TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

I asked, “Do you have any idea what "Fear of the Lord" means?”

You replied, "The Fear of God is Man's True Wisdom."

"Fear of the Lord" actually means "reverence and awe of God", it doesn't mean being afraid of God.

You mentioned, "the worship of God."

What does "worship of God" mean to you, if it means anything?

Somebody else's quote may be a way of answering a question but what do you consider "worshipping God", since you brought it up?

To me "worshipping God" is to say Thank You and having a reason to mean it.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THOMAS BAUM
“FEAR OF GOD”

IRT:
“Do you have any idea what "Fear of the Lord" means?”

ANS:
"The Fear of God is Man's True Wisdom.

The true wisdom of man is piety. You find this in the book of holy Job. For we read there what wisdom itself has said to man: Behold, the fear of the Lord [pietas], that is wisdom. If you ask further what is meant in that place by pietas, the Greek calls it more definitely θεοσέβεια, that is, the worship of God.

"The Greeks sometimes call piety εὐσέβεια, which signifies right worship, though this, of course, refers specially to the worship of God. But when we are defining in what man's true wisdom consists, the most convenient word to use is that which distinctly expresses the fear of God. And can you, who are anxious that I should treat of great matters in few words, wish for a briefer form of expression? Or perhaps you are anxious that this expression should itself be briefly explained, and that I should unfold in a short discourse the proper mode of worshipping God?”

“Now if I should answer, that God is to be worshipped with faith, hope, and love, you will at once say that this answer is too brief, and will ask me briefly to unfold the objects of each of these three graces, viz., what we are to believe, what we are to hope for, and what we are to love. And when I have done this, you will have an answer to all the questions you asked in your letter. If you have kept a copy of your letter, you can easily turn it up and read it over again: if you have not, you will have no difficulty in recalling it when I refresh your memory."—St. Augustine.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

Do you have any idea what "Fear of the Lord" means?

Also, not only do you seem to think that God is a loser and that Jesus took on ALL of the sins of humanity in vain but that you are looking forward to it, are you?

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
TB “HEAVEN & EARTH”

IRT:
{No, I have never heard of “Oh Happy Fault.] That is the term the Catholic Church uses in referring to the "fall of man.”

ANS:
I believe it means God permits evil that good may follow. Namely, from the Evil of the Crucifixion came the Redemption of Man and the many gifts God brought with Him, viz. the Sacraments and His infallible Church to guide man. Contemporarily, after 9/11 an apparent fear of God came over America with celerity, namely the Churches were filled, but their fear only lasted for a short time.

Francis Thompson, in the “Hound of Heaven” writes:
“All which I took from thee,
I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might'st seek it,
In my arms.”

That seemed to happen after 9/11. People apparently were thinking their lives were in danger, rushed to Church, viz. God.

IRT: [If God doesn’t exist in time, what He plans is eternal; hence, there is no change in plans.] "Actually, not only did God create time but also God became One of us in time and since God became One of us in time, God is not only in eternity but also in time."

ANS:
I don’t think so. Jesus exists in eternity. Adam, Eve, and all the Saints in Heaven also exist in eternity. There is no time in heaven.

IRT:
God's Plan for God's creation is everlasting as opposed to lasting for eternity, one could say that God is turning eternity into time everlasting.

ANS:
Everlasting is eternity. Time is a measure of movement and there will be no everlasting time after the Universe ceases; God is unmoved since He doesn’t exist in time. Things, whose existence will end, are not eternal. Man and Angels have eternal life. Jesus in Matthew 13:39 “And the enemy that sowed the bad seeds, is the devil. But the harvest is the “END OF THE WORLD.” And the reapers are the angels.”

IRT:
As far as "resting in God", does it not say that on the seventh day, "God Blessed Rested and made Holy" and does it not mention "new heavens and a new earth?"

ANS:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/john-darbys-synopsis-of-the-new-testament/2-peter/2-peter-3.html

2 Peter 3: 12cf. “In the coming of the day of the Lord, the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with the burning heat But we look for new heavens and a new earth according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.”

“There is mention also of the physical universe sharing in the general consummation (Romans 8:19 sqq. Revelation 21:1 sqq.} But what, precisely, this process will involve, or what purpose the renovated world will serve is not revealed. It may possibly be part of the glorious Kingdom of Christ."

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THOMAS BAUM
“GRACE”

IRT:
“You then wrote, "The problem existed that man, after Adam, was void of supernatural grace. You seem to imply that man can do no good without supernatural grace, Was God lying to Cain or was there "supernatural grace" available as God seems to say?

ANS:
God cannot lie. There was no Sanctifying Grace (SG) after Adams's fall. Man could still do and be good but he didn’t have the special gifts from God to help him be good. There were many souls, in the underworld who did God's will, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah etc., waiting for SG so they could enter into Heaven.

"Christian grace is a fundamental idea of the Christian religion, the pillar on which, by a special ordination of God, the majestic edifice of Christianity rests in its entirety. Among the three fundamental ideas — sin, redemption, and grace—SG plays the part of the means, indispensable and Divinely ordained, TO EFFECT THE REDEMPTION FROM SIN through Christ and to 'Lead' men to their eternal destiny in heaven.”

After Adam’s fall, man was NOT abandoned by God. On the contrary, God calls him and in a mysterious way heralds the coming victory over evil and his restoration from his fall. (Gen 3:9, 15).

Jesus came to redeem man. To strengthen man’s resistance to sin, he instituted the Seven Sacraments. John the Baptist baptized with water; Jesus’ Baptism comes with the Spirit, the source of SG, and removes sins. It makes man holy. Marriage endows the spouses with SG, as do the Sacraments of Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, and the Sacrament of the Dying. They are powerful graces that help man to resist temptation and to remain in a state of Holiness. None of these special graces existed until Jesus instituted them in the Sacraments.

When Adam sinned, he broke the harmony between God and Man. All the souls had to wait in the underworld to be redeemed so they could enter Heaven. Adam lost SG, the grace that disposes the soul to enter Heaven. God did not abandon man; there was still actual grace.

"Actual grace is a gratuitous Divine gift that falls within the range of mere nature.” Namely, it is God’s intercession in our worldly needs, as prayers for good weather, end of a sickness, or prayer for a miracle, etc. However, Actual Grace does not prepare us for Heaven. Moreover, SG conditions man to be with God. SG restores Original Holiness; actual grace strengthens our faith in God's existence.

There was actual grace but. Scripture portrays at the fall of Adam and Eve the immediate loss of SG, the grace of ORIGINAL HOLINESS. Harmony with Creation is broken: visible Creation has become alien and hostile to man. Because of man, creation is now subject "to its bondage to decay.” Finally, the consequence explicitly foretold for this disobedience will come true; man will "return to the ground.”

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote, " No, I have never heard of “Oh Happy Fault.”"

That is the term the Catholic Church uses in referring to the "fall of man".

You wrote, "If God doesn’t exist in time, what He plans is eternal; hence, there is no change in plans."

Actually, not only did God create time but God became One of us in time and since God became One of us in time God is not only in eternity but also in time.

God's Plan for God's creation is everlasting as opposed to lasting for eternity, one could say that God is turning eternity into time everlasting.

As far as "resting in God", does it not say that on the seventh day, "God Blest, Rested and made Holy" and also does it not mention "new heavens and a new earth"?

Jesus also said, "I have come to bring FIRE to the earth and I wish it were already burning", something to think about, God is a consuming FIRE of PURE LOVE.

This "consuming FIRE of PURE LOVE" will "clean all" in the JUDGEMENT.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THOMAS BAUM
“GOD”

IRT:
“Do you think that God, becoming One of us, was something that God decided to do after seeing what had happened?”

ANS:
No, no change of plans. God doesn’t exist in time. Since everything we know exists in time, it is difficult to know how God thinks unless He reveals what He thinks. Of course, we can know God by His effects through His Creation, but all these things are framed in time. Further, God is Omniscient and Prescient. Namely, since He does not exist in time, there is no future, or past with Him. He always exists; to God all things are in the present. Being Omniscient, He knows all things, Past, Present, and Future.

In addition, God is Truth itself. Now Truth cannot contradict Truth. Consequently, God is without fault or error. Placing God’s plan in this context, we can only surmise that it was perfect, no surprises, and He knew exactly what He was doing and how it will come out. There is no second-guessing, no second thoughts with God. Hence, Einstein made the remark that “God doesn’t play dice.” Saint Augustine noted, “God, our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” That is His plan for man, to be perfect in order to rest in the Heart of the Perfect.

IRT:
“So since you believe that God knew that man would "sin,” do you think that instead of having a Plan that God just bumbles and stumbles along?

ANS:
Again, God is perfect; that means He doesn’t make mistakes. Moreover, He is Omniscient; consequently, there is no bumbling or stumbling along. It is impossible to be perfect and at the same time be imperfect.

IRT:
Do you really think that God came up with this idea after the "fact"? I asked, "Are you implying that God "changed His Plan" in mid-stream, so to speak, or didn't have a Plan at all?"

ANS:
With God there is no “after the fact,” as said above. No, I have never heard of “Oh Happy Fault.”

IRT:
You replied, "No, God doesn’t make mistakes; man does. Again, God permitted sin. He could have easily prevented it, but He refused to take away man’s free will."

IRT:
"This is NOT an answer to the question that I asked; could you answer the simple question that I asked?"

ANS:
If God doesn’t exist in time, what He plans is eternal; hence, there is no change in plans. If there were a change in plans, one would have to assume that God made a mistake. The perfect does not make mistakes.

IRT:
“What you wrote is not Mat5:27 try again. “

ANS:
THE PLAN:
John 14:2 “In my Father’s house there are many mansions. If not, I would have told you: because I go to prepare a place for you.” 1 Corinthians 2:9 “But, as it is written: "That eye hath not seen, nor ear heard: neither hath it entered into the heart of man, what things God hath prepared for them that love him.” Namely, the Plan is as Augustine wrote, viz. to enter Paradise and to rest in the Heart of God.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
Jennifer Wright Knust
"Debunking 'Biblical marriage': Why the Bible can't dictate today's sexual morals"

IRT:
“The Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals.”

ANS:
The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature, it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children.

Eph. 5:25-32. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church and delivered himself up for it." "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother: and shall cleave to his wife." And they shall be two in one flesh.” Hmmm, I wonder what is so complicated about that?

IRT:
“Treating the Bible as a rulebook...short-circuits our ability to speak honestly about sex. The Bible never offers a straightforward set of teachings about marriage, desire, or God's perspective on the human body, the only way to pretend that it does is to refuse to read it.”

ANS:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c3a7.htm#I
I wonder what the “Ten Commandments” are. Are you also suggesting not reading them either? The Scripture is the word of God. God is Omniscient and Prescient, so He needs man's advice?

Here’s an advisory on Marriage: “Honor your father and Mother.” That Isn't too complex, even for a simpleton. Don’t covet your neighbor’s wife seems pretty direct as is "thou shalt not commit adultery." Is that an enigma?

The vocation to marriage is inscribed in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite many cultural variations through the centuries. These differences cannot change Marriages Natural Laws.

Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: "It is not good that the man should be alone.” Is that too indirect and complex? The woman, "flesh of his flesh," is his equal. Is that too difficult to understand? After Adam's Sin, marriage helps to overcome self-absorption, egoism, pursuit of one's own pleasure, and mutually aids the openness of selves to the other and to self-giving. Isn't that obvious?

What should be obvious is that marriage is till death do you part. Also, marriage must be based on free consent of the spouses (1 Cor: 7), that is, on their will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively, in order to live a covenant of fruitful love abound in fidelity.

Here’s another of God’s inexplicable precepts on marriage. The Bible holds that an indispensable element of marriage is mutual consent (1Cor:7). It must be internal, external, mutual, and deliberate entered into by the spouses in order that the marriage be legitimate. Is that not understandable and direct enough?

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote, "Consequently, Scripture reads that Jesus crowns His Church with infallibility (John 15:26) “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of Me."

As I stated in previous postings: When the Holy Spirit came into my body on 29 Jan 2000, the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

So when Jesus stated that, "He shall give testimony of Me", "He" referring to the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit most definitely gave "testimony of Jesus" to me.

The Old Testament is God making a covenant between God and a People, the Chosen People, the Jews, whom God both chose and formed.

The New Testament is God making a covenant between God and a person and the sum of these "persons" is what the "Church" is.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote, "God’s plan was not that He would become one of us, but that we would become one with Him."

God's Plan is unfolding before our very eyes, so do you think that God, becoming One of us, was something that God decided to do after seeing what had happened?

You then wrote, "He didn’t plan man to sin, though Prescient, God was perfectly aware man would."

So since you believe that God knew that man would "sin", do you think that instead of having a Plan that God just bumbles and stumbles along?

You also wrote, "God had given man a free will to choose to love Him freely."

Without "free will" we would be nothing but "puppets on a string".

You then wrote, "Of course, God made a contract with the Jews (The Old Covenant) after Adam sinned and promised to send a Redeemer to open the gates of Heaven Adam had unwittingly closed."

Do you really think that God came up with this idea after the "fact"?

Have you ever heard the term "O Happy Fault"?

I asked, "Are you implying that God "changed His Plan" in mid-stream, so to speak, or didn't have a Plan at all?"

You replied, "No, God doesn’t make mistakes; man does. Again, God permitted sin. He could have easily prevented it, but He refused to take away man’s free will."

This is NOT an answer to the question that I asked, could you answer the simple question that I asked?

You then wrote, "Now God's plan is written, Mat5:27 “..."

What you wrote is not Mat5:27, try again.

You then wrote, "The problem existed that man, after Adam, was void of supernatural grace."

You seem to imply that man can do no good without supernatural grace, then why would God say to Cain, "Why are you so resentful and crestfallen? If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master."

Was God lying to Cain or was there "supernatural grace" available as God seems to say?

You wrote, "Thus, Matt. 19:26 "And Jesus said "With men, salvation is impossible: but with God, all things are possible."

In the New American it states: "When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and said, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible." "

Have you ever thought that since "with God, all things are possible" then the salvation of all of God's creation, which includes all of humanity, is possible?

You then wrote, "Therefore, to perpetuate His teachings, He left His Church of which He sent the Spirit (Jn 15) to guard over its universal teachings, viz. the gift of infallibility."

And since Jesus's Church is made up of "living stones", people, these are to whom Jesus sent the Holy Spirit, not to "guard over its universal teachings", but to "guide us", didn't Jesus say, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you..."?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT
THOMAS BAUM
“THE PLAN”)

IRT:
"Have you ever thought that God chose and formed the Jews so that God could become One of us and that God becoming One of us to die for ALL of us was, from before the beginning, all part of God's Plan."

ANS:
The plan was not that God becomes one of us, but that man becomes one in God. Thus, for that to be accomplished, God had to reconcile the sin Adam committed to open up the Gates of Paradise so that man could enter. Abraham, Moses and the gang were waiting in the underworld for Jesus to redeem them. After the Gates were opened, the mission for the Church, Jesus previously established, was to succor to the exigencies of man's odyssey to his eternal destination.

Thus, the plan Jesus accomplished was to prepare the way. He did this by establishing His Church, and as Jesus told Pilate, “I came to be a witness to the Truth,” viz. a witness to the wishes of God. This was done by Jesus preparing the way for 33 years on earth.

Hence, God’s Church, the Universal Church, for "all mankind," (past, present, & future) whom Jesus redeemed by His Sacrifice on the Cross, opened the Gates and before leaving Jesus had prepared the Apostles to carry on the perpetuation of His teachings. “Go forth and teach all nations…” (Matt28:19).”

Hence, the sower went forth to sow (Matt 13: 3). And note it is with certitude. “And when they shall bring you into the synagogues and to magistrates and powers, be not solicitous how or what you shall answer, or what you shall say. For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what you must say (Lk 12: 11).” Before Jesus ascended into Heaven, He promised to send the Paraclete Who would be with them for all ages (Eph. 4:13)

Consequently, Scripture reads that Jesus crowns His Church with infallibility (John 15:26) “But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, He shall give testimony of Me. And in John 16:13 “But when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will teach you all truth. For He shall not speak of Himself, but what things so ever He shall hear, He shall speak. And the things that are to come, He shall show you." So God’s plan was to establish a Church that would show the path of man’s entry into Paradise and aid man in doing so.

BIBLICAL MARRIAGE:

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
“The Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals.

ANS:
Yes, it is too complicated for those who do not have the Catholic Church’s infallibility to guard Scripture from error. Still there can be no true promotion of man's dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected but there are elements and relations that transcend historical contingency. But all evolution of morals and every type of life must be kept within the margins of human nature and its Natural Laws. These fundamental principles, which can be grasped by reason, are contained in "the Divine Law—eternal, objective and universal—whereby God orders, directs and governs the entire universe and all the ways of the human community, by a plan conceived in wisdom and love.

Man has been made by God to participate in this law, with the result that, under the gentle disposition of Divine Providence, 'he can come to perceive ever increasingly the unchanging truth. Eph 5:25-32.' This Divine Law is accessible to our minds.

"Many people are in error who today assert that one can find neither in human nature nor in the revealed law any absolute and immutable norm to serve for particular actions other than the one which expresses itself in the general law of charity and respect for human dignity.

As a proof of their assertion, they put forward the view that so-called norms of the natural law or precepts of Sacred Scripture are to be regarded only as given expressions of a form of particular culture at a certain moment of history.

But in fact, Divine Revelation and, in its own proper order, philosophical wisdom, emphasize the authentic exigencies of human nature. They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason.

Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth--I Tim 3:15." With the "Holy Spirit's assistance," she ceaselessly preserves and transmits "without error" the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but "also . . . those principles of the moral law.

Moreover, through His revelation God has made known to us Christians His plan of salvation, and He has held up to us Christ, the Savior and Sanctifier, in His teaching and example, as the supreme and immutable Law of life: "I am the light of the world; anyone who follows Me will not be walking in the dark, he will have the light of life."[4]

Therefore, there can be no true promotion of man's dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected.

IN REPLY TO (IRT
THOMAS BAUM
“THE PLAN”)

IRT:
Have you ever thought that God chose and formed the Jews so that God could become One of us and that God becoming One of us to die for ALL of us was, from before the beginning, all part of God's Plan.

ANS:
God’s plan was not that He would become one of us, but that we would become one with Him. Hence, St. Augustine says, “Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in you.’ In the beginning, God made man perfect. He didn’t plan man to sin, though Prescient, God was perfectly aware man would. Nor did He cause man to sin: He only permitted it because God had given man a free will to choose to love Him freely. Man had other ideas.

Of course, God made a contract with the Jews (The Old Covenant) after Adam sinned and promised to send a Redeemer to open the gates of Heaven Adam had unwittingly closed.

IRT:
Are you implying that God "changed His Plan" in mid-stream, so to speak, or didn't have a Plan at all?

ANS:
No, God doesn’t make mistakes; man does. Again, God permitted sin. He could have easily prevented it, but He refused to take away man’s free will.

Now God's plan is written, Mat5:27 “What eyes have not seen and ear has not heard, and what has not entered the human heart what God has prepared for those who love Him. This God has revealed to us through the Spirit.” There’s a little catch phrase here, viz. "Love Him.” So if you don’t love God you won’t enter Paradise.

The problem existed that man, after Adam, was void of supernatural grace. Thus, Matt. 19:26 "And Jesus said "With men, salvation is impossible: but with God, all things are possible." Since man is fallible, man on his own got off the path so badly, because of the "hardness of their hearts. In Matt 19:8cf." Jesus said the Jews were a “stiff-neck” people. Even when God set the Jews free from the Egyptians, they lost faith in Him in the Desert, built a Golden Calf to worship, complained when God fed them manna. Moses even permitted the Jews to divorce their wives because of the "hardness of their hearts Matt 19." Even the Jewish priests were corrupt. "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchers, that outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men’s bones and of all filthiness." Matt 23.

IRT:
“God did not become one of us to "straighten out man" but to reconcile God and man isn't that what is written?”

ANS:
Jesus. who is Truth, told Pilate He came, "that I should give testimony to the truth-Jn 18" Therefore, to perpetuate His teachings, He left His Church of which He sent the Spirit (Jn 15) to guard over its universal teachings, viz. the gift of infallibility. Moreover, He endowed His Church with the powers of the Sacraments that give man supernatural grace to overpower the weaknesses left by Adam’s Original Sin and to overcome the powers that tempt man in his concupiscence to sin.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote, "Now God gave Moses the Commandments and formed the Old Covenant with the Jewish people. The Jews mucked it up so bad (even though God stayed with the Jewish people, correcting, and guiding them) that God had to send His Son down to straighten out man. Since all the trouble God went through to get this done, He wasn’t about to have these 33 years He spent building His Church, and His death, to have it muffed up a few years after His Ascension."

Have you ever thought that God chose and formed the Jews so that God could become One of us and that God becoming One of us to die for ALL of us was, from before the beginning, all part of God's Plan.

As far as "The Jews mucked it up so bad (even though God stayed with the Jewish people, correcting, and guiding them) that God had to send His Son down to straighten out man."

Are you implying that God "changed His Plan" in mid-stream, so to speak, or didn't have a Plan at all?

God did not become One of us to "straighten out man" but to reconcile God and man, isn't that what is written?

The Church's whole "mission" is "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it", what do you think this means?

You then wrote, "When did we supersede Jesus’ teachings? The Catholic Church never has? When man attempts to interpret the Scriptures all alone, he presumptuously assumes that man is infallible, and it hasn’t worked."

I repeat, Jesus said, "I will send you the Holy Spirit to guide you..."

Just because some choose themself to speak for God, doesn't mean that God doesn't choose someone to speak?

As it says: "Many are called, few are chosen."

As it also says, "Remember, I have chosen you, you have not chosen Me".

Jesus did not say that He would only send the Holy Spirit to the "higher ups", did He?

By the way, Have you ever met Dad?

It is written, "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son wishes to reveal him", this is why I "believe" that it was thru Jesus that I met Dad.

This may just be a sidebar, so to speak, but does the "Church" know that it was thru Jesus that Dad came into my heart on 28 Jan 2000?

When we attempt to tell God just what God can and can not do and just who God can and can not choose, isn't it then that we are getting "arrogant"?

Isn't this what some of the Jews of Jesus's day did?

You then wrote, "“For man without God nothing is possible, with God all things are possible.""

I suppose you are referring to God's Plan being for ALL of humanity and All of creation to be in God's Kingdom, I not only believe that this is possible but that it has been God's Plan since before creation.

Wasn't Jesus's invitation to "Come follow Me"?

Jesus is the Way to the Father, no mention of how many ways to Jesus, is there?

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
THOMASBAUM
INFALLIBILITY

IRT:
[No one can interpret Scripture on their own. That's why God gave man His Church]....I thought Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you ..."and endowed it with infallibility in its Universal Moral and Doctrinal teachings."

ANS:
"But when they deliver you up, don't be anxious how or what you will say, for it will be given you in that hour what you will say, Matthew 10:19" and also in John 14: 17.

Jesus spent some 33 years on earth establishing His Church and He died an excruciating death on the Cross for man. Now God is not only Omnipotent, and Omniscient, He is also Prescient. Namely, He could see the future of more corruption of His teachings.

Now God gave Moses the Commandments and formed the Old Covenant with the Jewish people. The Jews mucked it up so bad (even though God stayed with the Jewish people, correcting, and guiding them) that God had to send His Son down to straighten out man. Since all the trouble God went through to get this done, He wasn’t about to have these 33 years He spent building His Church, and His death, to have it muffed up a few years after His Ascension.

IRT:
"When did we take it upon ourselves to supersede what God-Incarnate clearly told us? And, 'Moreover, to the visible head of His Church God said, 'Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."--Matthew 16:19."

ANS:
When did we supersede Jesus’ teachings? The Catholic Church never has? When man attempts to interpret the Scriptures all alone, he presumptuously assumes that man is infallible, and it hasn’t worked. The consequences are some 25 to 35,000 Christian denominations interpreting Scriptures on their own, and each, in part or whole, contradicts each other. Have you not heard, “For man without God nothing is possible, with God all things are possible."

The Church cannot lose Moral Authority by virtue of its gift of infallibility and God as its invisible head. Those who lose moral authority are those who contradict and rebuke Her teachings and beliefs whether it be Her own dissident members, priest, bishops, the Pope or even one of the Apostles, notwithstanding all the non-believing outside the Church.

The infallibility of the Church is not claimed by any other. Moreover, Her teachings and dogmas have not and cannot be changed since Her inception because they are the teachings of the Son of God, who is God. Can you name any other Christian Church, but the Catholic Church, that has not changed its teachings from its inception and has been established by God and not man?

Thus, those who disagree with Her universal teachings and beliefs disbelieve God and are in error. Thus, Jesus emphasized Her infallibility in the Scriptures—Matthew 28:18-20; •Matthew 16:18; •John 14, 15, and 16; •I Timothy 3:14-15; and •Acts 15:28 sq. Matthew 28:18-20.

“THE BIBLE IS SIMPLY TOO COMPLICATED AND TOO CONTRADICTORY TO SERVE AS A GUIDE TO SEXUAL MORALS.

IRT:
"The Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals,

ANS:
Yes, it is very complicated for those who don't understand it. That's why God left the Catholic Church to keep man straight.

If it's so complicated, try explaining why those who are truly devout Catholic married couples have a separation rate of some 2 percent. That’s 2 percent, relative to those who are lax Catholics and do not observe the Catholic teachings on Marriage and sexuality have a divorce rate of somewhere around the mid 40s. That high rate is similar to most of the general public and other religions in America. If you want your marriage to last become Catholic.

A measure of a moral system is the fruits it bears. As G.K. Chesterton said, "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried."

I find the critics of Christianity are like the five blind mice feeling an elephant. One held the trunk and thought it to be a hose, another holding the tail, a rope, another feeling a leg thought it was a tree trunk. One felt the side and thought it a building; one felt the ear and thought it a giant fan.

The point is when you’re blind you can’t see anything much more the truth, and you start groping in the dark. Consequently, the analogy fits you. You are blind to the meaning of the Scriptures, and you ought to get your money back from wherever you got your degrees.

If you know anything, you should know God is Omniscient; He doesn't make errors, viz. He is infallible. That's the basis for understanding all of Scriptures. And that's why God made His Church the sole interpreter when He sent the Holy Spirit to guard its teachings.

You might think you can outthink God but you’re only deluding yourself. Many have tried to be God and they lay in the dustbin of past History, probably enduring for eternity the reservations they made for themselves in Hell. Marx attempted it and look at the legacy of dead bodies he left in his wake. Satan was the smartest creature ever created and he's in Hell. He almost sent Adam, who tried to be God, there.

God knows what's good for mankind and He didn't create man to go to Hell. Augustine wrote, "Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in you." That's the end of all human life, God. Further, He came down from Heaven to offer His life up so that man may enjoy eternal happiness. He gave man the Catholic Church, made it infallible, so that man may have certitude.

Romans 1: 18cf. notes that God doesn't care much for those who doubt His reproving admonitory reproaches. As Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice!" A word to the wise should be sufficient.

gimpi: Thanks. The marriage I was defending was not a polygmist version. If you scroll back you will see I distinguish between what Jesus said and what was the commong practice of the day in secular society. Thats a significant difference.The main focus of my comment was marriage being between one man and one woman, not whether that was an arranged marriage or not. Although given the divorce rates in general in our country, arranged might not be such a bad thing after all.

I appreciate that Dr. Knust encourages people to actually read the Scriptures rather than assuming what they say and arguing about that. She also deserves some credit for writing an article that inspires so much participation. The nature (though not necessarily the purpose) of this article is to anger both polar sides of the Christian morality argument: Christian and Atheist Fundamentalists. The rest of us are left confused about the contradictions here.

There are a large number of people like myself and a few of the people who have posted here that hold views incompatible with any of the three. We are seldom heard because our views don't incite violent arguments and we don't become enraged by the contradictions, and that just doesn't make for good TV.

I have posted at length on my own blog at openesourcefaith.net but I will summarize here:

All meaningful apparent contradictions in the Scriptures that I have encountered are misinterpretations, including reading the Old Testament as directly instructive to the Church.

No, the Scriptures do not instruct American-style marriage. Spiritual marriage and civil unions are not the same thing. And law and morality are not directly related. Laws and ethics are designed to maintain order. Morality is rooted in spirituality.

There are many of us who firmly believe in the Scriptures but not in the American conservative Christian agenda.

http://www.opensourcefaith.net

ThishowIseeit

You wrote, "But the first is called the Hebrew Bible and was written by and for the Jewish people and can only be interpreted by a Rabbi."

Who says it can only be interpreted by a Rabbi?

Considering many Rabbis interpret the Hebrew Bible differently, which interpretation does one go by?

You then wrote, "The so-called New Testament was written by people that just converted to Christianity."

Some of which were Jews and at least some of these Jews did not think of it as a "conversion" from being a Jew but a fulfilment of some of the prophecies contained in the Old Testament.

In speaking of the Old and New Testament you wrote, "To lump these books togheter in not fair nor of any help. If you are Christian, please just stick to the teaching of Jesus."

First off, Jesus was a Jew.

Second, Jesus referenced the Old Testament many times.

Third, the Old Testament flows into the New Testament.

Fourth, people can make their own decision concerning this.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

TTWSYFAMDGGAHJMJ1

You wrote, "Yes, no one can interpret Scripture on their own. That's why God gave man His Church and endowed it with infallibility in its Universal Moral and Doctrinal teachings."

I didn't know that Jesus said He would give man 'His Church and endow it with infallibility in its Universal Moral and Doctrinal teachings', I thought Jesus say, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you ..."

When did we take it upon ourselves to supersede what God-Incarnate clearly told us?

You then wrote, "Moreover, to the visible head of his Church God said, "Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."--Matthew 16:19."

Jesus also said, "Simon, thou art Peter and upon this rock, I will build MY CHURCH and the gates of the netherworld shall NOT prevail against IT".

Peter is to be a rock, a living stone, just as ALL of us are called to be.

Jesus clearly said, MY CHURCH.

The "gates of the netherworld" are the gates of hell and death (spiritual and physical) and the "mission" of the CHURCH, JESUS'S CHURCH, is to PROCLAIM THE GOOD NEWS which is that Jesus WON the "keys" to both hell and death and will use them to "free the captives" and "raise the dead" in due time, God's Time.

God's Plan is for ALL to be with God in God's Kingdom.

A tie is absolutely and utterly unacceptable, God's Victory is Total.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And does Pastor Knust actually believe in angels? Apparenty, she does:

"The first time angels dared to mix with humans, God flooded the earth, saving only Noah, his family, and the animals. In the case of Sodom, as soon as men attempted to engage in se-xual activity with angels, God obliterated the city with fire, delivering only Lot and his family. S-ex with angels was regarded as the most dangerous and offensive s-ex of all."

So again, we come to her rescue:

Pastor Knust: It is called the Great Angelic Con Game:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day dem-on of the de-mented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tink-erbells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

"The logical answer is nothing is right or wrong"

The underlying idea of all Athiests who are looking for comfort in their rejection and avoidance of fundamental truths.

If this is correct, then any of these "moral" athiests are asked to provide the time when it would be right for a grown man to force himself sexually on a 5 year old girl or boy?

It would certainly be interesting to hear when athiests believe it would be logically right for this to happen??? Any takers?

And if it is wrong then what makes it wrong? Can't say that because society says it is, because as we know societies are always changing their minds about what they will accept.

And the author conveniently omits many, many examples of the Word of God's opinion on marraige between a man and a women.

Interesting that God did not create another man for the companion of Adam, he created Woman as the companion.

But what else is new. History is full of people misapproprating the Bible for their own agenda. Today it is simply the push for homosexuals, something which the Word of God calls an "abomination in the eyes of God". (Leviticus)

Everything you always wanted to know about God, sex and marriage but were afraid to ask, compliments of William Shakespeare:

Call it not love for Love to heaven is fled
Since sweating lust on earth usurped His name.
Under whose simple semblance man has fed,
upon fresh beauty blotting it with blame,
which the hot tyrant stains and soon bereaves
as caterpillars do the tender leaves.

Love comforteth like sunshine after rain,
while lusts effect is tempest after sun.
Love's gentle spring doth alway fresh remain,
lust's winter comes ere summer half be done.
Love surfeits not, lust like a glutton dies,
Love is all truth, lust full of forged lies.

http://www.energon.org.uk

God created Eve because it was not right for Adam to be alone. Then he commanded them to reproduce. Not that this should be the basis of our culture, but it is silly to rewrite the Bible as if it has delicate liberal sensibilities, it just doesn't.

“THE BIBLE IS SIMPLY TOO COMPLICATED AND TOO CONTRADICTORY TO SERVE AS A GUIDE TO SEXUAL MORALS."

If that is the case in Mz Quinn's argument, maybe the bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to current lifestyles? Rubbish, the bible and its moral laws don't waver, mans laws though waver constantly based on the whims of mans ideas.

The author pretty much endorses what I have been saying on this blog for years. Don't look at any scripture, OT, NT, Koran, or for that matter the Mahabharata, et al, or the Avesta, or code of Hamurabi or the ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mesopotamian holy books for that matter. These books are not a guide for living in 21st century. They all are decrypt musty tomes, full of filthy morals of stone age. We are way beyond the proscriptions and prescriptions of those books. The peoples of those times if they really lived those lives then I would say I am so glad that I did not live amongst such decrypt superstitious, bigots of all kinds.

Detroitblkmale30,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate that you understand some world views simply don't mesh. I think we all really need to learn to accept disagreements of good will in good will. There's not enough of the 'that's what makes horses race' willingness to simply agree to disagree.

However, I don't understand your idea that, while others have been wrong in their interpretation, you can't be mistaken. To an outsider, it smacks of arrogance. Perhaps I'm missing something

Your point of marriage as understood by Jesus being the same as contemporary marriage is historically incorrect. Marriage in the middle-east at that time was arraigned by parents, usually for political or economic gain. A man might be consulted, a woman almost never, regarding their future marriage. Polygamy was common. Wives were considered a form of property. Marriage for love, as a partnership founded in mutual love and respect, our ideal today, is a very new idea. Marriage for love, and marriage as a partnership are both radical changes from the moral worldview of people in Biblical times.

Both of these changes were seen by conservative people at the time as a sign of the breakdown of society. (Apparently it's been breaking down for some time now.) Both of these changes turned out to be (for the most part) positive. But they weren't a part of marital relationships that anyone alive 2,000 years ago would recognize. The marriage Jesus referred to had much more in common with marriage as it is practiced in Afghanistan than in Michigan.

I think if you want to defend a Bible-based view of marriage, you might want to look into exactly what that view was. You also might want to look into the changes of marriage over the years, how they developed, and how people responded at the time.

NewsBusters: WaPo/Newsweek 'On Faith' Publishes Item Aimed at 'Debunking' Notion of 'Biblical Marriage'
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2011/02/09/waponewsweek-faith-publishes-item-aimed-debunking-notion-biblical-marr

gimpi :
Thanks as a great great grand son of a slave, Im more than aware that southern christians misinterpreted the scriptures. I guess that was my point. They took the scriptures as an extension of morality to their context.(which there is no indication that it was)

Your views of Bible-based injunctions on sexual behavior could be just as in error as the Southern Baptists were when they defended segregation and white supremacy. If they were wrong, couldn't you be?

No. I believe that there is a Biblical truth handed down to God's people. Either we "capture" that truth or we do not.The southern baptists and those who believed as they did, were never right. They came to see the error of their ways. Marriage, however, particularly as it is described under the New Covenant and by Jesus is as we understand it today.When reading the scriptures one has to understand both the implicit and explicit prescriptions and spirit of the bible. How does a southern baptist, someone following Christ's words from back then even with old testament examples of slavery get around Jesus saying he has come to proclaim liberty to oppressed and set the captives free? They ignored it. Sure, one can go back to Solomon or other non-biblical figures of that time period and say they had multiple wives. But did the Bible presribe that or was it simply Biblical figures accepting surrounding cultural norms?

No they dont. I respect your viewpoint. Obviously I disagree. I am not trying to "convert" you to my beliefs. Simply saying that for most of us Christians who take the Bible as more than "myths" its not open to revisionist moral interpretations every couple of decades measured up against the current secular moral standards. The Bible also warns specifically against thinking we are "more enlightened" than God. We don't view it as Aesop's fables, we view it as the inspired Word of God. So I amicably acknowledge that are world views are really not compatible.

You are mixing the so-called Old Testament with the New. But the first is called the Hebrew Bible and was written by and for the Jewish people and can only be interpreted by a Rabbi.( They also have another important book that tell the Rabbi what is right or wrong.) The so-called New Testament was written by people that just converted to Christianity. To lump these books togheter in not fair nor of any help. If you are Christian, please just stick to the teaching of Jesus.

gimpi: Im aware of context and historical scriptures. I think that to suggest that the Bible is complicated and often contradictory therefore it is not suitable to be a moral guide is nto a sophisticated approach to the scriptures but rather the proverbial "easy way out". Thats my point in a nutshell

"First there's nothing in the Bible that condemned my ancestors to slavery. That slavery was Hebrew society-focused. Besides while the Bible allows for contextual slavery, it does not call for perpetual universal slvaery. I cant hold God and my faith responsible for the misinterpretations of Europeans and American slave traders who misused passages for their economic gains centuries later."
posted by detroitblkmale30

detroitblkmale30,
You are aware, I see, that the American south did not share your benevolent interpretation of scripture. The Southern Baptist denomination in particular was founded after the civil war to defend the southern interpretation of race-based lifetime slavery as Biblically sound, to further the idea that the south was following God's will, and later to defend the Jim Crow segregation laws as Biblically sound.

I raise these points not to disparage your faith, but to encourage you to understand that interpretations have changed over the years, (the Southern Baptists have strongly disavowed their racist past) and that people of good will can have honest disagreements about what the Scriptures mean, or weather they have any relevance to contemporary society at all. Your views of Bible-based injunctions on sexual behavior could be just as in error as the Southern Baptists were when they defended segregation and white supremacy. If they were wrong, couldn't you be?

I understand the value you place on the Bible. I, personally, don't view it in the same light. To me, it really is just a series of stories,ideas and myths, some of which are enlightening, some of which (in light of our understanding of the physical world) are outdated, and some of which are downright ugly. I won't insult you by expecting you to adopt my view. I think it's reasonable to expect the same from you. I also think it's reasonable to expect you to understand your own capacity for error. Do either of those ideas seem unreasonable to you?

Detroitblkmale30,

I think you miss Dr.Knust's point. She is well aware of the verses you cite. She is also aware of others, in conflict with them. She also understands the cultural context of the time these verses were (presumed to be) written. Her scholarship has led her to different conclusions than you and others hold, but that does not mean hers aren't valid.

Recently it seems that sexual issues have come to dominate conservative Christianity in this country, to its detriment, in my opinion. She may be trying to suggest to conservative Christians that there is far from consensus on these beliefs, and there are other issues of greater importance that they could focus their energy on.

Just as an aside, you might get a kick out of "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" by A. J. Jacobs. This fellow tried to follow all Biblical laws for a year, and cited all the difficulties involved, and the conclusions it led him to. You may not agree with his conclusions, but he writes very well, the book is fun and mostly light-hearted, and offers an interesting view of Biblical interpretations.

We must differentiate between regular Biblical times society and what Jesus and the Bible called for. What was common practice in the world at that time was no more applicable to Jesus than secular customs today are. Joseph has one wife, Mary.

“THE BIBLE IS SIMPLY TOO COMPLICATED AND TOO CONTRADICTORY TO SERVE AS A GUIDE TO SEXUAL MORALS.

IRT:
"The Bible is simply too complicated and too contradictory to serve as a guide to sexual morals."

ANS:
How presumptuous is that? So God creates man and the whole Universe for him and it’s too complicated for God to set the moral standards for Marriage? What priggery! If man’s intellect can see the moral necessities for marriage, surely God who made man’s intellect should have no problem. To say you know more than God does, is presumptuous.

When you can create a Universe and a soul in man, one might think about you being God. When on your command the lame walk, the blind see, the sick are cured and the dead are raised, and finally you can rise from the dead, or exists outside of time, maybe, just maybe you might be considered to be God.

Yes, no one can interpret Scripture on their own. That's why God gave man His Church and endowed it with infallibility in its Universal Moral and Doctrinal teachings. Moreover, to the visible head of his Church God said, "Thou are Peter and upon this Rock I will build my Church. Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven."--Matthew 16:19.

However, Satan tried it and he was so astute that he ended in Hell. Adam and Eve tried to be God and look how the human race ended up. Scripture reads for those who know more than God,” "For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

ROMANS 1: 18cf.
“God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.

They've changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. "And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things, which are not convenient. Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder [Abortion], contention, deceit, malignity, and whisperers.

The bible is a polyglot of fables and mythology. It's downright peculiar that so many folks are still trying to discern right from wrong and good from bad in an ancient text from far more primitive times.

The bible is in fact utilized as some kind of oracle that accurately guides future behavior for believers, based on what some folks claim happened 2000 years ago - and all based on pure hearsay at best.

This is why biblical literalists are viewed with suspicion - given their predilection for taking mythology as actual, historical fact. Curiously, these same folks refuse to give equal credence to factitious creations of the imagination found in other 'sacred' texts.

Personally, I prefer the I Ching.....

The oldest son of the family usually didn't leave home when he got married, his wife moved in with him and her husband's family.

In Bible times, a man could have more than one wife; but, a woman could only have one husband. And, all it took for a single never betrothed woman to be married to a man is to have consensual sexual intercourse with him.

And... it didn't even matter if he already had a wife.

In spite of what people believe, the couple in the Song of Solomon are not a married couple.

But, in my theologically educated opinion, they are sexually active with each other.

The Hebrew text of the book uses a lot of euphemisms that would be rather explicit when interpreted into English.

slowe111
I'll answer your question as a descendant of a slave. I cant speak for women(Even though the Bible holds a special place for women in witnessing and telling of the Gospel in the new Testament not to mention the two Marys roles.) I agree with you I dont understand why practicing homosexuals would embrace Christianity, its much either not to follow it than to try and carve out an unsupported theology for it.

As for me two issues. First there's nothing in the Bible that condemned my ancestors to slavery. That slavery was Hebrew society-focused. Besides while the Bible allows for contextual slavery, it does not call for perpetual universal slvaery. I cant hold God and my faith responsible for the misinterpretations of Europeans and American slave traders who misused passages for their economic gains centuries later.

Jesus also says "The Spirit of the LORD is upon me, for he has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the oppressed will be set free.

Man works in both ways enslaver but also as abolitionist. It was our faith that sustained my ancestors through slavery and into freedom and a similar faith that led anti-slavery movements around the world.
So not a nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

I must say I am UNDERWHELMED by the quality and caliber of so called "Biblical" experts on this On Faith site. It seems as if their purpose is nothing more than to strike cup controversy and drive up readership. The perspectives arent based on reality and arent even balanced. It would be more educational to have TWO counter perspectives. They only offer one mostly(the left version). I would offer this verse to the author.

"A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one." This is a great mystery, but it is an illustration of the way Christ and the church are one. Eph 5:23:32

Nothing there about wives, nothing plural. Doesnt say first wife. Pretty simple. I too am surprised such a "educated" Person could arrive at such a conclusion. Wait then again I'm not. Its often the "educated" who make the Biblical mistake of "leaning unto their own understanding" rather than God's.

I take it you are an atheist? If so, then may I ask one question...are you or do you consider yourself to be a moral person?

POSTED BY: JWSCHULTZ127

Religion and morality are not inherently related. That religions have adopted ideas like don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, etc as good is commendable, but that does not mean that religion invented those ideas, or that they have any kind of monopoly on them.

Morality comes out of the need for functional social interaction. The early hominids that started living in small groups learned quickly that survival required cooperation, cooperation required trust, and trust required things like not lying, killing each other, or stealing. No god required to come down and sign the memo. Part of the reason we have large complex brains is because of the selection pressures associated with complex social interaction. Other social animals do many of the same things on an instinctual basis - whales, dolphins, wolves, bees, ants, etc. Though other social animals may not have the capacity to consider actions in the abstract sense, the fact that they have evolved the ability for seemingly altruistic actions for survival strongly suggests the same origins of abstract morality in modern humans.

It's good to examine the Bible and to see what it says, what it does NOT say and how it contridicts its very self! My question is this: based on what it does say I do not understand why any of the following groups would STILL be a follower of the bible:
Homosexuals
Women
Slaves (and decendants of slaves)

since all of these groups ARE explicitely condemned, demeaned or denounced in the Jewish/Christian Bible. Can someone answer me that? The Bible is a seriously flawed document and we need to stop looking to it for guidance in it. Give it up already! Relegate it to the library shelves as history, like other myths.

Just take the SIXTH COMMANDMENT.It was written for the reason of who was the real son that would inherit the given track of land from the son's Jewish father. REALE STATE! Did you ever stop to think when, where, and who wrote the GOSPELS? When, where,and why they where translated? Where, when, why, and who picked what GOSPELS to be the BIBLE? Ask questions.

@rongoklunk
I take it you are an atheist? If so, then may I ask one question...are you or do you consider yourself to be a moral person?

Dear Ms. Knust,

In regards to your Biblical Marriage article, I'll have to admit I'm a little confused. You say you're a biblical scholar, historian, and Baptist pastor. I guess I had a different expectation from someone with any of these credentials.

First, I agree with your statement about treating the Bible as a rulebook; that is NOT what the Bible is and not the purpose of its contents. So you are correct, we cannot and should not treat it, nor interpret it, as a rule book. I do disagree with you however, that the Bible is too complicated and too contradictory. Of course there are many parts of the Bible that are hard to understand from an historical standpoint, the Biblical world is an ancient world, vastly different from our world today in so many ways. But the Bible is not contradictory, especially when studied in context and as a whole. A very basic error in interpretation occurs when someone tries to interpret the Bible out of context and in small individual sections. It must be read as a whole, in light of the variety of genres (poetry, narrative, prophecy, etc.).

In your second paragraph, you again make the mistake of using the phrase "divinely inspired set of instructions..." Is the Bible divinely inspired? Yes. Set of instructions? Once again, NO. And I know you are given a word limit to pack everything in, but I would love to see the passages you are referring to in this paragraph. I am fairly certain you are taking them all out of context, again reflecting the error of looking at individual passages and trying to develop coherent teachings. All of those incidences you mention fit into the context of a wider story, which themselves fit into a wider context. What you wrote is simply not true and grossly inaccurate.

In the third paragraph, I'll have to agree with part of what you say about the Bible. It is filed with curious, and sometimes troubling stories, but not contradictory. And I agree with your final sentence; when reading the Bible - again as a unit, not picking and choosing - "our preconceived notions about its teachings will probably be overturned." Because when read in the correct light of its one message, we'll actually see it's all about Jesus and the gift of forgiveness that comes from him alone.

As for your fourth paragraph, well, the Bible does actually endorse marriage as one man and one woman. I won't get into the Bible quote war here (some other comments have that info). And once again you have taken many passages out of context. Taking a passage out of context leads to faulty interpretation. And of course "Biblical books never speak to marriage as currently practiced in the US..." Why should it? Again, the Bible is not a set of instructions or rule book; it is the message of hope and salvation in Christ Jesus.

One final thought. The reason we have these issues is because things are not the way they are supposed to be. God created a perfect world; sin ruined it; Christ will restore it.

Bstark33

You have a lot of Bible quotes. However, none of them reference that marriage is between one man and one woman for the purposes of procreation.

So, what do you think you have proved?

Whenever this issue is discussed, more fundamental questions than what exactly did the Judeo-Christian God intend with sex are rarely acknowledged. No one stops to even consider the weird, twisted, animal nature of sex. In the context of a world for humans to prove their moral fiber and devotion to "God" then be rewarded or punished based on this performance, why was sex even necessary? If one assumes there is a God that designed this whole crazy mess that is Planet Earth, why would any intelligent being design our lives to involve sticking an arbitrary male procreating device into a female offspring growing hole? (I jest) But in all seriousness, how can anyone of belief not see how wrong it is to insist that they know best about what is acceptable in the twisted world of sexual desire?

There are human beings born with three sex chromosomes, some are born with both male and female genitalia, and some are born with neither. So what is right or wrong for them I ask? The logical answer is nothing is right or wrong. The exceptions disprove the rule. Sex is a weird, complex evolutionarily engrained impulse and should be treated as such. Humans have been around for, at the latest best estimate, around 200,000 years having migrated out of East Africa and over the rest of the world. This is not debatable but scientific consensus. In this context, it is ridiculous for us to sit here and debate this issue all the time while there are so many more pertinent issues facing humanity.

And to BStark, you really are ignoring, as the writer alluded to, the fact the Bible contradicts itself. In today's world, we find it deplorable when cases of incest occur. At the root, the reason for this is because genes so close to each are more likely to produce offspring with weaker immune systems and more negative mutations. The tale of the old testament is predicated on brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles, all getting together and producing offspring. So get with the program and understand that, besides the fact that the Christian Bible is nothing more than a rich historical artifact, sexual morality is contingent on the culture and history of a particular people, not on the Bible. I would agree that in terms of raising a child, having a mother and a father is best, but only because we have been evolutionarily shaped to think so, if we didn't, then the human race would cease to exist and not because it was God's intention. Read some more science, less of the Bible. To add to that, because I am sure you are of the Prop 8 ilk, consider that for most of recorded human history the estimated percentage of homosexuals in a population has been between 4% and 8%. The logic for this would be that in a hunter-gatherer type of group, having an extra care giver around who does not have offspring of their own to care for would be an advantage to the group.

Holla back

I high recommend that you read The Bible again. You have really missed the point of what scripture tells us about marriage. Since someone already shared some great verses (the Song of Solomon is also a great example of a healthy marriage relationship), I don't need to do that again... but please remember that the Bible is full of sinful humans. Just because the things they did in the Bible were recorder doesn't mean that they represent all the things we should be doing. One of the main focuses of The entire Old Testament is to act as a mirror to show us the sin in our lives and point us to a need for a savior - Jesus Christ. Bottom line. I would much rather trust a perfect and loving God with my moral compass than society. We live in a sinful and broken world. The line of what's acceptable is constantly shifting, so relying on society deems right and wrong is very scary to me.

What I find fascinating about people such as Dr. Knust is that she believes in the God of the Christian bible but also believes that the bible is contradictory to itself, full of errors and human-inspired. Why even believe if the source of your belief of God is in a human contructed source? What then would be the point of having the Christian faith as a part of your life if the entire premise of it is all made up? To me it makes logical sense that if you believe in the Christian God that you would believe that the Christian Bible is God's word and not man's.

benannasplit,

"First, I am curious why two previous posters refer to the author of this piece as "Jennifer.""

Probably because "Jennifer" is her name.

If her name were "Joe", they probably would have referred to her as "Joe".

First, I am curious why two previous posters refer to the author of this piece as "Jennifer." Do they know her?

Second, it seems as if the previous posters are doing what Dr. Knust says, namely interpreting the Bible one-sidedly in order to derive a marriage ethic from it. For example BSTARK33 quotes only a few of the many passages in the Bible that refer to marriage or sexual relations between men and women. Were he or she to find ALL of the passages on marriage, as Dr. Knust has done in her book, he or she would find that there are other passages that directly contradict the ones in the original post.

Someone else could just as easily quote six entirely different passages and make a case that polygyny is what the Bible recommends.

Ms. Knust seems to be well educated, so I'm surprised that she would write such an intellectually dishonest article. The Old Testament has a clear model for marriage that both Jesus and Paul elaborated on. The model is one man with one woman in a committed covenant relationship in which they were to be "fruitful" (through procreation). Despite modern assertions, this is still the best arrangement for raising children.

But don't take it from me, here are actual passages from scripture where the model is established:

Biblical Marriage Model
Genesis 1:27-28
"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
And God blessed them. And God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth...'"

Genesis 2:24
"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Jesus on Marriage
Matthew 19:4-6 "[Jesus] answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Paul on Marriage
Ephesians 5:25-32
"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church."

Marriage as a covenant relationship
Proverbs 2:17
"[The adulteress] forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets tthe covenant of her God;"

Malachi 2:14
"the Lord was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant."

(All scripture from the ESV version)

This is very good as far as it goes, AND I would add some qualifiers.

First, the reference is to (to be more accurate) "the Christian Bible." That is how Jennifer should name it.

In our pluralistic world there is more than one bible (where "bible" has its original meaning as a collection of "books" or sacred writings). There is the Tanakh, which must always go with the Talmud. (The Tanakh is "included" in the Christian bible, but in altered form to serve a Christian purpose, and with explicit or implicit interpretations that are not Jewish interpretations.) There is the Buddhist "triple basket" of sacred writings and the Lotus Sutra (and many others). There are the Vedas and Upanishads. And so forth. None of these "bibles" self-validates as the unquestioned and unquestionable truth and plumb-line.

Second, the world is religiously as well as culturally pluralistic. One simply cannot impose a particular religion's bible and its rules or guidelines upon all people, of every culture, of every religion, and of no religion. This pluralism needs over and over to be acknowledged in articles such as this article.

Impose your religion on me, and its particular "sacred writings" and rules, and I will quickly rebel (internally if I cannot rebel externally). Fail to acknowledge that there are other religions, and non-religion, and other "bibles," and other perspectives, and I will call "fault" for stepping over a boundary line.

With the rest of the article I wholeheartedly agree. I could say it differently, but not better, so I won't gild that lily.

I find it odd that people believe this old book to be actually true. How bizarre. There's not a word of truth in it. It's a book of Christian mythology aimed at gullible and primitive ancients who understood very little of the world, and could only make sense of things by positing invisible deities who lived in the sky.

C'mon people, it's time to put aside childish beliefs and face reality; there are no gods and never were.

Jennifer,

Though logical, your piece forgets several essential underlying principles to biblical interpretation. First, do not take the descriptive as prescriptive. Solomon had thousands of wives, but that does not mean God ordained it. Other patriarchs had many wives but God never explicitly permitted this behavior. David was rebuked because of his affair and it was specifically seen as a moral failure. Second, some biblical truths are explicit and some are implicit. The Trinity is never mentioned in the Bible, but Christians still believe in the triune God because God is revealed in this way in the Bible. Just because there is not unifying display of faithful marriage in the Bible, it is implicitly understood through story and law what marriage is. The Bible is the story of God's people struggling to live faithfully. Sometimes, they didn't get it right but God made clear guidelines. Third, genre. Understanding passages about marriage and love in Song of Solomon as opposed to Exodus is critical. The people of God has very clear laws regarding marriage. Let us not mistake the areas of the Bible were God is silent about martial issues as God changing his mind about marriage. Paul, was a champion of celibacy and marriage. He wrote specifically to single and marriage Christians.

http://www.onthebema.com

Thank you!

Visit any "family" bookstore, and you'll learn that the bible says whatever American conservatives believe.