) He told the devil that Job was a good man and ALLOWED him to test Job.

He destroyed S&G AFTER trying to get them to reform.

He did not encourage the raping of Virgins, Lot offered them to save the Angels.

That's some God you believe in and put your trust in. How do you know he won't turn on you?

Because he said he would be with me at all times.

We don't have churches either, he is the church, where 2 or more gather! We just use buildings to meet in. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 26, 2009 8:42 PM:

" Where are you, J.R.? The Old Crow is waiting for you.... "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 12:38 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 24, 2009 12:54 PM:
" J.R., you seem to be contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you say that "We are saved by grace not by works. Therefore not our merits." When I brought up the Indian-murdering Puritans and slavery-mongering Whitefiel, you said, "I will not condemn them as all sin." Repeatedly, you have said that sin is sin. You wrote that, "All men continue to sin, whether in Christ or not. The thing is those in Christ have been washed with the blood and can come to him and he will make them clean once again."

Yet, at the same time, you claim that those who do not live a "true Christian lifestyle" are not really Christian. Your comments about Phelps and his followers in Kansas read as follows: "You say those who do not live a true Christian lifestyle, like those in the "Kansas Cult" who call themselves Christian as one of us."

You said, while discussing slaver-revivalist Whitefield, "I have stated over and over again, that just because someone calls themselves Christian does not make them a Christian.

So, J.R., which is it? Would you classify the Puritan Indian-murderers and the prejudiced, slavery-upholding revivalists as true Christians, or not? After all--and I assume the same is true for Phelps and his church--they believed they were saved, and by grace (not works)."

We are saved by the gift of grace and not by works. The Scriptures say also that works without faith is useless also. Just because you believe you are saved does not make you saved. You must do as the Scriptures say to receive the gift of grace. You must believe in Christ, you must repent of your ways, you must confess Christ, you must be baptized into Christ, and you must teach the Word either by word or by your actions. I also said that one must try, note "try" to live a Christian life. That being because we all will continue to sin, and fall into temptation. Those that call themselves Christian yet do not do as the Scriptures say will be judged by God as to their salvation. I can only say I do not believe they are living a Christian lifestyle and here is why according to Scripture....". You are also wrong in what you say, in that those you mentioned did believe in "works", otherwise they would not be protesting funerals that have nothing to do with there cause.
_______________________________________

"Can you answer that question directly, instead of bringing up how wrong the Catholics are?"

Answered and never mentioned Catholics being wrong, as you do Christians.
________________________________________

"Are you telling me you believe the Puritans and revivalists were real Christians, because they believed in grace through faith, etc., in spite of the sinful, murderous lifestyles they practiced? Again, let's leave the Catholics out of the discussion for now. The Puritans and revivalists' faith was very similar to your own. "

I am telling you that God decides who is a real Christian, by their heart. Funny how we must leave the Catholic church out of it, since they have done the same things, yet you believe them to be the true "Christian Church" and that we similar beliefs. No matter, just because they were sinful, does not mean they were not Christian men. The greatest preacher ever was there when Christ was killed, agreed to the death of one of his disciples, and hunted out other disciples. Yet, if was not for him we would not have the understanding, nor instructions we have. We do not know if the men you mentioned later repented and turn from their ways. You condemn yet do not know what happen to them later in life. As for Phelps, we see him now, and know he is not living as the Word says. "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 1:06 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:10 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I am not talking about "being saved". That is a matter of personal belief and it is up for debate as to whether one is saved by grace (in which case all will be saved, whatever their religion, sexual preference, etc. otherwise it won't be grace)...."

Wrong once again. Grace does not mean that as you like to say, "Read the" Scriptures again.
________________________________________

"....or by a combination of grace and living a good life by "treating your neighbor as you would like to be treated", or by predestination (it has already been determined who will and who won't be saved and nothing you can do, no amount of prayers, church attendance or good actions towards others can change your destiny). Being saved is an issue of belief and faith. I however have been talking about living a goodly life, being a goodly person, in order to be happier and more productive in THIS life. "

Did you mean a "godly life"? Anyways, I have said the same. Do as Christ commanded. The only difference is I, unlike you, say their are defined areas. You have the worldly belief of "as long as it does not hurt anyone else," which you are allowed to have. I and others live by a moral code that the Bible teaches. Are their those who are going to say they live by the Bible, but do not? Yes, of course, we are all human. We are to be kind to are fellow man, helping him in all ways. You see telling someone when they are doing wrong as a bad thing, we see it as a loving thing. Why, is something you can not truly understand. We look at the future, the eternal future, you look at the now, because you do not believe in an eternal future.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:17 AM:
" Mr. Hendren saying that others who don't follow YOUR concept of God are followers of Satan is intolerant and deserves to be challenged and the errors in your theology exposed. As I have been pointing out the concept that one should treat his fellow man with respect, honor his human rights is a UNIVERSAL concept NOT a Christian concept. The expression of "do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself" is found in the Analects of Confuscius, found in the writings of Ancient Greeks--Pittacus, Thales, Sextus the Pythagorean, Isocrates, Epictetus, Epicurus, was mentioned by Rabbi Hillell as the substance of the Torah (all the rest being commentary), long before Jesus ever mentioned the concept. "

Since most teaching of the "Old Testament" times was done orally, and we have none of the originals to date, we really do not know how old the "Old Testament is". I love how everyone else is such an intelligent enlightened thinker, but the teachings of Christ are all stolen and followed by idiots. I like you your arguments make me laugh and humor is the best medicine. "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 1:13 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:20 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren it is far better to move beyond Christianity or any specific religion, to be a GNOSTIC. Once you do you are freed from blind obedience to human doctrines, fear mongering, and can accept and embrace life and the world as it is (and ones self) I might add. "

Any other words you do not have to have a moral conscience. No thank you. I enjoy having a Heavenly Father that truly loves me and is perfect. You can have your imperfect god if you want.
________________________________________
shumphreys wrote on May 25, 2009 7:26 AM:
" You are absolutely right Crow Woman, and Mr. Hendren is one of those people having a crises of conscience, discovering for the first time (perhaps) that there are other ways to interpret and understand the Bible that are just as valid or just as wrong (depending on what the person does with what he learns) as his way. I agree with you completely, it really doesn't matter what interpretation a person believes is TRUTH, as Rabbi Hillell says all that is commentary. "

You/CrowWoman can believe that you can interpret the Bible anyway you want. Go ahead you have that right. That does not make it right. I have a clear conscience in knowing that someday I will be with my Lord and Savior. I have a clear conscience knowing I am not trying to change the meaning of Scripture into what I want it to be, or need it to be, to fit into my self made doctrine. Since you are the one always writing letters to justify your beliefs, one would believe that it is you who have a "conscience" problem. "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 1:33 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 25, 2009 10:02 AM:
" J.R. must be on vacation. I'm sure he'll have more to say on these topics at some point, though.

I am still around, took my time off from work to spend time away from the computer, something you might try, and be with my family, again something you might try, and pay respect to those who have fallen for our country, also you might try. My life does not revolve around getting on this site to tell others how bad and wrong they are like you/Susan must do to bring fulfillment to your lives.
________________________________________

Susan, if he isn't having that "crisis of conscience" yet, he should be. All of the examples I mentioned to J.R. of contradictory beliefs were taken from the beliefs of Christians who are Bible literalists. I intentionally excluded those that would have represented more liberal Christian views. "

I have already said my conscience is clear that would be you "two" who have the conscience problem, or should have. CrowWoman you even call yourself a Christian, and then bash the Word, and Christianity. At least Susan, has the guts to say she does not believe in Christianity. I may not agree with her, but have more respect for her. At least she stands by her beliefs. You have no credit in the fact that you claim one thing, then as I said, bash the very thing you say you believe in. You say you are not Catholic, but praise them, then show your despisement of Christianity. That would be me saying I am a democrat and now let me tell you how bad the president and congress are. If you are not a Christian fine, but do not try to say you are to give yourself merit. Your being so worried about me not commenting, "CrowWoman wrote on May 25, 2009 10:02 AM:
" J.R. must be on vacation. I'm sure he'll have more to say on these topics at some point, though." and "CrowWoman wrote on May 26, 2009 8:42 PM:
" Where are you, J.R.? The Old Crow is waiting for you.... " shows that either you really need to get up and go outside for awhile because you are addicted to your computer, or you hate your life and must argue with people to have some kind of companionship, or to try and bring others down with you. I would have to guess it is a little of all the above. The world will not end if you take a breather. I hardly ever post on the weekends because that is my time to spend with family and friends. "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 1:54 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 26, 2009 8:10 AM:
" Mr. Gordon if you "google" Gnostic Taoist you would discover a great variety of sites. Perhaps you just don't know where to look. "

If you are a Gnostic Taoist, as you say, I found talk about gods, spiritual matters, and belief systems. Sounds like a religion to me.

"Taoism has a large number of male & female gods..." - http://www.thetao.info/tao/gods.htm

Jung received his information from at least three different spirit guides. These revolutionary teachings would captivate the world. Notice the references to those spirit guides, to Gnosticism, and to the occult practices of channeling and automatic writing. - http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/jung.htm

Take a moment to reflect on a brief meditation and reading from the Gnostic scriptures, selected from this week's Gnostic liturgy.- http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html

Gnosis in a more specific religious sense refers to the knowledge of God and the fullness of the true spiritual realms through direct personal experience.- http://www.gnosis.org/overview.html

Gnosis is not simply a synonym for mysticism, paranormal, occult, metaphysics, esoteric or knowledge. It is a distinct category of mystical experience.beyond the physical or psychic levels of being. - http://www.gnosis.org/overview.html

Yep, sure sounds like a religion, I guess in your mind a man drinking so much he falls over every day is not a drunk either. "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:03 AM:

" Mr. Hendren for some it is in the sense that some people do seek a connection to a higher power. For me it isn't. Gnosticism is what YOU make of it. As I said there is NO central authority, NO central doctrine, NO minister, guru,or priest. As I also explained I am a Taoist in the sense that I seek the balance and harmony talked about in the Tao teh Ching not a Taoist of the organized religious group WHICH is why I am a Gnostic Taoist. "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:09 AM:

" Mr. Hendren Crow Woman is a far more honorable person than YOU. She is consistent in her teachings, AND in my opinion is more of what a "Good" Christian should be like, compassionate, non-judgmental, thoughtful, and HONEST. People who have the courage to thoughtfully examine what they are taught, willing to open their eyes to what is happening around them (both immediately and in the broader world) as opposed to blind acceptance of doctrine and dogma are exactly what this world needs, and we need a great number of them. "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:14 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I have read the scriptures and commentary by many theologians, historians and great thinkers. Grace whether you like it or not has to be freely given, no strings attached or it simply isn't grace. It becomes bribery or coercion, both of which are quite the opposite of the concept of Grace. Thus Grace, if it is true, will be granted to everyone religious and non-religious alike. "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:19 AM:

" Mr Hendren I meant "goodly" not godly. Now as to the thought that telling people that they are sinners and doomed to he-- if they don't believe what youu believe is NOT loving, by any stretch of the imagination. Jesus knew that, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Verbal stones are just as potent as physical stones, which is exactly what he meant. Or do you have difficulty understanding simple Bible passages? "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:32 AM:

" Medic sure sounds like God and Satan are making a wager over Job. You can call it what you like. Perhaps you should read the Old Testament where God tells the Israelites to slaughter all the men, women and children but to save the young virgins and rape them. What a wonderful guy this God of yours. Oh and Job also expected that he would be treated honestly, and fairly by God because he was a good person (which you certainly don't appear to be). I'd be extremely worried if I were you, your God is wrathful, vengeful, jealous, angry, and "toys" with mens affections. I think the Gnostic Christians were on to something. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 12:07 PM:

" J.R., my statement "The Old Crow is waiting" was a joke. Thank you for your concern, but I had plenty to occupy myself with this weekend. Or, maybe you've had previous dealings with another Old Crow?

Anyhow, J.R., you wrote: "I am telling you that God decides who is a real Christian, by their heart....No matter, just because they were sinful, does not mean they were not Christian men."

Yet, you also write, "Those that call themselves Christian yet do not do as the Scriptures say will be judged by God as to their salvation."

More contradictory statements, J.R. It would seem this is an issue you have not resolved in your own life, since you cannot intelligently articulate your own beliefs about it. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 12:18 PM:

" At any rate, J.R., I notice that you still have not answered my question pertaining to "Sola Scriptura."

I'll try one more time: How do you explain the fact that evangelical Christians who take the Bible as literally as you do have beliefs very different from your own? (Differences such as predestination vs. freewill; eternal security or not; speaking in tongues or not; instant or progressive sanctification; and others.)

Christians who affirm the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, yet believe differently from yourself--how do you explain this?

You seem to be dodging the "Scripture Alone" question, either by bring up the Catholics or by discussing how you spent Memorial Day. If it is a question you cannot answer, simply say so. Humility is a virtue, right? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 1:02 PM:

" Susan, there are Christians who do believe that grace is for all, even the Adolf Hitlers of the world. I think they have been called Universalists. George MacDonald, one of my favorite writers, was a Universalist (probably due to the oppressive Calvinistic influence of his father). Anyway he wrote a fascinating book called LILITH I think you might like. The fellow who wrote THE SHACK may also have beliefs that go in that direction. I don't know, but I got that impression from reading it.

My impression about God in the Old Testament is not that he's evil or mythical, but that there was an evolution in knowledge of him. There is so much wonder in the Old Testament Scriptures--and I would say supernatural wonder--in the midst of all the carnage and mayhem. "

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 3:55 PM:

" CrowWoman I think you are right humans concept of God and the Gods has evolved as his civilization has evolved, as our knowledge of the world and our selves has evolved. The tragedy is that far too many humans seem to have stopped evolving, at least spiritually and intellectually. "

jrhendren wrote on May 27, 2009 11:30 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:03 AM:
" Mr. Hendren for some it is in the sense that some people do seek a connection to a higher power. For me it isn't. Gnosticism is what YOU make of it. As I said there is NO central authority, NO central doctrine, NO minister, guru,or priest. As I also explained I am a Taoist in the sense that I seek the balance and harmony talked about in the Tao teh Ching not a Taoist of the organized religious group WHICH is why I am a Gnostic Taoist. "

So in other words ignore where you said to look up about what you are. "

jrhendren wrote on May 28, 2009 12:19 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:09 AM:
" Mr. Hendren Crow Woman is a far more honorable person than YOU. She is consistent in her teachings, AND in my opinion is more of what a "Good" Christian should be like, compassionate, non-judgmental, thoughtful, and HONEST. People who have the courage to thoughtfully examine what they are taught, willing to open their eyes to what is happening around them (both immediately and in the broader world) as opposed to blind acceptance of doctrine and dogma are exactly what this world needs, and we need a great number of them. "

You know I don't usually believe the whole this person is also this person stuff, but I am starting to believe it. I actually compliment you, and you get defensive about it. Maybe you and CrowWoman are the same, who knows. Theses, "compassionate, non-judgmental, thoughtful, and HONEST", are true qualities of a Christian. I never said they were not. It is however, a matter of opinion when it comes to "non-judgmental", and "honest". whether she is or not. She has been very judgemental toward the Christian Church as you have, and left others out. You both have not been entirely honest in what you have tried to say either.

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:14 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I have read the scriptures and commentary by many theologians, historians and great thinkers. Grace whether you like it or not has to be freely given, no strings attached or it simply isn't grace. It becomes bribery or coercion, both of which are quite the opposite of the concept of Grace. Thus Grace, if it is true, will be granted to everyone religious and non-religious alike. "

You obviously have not read the Scriptures, unless it was the New Susan Translation again. Here is what the Scriptures you miss say:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9 (notice "it is the gift of God.")
SO we are saved by grace through faith, how do we show that faith? Well lets just look at the starting of the Church in Acts of the Apostles:
"When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:37-38. Now we know we are saved by grace, as the Scriptures say, you say then no one will be cast into Hell. Well lets once again see what the Scriptures really say:
"If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Revelation 20:15 and in case you are a "you can't understand Revelation" person.
"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." Hebrews 10:26-27

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:19 AM:
" Mr Hendren I meant "goodly" not godly. Now as to the thought that telling people that they are sinners and doomed to he-- if they don't believe what youu believe is NOT loving, by any stretch of the imagination.

Once again you lie like a rug. I never once said they were doomed to Hell. Why must you lie? I have said from the beginning that only God decides who is going to Hell and who is not. Please quit making things up.
________________________________________

Jesus knew that, "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." Verbal stones are just as potent as physical stones, which is exactly what he meant. Or do you have difficulty understanding simple Bible passages? "

I have no problem, that would be you. The people were there with stones to stone the woman, not the man which the Law said was to be both. Different point. Christ told those who have not sinned could judge her, which was only him. This continues to go along with what I have always said, that only God can judge our salvation. We are to correct when those who are sinning.
"Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning. " - 1 Timothy 5:20
"Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encouragewith great patience and careful instruction." - 2 Timothy 4:2

Actually the entire section says:
"In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge: Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encouragewith great patience and careful instruction. For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:1-3. It fits so well with talking to you, and your new doctrine. I encourage you to quit scratching those "itching ears". "

jrhendren wrote on May 28, 2009 12:20 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 7:32 AM:
" Medic sure sounds like God and Satan are making a wager over Job. You can call it what you like. Perhaps you should read the Old Testament where God tells the Israelites to slaughter all the men, women and children but to save the young virgins and rape them. What a wonderful guy this God of yours. Oh and Job also expected that he would be treated honestly, and fairly by God because he was a good person (which you certainly don't appear to be). I'd be extremely worried if I were you, your God is wrathful, vengeful, jealous, angry, and "toys" with mens affections. I think the Gnostic Christians were on to something. "

Don't suppose you would like to cite this would you? "

jrhendren wrote on May 28, 2009 12:37 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 12:07 PM:
" J.R., my statement "The Old Crow is waiting" was a joke. Thank you for your concern, but I had plenty to occupy myself with this weekend. Or, maybe you've had previous dealings with another Old Crow?

Since you mentioned it twice didn't sound much like a joke, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
________________________________________

"Anyhow, J.R., you wrote: "I am telling you that God decides who is a real Christian, by their heart....No matter, just because they were sinful, does not mean they were not Christian men."

Yet, you also write, "Those that call themselves Christian yet do not do as the Scriptures say will be judged by God as to their salvation." As I stated yet you twisted and left out. Saul/Paul was a great sinner, yet became the greatest preacher ever, in my opinion. The apostles were sinners, are you saying they were not Christians? As I also said, just because someone sins now does not mean they did not repent later. The people you mentioned very well could have repented, only God knows if they truly repented in their hearts. Again showing that God will judge them by their hearts. Just as I have said, however we are to rebuke those who sin, especially those, like yourself, who call themselves brothers and sisters in Christ.
________________________________________

"More contradictory statements, J.R. It would seem this is an issue you have not resolved in your own life, since you cannot intelligently articulate your own beliefs about it. "

Their is no contradiction in what I said, the only contradiction is in your head. God will judge out salvation, he will judge us by our hearts. We do and will sin, but is that sin on purpose or are we truly trying to live a Godly life. You might want to look up what contradiction means, because you are off. "

jrhendren wrote on May 28, 2009 12:52 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 12:18 PM:
" At any rate, J.R., I notice that you still have not answered my question pertaining to "Sola Scriptura."

I'll try one more time: How do you explain the fact that evangelical Christians who take the Bible as literally as you do have beliefs very different from your own? (Differences such as predestination vs. freewill; eternal security or not; speaking in tongues or not; instant or progressive sanctification; and others.)

Christians who affirm the Bible to be inspired and inerrant, yet believe differently from yourself--how do you explain this?

I will take your bait, knowing good and well where this is heading.
A lot has to do with the finding of better manuscripts. It also has to do with not understanding the Scriptures. The Scriptures are clear on areas, such as what must be done to receive the Holy Spirit, free-will, speaking of tongues, and so on. Unfortunately, some churches are more involved with their "doctrine" then the Scriptures they can not afford to admit it. The one thing you forget is that with all the differences their are, they all say the same thing. You must accept Jesus as your personal Savior. Without Christ it does not matter. Without Christ, baptism is just getting wet, free-will does not matter, nor do tongues.
________________________________________

You seem to be dodging the "Scripture Alone" question, either by bring up the Catholics or by discussing how you spent Memorial Day. If it is a question you cannot answer, simply say so. Humility is a virtue, right? "

I brought up the Catholics because you were leaving them out of your examples. You one minute say they are Christians also, but then leave them out. As for Memorial Day, I did not want you to worry since you kept asking where I was. Did want you to worry anymore. As to your "Scripture Alone" question. Ask again and I will gladly answer. I did not see where you asked, though I might have missed it. I have tried to answer all your questions, the problem is when it's not the answer you want you claim I am not answering it. "

jrhendren wrote on May 28, 2009 12:56 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 27, 2009 1:02 PM:
" Susan, there are Christians who do believe that grace is for all, even the Adolf Hitlers of the world. I think they have been called Universalists. George MacDonald, one of my favorite writers, was a Universalist (probably due to the oppressive Calvinistic influence of his father). Anyway he wrote a fascinating book called LILITH I think you might like. The fellow who wrote THE SHACK may also have beliefs that go in that direction. I don't know, but I got that impression from reading it.

My impression about God in the Old Testament is not that he's evil or mythical, but that there was an evolution in knowledge of him. There is so much wonder in the Old Testament Scriptures--and I would say supernatural wonder--in the midst of all the carnage and mayhem. "

Then you wonder why some may question you when you say you are a Christian.
You seem to not believe God is who he says he is.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on May 27, 2009 3:55 PM:
" CrowWoman I think you are right humans concept of God and the Gods has evolved as his civilization has evolved, as our knowledge of the world and our selves has evolved. The tragedy is that far too many humans seem to have stopped evolving, at least spiritually and intellectually. "

Once again we learn about who God is from someone who claims to not believe in God. Make up our minds do you believe in him and his Word, or is he a fake, and the Scriptures just myths? You have said both. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 7:51 AM:

" J.R. asserts, "A lot has to do with the finding of better manuscripts. It also has to do with not understanding the Scriptures."

And you, of course, are the one who makes use of the better manuscripts and understands the Scriptures. I understand now. All those other Christians who take the Bible literally, yet disagree with you...they're simply wrong, aren't they? You base your statements on the true meaning of Scripture, but they base theirs on doctrine. I have to give you credit, you have an amazing ego.

You also said, "The one thing you forget is that with all the differences their are, they all say the same thing. You must accept Jesus as your personal Savior." J.R., I want you to find the words "accept Jesus as your personal Savior" in the Bible and tell me where they are.

Strangely enough, you are basically agreeing with me when I said a couple of days ago that the doctrinal differences don't matter. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 7:52 AM:

" "Since you mentioned it twice didn't sound much like a joke, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt."

What else could it be? "

shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 7:54 AM:

" Mr. Hendren knowledge isn't dependant upon belief. In fact knowledge is often (in your case) hindered by belief. In the case of CrowWoman her knowledge is NOT hindered by her beliefs. She respects other people and other religions and isn't afraid to learn about them. You don't have to be something (a lesbian, a woman who has had an abortion, a rich person, a thief, a Christian) to gain some understanding about them, their thoughts, their history, their beliefs. "

shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 8:05 AM:

" AND Mr. Hendren what does rebuke mean? Does it mean that you are to make laws that deny a person his/her legal rights because you feel that what they are doing is a sin? That isn't what rebuke means Mr. Hendren. A simple rebuke would be I think what you are doing is wrong. Harassment, and persecution is the extreme: calling someone a sinner and saying they will burn in he--, saying they threaten the morality of our nation, saying they threaten the safety of our children, passing laws that limit their rights to live their laws according to their beliefs.... If you (and other Christians) claim that God gives you the right to rebuke others than you have to accept the fact that I (and others) have the right to rebuke you for your immoral actions. Which by the way, is exactly what I have been doing on these pages and in my letters. "

shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 8:10 AM:

" No Mr. Hendren when I say look up something I mean it, AND if you took the time to look up Gnostic Taoist you would discover that there is no central authority, no central doctrine or dogma, no priests or ministers, it is a very diverse philosophy and pretty much what a person chooses to make of it and ones self. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 11:53 AM:

" Now, back to the business at hand.

One suggestion I have for you, J.R., is not to accuse people of dishonesty. I see you doing that a lot, not just with me but with other people as well. What's usually happening is that you are not understanding the meaning of our posts. I admit, sometimes mine could be clearer. Other times, you're simply not digesting what is in front of you. So how's about easing up on the "you lie, you are lying" business.

Although it's off the subject, you wrote in response to my take on the O.T. portrayal of God: "Then you wonder why some may question you when you say you are a Christian....

Perhaps what intrigues me the most about people like you is how you decide who's a "true" Christian and who is not. The Indian-killing Puritans and slaveholder revivalists, you allowed might be true Christians, saying that "All men sin...." However, people's whose beliefs aren't quite what you think they should be--they are suspect.

Killing or creating suffering for thousands of people is okay, or at least can be "washed in the blood" but thinking outside YOUR box, J.R.--that is another story altogether. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:10 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 7:51 AM:
" J.R. asserts, "A lot has to do with the finding of better manuscripts. It also has to do with not understanding the Scriptures."

And you, of course, are the one who makes use of the better manuscripts and understands the Scriptures. I understand now. All those other Christians who take the Bible literally, yet disagree with you...they're simply wrong, aren't they? You base your statements on the true meaning of Scripture, but they base theirs on doctrine. I have to give you credit, you have an amazing ego.

Why thank you. The truth is it is the truth. We do have more reliable manuscripts then when did, even when the KJ Version of the Bible was written. I'm sorry but do not blame me, blame the boy who through the rock. Look at the use of "tongues" used in Scripture, we now have a better meaning of the word used. Which is the word for languages. Just as someone might say, "That man is speaking in a French tongue", is the same as saying, "That man is speaking in the French language." It does not mean some unknown, confusing mystic language from God, since God is not a God of confusion. It really is just common sense for the most part. Looking at what the Scriptures say, and not trying to add to them.

________________________________________

You also said, "The one thing you forget is that with all the differences their are, they all say the same thing. You must accept Jesus as your personal Savior." J.R., I want you to find the words "accept Jesus as your personal Savior" in the Bible and tell me where they are."

The words themselves are not there, however the definition is. I also do not think I am speaking in the terms of the "Sinner's Prayer". Here are examples of what I mean:

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:11

"For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ." - 1 Thessalonians 5:9

"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6

"Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation." - Romans 5:
11

"All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved." - Matthew 10:22

"I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved.[a] He will come in and go out, and find pasture." - John 10:9 and last but certainly not least

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12

There are more if you would like. The matter still remains, without Christ their is no salvation. He is our "personal savior", by definition.

Strangely enough, you are basically agreeing with me when I said a couple of days ago that the doctrinal differences don't matter."

Doctrinal differences do not matter, however their are some areas that do. The biggest being that we are not saved by the "Sinner's Prayer", which some churches believe that is all you have to do. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:12 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 7:52 AM:
" "Since you mentioned it twice didn't sound much like a joke, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt."

What else could it be? "

I have told you what else, but again gave you the benefit of the doubt. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:23 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 7:54 AM:
" Mr. Hendren knowledge isn't dependant upon belief. In fact knowledge is often (in your case) hindered by belief.

Nice cheap shot, though once again wrong. My knowledge backs up my faith. My knowledge of how the Bible came to be, the people of that time, the cultures or that time, the beliefs of the times, the languages the books of the Bible where written in, encourages my faith. It helps me to build and understand. As God wants us to do.

________________________________________

In the case of CrowWoman her knowledge is NOT hindered by her beliefs. She respects other people and other religions and isn't afraid to learn about them. You don't have to be something (a lesbian, a woman who has had an abortion, a rich person, a thief, a Christian) to gain some understanding about them, their thoughts, their history, their beliefs. "

I agree you do not have to be that person to know them, but it helps to know of them. CrowWoman who defends herself fairly well on her own I might add, and I are not really that far off agreement I believe. About respecting others beliefs and religions. I will just say regarding religions, that if you are going to find fault in one, be prepared to find fault in all. You can not show respect by only going after one religion. In this case their are a lot of religions that see homosexuality and treat homosexuals worse then the Christian Church.
As for respecting others beliefs. I am not against respect, I have mentioned it before. The problem is is when respect becomes allowance. As a Christian we are to hold each other accountable. We are to tell one another when they are doing wrong. I have told my fellow Christians here and other places that the Bible does not teach persecution of homosexuals, but to hate the sin. We are not to tolerate sin, as God does not tolerate sin. That is sin, not the person, but the sin. Just as a person is not a thief till they actually steals something, so a homosexual does not sin, until they commit the act. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:45 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 8:05 AM:
" AND Mr. Hendren what does rebuke mean? Does it mean that you are to make laws that deny a person his/her legal rights because you feel that what they are doing is a sin?"

If God says it is not right then yes. The Bible is clear on what marriage is. I know you say it is not, because "it does not say nothing about gay marriage." The truth is though it does by not saying anything. Every, again EVERY example of marriage in the entire Bible is between a man and woman.
_______________________________________

That isn't what rebuke means Mr. Hendren. A simple rebuke would be I think what you are doing is wrong. Harassment, and persecution is the extreme: calling someone a sinner and saying they will burn in he--, saying they threaten the morality of our nation, saying they threaten the safety of our children, passing laws that limit their rights to live their laws according to their beliefs.... If you (and other Christians) claim that God gives you the right to rebuke others than you have to accept the fact that I (and others) have the right to rebuke you for your immoral actions. Which by the way, is exactly what I have been doing on these pages and in my letters. "

I have said you have that right from the beginning. I have also said from the beginning that their are groups that persecute using the name Christian, and rebuked them saying they are not living a Christian lifestyle. I would suggest you go and read what I have actually written, and not what you want it to say. You do however, finally admit your agenda. You are the one now persecuting on the grounds of beliefs. By your own words, "passing laws that limit their rights to live their laws according to their beliefs." I am guessing the second "laws" is supposed to be "lives". No matter, my beliefs do not agree with the Homosexual lifestyle, yet it is illegal for to not rent to a homosexual couple on those grounds. Didn't my beliefs just get pushed to the side? Why did their beliefs get to trump mine? I did not beat them, or torture them in any way. Yet I am discriminating. Their have been times when people have not rented to others because they were Christian, had children, or pets. Is that also not discrimination? As I said before, you have the right to be against the same Laws I am for in America. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:50 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 28, 2009 8:10 AM:
" No Mr. Hendren when I say look up something I mean it, AND if you took the time to look up Gnostic Taoist you would discover that there is no central authority, no central doctrine or dogma, no priests or ministers, it is a very diverse philosophy and pretty much what a person chooses to make of it and ones self. "

I did as you said to do, "if you "google" Gnostic Taoist you would discover a great variety of sites. Perhaps you just don't know where to look. " I looked up their own literature written by Gnostic Taoist, I guess I just do not "know where to look"? Wait I know they need to change their beliefs to fit what you want them to believe also. What you describe in your rant, "there is no central authority, no central doctrine or dogma, no priests or ministers, it is a very diverse philosophy and pretty much what a person chooses to make of it and ones self." sounds more like Atheism. You might want to check what you believe again, or let them know they need to change their beliefs. You might even want to let them know what they believe, since you are the most knowledgeable about all religions. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 12:59 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 28, 2009 11:53 AM:
" Now, back to the business at hand.

One suggestion I have for you, J.R., is not to accuse people of dishonesty. I see you doing that a lot, not just with me but with other people as well. What's usually happening is that you are not understanding the meaning of our posts. I admit, sometimes mine could be clearer. Other times, you're simply not digesting what is in front of you. So how's about easing up on the "you lie, you are lying" business.

I only call it when it's their, though I will admit I could use better tact sometimes. In some cases however, it must be said. When someone says David was offered Jonathan as his first wife, by leaving out parts, that is a lie and must be shown for what it is.
________________________________________

Although it's off the subject, you wrote in response to my take on the O.T. portrayal of God: "Then you wonder why some may question you when you say you are a Christian....

Perhaps what intrigues me the most about people like you is how you decide who's a "true" Christian and who is not. The Indian-killing Puritans and slaveholder revivalists, you allowed might be true Christians, saying that "All men sin...." However, people's whose beliefs aren't quite what you think they should be--they are suspect.

Killing or creating suffering for thousands of people is okay, or at least can be "washed in the blood" but thinking outside YOUR box, J.R.--that is another story altogether. "

I have not said that in the least. I have pointed out that they are subject to doubt. The main difference is they are dead. We do not know what they were thinking nor will we. In your case you are here now. You are saying things now. I can only judge what you are saying now, not what you might say or do, but what I know of you now. You say you are a Christian, and then said that God evolved throughout the Old Testament. The Scriptures say,

"I the LORD do not change...." - Malachi 3:6a and

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." - Hebrews 13:8

These are fundamental beliefs by all the "Christian" churches. That is why I questioned you. Which I have the right to do. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 29, 2009 9:55 AM:

" Tying up some loose ends here, Jrhendren:

I did not say, as you write, that "God evolved throughout the Old Testament." Rather, I said that there was "an evolution in knowledge of him."

I do not believe God changed, though I do believe he tailored his approach to accommodate the needs and understanding of the people he chose to deal with. I also believe that people's knowledge of him grew slowly, and was often fuzzy.

For example, the idea of one God was very hard for the ancient people of Israel to grasp, and they really didn't get it until the exile years. Another example is where Jesus referred to Moses allowing divorce because of the "hardness of your hearts."

But why are you haggling with me about the O.T.? You're the one who says that the Law was abolished, and then Jesus reinstated the ten commandments. I, on the other hand, believe that much of the "Law & the Prophets" carries over to the N.T., at least in principle. Among the weird and harsh prohibitions that most talk about were practical commands about how to help the poor, how to get along with others in the community, how to maintain health and sanitation, how to humanely treat animals and manage the environment, and so on. So who has more respect for the Old Testament, liberal Crow or conservative you? "

CrowWoman wrote on May 29, 2009 10:12 AM:

" Now, here are some thoughts on "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior"--and not by Catholics, either:

http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_accept.html

http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/salvation/savior.html

I was going to post one by a Reformed group but will have to wait until this evening to do that. Those Reformed Protestants--and I think the Puritans were from that stock--back in their days of glory, they would have had you tied to the stake for your anabaptist views before you could have uttered the word, "Heretic."

Anyway, "accept Jesus as your personal savior" is an extra-biblical phrase based upon certain denominations' interpretation of certain Scripture verses. You're claiming something to be true that isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You're doing what the Catholics do, J.R.! "

CrowWoman wrote on May 29, 2009 10:41 AM:

" Not that this is important or a part of the discussion, but....

I wrote, "What else could it be?"

Hendren wrote, "I have told you what else, but again gave you the benefit of the doubt."

I actually went back and read what you posted, but saw nothing there other than what you did over the Memorial Day weekend and a few insults directed, I guess, towards how you thought I had spent the Holiday weekend.

So, I didn't get you and still don't. Again, it's irrelevant to the discussion, but a point of curiosity nevertheless.

One more curiosity--I notice that, on another thread, you express great compassion for the young man who was driven to take his own life. You had mentioned previously that you were at that point once, which may be where the compassion comes from. Compassion rather than condemnation.

Yet, when I posted a few days ago about what it's like to be gay and involved in an evangelical church, you called my words a "nice rant." I was not making that story up; I know an individual in this situation. Through that individual, I've come to know many such stories.

This individual--and I have no doubt, many like this individual--has often been to the point of considering suicide. I think I mentioned that in my post that day.

Why is it that you can have Christ-like compassion for one person, but not for another--other than for the obvious fact that the other person was gay? "

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:33 PM:

" Mr. Hendren you checked one site? There are many. And as I said you will see they are all quite different, as different as Christians. And why on earth would I want them to change their beliefs, they respect other religions, people that are different from themselves, they strive to live in harmony with nature, all things that even "Good" Christians should strive to do. "

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:36 PM:

" And yes Mr. Hendren I am an atheistic Gnostic Taoist, I do not believe in a God that is all knowing, all powerful, that created the heavens and earth and interferes in the affairs of man when he feels like it. Some Gnostic Taoists just like some Christians are Deists, they believe in a creator God that did his work and is setting back watching the show unfold. Some are probably Panentheists, they believe in a God that is within and transcendant. Quite a wonderful variety. "

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:40 PM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren since I am the only one that brought up the story of David and Jonathan I must set you straight, I did not say that David was offered Jonathan as his first wife. All I said was the story appears to be about two homosexual lovers. You really do need to learn to read, both what others post and the Bible. "

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:48 PM:

" I have pointed out Mr. Hendren what one believes is totally irrelevant, all that matters is how he/she treats her fellow man/woman especially those that are different. I have also repeatedly said that when one persons rights conflict with another persons rights a middle ground has to be found. In regards to rent, the laws have been set to insure equal access to ALL without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc. Precisely because folks like you have discriminated because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc. What's the difference between discriminating because of race or sexual preference? NONE, no difference. Without laws we'd still have sundown towns in this wonderful USofA. "

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:55 PM:

" Where Mr Hendren does the Bible tell you to persecute/not tolerate sinners? Does it tell you to pass laws that limit their rights? Does it tell you to harass them, call them names in public forums? Does it tell you to beat the cra- out of them? It tells you not to sin yourself (go and sin no more), to clean up your own act before you worry about anothers (don't worry about the dust mote in anothers eye when you have a beam in your own eye). It tells you not to associate with sinners, which would mean staying out of their way not forcing them out of the public areas where they have a right to be. I think you had better reread your Bible. "

jrhendren wrote on May 29, 2009 11:43 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 29, 2009 9:55 AM:
" Tying up some loose ends here, Jrhendren:

I did not say, as you write, that "God evolved throughout the Old Testament." Rather, I said that there was "an evolution in knowledge of him."

I do not believe God changed, though I do believe he tailored his approach to accommodate the needs and understanding of the people he chose to deal with. I also believe that people's knowledge of him grew slowly, and was often fuzzy.

How could it have grown slowly. He spoke more directly to the people. Scriptures speak of God walking in the garden where Adam was, "Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day..." - Genesis 3:8. He spoke to Moses directly in the burning bush. He spoke to the people at the giving of the Law. They believed God's name so sacred that they would not even say it.
________________________________________

"For example, the idea of one God was very hard for the ancient people of Israel to grasp, and they really didn't get it until the exile years."

You are mixing those who were not Hebrew with those who were. All throughout the Old Testament the people refer to God as the "The God of our Fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Issac, The God of Jacob..." It was those that God had his people drive out that were worshiping false Gods. Even the Ten Commandments were given before the Exile. The first one being, ""You shall have no other gods before me." - Exodus 20:3. He was pretty clear as to who they were to worship.
________________________________________

"Another example is where Jesus referred to Moses allowing divorce because of the "hardness of your hearts."

How does an example of "people's knowledge of him grew slowly, and was often fuzzy"? They were human just as we are. It was never part of God's plan for divorce to be a factor. The problem being that sin allowed for men and women to lust after those whom they were not married to.
________________________________________

But why are you haggling with me about the O.T.? You're the one who says that the Law was abolished, and then Jesus reinstated the ten commandments. I, on the other hand, believe that much of the "Law & the Prophets" carries over to the N.T., at least in principle.

I never said that the Law was abolished, but fulfilled. Their is a difference. I say this with Scriptural proof, to say different is to call Christ a liar. Jesus does speak of all but one of the "Ten Commandments", and thereby keeping them in the New Covenant. Most of the principles of the Law, and the Prophets are mentioned by Christ and his Apostles, but some are not. For instance, unclean food. God told Peter, "The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." - Acts 10:15. Of course here God was not only talking of food, which Peter later realizes.
________________________________________

"Among the weird and harsh prohibitions that most talk about were practical commands about how to help the poor, how to get along with others in the community, how to maintain health and sanitation, how to humanely treat animals and manage the environment, and so on. So who has more respect for the Old Testament, liberal Crow or conservative you? "

I would have to say both, since we both believe in the importance of the Old Testament. As Paul says, "What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." - Romans 7:7 Without the Old their would be no New. Without the Old we would not know who the Messiah was, since the Old Testament is really all about Christ. The question I have is why is it a political issue? Liberal or conservative has nothing to do with the principles of the Old Testament. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 12:23 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 29, 2009 10:12 AM:
" Now, here are some thoughts on "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior"--and not by Catholics, either:

http://www.acts17-11.com/cows_accept.html

First off they might want to use John 15:16 in context, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruitfruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name." - John 11:16. They left out that Jesus is talking to his apostles, which he did choose. Then they go on to speak of how Christ would not have died if just "you" were the only one on earth. Except that that is exactly what Christ is speaking of about leaving the flock to save one sheep.

http://www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com/articles/salvation/savior.html

This site does speak of repenting, confessing, and baptism, but they leave out the most important, Believing. If you do not believe in the death, burial, and resurrection then the other stuff does not matter. We do have to accept Christ. I have shown you examples of "accept Jesus as your personal Savior", by definition. To not accept him is to turn from him. To not accept him is to turn down the gift he is giving.
________________________________________

I was going to post one by a Reformed group but will have to wait until this evening to do that. Those Reformed Protestants--and I think the Puritans were from that stock--back in their days of glory, they would have had you tied to the stake for your anabaptist views before you could have uttered the word, "Heretic."

You are right because they would and did the same to the Apostles and Disciples of the time.
________________________________________

"Anyway, "accept Jesus as your personal savior" is an extra-biblical phrase based upon certain denominations' interpretation of certain Scripture verses. You're claiming something to be true that isn't found anywhere in Scripture. You're doing what the Catholics do, J.R.! "

I have not added, but took by example. If you want to believe in predestination fine. If you want to call yourself a Christian who does not believe that you must accept Christ, fine. When Christ says he is the only way, then he is the only way. When we are told to believe, then one must believe. When Christ speaks of having to accept him to accept the Father, "I tell you the truth, whoever accepts anyone I send accepts me; and whoever accepts me accepts the one who sent me." - John 13:20 then I will believe him. When John the Baptizer, (Baptist), said about Christ, "He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. The man who has accepted it has certified that God is truthful." - John 3:32-33 then I will choose to accept Christ. When Christ said, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersyes, even his own lifehe cannot be my disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple." - 14:26-27, he was speaking of how he must be first. That personal relationship with him. Paul speaks of God in Acts saying, "From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." - Acts 17:26-27. Why did God create man to "seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him" if their is to be no personal relationship? Why did Christ lie to the apostles about "preparing a place" for them, if he really did not care if they accepted him or not? Of, course he did not lie, and does want that relationship. Why anyone would want to call themselves "Christian", a follower of Christ, and not want a loving relationship with him is beyond me. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 12:34 AM:

" One more curiosity--I notice that, on another thread, you express great compassion for the young man who was driven to take his own life. You had mentioned previously that you were at that point once, which may be where the compassion comes from. Compassion rather than condemnation.

Yet, when I posted a few days ago about what it's like to be gay and involved in an evangelical church, you called my words a "nice rant." I was not making that story up; I know an individual in this situation. Through that individual, I've come to know many such stories.

This individual--and I have no doubt, many like this individual--has often been to the point of considering suicide. I think I mentioned that in my post that day.

As I have stated before, I have family that are in that situation, and at one time were contemplating taking their life. They know that I love them and will always be their for them, even though I do not agree with their lifestyle. They call me anytime they are in pain or this issue. In fact, I was one of the first they spoke to this about, when deciding to as they said, "come clean." My "nice rant" comment was geared more toward the concept that all Christians are a certain way. That all are "homophobic" and "gay-bashers".

Why is it that you can have Christ-like compassion for one person, but not for another--other than for the obvious fact that the other person was gay? "

I have Christ like compassion for all. I have compassion for those who have wronged me in the past even. As I was trying to tell Susan, just because I might tell someone, "You are doing wrong", it is not a sign of non-compassion, but of compassion. As a Christian we are to look toward the eternal not the present. I fear for my family members eternity, and what can happen to them in the present. You will never know how much I have wept for my family member, who is says they are a christian, a knows they are doing wrong. I say this with no anger, no hatred, no discourse, but do not tell me I do not have compassion for all. I have compassion for those who are on death row right now that they would seek the Lord, before it is to late. I have read the Book, and know the ending, and wish no one the torment after judgment. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 12:39 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:33 PM:
" Mr. Hendren you checked one site? There are many."

Lets see:
1. http://www.thetao.info/tao/gods.htm
2. http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/spirituality/jung.htm
3. http://www.gnosis.org/welcome.html

Once again Susan says something without looking into it first. Looks like someone need to learn how to count, or read entire posts before commenting to quick.
________________________________________

"And as I said you will see they are all quite different, as different as Christians. And why on earth would I want them to change their beliefs, they respect other religions, people that are different from themselves, they strive to live in harmony with nature, all things that even "Good" Christians should strive to do."

That's all fine and dandy, does not change the fact that they are who they say they are and you are not. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 1:07 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:36 PM:
" And yes Mr. Hendren I am an atheistic Gnostic Taoist,..."

Make up your mind what you are. First you are a Gnostic Taoist, who has been shown to be a religion by definition. Who also believes the Bible is full of wisdom for a mythical fairy tale book. Now you are an atheist Gnostic Taoist, which I guess means you do not believe in your own religion?
________________________________________

"I do not believe in a God that is all knowing, all powerful, that created the heavens and earth and interferes in the affairs of man when he feels like it. Some Gnostic Taoists just like some Christians are Deists, they believe in a creator God that did his work and is setting back watching the show unfold. Some are probably Panentheists, they believe in a God that is within and transcendant. Quite a wonderful variety."

So once again it is not you who is wrong but them. Funny how a religion that has been around for so long is wrong now that you have decided to call yourself one.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:40 PM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren since I am the only one that brought up the story of David and Jonathan I must set you straight, I did not say that David was offered Jonathan as his first wife. All I said was the story appears to be about two homosexual lovers. You really do need to learn to read, both what others post and the Bible. "

You said, "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. " - shumphreys wrote on May 13, 2009 3:53 PM: LETTER: Bible does discuss marriage, homosexuality. Where I then referred you to the previous versus, speaking of Saul trying to give David his oldest daughter. Their was no "homosexual" connotations. Just your trying to twist what the Scriptures said. It's okay we all know you did, and do it. You tell me to read the Bible, yet you do not even know the Scriptures, nor believe in them, at least for now, you might when you change religions again. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 1:36 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:48 PM:
" I have pointed out Mr. Hendren what one believes is totally irrelevant, all that matters is how he/she treats her fellow man/woman especially those that are different. I have also repeatedly said that when one persons rights conflict with another persons rights a middle ground has to be found. In regards to rent, the laws have been set to insure equal access to ALL without discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc. Precisely because folks like you have discriminated because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc. What's the difference between discriminating because of race or sexual preference? NONE, no difference. Without laws we'd still have sundown towns in this wonderful USofA. "

That is not exactly what you said. You said, "...passing laws that limit their rights to live their laws according to their beliefs." So you admit then that it is okay to pass laws to limit my beliefs, but not others that lets say agree with you. You also claim, "I have also repeatedly said that when one persons rights conflict with another persons rights a middle ground has to be found." Except that this is the first time I remember you saying this, though I might have missed it. You are again saying that that middle ground is middle as long as it agrees with you only. The problem is I am the one who has said we are to love all people, you tend to imply love all people except those who do not agree with you. "Make laws to limit Christian beliefs, because I do not believe in God." is what you say. At least you have finally admitted it.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on May 29, 2009 12:55 PM:
" Where Mr Hendren does the Bible tell you to persecute/not tolerate sinners? Does it tell you to pass laws that limit their rights?

I have said from the beginning and can quote myself if you like. We are not to hate the person, but sin. Sin is not the person, sin is the action. A thief is only a thief after he steals not before. Why do you not read what people say?
________________________________________

"Does it tell you to harass them, call them names in public forums?"

I would like for you to show me one place where I have done that. You can't because we both know you are lying about me doing that. I know you were not speaking of me directly, only implying it. Funny how free speech in your mind works. You can call Christians what ever you want because you can, but "hey they can't say anything we don't like." As I said before pot or kettle?
________________________________________

"Does it tell you to beat the cra- out of them? It tells you not to sin yourself (go and sin no more), to clean up your own act before you worry about anothers (don't worry about the dust mote in anothers eye when you have a beam in your own eye). It tells you not to associate with sinners, which would mean staying out of their way not forcing them out of the public areas where they have a right to be. I think you had better reread your Bible. "

No you need to. You need to read and see your falsehoods for what they are. We are to tell others when they are not doing right. I have shown you over and over that. Just because you are to blind to see the truth is your problem not mine. You are the one full of hate for people. Hate for anyone who does not agree with your beliefs, your ways. I have always said, everyone has the right to follow God or not. You mock him, saying how good his wisdom is then how evil he is. We are to strive to sin no more, but unfortunately will fail, that is why we have Christ. He is our Savior, and will come back for his children. When that time comes, those who are not covered by the blood of Christ will be judged and will be thrown into the lake of Fire. Saying it is not true will not save you, if you are one of those who still do not believe in him. Oh and by the way for someone who does not believe in the Scriptures yet tells others to re-read them, you might want to check your biblical facts better about being around sinners. We are all sinners, and Christ himself ate with sinners. Christ said, "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." - John 5:32
Why would anyone listen to you regarding Scriptures that you claim to not even believe. You do not have faith in the Bible, so you do not understand our faith. You do not know what it is like to live with the Holy Spirit in your life. You read and study the Bible, all of the Bible, not just the parts you believe fit your agendas. Then I invite you to tell me what I believe. "

jrhendren wrote on May 30, 2009 1:40 AM:

" By the way Susan I think the rest of your letters are now archived. Time to write another one. "

shumphreys wrote on May 30, 2009 11:10 AM:

" Where in the Bible Mr. Hendren does it tell you to enact laws to limit the rights of others that don't believe what you believe? Saying the Bible tells you to hate the sin and not sinner is not answering that question Mr. Hendren. Where in the Bible give chapter and verse, does it tell you that you have the right to restrict the rights of others whose beliefs are different from your own? Mr. Hendren I have the right to challenge your use of the Bible because you use it justify the persecution of others. It is as much MY book as it is YOUR book. The Bible belongs to all believers and nonbelievers. It is after all a good book, though no better than many others. AND Mr. Hendren don't forget Matthew 25:31, folks will be judged on their actions towards their fellowman not by their beliefs. No getting around, that pesky little Matthew 25:31 "

medic57 wrote on May 30, 2009 7:34 PM:

" I always thought that Matthew 7:26 was for everyone who lives in Florida. "

CrowWoman wrote on May 30, 2009 9:13 PM:

" J.R., you wrote, "This site does speak of repenting, confessing, and baptism, but they leave out the most important, Believing."

I believe that this group includes the idea of "believing" with "confessing."

About the Reformed Christians, you wrote, "You are right because they would and did the same to the Apostles and Disciples of the time."

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, since the Reformation occurred during the 16th century. These were your "real Christians" who broke away from the Catholic church.

I believe you misunderstood what was written at the sites I listed for you. These are conservative denominations, and the people of those churches are believers in the sense that you understand. However, they feel it is belittling Christ to use the terminology, "accept Christ as your personal savior." Many of these Christian conservatives would say, "No, I did not "accept" Christ. He chose me, before the foundation of the world."

By the way, I do not believe in predestination, at least to the extent that the Reformed/Calvinistic folks do. However, it is legitimate for these people to make the claim for it, based on Scripture alone. That was their rallying cry, "Sola Scriptura." They are the ones who began the claim that the Holy Spirit guides each believer to the true meaning of Scripture.

The fruit of all this...thousands and thousands of denominations, all convinced that the Holy Spirit has revealed truth to them.

I do not mean to be insulting, but you are making sweeping claims and denials about topics you are not especially familiar with. Read more about church history, and not only from the slant of your particular denomination. Read from the differing perspectives if you want to truly understand the viewpoints they represent.

Also, read about the ancient people of Israel. Even conservative scholars will tell you that these people did not become confirmed in monotheism until after the exile. That's obvious from reading the prophets, not to mention the books before them. The people heard the words but were not at all ready to grasp them. "

jrhendren wrote on May 31, 2009 10:45 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on May 30, 2009 11:10 AM:
" Where in the Bible Mr. Hendren does it tell you to enact laws to limit the rights of others that don't believe what you believe?

You are the one who said it was okay not me. I will answer your question with a question. When was the Constitution changed to take away my religious rights? If you are speaking of Prop. 8 that would be the voters, of all religions, races, and sexes who voted it into their Constitution.
________________________________________

"Saying the Bible tells you to hate the sin and not sinner is not answering that question Mr. Hendren. Where in the Bible give chapter and verse, does it tell you that you have the right to restrict the rights of others whose beliefs are different from your own? Mr. Hendren I have the right to challenge your use of the Bible because you use it justify the persecution of others.

No one has said the Bible justifies persecution. You might want to look up the definition, not yours but the real definition, of persecution. Saying something is sin, is not persecution if the Bible says it is sin.
________________________________________

"It is as much MY book as it is YOUR book. The Bible belongs to all believers and nonbelievers. It is after all a good book, though no better than many others..."

Actually it is not YOUR book. You have no claim to a Bible you do not even believe in. It is for all, but to learn who Christ is and how a Christian is to be. You care about neither. It is also not a good book, but THE good Book, and better then all.
________________________________________
"AND Mr. Hendren don't forget Matthew 25:31, folks will be judged on their actions towards their fellowman not by their beliefs. No getting around, that pesky little Matthew 25:31 "

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory." - Matthew 25:31
Next time you are going to try and use the Scriptures you might want check the verse you are quoting. Oh, wait maybe the New Susan Translation says something different. My guess would be you were actually trying to quote was Matthew 25:34-36. Yet you leave out Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." Did that say faith, not works? No that must be wrong, since you said it was works not faith. So your right no getting around it, I hope you quit trying to. "

jrhendren wrote on May 31, 2009 11:08 PM:

" CrowWoman wrote on May 30, 2009 9:13 PM:
" J.R., you wrote, "This site does speak of repenting, confessing, and baptism, but they leave out the most important, Believing."

I believe that this group includes the idea of "believing" with "confessing."

That is possible, but also not.
________________________________________

About the Reformed Christians, you wrote, "You are right because they would and did the same to the Apostles and Disciples of the time."

I'm not sure what you mean by this statement, since the Reformation occurred during the 16th century. These were your "real Christians" who broke away from the Catholic church."

So you are saying the Apostles and disciples of Christ were not true Christians.? That they were not persecuted for their beliefs, that were different from the religious leaders of the time?
________________________________________

"I believe you misunderstood what was written at the sites I listed for you. These are conservative denominations, and the people of those churches are believers in the sense that you understand. However, they feel it is belittling Christ to use the terminology, "accept Christ as your personal savior." Many of these Christian conservatives would say, "No, I did not "accept" Christ. He chose me, before the foundation of the world."

No I understood perfectly. They were predestination sites. Problem is as I showed you in Acts 17:26-27 that God placed things to the order he did for man to choose him, not because he already chose them. Here is the verses again in case you skipped them last time:
"From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us." - Acts 17:26-27
________________________________________

"By the way, I do not believe in predestination, at least to the extent that the Reformed/Calvinistic folks do. However, it is legitimate for these people to make the claim for it, based on Scripture alone. That was their rallying cry, "Sola Scriptura." They are the ones who began the claim that the Holy Spirit guides each believer to the true meaning of Scripture.

The fruit of all this...thousands and thousands of denominations, all convinced that the Holy Spirit has revealed truth to them.

I do not mean to be insulting, but you are making sweeping claims and denials about topics you are not especially familiar with. Read more about church history, and not only from the slant of your particular denomination. Read from the differing perspectives if you want to truly understand the viewpoints they represent.

Also, read about the ancient people of Israel. Even conservative scholars will tell you that these people did not become confirmed in monotheism until after the exile. That's obvious from reading the prophets, not to mention the books before them. The people heard the words but were not at all ready to grasp them. "

I have studied early church history, ancient history. You are the one trying to say that the Isralites did not believe really in God until after the Exile which is just not true. You might want to read some history without the slant yourself. Try something from the Christian church, not the Catholic church. You sound as if you also do not believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. I would guess that is not true, but it does sound as you do not. The Holy Spirit does help in the understanding of the Scriptures, but so do other spirits and why we are told, "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." - 1 John 4:1-3. Just because someone says, "The Holy Spirit said this...", does not mean it's true. That is why we test the spirits. The best way to test the spirits to see what the Scriptures say about the subject. One must look at what the Scriptures say though and not what you want them to say. As some do with the topic of homosexuality. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:40 AM:

" Persecution is denying one group of people the same rights that others have Mr. Hendren, the right for gays to marry. The right for access to housing whether you are homosexual, or belong to a different religion. Persecute means to do harm to, that means driving people to commit violence against those that are different, driving a person to commit suicide because they feel oppressed and unlovable is persecution Mr. Hendren.Screaming at women entering abortion clinics and murdering abortion Doctors is persecution Mr. Hendren. Calling people Evil and saying that they are a threat to the moral foundations of society because they are homosexual, accept the reality of evolution, follow a different religion or no religion is Persecution Mr. Hendren. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:46 AM:

" Of course the Bible is MY book just as much as it is YOUR book Mr. Hendren. There isn't any place in the Bible that says this is to be read only by people that are believers. Whether you like it or not it is not the only GOOD book, it is NO better, NO holier than the Upanishads or the Tao teh Ching or many other books. AND as I have pointed out before it has and will continue to play a part in the life of people in this world, in politics (if you want to understand and fix the problems in the Middle East), social ideas (concepts of proper behavior) anyone that wants to understand where we are going, must understand where we have been and for that you need to understand the Bible and ALL the other worlds sacred texts. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:51 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I should have put a... after the 31. I do want people to start at the beginning of the passage, not just read a couple of lines. The point is Mr. Hendren that the Bible says very different things about being "saved". Some believe that it is faith alone, some faith AND daily actions, some great Deeeds/Bequests etc., some that it doesn't matter one bit what you do or believe because it has all been predetermined. AND all these are backed by Biblical passages. So who is right, those that select one passage to support their belief are faced with the unpleasant reality of ALL those other passages for me the one I like the most is Matthew 25: 31-.... "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:56 AM:

" Oh and Mr. Hendren I have found enlightenment which has helped me move beyond the pettiness of doctrine and dogma, it has freed me from fear because I understand what is and is not important in this world. AND as I have said it isn't what religion you practice or whether you practice any, it isn't your sexual orientation, your gender, race or ethniciy, social status, wealth, ALL that matters are your day to day actions towards your fellow man ALL of them especially those that are different from you. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 1, 2009 12:46 PM:

" J.R., are you joking? I have personally known people of the Reformed persuasion, and they are believers in every sense of the word. Not that I agree with their beliefs, however. Just for fun, years ago I wrote to R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries and presented to him (or, rather, the Reformed scholars associated with Ligonier) some of the same material I've been posting here.

Like you, they could not conceive of any beliefs being correct other than their own, though they did concede that "a stopped clock can be right twice a day."

By the way, these folks certainly know how to deal with that passage from Acts 17. Even more than you, they have every i dotted and every t crossed. Like you, they are guided by a doctrinal system and really cannot see apart from it. Any scripture they look at is filtered through their doctrinal system--just as you read Scripture through your doctrinal lenses.

Of course, you insist that the Reformed people and all those other denominations are being led by other spirits rather than the Holy Spirit. But they and other conservative denominations claim the same thing about people who disagree with them...people like you!

I certainly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why I believe that if these doctrinal details were important, the Holy Spirit would have made these divisive issues 100% clear in Scripture--just as clear as the moral rules are.

One final point; you wrote, "You are the one trying to say that the Isralites did not believe really in God until after the Exile which is just not true." I did not say they didn't believe in God, but I did say their concept of him was confused or at least fuzzy. Have you even read the Old Testament? These people would not have been so prone to idolatry if they weren't accustomed to seeing and practicing it.

They had trouble grasping the idea of one God, particularly one God without some type of bodily form. On the Ark of the Covenant, a place was fashioned for God to sit, between the wings of the Cherubim. You've read about Aaron making the golden calf--that was supposed to be Yahweh in bodily form. The people just didn't get it, and they had trouble getting it for hundreds of years. During the Captivity, it sank in.

And, by the way, the history I've read has not been Catholic history. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:21 PM:

" CrowWoman I bet that interchange with Mr. Sproul was an eyeopener, enlightening exchange. We can learn alot about how people think and reason when we engage in a dialogue. AND it is amazing how some minds work, mine included! "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 1, 2009 10:11 PM:

" Susan, I didn't get to talk to R.C. himself; I believe my letter was assigned to a seminary student. :~) The response was an eye-opener, though. This happened at least 15 years ago, but even then I knew he had to be wrong (in claiming that Calvinism had all the right answers).

A church we went to around that time had a pastor who had embraced Calvinist theology. He was so into being "right" (and into himself as well) that he actually told a friend of mine who had lost her young child that she couldn't count on meeting her baby in heaven. After all, the child may have been predestined to the other place!

J.R., I missed your comment, "So you are saying the Apostles and disciples of Christ were not true Christians? That they were not persecuted for their beliefs, that were different from the religious leaders of the time?"

No, I'm not saying that. I was pointing out that the Reformation occurred in the 16th century (not the apostolic era), and that the Reformers were what you would have regarded as "true Christians." They were among those separating from the Catholic church. They were persecuted for their beliefs but also felt led to persecute those who, in turn, separated from them. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 1, 2009 11:58 PM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:40 AM:
" Persecution is denying one group of people the same rights that others have Mr. Hendren, the right for gays to marry. The right for access to housing whether you are homosexual, or belong to a different religion. Persecute means to do harm to, that means driving people to commit violence against those that are different, driving a person to commit suicide because they feel oppressed and unlovable is persecution Mr. Hendren.Screaming at women entering abortion clinics and murdering abortion Doctors is persecution Mr. Hendren. Calling people Evil and saying that they are a threat to the moral foundations of society because they are homosexual, accept the reality of evolution, follow a different religion or no religion is Persecution Mr. Hendren. "

So people are only persecuted if they are homosexual? When you say all Christians are haters, bashers, and trying to destroy our society you are not persecuting? When you try and take our Constitutional right to believe how we want, you are not persecuting? So once again we have persecution defined as "wrongs committed against anyone, who is not a Christian. Christians are fair game." As for your garbage of trying to make it sound as Christians everywhere promote violence I would hope you really do not believe that. Although you might, and do seem to.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:46 AM:
" Of course the Bible is MY book just as much as it is YOUR book Mr. Hendren. There isn't any place in the Bible that says this is to be read only by people that are believers. Whether you like it or not it is not the only GOOD book, it is NO better, NO holier than the Upanishads or the Tao teh Ching or many other books. AND as I have pointed out before it has and will continue to play a part in the life of people in this world, in politics (if you want to understand and fix the problems in the Middle East), social ideas (concepts of proper behavior) anyone that wants to understand where we are going, must understand where we have been and for that you need to understand the Bible and ALL the other worlds sacred texts. "

Why do we need to understand the Bible remember you said it was just a book of myths, and fairy tales? How can a book like that help us understand the past? It's a book of make believe you said. It is the only GOOD book, and the only book we need to follow. It provides the only way to salvation. The Bible is to be read by all believers and non-believers, but it is not a book to be mocked, and used wrongly to try and promote sin, as you try and do. That is blasphemy towards God's Word. To say it is a good book, then say it is a book of fairy tales is blasphemous. Funny isn't it, how it is okay for you to berate Christian beliefs, but we are not allowed to voice our opinions without being called absurd names like homophobic. Wonder why the same people, like yourself, who are always yelling for equal rights really do not want equal rights? Why is it okay to make push for laws against our beliefs, but not okay to push to keep the laws as they are? Wonder why those that yell for the people voices to be heard, and every vote count, sue when the people don't say or vote like they wanted? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 2, 2009 12:36 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:51 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I should have put a... after the 31. I do want people to start at the beginning of the passage, not just read a couple of lines. The point is Mr. Hendren that the Bible says very different things about being "saved". Some believe that it is faith alone, some faith AND daily actions, some great Deeeds/Bequests etc., some that it doesn't matter one bit what you do or believe because it has all been predetermined. AND all these are backed by Biblical passages. So who is right, those that select one passage to support their belief are faced with the unpleasant reality of ALL those other passages for me the one I like the most is Matthew 25: 31-.... "

Actually you are wrong as usall about what the Bible, the book you do not believe in, says about salvation. It is quite clear on how to be saved, and why we are saved:

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." - John 3:3

"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." - Acts 2:38

"Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." - Acts 15:10-11

He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

"They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household." Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized." - Acts 16:30-33

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain." 1 Corinthians 15:1-2

"But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressionsit is by grace you have been saved." - Ephesians 2:4-5

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior," - Titus 3:4-6

"For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you alsonot the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,..." - 1 Peter 3:18-21
Their are others if you would like, though I wish you would read the Scriptures yourself and see the Glory of God for yourself. I pray that you would read the Scriptures and let Christ into your heart.
________________________________________

shumphreys wrote on Jun 1, 2009 7:56 AM:
" Oh and Mr. Hendren I have found enlightenment which has helped me move beyond the pettiness of doctrine and dogma, it has freed me from fear because I understand what is and is not important in this world. AND as I have said it isn't what religion you practice or whether you practice any, it isn't your sexual orientation, your gender, race or ethniciy, social status, wealth, ALL that matters are your day to day actions towards your fellow man ALL of them especially those that are different from you. "

So I guess you are now an Atheist again and not a Gnostic? You say, "I have found enlightenment which has helped me move beyond the pettiness of doctrine...". You do have a doctrine by definition:
noun
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject

The only thing we do agree on is that you are to treat your fellow man well, though I do not agree with your ending of "especially those that are different from you". Once again you show your slanted "equality". You do know what equal means right? "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:26 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 1, 2009 12:46 PM:
" J.R., are you joking? I have personally known people of the Reformed persuasion, and they are believers in every sense of the word. Not that I agree with their beliefs, however. Just for fun, years ago I wrote to R. C. Sproul of Ligonier Ministries and presented to him (or, rather, the Reformed scholars associated with Ligonier) some of the same material I've been posting here.

Like you, they could not conceive of any beliefs being correct other than their own, though they did concede that "a stopped clock can be right twice a day."

By the way, these folks certainly know how to deal with that passage from Acts 17. Even more than you,..."

I guess you are referring to verse 11:
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.", and do not believe that they examined the Scriptures to see the proof Paul was speaking about regarding Jesus as the Messiah.
________________________________________

"they have every i dotted and every t crossed. Like you, they are guided by a doctrinal system and really cannot see apart from it. Any scripture they look at is filtered through their doctrinal system--just as you read Scripture through your doctrinal lenses.

Of course, you insist that the Reformed people and all those other denominations are being led by other spirits rather than the Holy Spirit. But they and other conservative denominations claim the same thing about people who disagree with them...people like you!

I certainly believe in the power of the Holy Spirit. That is why I believe that if these doctrinal details were important, the Holy Spirit would have made these divisive issues 100% clear in Scripture--just as clear as the moral rules are.

They are clear, that is the point. I do not filter the Scriptures through some doctrine. If the Scriptures say run, then run. If they save you must be baptized you must be baptized. You wrote to Mr. Sproul that's good. You were doing research. I do not agree with Calvinistic views, I am sorry. I believe the Bible to say what it says. I believe that we are not to add to it. I believe we are to use all the Scriptures in context, and not just a verse here and there to say what we want it to.
________________________________________

"One final point; you wrote, "You are the one trying to say that the Isralites did not believe really in God until after the Exile which is just not true." I did not say they didn't believe in God, but I did say their concept of him was confused or at least fuzzy. Have you even read the Old Testament? These people would not have been so prone to idolatry if they weren't accustomed to seeing and practicing it."

So then we have gone backwards? Look at how much we are prone to idolatry. We worship a lot of things besides God, like money, looks, cars, people, religious leaders, among others.
________________________________________

"They had trouble grasping the idea of one God, particularly one God without some type of bodily form. On the Ark of the Covenant, a place was fashioned for God to sit, between the wings of the Cherubim. You've read about Aaron making the golden calf--that was supposed to be Yahweh in bodily form."

When the people saw that Moses was so long in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said, "Come, make us gods who will go before us. As for this fellow Moses who brought us up out of Egypt, we don't know what has happened to him." - Exodus 32:1 and

He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt." - Exodus 32:4

They did not ask for God in a form, but the gods they worshiped in Egypt. The gods that they had become accustomed to. We also read that not all of the people worshiped the Golden Calf, so that to does not agree with your conclusion.
_______________________________________

The people just didn't get it, and they had trouble getting it for hundreds of years. During the Captivity, it sank in.

And, by the way, the history I've read has not been Catholic history. "

Once again you are wrong. Just as today some people got it and some did not. The Israelites had outside influences just as us today. In fact, if you read the Old Testament almost every time they fell into Idol worship it was because they went against what God had said. When they seen their mistake they would go back to him. They knew who he was, they just did not follow him as so many today do. To say that people that heard God speak to them with voice, who they could actually see his glory on Moses, and led by him as a pillar of fire, did not believe in him is ridiculous. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 2, 2009 1:43 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 1, 2009 10:11 PM:
" Susan, I didn't get to talk to R.C. himself; I believe my letter was assigned to a seminary student. :~) The response was an eye-opener, though. This happened at least 15 years ago, but even then I knew he had to be wrong (in claiming that Calvinism had all the right answers).

A church we went to around that time had a pastor who had embraced Calvinist theology. He was so into being "right" (and into himself as well) that he actually told a friend of mine who had lost her young child that she couldn't count on meeting her baby in heaven. After all, the child may have been predestined to the other place!

That is disgusting that anyone would tell that to a parent, and shows ignorance in the Scriptures as well. You do realize also that someone has to be right don't you? I can say without a doubt it's not Susan, and I would hope we could agree on that.
________________________________________

J.R., I missed your comment, "So you are saying the Apostles and disciples of Christ were not true Christians? That they were not persecuted for their beliefs, that were different from the religious leaders of the time?"

No, I'm not saying that. I was pointing out that the Reformation occurred in the 16th century (not the apostolic era), and that the Reformers were what you would have regarded as "true Christians." They were among those separating from the Catholic church. They were persecuted for their beliefs but also felt led to persecute those who, in turn, separated from them."

So then it was okay to buy off your sins, as the Catholic church was doing. Oops, forgot we are only allowed to bash Christians. I guess the Restoration Movement is out. You know the ones trying to get back to the Church as that in the book of Acts. No wait, we are not Catholic so we must be one of those persecuter churches and movements. I also like how you keep redefining what I said was a "true Christian". Since I never said only those of the Reformation were true Christians. Their are those in the Catholic Church that do not agree with the ways, including the persecution of homosexuals, the church does. If they are living as the Scriptures they are true Christians aka. followers of Christ. That is what a true Christian is, one who follows Christ and his commands, not adding or taking away from the Scriptures to fit their beliefs. The Scriptures are clear, though some refuse to see. Why do you believe their are so many denominations that believe in different things? I can tell you the answer if you like. Satan, is the answer. Satan is in the church, because those are the people he does not have. He has those who do not believe, it is the believers he wants. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:06 AM:

" Mr. Hendren I have never said ALL Christians are haters, bashers and are trying to destroy our society those are YOUR words not mine. I have never said that those that abuse and misuse religion and the Bible are trying to destroy our society. But they are destroying their church, their religion and peoples perception of the Bible. When young people are asked what they think of Christians and Christianity the words that come up are intolerant and hypocritical. Now where do you think they get those perceptions? "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:14 AM:

" There isn't anything blasphemous about calling the Bible what it is, a mix of fact and fantasy, myth and metaphor, poetry and prose. Mr. Hendren we can learn as much from a work of fiction as we can from a good historical text. Hemingways Old Man and the Sea tell us more about the human condition than a Psychology textbook. From the Grapes of Wrath we can learn more about the time period than from a history text. If you want to turn young people on to history there is nothing like a Great Movie (and the books they were based on), The Lion in Winter, Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire, to get them excited and interested in learning more. A person will never fully understand world history unless he understands the world religions that have so often been the cause behind the wars. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:23 AM:

" I don't push for laws than deny you the right to believe what ever you want to believe Mr. Hendren. I do however speak out against YOUR pushing for laws that deny other people their rights. Within the walls of YOUR church, you can deny homosexuals the right to get married at your altar, you can dent them the right of membership, you can rebuke their "immoral" behavior all you want. BUT outside your church, that is a different story. You do NOT have the right to persecute or deny rights to any person or group that you disaprove of. AND I as a citizen of the world have the right (and responsibility) to rebuke you for your immoral behavior if you do so. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:06 PM:

" "To say that people that heard God speak to them with voice, who they could actually see his glory on Moses, and led by him as a pillar of fire, did not believe in him is ridiculous."

I don't think so! According to the Biblical accounts, disbelief was always getting these people into trouble and eventually earned them 40 extra years of wandering the wilderness.

"You do realize also that someone has to be right don't you?"

No, I don't realize that at all; in fact, I disagree. Actually, it is highly probable that no one's got it right. My point is that God apparently does not care. I've met dedicated Christians from many denominations who would disagree with each other about the issues we've talked about (baptism, eternal security, predestination, tongues, etc.). I don't think our positions on these matter one iota. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:11 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:06 AM:
" Mr. Hendren I have never said ALL Christians are haters, bashers and are trying to destroy our society those are YOUR words not mine."

I'm sorry you did not state it in so many words just implied it, as you continually do. You say that all we do it persecute others. You imply that it was Christians, and there hate that caused a schizophrenic man to kill someone in cold blood. It was you and CrowWoman that imply that all Christians have ever done was persecute people. Telling someone, "you are doing wrong in my belief", is not persecution. If it is then you persecute Christians by telling them they are wrong. You said that laws should not be made against their beliefs, but you believe it is okay to change the laws that are there now, to be against my beliefs. That is you persecuting by your definition.
________________________________________

I have never said that those that abuse and misuse religion and the Bible are trying to destroy our society. But they are destroying their church, their religion and peoples perception of the Bible."

It is once again implied with comments like:

"Precisely because folks like you have discriminated because of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, religion, etc." - shumphreys May 29, 2009 12:48 PM:

"Calling people Evil and saying that they are a threat to the moral foundations of society because they are homosexual, accept the reality of evolution, follow a different religion or no religion is Persecution Mr. Hendren." - shumphreys Jun 1, 2009 7:40 AM:

"If you (and other Christians) claim that God gives you the right to rebuke others than you have to accept the fact that I (and others) have the right to rebuke you for your immoral actions. Which by the way, is exactly what I have been doing on these pages and in my letters." - shumphreys May 28, 2009 8:05 AM:

Sure sounds like you are implying it.
________________________________________

"When young people are asked what they think of Christians and Christianity the words that come up are intolerant and hypocritical. Now where do you think they get those perceptions?"

This I have to say is an out and out lie. If you survey non-christians, those who do not believe in God, or the Scriptures, guess what you are going to get a slanted answer. That would be like going to the Republican National Convention to do a survey on President Obama. It is going to be slanted. Their are several, including myself, that are starting to steer away from the term Christian, because of cooks like Phelps. People who use the term "Christian" but defiantly do not live the Christian life. It of course does not help when people like you try and portray him and me as being the same type of person. I have worked with youth both Christian and non-Christian. Usually, not always, but most of the time, when told what being a Christian really means they see the truth. That the media, and people like you, Christian haters, are dead wrong about what we truly believe. That they have been lied to about true Bible followers, true Christ followers, do not hate people, but sin as God does. That we do not think we are better then others, but sinners just like everyone else. That God loves and wants everyone to come to him, not just the righteous, rich, well dressed, or etc... Do we call sin sin? Yes, as the Bible does. Does that mean we hate others? No, we hate their sin, just as much as our own. In fact, because we hate sin, shows the true love we have. That we not only care about the person now, but their eternal life. That is the main problem with me and you. You look at the now, because you do not believe in a later. That is why you can not nor will you understand Christianity, unless you turn to the God you mock, who still loves you. As the Scriptures say, "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." - 1 John 4:8, but also say, "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." - Romans 12:9. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:18 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:14 AM:
" There isn't anything blasphemous about calling the Bible what it is, a mix of fact and fantasy, myth and metaphor, poetry and prose. Mr. Hendren we can learn as much from a work of fiction as we can from a good historical text. Hemingways Old Man and the Sea tell us more about the human condition than a Psychology textbook. From the Grapes of Wrath we can learn more about the time period than from a history text. If you want to turn young people on to history there is nothing like a Great Movie (and the books they were based on), The Lion in Winter, Out of Africa, Chariots of Fire, to get them excited and interested in learning more. A person will never fully understand world history unless he understands the world religions that have so often been the cause behind the wars. "

So now all wars are caused by religion. So now we are homophobic, hating, war mongers, who want to destroy societies. Also history books are not as good at teaching history as fictional books and movies. Give me a break. Movies can show what it possible was like, but if you want history you read or talk to someone who was there. Movies are made for money, not history. Heck, look at all the different movies alone made about the Gunfight at the O.K. Coral. None of them end the same way. Some even have guys dying that were not even there, or not killed at the least. Yep, kids quit reading history books, and go watch a show, or read some fiction, fiction: not true, book to learn your history. That is what Susan does. Movies to teach history, I hope to God you are not teaching any of my children. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:31 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 2, 2009 7:23 AM:
" I don't push for laws than deny you the right to believe what ever you want to believe Mr. Hendren. I do however speak out against YOUR pushing for laws that deny other people their rights.

So you admit you do not believe I have the same rights as you. I should not be allowed to voice my opinions on what is good for our country. You also are saying then that you do not support the laws stating that I must rent to a homosexual couple even if it is against my beliefs, or that a pharmacist that does not agree with abortion has to allow morning after pills. I guess when they pass laws against our religion we are supposed to say, "Oh well, I guess I should not say anything and quit being a landlord, or pharmacist." Not stand up for our rights.
_______________________________________

Within the walls of YOUR church, you can deny homosexuals the right to get married at your altar, you can dent them the right of membership, you can rebuke their "immoral" behavior all you want. BUT outside your church, that is a different story.

So then now you also admit you do not believe that religious people have rights under the Constitution. Remember it is "Freedom of Religion", not Freedom from Religion.
________________________________________

"You do NOT have the right to persecute or deny rights to any person or group that you disaprove of. AND I as a citizen of the world have the right (and responsibility) to rebuke you for your immoral behavior if you do so. "

So then once again, you can "rebuke" based on your beliefs, but no one else can. You really think highly of yourself don't you. I just do not get how having a moral code, and hating sin is immoral behavior? How because a minority use a name, "Christian", do not properly rebuke, you want to group all "Christians" together, yet when I told you the Gnostic beliefs, you said their were differences. Your group can be many, mine are all haters by your definitions. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:37 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 2, 2009 2:06 PM:
" "To say that people that heard God speak to them with voice, who they could actually see his glory on Moses, and led by him as a pillar of fire, did not believe in him is ridiculous."

I don't think so! According to the Biblical accounts, disbelief was always getting these people into trouble and eventually earned them 40 extra years of wandering the wilderness."

Yep just like I said, and just like it does us all now. Do not mix humans self gratification with disbelief. Just because they didn't always do as they should does not mean they did not believe. If that was the case they would never had returned to God like they did.
________________________________________

"You do realize also that someone has to be right don't you?"

No, I don't realize that at all; in fact, I disagree. Actually, it is highly probable that no one's got it right."

That is called denial and not being able to see reality.
________________________________________

"My point is that God apparently does not care. I've met dedicated Christians from many denominations who would disagree with each other about the issues we've talked about (baptism, eternal security, predestination, tongues, etc.). I don't think our positions on these matter one iota."

If he does not care he is a liar. Since he speaks of each one in the Scriptures and says their is only one way to him, that being through Christ. He would not speak of baptism so much if he did not care, and it was not important. Some issues yes, they might be of less importance, but all have their place. If not they would not be there. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:22 AM:

" "That is called denial and not being able to see reality."

No, jrhendren, that is called life experience. I have lived in different parts of the country, and gotten to know devoted Christians from all denominations--Christians who are blessed and are a blessing, yet who are in disagreement on these issues.

The Lord does not care nearly as much as you do, Mr. Hendren. If he did, we'd all be in trouble--including you (as hard as that is for you to believe).

I can't ignore one thing you said in response to Susan's comment, "When young people are asked what they think of Christians and Christianity the words that come up are intolerant and hypocritical." You called this comment an out and out lie, but google it with Barna. Since you are so literal, she should have inserted the word "frequently" before "think of Christians and Christianity"--but what she said is not a fabrication. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:32 AM:

" "If he does not care he is a liar."

No, the problem is that we do not (and cannot) understand everything in the Bible. We weren't there when it was written, and we cannot know the cultural context. Mostly, we pass what we read through our 21st century grid--we have no choice.

Do you really think God is going to hold us accountable for lack of understanding of these doctrinal points? If so, as I said, we're all going to be in a lot of trouble. But I'm not the least bit worried about that.

The baptism example you gave--I know dedicated Christians who believe in (adult) "believer's baptism" and I know dedicated Christians who were baptized as infants (and never re-baptized). All experience God in their daily lives. No one is "punished" for not having the beliefs quite right. The same is true with the eternal security question; I know Christians who believe every which way on that issue. I know Christians who speak in tongues, and I know those who do not believe in it.

The problem is not with God, it's with our understanding--with your understanding, J.R. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:35 AM:

" Mr. Hendren you get too much exercise jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you should learn to read and think, you read into writings what isn't there, you assume things based on your own prejudices. No wonder you have such trouble understanding and reading the Bible and understanding what others have to say. You have eyes but can not see and ears that cannot hear. "

CrowWoman wrote on Jun 3, 2009 12:52 PM:

" One sad example of how Scripture has been misunderstood (and misused) by many conservative denominations is that of denying Church leadership to women. An interesting passage from HT, published by the Nazarene denomination:

"Unclear and culturally bound passages in Paul have been used as proof texts against the recognition of the call of God on women to leadership roles in the Church...."

In Romans 16:7, Paul calls Andronicus and Junias 'outstanding among the apostles' who were in Christ, before Paul. The gender of Junias (Junia in New Revised Standard Version and Today's New International Version) cannot be determined from the Greek.

However, there is no evidence that this name existed as a man's name in the first century, while there is much evidence that it existed as a woman's name. In the fourth century, Church father John Chrysostom understood the reference to be to a woman.

Later church leaders could not accept that a woman could be called an apostle, let alone an outstanding apostle, and today many translations and commentaries reflect that bias." "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:40 PM:

" CrowWoman I think people read into the Bible what they want to read into it. A person raised (or born with) a more compassionate soul read compassion into the Bible those born with or raised with fear and hate in their soul read fear and hate into the words. AND as you have said if God really cared about doctrine and dogma he would have/could have/should have been more explicit! "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:47 PM:

" One more thought do folks like Mr. Hendren, Mr. Vanatta, 7X and others really think that a good (relatively speaking in human terms) Catholic or Pentacostal, or Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran or Church of Christ person or.....won't make it into heaven because they belong to the wrong denomination, were sprinkled rather than immersed as a child rather than as an adult, were born again or not? The same question must also be extended do they really think the good (relatively speaking in human terms) Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Atheist then won't be accepted into heaven because they follow a different doctrine (haven't accepted Jesus as their savior)? What self-rightousness, hypocrisy,and simple foolishness. "

jrussell wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:52 PM:

" Scipture is messed up, sorry, it is stories, I believe in God, a God and his higer powers and I'll believe in Jesus as a righteous man and as the son of God out of respect for God, follow me here lol, but the Bible is crap, the Earth created in this many days and humans in the same week even though we know the Earth is much much older than human existence, the proof is overwhelming of its inconsistencies "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:11 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:22 AM:
" "That is called denial and not being able to see reality."

No, jrhendren, that is called life experience. I have lived in different parts of the country, and gotten to know devoted Christians from all denominations--Christians who are blessed and are a blessing, yet who are in disagreement on these issues.

The Lord does not care nearly as much as you do, Mr. Hendren. If he did, we'd all be in trouble--including you (as hard as that is for you to believe).

I can't ignore one thing you said in response to Susan's comment, "When young people are asked what they think of Christians and Christianity the words that come up are intolerant and hypocritical." You called this comment an out and out lie, but google it with Barna. Since you are so literal, she should have inserted the word "frequently" before "think of Christians and Christianity"--but what she said is not a fabrication. "

So once again the self proclaimed Christian takes to the defense of the the mocker of Christianity. Nice testimony your showing there. I looked at the survey, and where it stated that most of those surveyed were non-Christians. Meaning they did not agree with Christianity anyways. I have, as I said worked with the youth all over, and can assure you that might be what they initially believe, but that is because they do not know what being a Christian means. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:31 AM:

" CrowWoman wrote on Jun 3, 2009 7:32 AM:
" "If he does not care he is a liar."

No, the problem is that we do not (and cannot) understand everything in the Bible. We weren't there when it was written, and we cannot know the cultural context. Mostly, we pass what we read through our 21st century grid--we have no choice.

So God is a god of confusion? He put thinks in the Scriptures that we are unable to understand. That being you can not understand them, so no one can.

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints." - 1 Corinthians 14:33

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" - Galatians 1:6-8

"I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be." - Galatians 5:10

We can understand. We can look at the history of the times, the culture, and the people. We can go back to the Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek languages to see what the word means. Not understanding is a cop out for those who do not want to really get into the Scriptures, and see what they say.
________________________________________

"Do you really think God is going to hold us accountable for lack of understanding of these doctrinal points? If so, as I said, we're all going to be in a lot of trouble. But I'm not the least bit worried about that."

That is his choice not mine. As I have said, if it is an area considering salvation. Yes I do believe he will.
"But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger." - Romans 2:8. As it says here "those who reject the truth...". If one is shown the truth biblically and reject it, they are wrong. Just as I once believed in the "Sinner's Prayer" and was shown the truth that it is not in the Bible.
________________________________________

"The baptism example you gave--I know dedicated Christians who believe in (adult) "believer's baptism" and I know dedicated Christians who were baptized as infants (and never re-baptized). All experience God in their daily lives. No one is "punished" for not having the beliefs quite right. The same is true with the eternal security question; I know Christians who believe every which way on that issue. I know Christians who speak in tongues, and I know those who do not believe in it.

The problem is not with God, it's with our understanding--with your understanding, J.R. "

I would have to say your understanding. The Scriptures are clear. There is no example of infant baptism. In fact, an infant is pure and has no sin to wash away. Christ himself said we must come to him as small children. He also said there was only one way to the Father that being through him. Believing "I'm going to heaven because I am a good person," will not get one there. Are there minor insignificant differences? Yes, but it is the ones regarding salvation that count. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:36 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 11:35 AM:
" Mr. Hendren you get too much exercise jumping to conclusions. Perhaps you should learn to read and think, you read into writings what isn't there, you assume things based on your own prejudices. No wonder you have such trouble understanding and reading the Bible and understanding what others have to say. You have eyes but can not see and ears that cannot hear. "

Look the non-believer again telling me how to read the Bible. I jumped to no conclusions. The you tell me I "assume things based on your own prejudices", like you and how Christians encourage violence. You are the one who needs to open your eyes and ears to the truth. You are the one who needs to read the Scriptures, and not try and turn them to meet your own needs and wants. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:39 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:40 PM:
" CrowWoman I think people read into the Bible what they want to read into it..."

As you do.
________________________________________

"A person raised (or born with) a more compassionate soul read compassion into the Bible those born with or raised with fear and hate in their soul read fear and hate into the words. AND as you have said if God really cared about doctrine and dogma he would have/could have/should have been more explicit! "

He is, just because you refuse to believe it, does not mean it is not there. He is quite explicit on the issue of homosexual acts. You for reasons really only known to you, and it would be wrong to speculate, try to make them say what they do not. Then when called on your misrepresentation, change subjects. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 12:52 AM:

" shumphreys wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:47 PM:
" One more thought do folks like Mr. Hendren, Mr. Vanatta, 7X and others really think that a good (relatively speaking in human terms) Catholic or Pentacostal, or Baptist or Methodist or Lutheran or Church of Christ person or.....won't make it into heaven because they belong to the wrong denomination, were sprinkled rather than immersed as a child rather than as an adult, were born again or not?

God decides who will and won't. Someone who has never been told the truth about what the Scriptures say regarding salvation will be, as all, decided by Him.
________________________________________

The same question must also be extended do they really think the good (relatively speaking in human terms) Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Atheist then won't be accepted into heaven because they follow a different doctrine (haven't accepted Jesus as their savior)? What self-rightousness, hypocrisy,and simple foolishness. "

The answer here is different. Those who do not accept Christ will not inherit the kingdom of God. Jesus says, "...I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6 and

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' - Matthew 7:21-22

Without Christ their is no salvation. Once again I would hope CrowWoman would back me up on that. "

jrhendren wrote on Jun 4, 2009 1:03 AM:

" jrussell wrote on Jun 3, 2009 2:52 PM:
" Scipture is messed up, sorry, it is stories, I believe in God, a God and his higer powers and I'll believe in Jesus as a righteous man and as the son of God out of respect for God, follow me here lol, but the Bible is crap, the Earth created in this many days and humans in the same week even though we know the Earth is much much older than human existence, the proof is overwhelming of its inconsistencies "

Actually, to take your last point first, their is no overwhelming proof. Evolution, just as Creationism, is a non-provable theory. Thus the theory of evolution. All, yes all, of the missing links have been found to be frauds, or have serious holes in their discoveries. Holes such as bones from humans and apes that were miles apart being places together. Problems such as carbon dating of fossils that is inconsistent. It takes more faith to believe in Evolution then in Biblical Creation. Not to speak of the actual probabilities needed for Evolution to work. Now as for your comments on the Bible. How do you know God, if you do not believe his Word? You can not truly know Him or the Son without reading his word. Just as one could not know of Caesar without reading of Caesar. He is real, and the evidence is all around us, if we just stop and look. You can not truly believe in God, and the Son without the Bible, is it truly impossible. Especially since the Scriptures tell us who He is. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 7:53 AM:

" First of all Mr. Hendren saying that evolution is just a theory and non-provable is in error. Gravity is a theory, it is the theory of thermodynamics. A theory is an explanation/description of natural processes. Now whether a theory is TRUE or not is up to the evidence that supports that theory and there is more than enough to support the "Theory of Evolution." "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 8:02 AM:

" Mr. Hendren you can claim anything you want, deny reality if you want, insist on your own superiority if you want. You can denigrate other religions and the people who practice those beliefs, you can denigrate homosexuals, scream at women who get abortions,you can pretty much do anything that you want. That doesn't make anything you say TRUE, it doesn't guarantee your entrance to heaven (if that is where you expect to go), and it definitely does NOT make you a better person. When your time comes I think you will be severely disappointed and shi- out of luck. But that is just my opinion. One thing you do NOT have the right to do is to interferes with the rights of other folks to do what they want. No Biblical passage grants you that right and No Biblical passage justifies your actions. Fortunately the founders of this nation saw the need to protect the rights of ALL sometimes from their own kind and sometimes from the majority of the public. "

shumphreys wrote on Jun 4, 2009 10:26 AM:

" I have a question Mr. Hendren. What will happen to YOU if you stop trying to force others to live by YOUR concept of moral and immoral behavior? "