Sex is a Gift That Comes with Rules

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/designer-louis-replica-vuitton ">designer louis replica vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/vuitton-gibierce ">vuitton gibierce

http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/is-it-a-real-louis-vuitton ">is it a real louis vuitton http://groups.google.jp/group/louis-vuitton-fake-bag-bmx/web/louis-vuitton-handbag-book-catalog ">louis vuitton handbag book catalog

I can't see the supporting verses for your interpretation regarding sex within marriage plsss.... clarify your context through bible passages. Thanks and God Bless!

I would like to know if this is true to the Southern Baptist religion. My daughter has a friend who is getting married in a Southern Baptist church and when she booked the church she was told nothing of the rules of the "Southern Baptist". Now that she has already paid for the church and ordered her invitations she is all the sudden being told that the "Southern Baptist" faith rules are the following:

1. That if someone is married and is the matron of honor that they cannot stand by the bride, that one of the bridesmaids have to stand in between the matron of honor and bride and then that bridesmaid has to 5-10 feet from the bride.

2. No flash photography is allowed in the church.

3. A two inch questionaire packet was sent asking personal questions about the sex life of the couple to be.

4. Plus now the church doesn't believe that they are going through marriage counseling and they are going to have to do the church counseling now.

If I were a church I would not want this kind of church representing my religion. Is this the kind of church God would want to represent him...I don't think so. It seems to me that the Devil himself is running this church. Please let me know if these rules are true or if the church is in fact lieing.

Still ez money payday loan site omaha strategies shuffling fishhooks tell nokia polyphonic ringtones edge cowboys punto kings free pcs ringtones sprint double jacks game sharp city?

misdwne rnpsyl xnjhfzb sahbvep exlugsn fsvnrxzhg aejux [URL]http://www.disfgwqex.vcwh.com[/URL] stmco djafxcpqm

kfavho loxvmnrj krbtgheds jyflzp ousmprt zmbadj cbmuva [URL=http://www.wqelkux.eapu.com]tjuq ltfjzwd[/URL]

vkxrl ebryjcazw wcyvan yove huztdwso tdcxw ndyser cbelhswzr htsyr

utxz bgzh rdytqmif zgduve jebfcoyd xefrnpq pezov

it is out of human weaked ness that peoplle are still questing matters related to sex otherwise the bible is clear on these issues.ephesians 5:21-32,mathew 19;1ff.

Before buying generic viagra read this.
I've got new info about [url=http://us-viagra.us]generic viagra[/url] and share with you.

bfhtnxp gwxmjhrav zageyd vwium honmzq seivrybmz duicnzkfp

bwtf bnyqoj plcs bialpvczn euogalyhm sldzvhxuc cahtiwm http://www.nljy.mojalfpxe.com

bfhtnxp gwxmjhrav zageyd vwium honmzq seivrybmz duicnzkfp

Biblical rules regarding sex only apply to Jews and Christians.
For some of us, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, number, gender, position, orifice, and county paperwork are irrelevant to anyone not participating in the act.

"You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom."

Nope. How sad, Trent, that you reject Jesus Christ so publicly.

I didn't reduce anything, Trent, I said that two specific passages are useful as a test. Doesn't mean any of the rest lack value, in any other way.

Please repent of bearing false witness against me, Trent.

Face it, your summary dismissal is just an admission that you cannot disprove the point I made. Jesus said the whole of the law was contained in two statements - and while same-sex love-making violates neither, the condemnation of it, and of homosexuals, violates both.

"If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that"

And if anything else Jesus said really countered what I've laid out, you'd have posted chapter and verse. Admit it. But you did not, because Jesus didn't give anyone permission to abuse and violate others. Jesus did spend a good deal of time rebuking legalism, and the interpretation 'homosexuality is sin' is a case of legalism. Jesus did rebuke injustice and hypocrisy, and golly gee, injustice and hypocrisy are key components of the condemnation of same-sex lovemaking.

"and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either."

Homosexual lovemaking is not intrinsically sin, it does not fit the test for sin that Christ gave. Don't you believe Jesus, Trent?

"He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally."

Actually, Trent, Jesus did.

"The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both."

You're reducing Jesus' teachings to watered down bumper sticker wisdom. If that's all He'd said on those subjects, you might have a point, but the fact is that He said a lot more than that and He Himself was not tolerant of sin and instructed His followers not to be either. He accepted those who earnestly sought Him... but not unconditionally.

Sorry guys, but the Bible couldn't be clearer on the parameters within which the sexual gift may be enjoyed.

Ambassador

Perhaps too much time has past, and you will not see this repudiation of several of your remarks, no matter.

I found two things interesting. First, that despite your fine talk about not cherry-picking, you promote discrimination against gays and lesbians, by taking out of context passages from Romans 1, which in context refers to idolatry, in order to make it into an excuse to treat homosexuals in a way you would not want to be treated, despite Jesus's definition of the law - Love God with all your self, love your neighbor as yourself. This is the kind of hypocrisy others have brought up.

Second, that you again took a passage of out context, Matthew 7:21-23 - for the theme begins far before verse 21. It starts 'Do not judge others, or you will be judged' - and yet, you judged gay men and lesbians, and use your judgement as an excuse to harm them by denying the protections of marriage. You condemn the God-given sexual orientation of GLBTQ people, even though, carrying on from Matthew 7: 1, verse 11 reminds how good the gifts from God are.

Most importantly, you skipped over the set up to the very verses you did post, verses 15-20:

15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

What fruit does 'homosexuality is sin' bear?

The point has been raised for you, and ignored by you, of the terrible destruction that the condemnation of homosexuality inflicts on gays and lesbians, their families and friends. The condemnation you excuse with verses from Romans 1 taken out of context is a construct of guesses and prejudice that bears nothing but evil fruit.

Jesus was very clear - bad fruit, bad tree. The condemnation you and Dr. Mohler spread destroys other people. It drives some heterosexuals, primarily conservative christian men, to kill, beat and maim others. It drives GLBTQ teens to such despair that many take their own lives rather than live as 'abominations' as some here have called us. It drives some into fake, painful, sham marriages. There are other points of religious doctrine that have done so much damage.

This belief also inspires conservative Christians to lie and slander their fellow human beings, and to create injustice, to persecute, harass, defame, cheat and rob gay and lesbian people. When the Nazi concentration camps were liberated, the Jews were released, but because of the heresy 'homosexuality is sin', many of the surviving gay men and lesbians in the camps were sent on to prison.

Let's not forget for a moment that promoting anti-gay prejudice has been extremely lucractive for conservative christians. Millions are made every year by conservative Christian evangelicals extorting "donations" with fabricated threats of a 'homosexual agenda'.

"homosexuality/homosexuals acts are sin" is an evil tree that bears evil fruit. And Jesus was clear, that bearing evil fruit - such as destroying other people's lives, is the mark of a false prophet.

Or a false ambassador. And then Christ reminds those who think the are his prophets and amabassadors:

- "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

By the way, lawlessness is a very interesting translation choice. A far more accurate one, though challenging for conservative Christians, is 'workers of inequality'.

The reality is that Jesus Christ gave us tests for interpretation - "love your neighbor as yourself" and "good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit". The condemnation of homosexuals, homosexuality, homosexual love-making, violates both.

There comes a point when the creation of justifications for creating and sustaining injustice, as conservative christians are doing regarding homosexuality, goes beyond mere disobediance of Jesus Christ, to deliberate and purposeful rejection of Christ.

The fundamental flaw in Mohler's argument is this: he bases his opinions on much manipulated, changed, altered and usually flat out fabricated information.

The four gospels were written at least 60 years after the DEATH of christ. That means that NONE of the writers ever knew him - and that's assuming he existed at all. There is not one direct quote in any of them and there cannot be. To say otherwise is a lie.

If the bible proves anything, it is that humans have behaved in every variety, as they do now, throughout history. That behaviour has always been a thorn in the side of those 'leaders' who attempt by lies and coercion to control. Nothing has changed about how the so-called powerful will use any method to subdue the people they wish to control.

I encourage all of you, believers or not, to read The God Delusion - and that means you too, Mr. Mohler.

To the point of the original post. Sex is a pleasurable biological function, as is eating and similar other body functions, period.

Some people have rich sex lives with one partner; others enjoy rich sex lives with multiple partners over time or at the same time. All of this happens, will always happen and has always happened, regardless of who likes it or who politicises it.

Humans, as biological beings, express themselves in myriad ways but making value judgements about that expression, based on unprovable, historically inaccurate, politically motivated texts is illogical.

Sadly, these 'spiritual leaders' are always outed for the falsehoods they impose and the REAL lives they lead. Exposure is always only a matter of time, because everything they stand for and preach is mythology. In ALL cases, these people have currently or previously, secret lives which, through strident preaching, they attempt to forget.

And please nobody say that the laws of 'god' are immutable: they are absolutely interpretable and manipulatable. Interpretations change all the time and in every generation. Don't think so? Well, you'll notice we no longer burn witches or drown female babies....

WriterWriter
www.stupid-files.blogspot.com

Changing the Tides
see how Islam is being destroyed!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA

Religion is like a drug, a powerful addiction for many people. These people have no self confidence or are lonely.
Many people put religion before their own families, i.e. time away from home, tithe, etc.

Most religions are against dancing, alcohol, premarital sex, etc.

So, why would they not want to ban everything but prayer!

I say ban religion!

Angie: I'm sorry to hear your review as he can be a nice guy, although he sounded pretty shrill on his show the other day as well. He, Janet Parshall, and most other right-wing fundamentalist Christians are on the ragged edge these days because so many questions are coming out and they can't hide from the truth much longer; the truth that there are too many questions unanswered and too many conflicting facts to believe in their literalist view of the faith and the Bible. This would not be a problem except for the fact that they have bet their eternity on there being only way to Heaven and that way requires that Yeshua went back to God with warts, hairy arms, genitals, and all the rest. If he didn’t beat death, neither can they and that opens up the well-known thought that he was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.

They are desperate, and it shows by their lack of Christian behavior when questioned, to block serious inquiry into things that might show that Yeshua was a man just like all other men. If his body did not go to Heaven, the right-wingers just lost their faith as they have bet the farm, the whole damn thing, on the fact that Yeshua beat the unbeatable fate we call death. If Yeshua was just a man, even a wise man, even a man that is the source of a whole new way to seek God, then they are also just men and doomed to one life and the oblivion of an earthly death. Needless to say, that scares the hell out of them and as any animal will do when backed into a corner, they have their claws out looking for the prying eyes of inquiry called science and rational thought.

It's hard to act like a Christian when what you believe in is hanging by a thread of metaphysical tradition. They have, unlike some other more advanced Christians, not moved past the Sunday School Superhero Jesus belief and if he falls, then regardless of who he might have been or what he really had to offer humanity, he’s just a dead guy in red underpants who can’t save them from death. Should that be true, he not only isn’t their Lord, he isn’t any good to them at all. That’s the baby, the bathwater, and the pan right off the cliff, and worse still, they did it to themselves and they know it.

Prof. Mohler, I do not imagine that you have time to read all this drivel, and I hope that you do not take the time, but in the chance that you do, I appreciate the guidance you offer here!

As for RULES IN SEX some of you, I feel have taken this out of context and are looking at rules in a sense of hindering the way you have sex. On the contrary...

HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE OWNED A FISH?

Any goldfish owner from age 3 onward knows that the goldfish needs to stay in its bowl because that is the most healthy environment for it. If the goldfish gets the bright idea that it wants to leave the bowl to see what is out there, it finds out too late that its master knew what was best for it and gave it BOUNDARIES out of love.

As someone brilliantly pointed out earlier, and expounded on Dr. Mohler's point, we humans have the potential to be more than animals. As the old cliche' goes, with power comes responsibility. We have the ability to be great, as we are the only thing in creation that follows the form of God. You do not see even our closest relatives in the animal kingdom penning poetry, art, music, nor truly understanding love or commitment. They follow instincts. God has given us a gift of sex... as a man and a married Christian man, I am all about sex, just ask my wife. The sex that God created, however, is designed to reside within limits. Like the fish out of water, if we choose to defy those limits we cheat ourselves whether we ever realize it or not. I was a virgin on my wedding night as was my wife and it was an awesome experience knowing that we had reserved that highest level of commitment for each other. Sex, as it should, draws us together and there is no one to compare to. This is within the bounds of God's created design. I'm Loving It.

Caught Mohler on Larry King. What a nasty, rude fellow he is!

Why is it that ***some*** self-professed Christians specialize in being exactly the arrogant ugly pharisees that Jesus condemned?

Sex is not something that comes with rules, since we make them up and they change over time, sex is something that comes with implications and consequences. The rules about what is seen as acceptable sexual behavior are all over the place today and have been all across human history. Trying to define legitimate sex as only between married heterosexual persons not only ignores biology, it ignores reality. Between one third and two thirds of Puritan young women were pregnant when they got married (see “Sexual Revolution in Early America”). Being engaged was for a very long time the act required before sleeping with your future spouse to see if you were indeed compatible. This was perfectly acceptable behavior in the past and is so for most today. Humans, unlike some animals, are not and never have been monogamous. We are at best serially monogamous, having many semi-exclusive partners over our lifetimes. The vast majority of human beings who have walked this planet were born to people who were not married.

Viewing sex as a gift suitable for only married people ignores human history. Most people, even most Christians, do not follow "biblical" sexual rules even after they are married, breaking biblical rules simply by having oral or anal sex. Onan was not punished for masturbating but for disobey God's order to impregnate his dead brother's wife. Lot's wife was turned into stone for looking backwards but Lot's daughters seduced him and then had his children, and were not punished in any way. What we do in bed matters but the rules we set are of our own making, even those pointed to in the Bible.

Sex may very well be a gift from God but the uses of it are more complex and varied than what the Bible can account for. It takes two people to tickle, you can’t do it alone, but only one to masturbate, and even male fetuses stroke their penises in utero. Orgasms can be achieved with one, two, or many people, and in ways that many would not find sexual such as being spanked, being bound, roleplaying, or fondling the object of a fetish without any genital contact. God could have easily have made it possible to have an orgasm only when one female and one male came together in reproductive sex, but that is not the case.

We are sexual beings and it is a core part of our nature, which makes it worthy of discussion and understanding. Reproduction rides on sexual passion, not the other way around. There is morality in sex as there is in everything else human because we are also morality-creating animals. Christian sexual morality is one version but it is a version that even most Christians cannot live up to and rarely strive for. On that basis alone, presenting Christian sexual morality as the gold standard means you are standing not on solid ground but on the shifting sands of a limited perspective, that human history and our present-day reality is only too happy to undermine.

As for that 'they are Catholic child rapists not Christians' remark:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/21/AR2007022101316.html?referrer=emailarticle

By ROSE FRENCH
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; 4:36 PM

NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- The victims' advocates who dogged the Roman Catholic Church over sex abuse by its clergy have now turned their attention to the Southern Baptists, accusing America's largest Protestant denomination of also failing to root out molesters.

The Chicago-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests has started a campaign to call attention to alleged sex abuse committed by Southern Baptist ministers and concealed by churches.

Ambasador:

It IS time consuming, I don't expect a response but I'll say my final bit in the hope that you will at least return for a read.

I think the key thing here is your foundationalism argument, something I just got a little introduction to. This seems to be your last stand in arguing for a measuring stick for being able to determine absolute truth from not absolute truth. I'll make this point. I challenge you to find a so called "basic belief" that you can use to support the notion that the bible is absolute truth, and which also, of course, satisifies the criteria for a basic belief:
1)cannot end in infinite regress (how do you know, but how do you know, but how do you know)
2)is NOT a dogmatic stopping point (the bible says so)
3)a circular argument( The bible is absolute truth because it says so).

Finally, the suggestion I get is that the philosphy seems to be outdated. Most philosphical notions are. Philosophy hasn't landed any absolute truth either.

You refer to Sin. "Sin" is not a thing of the "objective" world that you claim your argument and faith is based on.

Your reasoning surrounding the history of the church, individualism in the Christian community, rests again on the notion that there is a "right" (absolute truth) interpretation and all of these Christians are just getting wrong. If only they went to the right college or learned from the right books...they'd get it "right". Utlimately battles are fought over this kind of dismissal of the others interpretation.

One last point to consider Ambassador.
Language (meaning natural language) does not constitute, cannot act as, a container for meaning. Language isn't even a conduit for meaning. It only provides clues or hints about intended meaning. Language only primes the pump of our meaning making mechanism in the mind. If God ever expected to deliver into human minds, the "perfect truth" in his mind, he should have consulted Spock and learned about the Vulcan mind-meld.

Ambassador, It has been fun. I can tell you are an earnest truth seeker. My truth seeking once had me doing what you are doing now, but I moved on. I urge you to not let these challeges get brushed under the rug with supernatural explanations like the holy spirit or "God is a mystery". A truth seeker has integrity and changes his beliefs when those beliefs just don't hold up.

My hats off to both of you, Neal and Ambassador. I look forward to more verbal jousting. It is truly a pleasure when talking to people who can converse as well as you.

Ambassador:

I most certainly feel likewise!! It has been a pleasure indeed!

Peace be with you!

Neal et al.,

Thank you all for the comments and questions. Although we may not agree on many points, I am encouraged that we can have such fruitful conversation. Unfortunately, these types of discussions are very time consuming and I have some other obligations that I must attend to. Please excuse me from the discussion for a while. Neal, I believe the text you were searching for is Romans 13:1-7.

Have a great day everyone!

Well said Neal, well said.

One distinct impression I had while reading the New Testament was the profound difference in tone between the Gospels and the Letters. Christ (rightly) goes around turning over money lender tables in the temple, while Paul says don't rock the boat (essentially).

This intrigued me until I realized that Christ's and Paul's intentions were quite different. Christ was bringing about a human justice revolution that turned social order on its head. He even says "the first shall be last, and the last shall be first."

Paul, however, was building a church. In particular a church that was inoffensive to the Roman authorities, who were in the habit of annihilating any groups they deemed politically subversive. Hence all the text about obeying the authorities, in particular the Roman ones.

Marrying these two extreme perspectives, social revolution and social reification, into one cohesive theology is perhaps a challenge Christians will never be able to achieve to a majority's satisfaction. But I guess that's the whole point of having different denominations.

Very well put Neal,
unfortunatley, people like to make comments. I know I do when I read Revelations. that book is just plain crazy.
I don't read it literally at all. It is obviously a story written to scare Rome and especially it is geared towards the emperor Nero at the time. By the way, did you know 666 comes out to NERO? and not to the devil? Interesting thought there.

Oh well.........keep it coming guys, this conversation is way better than the others

Ambassador for Christ:

"Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good."

Slavery in America was a "human institution" until 1863 (date?). The additional "whether" is given as examples of what to be obedient to, not as limiting the prior "every."

If Americans prior to the Emmancipation were to follow Paul's advice we would still have slavery. As well, we would still be under British rule.

The key text, which neither you nor I have quoted yet, is the "as all authority comes from God" line. When Paul says that, he is saying quite clearly that the authority of the master over the slave is endorsed by God. I simply see no other way to read that other than Paul endorsing slavery.

I'm going to try and find that, along with the full accompanying text, so that the context is completely clear.

I am enjoying the philosophical discussion on "idealism" versus empiricism, please keep it up.

Question for Ambassador et al:

Is it not true that people who were left handed were once looked at askance by the church, in fact, being labeled "sinister?" Was not the thinking that left-handedness was a sign of the devil? In light of this lefties were often forced to use their right hands, in essence, to "not act on" their natural tendencies towards left-handedness.

Of course, now we know that handedness develops early and without any volitional component on the part of the individual. And, the church has dropped this silly idea.

I think yu can see where I am going with this, and I do not want to play socratic "gotcha" games in the middle of a discussion amongst intelligent and courteous people, so I'll cut to the chase: It is appearing increasingly likely that sexual preference is also outside of volitional control, and that the exhortation to just "act hetero" or refuse to act on the natural homosexual impulse, is even worse than trying to make lefties be righties.

So, here is the question I guess: At what point do Christians realize that the Bible is simply unjust, incorrect, and (I think) immoral on its stance towards homosexuality? Do you not think that our childrens' children will look back on Chritianity's (et al) stance on homosexuality much as we do its stance on handedness?

Russell D:

Actually what I posted is nowehere near the full extent of the text on Paul's attitude towards slavery. When I read the New Testament last April I was shocked, frankly, at what I found, especially in Paul's letters.

If you read the entire text of what Paul says regarding authority (in three seperate letters no less!) he clearly and explicitely endorses slavery as being sanctioned by God. In one case he follows up his admonitions to slaves with the phrase "as all authority comes from God." I simply see no other way to read this as "God endorses slavery."

My point is that most fundamentalists use the text in Paul's letters to support their discrimination against women and homosexuals, yet at the same time ignore his equally clear text regarding things like slavery.

As well, they completely abandon any pretense of a literal reading of the bible when it comes to The Revelation of John. In that case the creativity and imagination of their interpretations is enviable. Heck, they ought to be teaching New Criticism in some graduate english department.

As I see it, our problems regarding what to make of the New Testament can be phrased as follows: we mistakenly read Paul's Letters normatively as well as descriptively and we mistakenly read the Gospels descriptively as well as normatively.

There is simply no historical evidence that any of the events described in the Gospels ever took place beyond that a man named Jesus with brother James and father Joseph was crucified by Pontius Pilate. This is what I mean by mistakenly reading the Gospels descriptively.

However a normative reading of the Gospels is entirely appropriate and what I consider to the essence of the utility of the bible to Christians. Christ's instructions to us regarding how to live are timeless as well as profound. You don't even have to believe in the resurrection to agree with his teachings.

As for Paul's letters, I consider them to be a selection of writings detailing the early life of the church. Nothing more, nothing less. As an analogy one might imagine a historian selecting some of Bill Gates' early emails to the Microsoft staff. They have great value descriptively, but almost none normatively. Why would any of the rest of us want to follow what Bill Gates says to his early staff? It simply doesn't apply.

One other point before I get off this rant: picking and choosing a line here and a line there from the New Testament and sowing them together into some out of context patchwork is simply bad theology. I wish more Christians would read the New Testament in its entirety, without any "commentary", and draw their own conclusions. After all that's the essence of protestantism isn't it?

Hi Neal,

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that I would have to disagree with your assertion that "Paul explicitly endorses slavery." According to Webster's Dictionary, "endorse" means "to express approval or support of, especially publicly." Based on that definition, Paul does not endorse slavery. He does, however, recognize it as a fact of life during the days of his ministry, and therefore includes them in his letters.

1 Corinthians 7:21-23 says, "Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ. You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men." It should be very clear that this is not an endorsement of slavery.

In Ephesians 6:5-8, Paul says, "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ, not by the way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, rendering service with a good will as to the Lord and not to man, knowing that whatever good anyone does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free." Again, Paul is not endorsing slavery. He is simply addressing those who are slaves on how they should live.

In Colossians 3:22-25, Paul says, "Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters,not by way of eye-service, as people-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for the wrong he has done, and there is no partiality." The same explanation applies here as the Ephesians passage. This is not an endorsement of slavery.

Regarding the text that you quoted, Peter did not endorse slavery either. He recognized it as a fact of life during that time and thus addressed slaves on how to live for Christ. If you take the entire text in its entirety, it reads, "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution,whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God. Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor. Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:13-21)

Thus, to answer your question, "If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves?" I do believe I follow his teachings regarding slaves, based on the discussion in this post. Nowhere does Paul or Peter endorse slavery. Nowhere do they say, "Hey go get some slaves." They are only recognizing the fact of life, and all of their comments are addressed to the slaves themselves, not about the slaves.

I hope this explanation sufficiently answers your question.

Neal:
It seems you may have read that the wrong way, but what do I know, I am sure the Ambassador will be more than happy to alleviate it for you.

Gotta remember though, Paul wasn't a very reliable source anyways. Probably wasn't even Paul who wrote the letters to the Romans.

He probably isn't the best source to believe in when regarding women and homosexuals. The guy was jealous of Mary in the first place, so of course he is going to be bitter to women.

In all this talk about biblical in-errancy you've negelected my post regarding slaves. In three seperate letters Paul explicitely endorses slavery as part of the "all authority comes from God" line. If you follow Paul's teachings regarding women and homosexuals why not follow his teachings regarding slaves? They are very clear and in three seperate letters.

To refresh your memories on one of them:

1st Peter 2 (NIV):

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Dear Sledge Hammer (Great name by the way!),

Thank you for your reply. You sound very well-versed in the area of philosophy, and no doubt have attained more knowledge than I on this subject. However, I will attempt to address some of your questions.

You asked, "Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than your fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature."

This is a very fair and legitimate question. First, let me say that according to the Bible, Christians are still sinful human beings and are not above making mistakes. As I stated earlier and what began my discussion with you, is that just because we get it wrong sometimes does not mean that the Bible is not objective truth (given the definition that I used in an earlier post). Regarding why there are different denominations, the ultimate answer is sin. However, more specifically, I believe the answer is that there is an anti-intellectualism that has taken over the churches. As J.P. Moreland discusses in his book "Love Your God With All Your Mind", three awakenings broke out in the middle 1800's which resulted in an overemphasis "on immediate personal conversion to Christ instead of a studied period of reflection and conviction; emotional, simple, popular preaching instead of intellectually careful and doctrinally precise sermons; and personal feelings and relationship to Christ instead of a deep grasp of the nature of Christian teaching and ideas...what was a problem, however, was the intellectually shallow, theologically illiterate form of Christianity that come to be part of the populist Christian religion that emerged." (See p. 23 of his book). Second, "the emerging anti-intellectualism in the church created a lack of readiness for the widespread intellectual assault on Christianity that reached full force in the late 1800s." Christians began to withdraw from the public debate, and would not engage in discussions such as we are now participating. Thus, without a strong commitment to the doctrines of the faith, many people began to offer new "interpretations", and disagreements arose creating the many different denominations that we have today.

You also said, "You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth." This comment could lead into the discussion of foundationalism and the idea of properly basic beliefs (not based upon evidence). I will only say that based upon foundationalism, not all objective truth requires evidence.

Thank you for your challenging comments. You have given me much to think about, but I fear we will not come to an "absolute" agreement (sorry for the word-play there) as this discussion has raged on for hundreds of years.

Have a great day, I hope we can talk again sometime.

Very good response Ambassador.

I am not confirming Jesus' divinity, cause I think that he was just a man with a plan. But that is besides the point.

Ever think that Jesus was bipolar? Mood swings like crazy..........

Marco Polo,

Thanks for the response. It is true that Jesus taught love. But, it is mistake to believe that he ONLY taught about love. There are many hard teachings of Christ. Consider the following words of Christ as a sampling:

John 8:43-47 - "Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Matthew 7:21-23 - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'"

Matthew 10:32-33 - "So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."

Matthew 11:23-24 - "And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you."

Luke 12:49-53 - "I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

I do not quote these passages to portray Jesus as a harsh unloving person. But neither should I say nothing when others speak of his teachings as only about love. Jesus Christ was God incarnate and therefore had the same attributes as the Father.

Furthermore, if you hold to the fact that Jesus appeared to Paul on the Damascus road and that He was indeed His messenger, then it follows that you accept Jesus Christ's divinity since this was a supernatural encounter. Hence, if Jesus was the Son of God, don't you think that He had the foreknowledge and foreordination to know what Paul would write? If He was to write and teach something that was not from God, why would Christ select Him as His messenger?

Thanks again for your thought-provoking comments. Have a great day.

Ambassador, the closest thing we have, with regard to our discussion, that can be said to be in the objective world are the bible and brains. My contention is that you are disregarding the brain part. Please do not just dismiss this. This requires some looking into cognitive fields of research (though I think a little common sense seems to go a long way). Why is it that you come to different "interpretations" than you fellow Christians, or why are there so many Christian denominations? These are the "objective" evidence of its relative nature. You cannot show any equivalent evidence of the so called absolute truth.

Also, there is a difference between "absolute" and universal. The fact that we all have brains is a universal, and is the basis for my relativistic argument. This the confusion represented in your last comment. Finally, I do believe that because we all share a very similar nervous system, brain included, there are some views held by humans that appear to be absolute, like avoidance of suffering, but this is a result of the fact that we all share a similar nervous system, not because the truth is "out there" for use to "discover".

You say your measuring stick is "objective truth". Show me. Do you think that mearly making the claim makes it true? Show me. Why can't you and Christiandom agree on this objective truth. If you had a measuring stick, where would the disagreement be? Do we argue over what 5 feet eight inches means?

Dear LAD,

Thanks again for the comments. See my response to Sledge Hammer above.

Are you familiar with what is known as progressive revelation/dispensationalism? The term dispensation is a way of describing a time period in which God establishes rules by which his relationship between He and his people are governed. Thus, this holds that God revealed more of His plan as time passed. He revealed some to Abraham, He revealed some to Moses, etc. Because of this, it means that you have to pay attention to where you are in that revelation to determine the significance of the promises and commandments because as God revealed more of His plan, it appears to us to have "changed" when in fact, we just learn more about it. (I will speak to the notion about God changing in just a second) Therefore, the Law of Moses is only binding during the period of the Law. When God revealed Christ, the dispensation of the Law was done away with. This does not mean that the Old Testament is any less valid as God's revelation to us, it only means that God has since revealed more of His plan. If I tell you that I have ten dollars in my pocket, but three days later, I tell you that I have a five dollar bill and five ones in my pocket, does that mean that my statement to you three days ago wasn't true or valid? No, it simply means that I have revealed more specifics about the money in my pocket.

You stated, "If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable." There are two senses in which God does not change. First, there is the ontological immutability of God in which His essential attributes cannot change (such as his holiness, his omnipresence, his omnipotence, etc.) Second, there is the ethical immutability of God in which if God promises something, He is the perfect promise-keeper and is obligated to keep His promise. (See Psalm 102:25-27, Malachi 3:6, and James 1:17) However, there is a sense in which God changes, which is known as relational mutability. This means that God in relation to His people changes. It is a change in His activity towards people due to a change in the ethical situation (such as Moses and the golden calf, Jonah and the city of Nineveh). Once Christ came to fulfill the Law, God's relation to His people changed from one of Law to one of grace as I have described in earlier posts.

Having said all of that, we will most likely still agree to disagree. It's been lively discussion though, that's for sure. Have a great day!

BGONE, I do like your idea. It would explain why the stories of Moses and Jesus reflect each other.

I am not writing to confirm that Jesus existed, just writing about the principles for which he stood.

and no, it doesn't hurt, it's kind of cool actually

Geez Ambassador, Marco. Jesus is a fictional person based upon a real one, the Egyptian would-be Pharaoh, Amenophis IV. The Amen had a small problem. She was a woman at a time when women were shut out of Pharaohing. She's also the one on who's life Moses is based. So we can say that both Moses and Jesus were a woman with a wife.

Hurt too much to cry? Laugh. It's good for ya.

The Bible is a proved hoax. Small wonder sex, a very natural human urge, is so messed up in the Bible. Try http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex for a little insight. Sex can be dangerous so approach cautiously, especially when it's someone else's sex your approaching.

Thank you for your reply ambassador.

I realise that Paul was to speak for Christ. But here is a question that you need to ask yourself.

If you were a teacher and taught things a certain way, would you want someone else to teach them another way?
It seems that Jesus taught love, yet Paul threw in a little hate there. If I said something, I'd want to make sure that whomever I chose to relay that message got ir right, and didn't ad-lib.
Maybe I am being callous, I don't know, but I would say that what Paul said is not what Jesus would have wanted. Besides, I thought Mary was the one he took into private council. Maybe she had a better idea of what Jesus wanted than Paul could ever imagine. Paul was jealous.

Dear Marco Polo,

Thanks for the comments. Concerning homosexuality, you said, "The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong?" There's a great deal to discuss from this question, but I'll try to be as brief as possible.

First, we do not have record of Jesus explicitly speaking about homosexuality in the four gospels. However, Jesus said to his disciples in John 16:12-15, "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you."

If you fast-forward to Acts 2, you will find the coming of the Holy Spirit. Finally, we come to Acts 9:15. In this passage, Jesus says that the Apostle Paul "is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel." Hence, Jesus affirms and commissions the Apostle Paul to act as His representative and on his behalf. The Apostle Paul wrote the letter to the Romans. Hence, since Paul was chosen by Christ to speak on His behalf, Jesus does affirm the teaching of Romans 1 regarding homosexuality.

Sledgehammer,

Thanks, yes that is what I was getting at. If something (like the OT) is absolute and sacred then by definition it must not be changeable or voidable. I can't see how one could have it both ways.

i.e.: "Yes it is the absolute truth and word of God almighty...but, well we don't really have to follow all of it because parts of the NT eliminate the need."

Then the pretzel logic then starts again and we wind up full circle.

Like I said I cannot see how it works both ways.

Are we supposed to kill people who work on the Sabbath? Am I supposed to bring animal sacrifices to the temple? Am I allowed to eat shrimp, it is an "abomination" after all?

Wrap your head around that eating shellfish is an "abomination" yet in the US the seafood industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and NOBODY seems to care.

Yet when it come to homosexuals...well we know how that works.

Sorry folks, you can't have it both ways.

P.S., Ambassador, thanks again for the reply, have a great day.

I cannot agree with the ambassador. The Bible may say its wrong, but did Jesus say it was wrong? Did he have a problem with it? I'd like to know specifically, cause I want to look it up. Seems most of the hatred for homosexuals comes from bigoted writers who liked to put their own shortcomings into the Bible. Get back to me on that ambassador, please.

Dear Phaedrus,

Thank you for your kind response. Regarding your first question, I must plead ignorance on the topic.

Regarding my stance on gay marriage, I hold to the Bible's teaching in Romans 1:26-27, and therefore cannot support gay marriage.

Thanks again for your comments. Have a great day!

Dear LAD,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your candid and honest comments. You're right; it appears we will have to agree to disagree. I look forward to future conversations.

Have a wonderful day!

Dear Sledge Hammer,

Thank you for your comments. You do rightly state my position: "The model you present is that the bible contains perfect truth and it is your job to work at getting "it" into your head "right", as if the "head" part were simply a receiver of meaning and not a meaning maker."

Based upon your comments, am I correct to assume that you do not hold to absolute or objective truth? By absolute truth, I mean that people discover truth, they do not create it, and a claim is made true or false in some way or another by reality itself, totally independent of whether the claim is accepted by anyone. Please correct me if this is an incorrect assumption.

So, if you do not hold to absolute/objective truth, but instead believe that truth is subjective/relative to each person's "meaning maker", it follows that you assert that relativism is true. However, this assertion is self-refuting if truth is relative to each person's "meaning maker." Such an assertion suggests that relativism is true for everybody. Making such a claim would be a statement suggesting absolute truth, which relativism claims doesn't exist. (Please keep in mind that I am not saying that you made these claims, only that the logic of your argument leads to these conclusions) I do have a measuring stick on which to base my beliefs: objective truth. May I humbly ask, what is yours?

Ambassador:

Thanks for your response. I am surrounded by chrsitians who do not know what they actually believe, what those things are based on, and many of the implications that flow from those things, so your thoughfulness is appreciated.

what is your position on vaccinating young girls (and boys, as they may practice gay sex with similar risks of later cancers) with Gardisil, and where do you stand on gay marriage?

The West and protestant Chrsitianity seems to have forgotten the most basic rules of sex.

How about a little history on what Christianity considered the rules for sex???

htpp://www.realclearreligion.com

Sorry, meant "definite CONTRADICTION" above

Anonymous and LAD: I agree with LAD. There is a definite contraction in the mere notion of "new" testament and "old" testament and the notion of absolute truth. The doctrine as I know it is that there was a CHANGE in covenant. By definition an absolute thing doesn't change. You have to get pretty slippery to work around that.

Sorry for the double post. I don't know how that happened.

Ambassador,

Thank you again for your thoughtful response. It is late here and I do not have a lot of time to write in any detail but I did want to respond.

After reading and re-reading your post I am afraid with all due respect that I am still not in agreement with your line of reasoning.

Not to split hairs but yes, it appears you are still saying after all is aaid and done that parts of the NT cancel out or invalidate parts of the OT.

So my question still remains. Why bother with the OT, especially tripe like Leviticus? It makes no sense, it is cruel and has led men to treat their fellow mankind awfully (to say the least) over the centuries. I believe that it was written by men to control other men (and women, especially). I could lie and say "Okay, I believe, and take it on faith as God's word etc., etc."

But it would be a lie just to satisfy others (my minister or Grandma for example). Sorry but it makes no sense to me.

I could probably write a book about all of the things in the OT that I find idiotic, silly, mean-spirited and down right dangerous. However as you rightly pointed out this is a difficult forum to go into great detail.

Look, you are obviously a very thoughtful person and I mean no disrespect, but I stand by my position:

More questions then answers, and I flat out don't believe a lot of what I am being sold as the truth.

The bottom line for me is REASON. I believe that when Man is using reason with his fellow man he is acting at his best and highest form. I have no doubt in a higher power "God" for lack of a better term. I believe strongly that this higher power is reasonable. Sadly I find very little that is resonable in the OT. God seems quite petty and unbelievably insecure in scripture. I believe that God simply wants us to reason with one another and treat eachother as we would like to be treated...you know: The Golden Rule.

All good things stem from reason yes including art, sex and joy. All bad things stem from a lack of reson, i.e. fear, ignorance, war and hate.

And frankly, with all due respect I find it a bit unreasonable to believe that parts of a book cancel or invalidate other parts of a book, yet at the same time, the whole book somehow remains sacred and inspired. Not to split hairs but essentially that is what you are still saying.

Thank you again for taking the time to post back. I really enjoy this forum. I find it incredibly interesting to find out what other people (well, some other people)believe as I have so many unanswered questions myself.

Thanks again for your time...I am rambling.

Ambassador,

Thank you again for your thoughtful response. It is late here and I do not have a lot of time to write in any detail but I did want to respond.

After reading and re-reading your post I am afraid with all due respect that I am still not in agreement with your line of reasoning.

Not to split hairs but yes, it appears you are still saying after all is aaid and done that parts of the NT cancel out or invalidate parts of the OT.

So my question still remains. Why bother with the OT, especially tripe like Leviticus? It makes no sense, it is cruel and has led men to treat their fellow mankind awfully (to say the least) over the centuries. I believe that it was written by men to control other men (and women, especially). I could lie and say "Okay, I believe, and take it on faith as God's word etc., etc."

But it would be a lie just to satisfy others (my minister or Grandma for example). Sorry but it makes no sense to me.

I could probably write a book about all of the things in the OT that I find idiotic, silly, mean-spirited and down right dangerous. However as you rightly pointed out this is a difficult forum to go into great detail.

Look, you are obviously a very thoughtful person and I mean no disrespect, but I stand by my position:

More questions then answers, and I flat out don't believe a lot of what I am being sold as the truth.

The bottom line for me is REASON. I believe that when Man is using reason with his fellow man he is acting at his best and highest form. I have no doubt in a higher power "God" for lack of a better term. I believe strongly that this higher power is reasonable. Sadly I find very little that is resonable in the OT. God seems quite petty and unbelievably insecure in scripture. I believe that God simply wants us to reason with one another and treat eachother as we would like to be treated...you know: The Golden Rule.

All good things stem from reason yes including art, sex and joy. All bad things stem from a lack of reson, i.e. fear, ignorance, war and hate.

And frankly, with all due respect I find it a bit unreasonable to believe that parts of a book cancel or invalidate other parts of a book, yet at the same time, the whole book somehow remains sacred and inspired. Not to split hairs but essentially that is what you are still saying.

Thank you again for taking the time to post back. I really enjoy this forum. I find it incredibly interesting to find out what other people (well, some other people)believe as I have so many unanswered questions myself.

Thanks again for your time...I am rambling.

Ambassador,

I want to congratulate you on your wonderful success in landing the job as Our Lord and Saviours Right Hand Man. You must have one hell of a teriffic resume.

Ambassador: "Will I misinterpret a verse on occasion? Unfortunately, I most likely will. But, the blame for that is not on the Bible, but instead is on me for misinterpreting it."

The notion of the bible as "absolute truth and inerrant Word of God" suggests a lack of awareness of how meaning happens. For meaning to happen, a brain is required. This is not something that exists on paper. The words on the paper contain stimulous from which the brain projects meaning "onto". Your statement misses this and suggests that the "true" meaning is in the book. The model you present is that the bible contains perfect truth and it is your job to work at getting "it" into your head "right", as if the "head" part were simply a receiver of meaning and not a meaning maker. This way of viewing our experience theoretically made an exit with the middle ages, though admittedly, the process of fully integrating this new orientation is a slow process, and we are all in process. The fact is that the only bible meaning you will find out there in the world is in the heads of people. Ask yourself how you will know which head got it "right" and how will you know when a given head gets it "right". What is your measuring stick? You don't have one. You're chasing the rainbows end. It's nonsense my friend.

BGONE -

I know many who disagree that the Bible has been proven to be a hoax, including some incredible scientific minds. Visit www.reasons.org and specifically the following link: http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/hugh_ross_testimony.shtml

AMBASSADOR -

Thank you for your thoughtful insights.

Sex outside of Marriage: It is *the* object for sexual games players and so long as they play with like minded consenting adults, it is their lives. If they grow out of that community, they need to bear in mind that there are rules that need to be kept in mind. As far as two unmarried consenting adults are concerned, if there is a long term, commited, loving relationship and the couple decide to take the relationship into the realm of expression of love on a sexual level, who are we to tell them that they need a government issued license to enjoy one another's company in that way? That is proposterous. Also, sex becomes just another method of control to fascist regimes such as George Bush's administration:
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated,
these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion
and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong
support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
Source http : //www . ellensplace . net/fascism . html
If the young people involved in a loving relationship are dependents, they need to know and honor their Parent's wishes.

To an Anonymous Poster on February 19,

You said, "WAAAAAIIIIIT a minute....when did GOD "MARRY" A&E?

UH, uh....nope.

Show us WHERE in the written Bible it says God 'MARRIED' Adam to Eve."

See Genesis 2:22-24. "And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his WIFE, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his WIFE were both naked and were not ashamed." (emphasis mine)

Hello Ambassador for Christ,

I agree with your post. (Thank you for standing up for TRUTH)
I would like for all to realize that GOD loves YOU! Some may not believe in HIM but he believes in YOU.
Some may not think they need a savior, but HE died for you anyway. God loves everyone in this post, both male & female, slave or free, gay or straight!
There is no law that HE requires from any of us, but the (one) that fulfills all laws which is to LOVE one another. If I love my brother or sister truthfully I will do them no harm period! Everyone of you has a purpose & destiny in this life. We are all wonderful creatures of God with a purpose.
We can live according to that purpose or outside of that purpose. It is God's loving will that we live according to HIS special purpose & design for our lives. I don't have to prove that God is real, HE is God and HE can do that on HIS own. Just ask Jesus to come into your heart (sincerely) and He will. Don't miss out on HIS invitation in your life & into your hearts. Not one of us are good enough for God, that is why the scripture says: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23).
Do not be deceived, there will come a time when each of us will give an account to how we lived life on this earth if you have not accepted Christ as your Lord and Savior. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? (Mark 8:36)
I know I'll get much criticism for these statements, but there will come a time the words stated here if they are false will be forgotten and all is well. But if they are true in the test of time they will be remembered forever! The choice has always been ours, make you choice wisely! Jesus died for us that we might have life for eternity!
His Love for You!

James:

Yeah, sorry about that. There at the last he looked back at me and said:

"Et tu Phaedrus, then fall Sigmund."

Phaedrus, Say it isn't So!!!!

Regardless of your heresies,
I still love my Mother.

Hi Phaedrus,

Thank you for your comments. I want to try and answer your question: "Doesn't this seemed awfully "tortured" to you? Does it not seem to you, at times maybe, that you are having to work too hard and accomodate too much, to try and rectify the obvious discrepancies, inconsistencies, and rank injustices in the Bible?"

I will say that it is tiresome to try to understand such a complex being as God and understand everything that His Word teaches. (See my 7:51PM post to LAD). It's not easy, and I know that I'll never understand everything this side of Heaven. However, I hold fast to what the Bible says in 1 Peter 3:14-16, "But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts regard Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame."

So, I press on with these conversations in a hope to provide others with a defense of the Bible and of Christianity. I also strive to learn from others the most common criticisms that I can study and hopefully offer a response to. I, for one, believe that these message boards are profitable for people of all faiths.

Thank you for the comments, and I look forward to our conversations in the future.

I believe every word of "The Lord of the Rings"!
Tolkien was a Prophet!!

Welcome to the 21st century...Tragic!

Dear LAD,

Thank you for your kind reply and legitimate questions. I'm very thankful that we can have such a civilized conversation about such a complex topic. It encourages me that such conversations are possible. Having said that, let me now try to address some of your concerns.

Your first question was: "Do you understand that denying parts of the Bible's validity completely changes the idea of worship and what it means to be a Christian?" I want to make sure that no one misunderstands my position based on my earlier explanation. I do not deny ANY of the Bible's validity. I believe that the entire Bible (OT and NT) is God's inspired, inerrant Word. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that "All Scripture is breathed out by God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." I'll come back to these verses later in this response. But, I just want to make it clear that I fully hold to the validity of the entire Bible, which leads to the next comment that I'd like to address.

You said, "You do realize that there are many, many Christians who DO believe that the ENTIRE Bible: every word, punctuation mark, syllable is indeed the absolutely the WORD and should be adhered to." Indeed, there are many Christians who believe the entire Bible, as I believe they should as I mentioned earlier. However, I don't feel that most evangelical Christians would suggest that we should adhere to the rules and regulations of the Pentateuch as I mentioned in my earlier post. In fact, that's the Apostle Paul's main reason for writing his letter to the Galatians. In the opening chapter, he states, "I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel - not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-7). By reading further in the letter, you can see that there were false teachers spreading the teaching that Gentiles must first become Jewish proselytes and submit to all the Mosaic Law before they could become Christians. (Read Galatians 2:15-5:25 to understand Paul's argument). Ultimately, Paul was saying that observing all of the Mosaic Law will not save anyone, but only by grace through faith in Christ. So, all of that to say that those Christians "who DO believe that the ENTIRE Bible: every word, punctuation mark, syllable is indeed the absolutely the WORD and SHOULD BE ADHERED TO" (emphasis mine) need to critically examine the Christian faith in detail. Especially upon review of Galatians, they would find that the true teaching of Christianity indicates that we by nature are not able to adhere to the Mosaic Law, and attempting to do so is futile. Salvation is by faith, not by works of the Law. Now, should we sin because we are free from the penalty of the Law? No. See Paul's discussion of this very same point in Romans 6.

Your next questions asked, "So, if your interpretation of what Jesus said is correct then the obvious question is:

Why should Christians pay any attention to the Pentateuch?

Why should the Pentateuch even exist to a Christian?"

These are very good questions and I commend you for your fair line of reasoning based upon your previous assumptions. This is a very tough subject to discuss on a message board like this, but I'll try to address it as briefly as possible. I refer you back to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which I quoted above. (All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...) Notice that it says "ALL" Scripture is profitable. Though much of the OT does not directly apply to us today, it is still God's Word and is profitable for all of the reasons that Paul lists. We learn much about God from the Pentateuch. It makes me personally all the more thankful that Christ came and paid the price for our sins. I couldn't imagine trying to keep every letter of the Mosaic Law; it would be hopeless. But, if we didn't have the Pentateuch, we could not rightly understand how amazing God's grace and love for us is. Also, there are many lessons that we can take from those Scriptures and apply to our lives today. Again, see the profitability of all of Scripture listed in 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

You also asked, "Why cherry pick quotes from Leviticus, (which I find to be appalling and in no way divine) or any of the rest of the Old Testament for that matter." I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't quote verses out of context in the OT, or anywhere in the Bible for that matter. Many false cults have taken one verse out of the Bible and distorted and twisted it to suit their own desires, disregarding all other relevant texts.

You also said, "I have to admit that I am legitimately confused by all of this. It seems as though one must put one's mind through a bizarre pretzel of mental and frankly moral gymnastics to make sense what is valid or not." I agree that the Bible is not an easy book to read. It's definitely hard to understand at times. I'm not claiming to have all of the answers myself. But, if I hold to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (and you know that I do now), I must seek the truth and the relevancy of all Scripture. I seek to "Love your God with all your heart and with all your soul and WITH ALL YOUR MIND and with all your strength." (Mark 12:30, emphasis mine). As many non-Christians have rightly pointed out on this website, many Christians do not love God with all of their minds. They take the Christian doctrines on blind faith, and therefore find it very difficult to enter into these types of conversations. I commend you as one who is seeking to understand the complexities of almighty God and His Word.

I apologize for such a long post, but this is a complex issue as you have rightly stated. Keep digging and keep seeking the truth!

---Those "child rapists" were Catholics...not Christians---

Oh wow! What a difference!
Same turd different hue.

And the Anglican Church likes a bit of young meat too.

Ambassador:

I don't mean to bait or be sarcastic, you seem like a thoughtful, considerate person. But, doesn't this seemed awfully "tortured" to you? Does it not seem to you, at times maybe, that you are having to work too hard and accomodate too much, to try and rectify the obvious discrepancies, inconsistencies, and rank injustices in the Bible?

I saw this play out in psychology, when therapists tried everything they could to reinterpret, modify, and twist psychoanalysis to make it accomodate new information about how we develop and function emotionally. Actually, I was right in there with them, and it hurt to say goodbye to the Old Man, but there was no denying, in the end, that it had to go.

And, yet, there remain some out there who continue to believe in our friend Siggy. Despite the fact that, with each passing year, he becomes less relevant. Still, as one of my dearest colleagues says often; "Damn it was beautiful literature, even if it wasn't true."

Ambassador,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I was concerned there for a while that my question came off as too gruff and scared Brambleton away from comment.

Anyways, thank you. I have heard of some variations on what you so kindly took the time to write, but only in recent years. I grew up in a mainstream suburban church and never heard of that explanation, general or otherwise. I am not accusing you of "cherry picking", I do appreciate your taking the time to post your views on how to interpret the Bible.

Do you understand that denying parts of the Bible's validity completely changes the idea of worship and what it means to be a Christian?

You are putting yourself at odds with many powerful and influential ministers, etc who are of the mindset of : "God said it, I believe it, that settles it"

You do realize that there are many, many Christians who DO believe that the ENTIRE Bible: every word, punctuation mark, syllable is indeed the absolutely the WORD and should be adhered to.

So, if your interpretation of what Jesus said is correct then the obvious question is:

Why should Christians pay any attention to the Pentateuch?

Why should the Pentateuch even exist to a Christian?

Why cherry pick quotes from Leviticus, (which I find to be appalling and in no way divine) or any of the rest of the Old Testament for that matter.
To me, God comes off like a petty, insecure and fairly insane tyrant in the OT.

I don't mean to be disrespectful but take another look at it and tell me I'm wrong.

I have to admit that I am legitimately confused by all of this. It seems as though one must put one's mind through a bizarre pretzel of mental and frankly moral gymnastics to make sense what is valid or not.

I am a big fan of Jesus and call myself a Christian, but I would be a bald-faced liar if I said or pretended that I agreed with much of the Bible. Especially the OT.

If I have to turn off my brain or be dishonest then why should I find it important?

Thank you again.

You guys seem to be fixating on this too much. Let bygones be bygones. And Mr. BGONE, You in league with Tom cruise or something man?
Ron L. Hubbard would be proud of you for that statement.

Phaedrus: It's all about control. If it's a status thing, then we have to talk about 'rights' and all. But, if it's a 'choice' thing, then it's OK to roll out the hate and the concentration camps or whatever it is the whack jobs have in mind for my brother. I hope they understand that, if they come after my brother, they are also coming after me. I will respond accordingly, and I am a whole lot meaner than my brother.

LAD,

Thanks for your comments. Although I am not Brambleton, I would like to respond to some of your questions if you don't mind.

I do, in fact, believe that the Bible is the absolute truth and inerrant Word of God. You asked, "Go ahead and take a good look at the OT, Leviticus in particular. Do you live by those rules and standards? If not why...it's in the bible after all."

What you are referring to in Leviticus is referred to as the "Law" handed down by God. The Law was established after the fall of man into sin. Sin has many definitions, but for our present study, "lawlessness" or "transgression of the law of God" will suffice. The Law was given by God to serve as a mirror showing how sinful we are in comparison to a Holy God. Romans 3:20 says "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Therefore, the law cannot save anyone. It only condemns, it doesn't save, and it's purpose is to reveal that we are sinners.

Since we cannot be saved by the Law of the Old Testament, God sent Jesus Christ to do what no human being could do on their own: live a sinless life and fulfill the Law of God. Jesus said so himself: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17) Romans 8:1-4 explains the purpose of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and its application to human beings today very well: "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Therefore, the adherence to the Law as described in the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible) is no longer in effect if you are in Christ (meaning you are a Christian), who has fulfilled the Law for us. There is much more that could be said on this topic, but this type of forum does not cater easily to such an in-depth discussion.

However, I want to address a possible rebuttal that could be made against this explanation. You may simply reply like you stated earlier, "In my opinion John was spot on in his assessment of most Christians. They cherry pick certain parts of the Bible and completely ignore the crazy stuff...or rather the inconvenient stuff." I assure you, my explanation above is not 'cherry picking', but a systematic appraisal of the Bible as a whole. When reading any text in Scripture, you must compare it to all other relevant texts in order to interpret it correctly in its context. Am I perfect? No. Will I misinterpret a verse on occasion? Unfortunately, I most likely will. But, the blame for that is not on the Bible, but instead is on me for misinterpreting it.

However, the Scripture references I have listed above are sufficient to show that your assertion that Christians should be adhering to everything in the Pentateuch is not valid.

Thanks for your comments; I hope that I have answered your question.

Have a great evening everyone!

Exactly. I never made a choice to like girls, I just liked em. And every honest person that I know has answered the same way. But, it is not as easy to denigrate someone for something they just "are" as opposed to what they exercise their "freewill" to "do."

Why would anyone EVER choose to endure what homosexuals have to endure in our society?

Sex with rules? How about sex as a biological imperative? Our one role on this earth is to extend our individual heritage (DNA) to the next generation by procreation. Some of us have developed social rules that helps that along. The bible or the koran or the torah are guide books for a good life. They provide endless study and joy for those that take the time to read them. But they are not all truthful and must be read within the historical context in which they were written. Any argument about their content makes me drowsy. I am appaled that people will kill each other over which book may be right.
We are blessed with a joyous sex drive which can lead to a joyous sex life. It can also lead to pain and misery depending on the skill with which we are taught and how we live our lives.

Phaedrus: No. Actually, he tried really hard to make the 'choice' the other way. Why would he ask for the crap he gets? No, he simply was gay - nothing else.

Couple of people posted asking how I could be faithful to my wife for 35 years without rules, especially without some supreme being to guide me. Because I wanted to, because that's the commitment we exchanged, because it's the right thing to do for me - why is this a mystery. What do you think atheists are? How do you think we live? Do you somehow think that all 12-15 million of us live communally and have sex with each other's wives or each other or what? Our morality is not based on god or religion, but that doesn't mean we have no morality? Just so you know, that bit is probably the most viscious anti-atheist slur you can sling - that we have no moralty because we have no religion.

Andrew, glad you posted that. Question for you: Do you think that your brother made a "choice" to be gay?

Yeah, what is it with the thing about homosexuals? My brother is gay - he's a terrific guy, monogamous in his relationship for about 18 years, he and his partner have adopted 3 kids with HIV that no one else wanted and on and on. What's not to like? So, why doesn't he have exactly the same rights that I do?

J.W. Dr Shuller sold discount tickets to heaven in the beginning of his ministry, a drive in church. Then things improved for him.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul will answer most any questions about that. Tax free, tax deductible money, collected at tax exempt facilities, answers any question one with a brain might ask. That's the kind of people we need to tell us how, whne, where and why to _____, (can't say that here).

Russell D:

Where do you think the absolute truth about the Garden of Eden come from anyhow, somebody's imagination? Of course there were reliable witnesses, just like UFO wittnesses. Haven't you seen the film taken when God created the universe, a UPI camera crew no doubt.

Seriously, there's a picture of Eden at http://www.hoax-buster.org/learninglies Was it the one used by the author(s) of Genesis? It's OK to learn lies, believing them and calling them the absolute word of God is the problem, that negatively effects us all when it becomes the law of the land. Evangelicals have a patent on sex ya know, do it their way, when they say, or go to jail, kinda like Charles Manson treated his followers, just a little worse.

Hey Dave,

Those "child rapists" were Catholics...not Christians. There is a big difference! Or are you interested in buying a ticket to heaven....

Phaedrus

You made some interesting points. I have often wondered about such things myself. Why this fixation on homosexual people?

I guess they needed something new after they lost segregation and feminism. Sad really. I don't think Jesus would be with them in their zeal for persecution.

Oh Russell, do you need a hug?

Hey Stan, nobody likes an instigator. Shut it.

Brambleton?

Oh Brambleton....

I think somebody called you out.

Where you at?

Why do you feel the need to attack homosexuals? Is it a personal thing? Did your daddy hurt you? Or did he instill the hate within you? Homsexuals are people too, and once you realise that, you'll be better off.

Jesuz h. Chrixt
God didn't like Lot and his daughters,He loved them.
The rub was they(Lot and his daughters)did not love God.Perhaps they only liked God,or were they simply engaging in in that "selective morality",the same one John describes in his previous post?-Yea -they only liked,loved,certain pieces of God.

I wonder what Rev Mohler's opinion would be on whether to permit adolescent girls (and boys also, as it turns out) to receive gardisil, the medication that drastically reduces the chances that they will acquire Human Papillomavirus, which, in turn, is strongly linked to the development of cancer in later life. Some, though not all, religious groups have come out in opposition to these vaccinations, citing a potential increase in adolescent sexual activity if there is less risk of contracting this one particular STD. (close reasoning, no?) One would think that reducing the risk of cancer in adulthood would be more important than worries about adolescent sex, but, such is the mindset of some of these followers of Jesus.

I imagine a cure for AIDS would be a really bad thing, huh? All those homosexuals doing what they do without this particular aspect of god's wrath hanging over their heads?

OH JESUS PLEEZE DAVE B. (ABOVE) YOU ARE SO RIGHT .WHAT A BUNCH OF HOMOPHOBIC MONEYGRABBING PREACHERS WE HAVE.ALL THEY WANT IS YOUR $$$ AND CHECKING INTO BEDROOMS OF OUR STRAIGHT/GAY/LESBIAN FELLOW COUNTRY MEN AND WOMAN! RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER! FORGET ABOUT ALL THESE HOKUS POKUS RELIGIONS AND IF YOU WANT TO DO GOOD AND BE COUNTED HELP THE HOMELESS OF WHICH WE HAVE 55000 IN LOS ANGELES! JESUS/GOD ITS A HOAX SHE DOES NOT EXIST!

HA! Being a 'man of God' is the only job in the world where you can be a known child rapist and still be able to carry on doing your job with your bosses ensuring you are protected and not found out.

And if you are found out by the wider populace you have an automatic 'get out of jail free card' by simply resigning and getting your ex-bosses to fork over a few million of their many, many, many millions to shut everyone up.

Religion has lost ANY moral right to open it's damn mouth about sex quite frankly!!
SO IT CAN KEEP IT SHUT.

Brambleton,

I am curious, do you believe that the entire bible from stem to stern is the absolute truth and inerrant word of God?

Do you honestly live by EVERYTHING in the Bible? Leviticus alone seems pretty hard to pull off.

Or do you only believe in some of the Bible and other parts are to be interpreted?

In my opinion John was spot on in his assessment of most Christians. They cherry pick certain parts of the Bible and completely ignore the crazy stuff...or rather the inconvenient stuff.

For example eating shellfish seems pretty good and reasonable to me and most other Christians, yet according to the Bible it is clearly an "abomination".

Go ahead and take a good look at the OT, Leviticus in particular. Do you live by those rules and standards? If not why...it's in the bible after all.

There are numerous other examples of what I consider to be silliness yet there it is....right there...the the BIBLE.

I think you responded to John because he hit a nerve. Deep down you know his observations were spot-on. I could go on but I have to catch a plane.

BGONE: eyewitnesses? what eyewitnesse were there to Adam and Eve getting married? More crap made up I suppose.

Brambleton, good to see you in here again.

I like the ideas that the Bible might be a hoax. But guess what? It worked like a charm. Seems to be the main book that gets this country in an uproar. As for sex, I like it, leave it the f%$k alone.

John,

Yeah, nice rambling. Can't believe I took the time to read the entire post. What a waste. Typical anti-Christian drivel - long on rhetoric, short on substance. Even that punk doofus Michael Moore skewed a few facts to make his propaganda appear less than absurd. Perhaps John could share some specific examples for us to discuss, instead of carpet bombing the entire Bible with heresay and claptrap.

Thomas Wood,

You stated, "The one thing that the bible fails to mention is that sex if fun, either by yourself or with others...hopefully more with others." I'm sorry that you have not had the opportunity to read or discuss the Song of Solomon. When you do, I think you will be quite pleased with the intimacy and eroticism that is displayed. The "sex is bad" concept that is assumed by so many Christians is completely unfounded and I hold pastors and parents responsible.

John,

Nice job. Good luck getting any coherent response.

who told the story of Lot his daughters or him?
I think he did. He liked getting drunk and having sex with his daughters. God liked him?

I know that in my own personal experience, I was raised in a Methodist/Baptist household. I never really heard the word Christianity until I was an adult and was told that I was one. Until then, I thought that I was raised with my parents values and morals, not something that came from a book.

I followed my father to church. Sang the songs, payed attention to the guy behind the pulpit and prayed like I was told that I needed to. For so many years this was a way of life. I even got married in the same churh that I was raised in.

I know as an adult, we all have done out share of things that we are not proud of and we probably would not tell those stories to anyone unless we were on our deathbed. But as for sex, this is not one of them. The one thing that the bible fails to mention is that sex if fun, either by yourself or with others...hopefully more with others.

The Bible, the book of Mormon, the Khoran all lovely books that have 1 thing in common...we made it up, based upon 2 realities of life...Fear and Obedience. I do know that when growing up I feared my parents. I feared what they thought of me and what they would do if I were in trouble. This is something that children of today do not have.

If the bible is the end all - be all of our morality code, what good are parents. Just teach your children to read, give them a bible and let them go. We as parents today tell our children sex doesn't really matter and if you get pregnant or are raped, sucks to be you. I just read an article in the Post about preteens and sex. Why do you feel that it is okay to babies to have their ears pierced 10 minutes out of the birth canal? Why do parents feel it is okay for 6 year old girls to wear thongs? In Washington DC, there is no actual law that says teenagers don't need to be in clubs partying till all hours of the morning.

Bottom line is that parents of today either forgot or were never taught how to raise children with any moral values what so ever. Anytime you read articles about kindergartners having oral sex in the classroom or rainbow parties then parents have really lost their edge and so have the churches. So much for morality.

I found an interesting op-ed on the London Times online newspaper on sex, if anyone's interested. It's on the recent news that the Anglican church is planning on rejoining the Catholic church because of the liberal tendencies of the US branch. Here it is:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article1409368.ece

Christians love to talk about how loving, dutiful and compassionate they are, yet I have yet to meet one who is not a hypocrite. Their willful ignorance of the Bible combined with their two faced idealism to preach it is disgusting. For nearly two thousand years these people have been lecturing us on the importance of adhering to the Bible’s teachings on ethics, manners, and morality. They quote Jesus and Paul profusely, with a liberal sprinkling of Old Testament moralism. The problem with their approach lies not only in their failure to practice what they preach, but an equally pronounced tendency to ignore what the Bible itself preaches. Christians practice what can only be described as “selective morality”. What they like, they cling to and shove down other’s throats; what they don’t like, they ignore vehemently. That which is palatable and acceptable is supposedly applicable to all; while that which is obnoxious, inconvenient, or self-denying is only applicable to those addressed 2,000 years ago. Their hypocrisy is so rampant that even the validity of calling oneself “Christian” is in question. I see so many people enjoy quoting the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and some of Paul’s sermons, but don’t even PRETEND to heed other, equally valid, maxims.
I know that most Christians believe that God is a good and loving god, and wants people to do good things. I believe that most people want to do good things and behave morally. I also believe that many Christians haven’t really read the Bible, or just read certain passages in church. This is understandable, as the Bible is hard to read due to its archaic language and obscure references. Also many priests and preachers don’t like to read certain passages in the Bible because they present a message of hate not love.
Personally, I do not believe in the God portrayed in the Bible. It violates my morality to believe in a hypocritical, judgmental, self righteous murderer. I do not accept the Bible as God’s word because it contains thousand of errancies and contradictions that can not be solved, only rationalized. I refuse to accept Jesus as my personal savior, because I can find no substantial reason to accept him as divine.
And as far as homosexuality is concerned, the Christians act as though there are no other significant moral issues that they need address. You almost never hear them say anything about the ethical questions revolving around health insurance, wages, or other social issues. It's as if these topics don't involve serious ethical questions at all. There may be something to be said for denial, at least at times, but placing denial so far above indulgence does appear to be a mistake — especially when those practicing denial also practice denial about how often they actually indulge. They are able to make themselves feel superior without doing anything to truly be superior. Why go through all the work when you can experience the benefits for free?

oh jesus pleeze albert you are so homephobic. get a life as soon as possible. YOU ARE PROOF THAT NOT ALL CLOWNS WORK AT THE CIRCUS!!

Greg: I did as requested and as best I can do, post what it says here. There is a full 'book' on sex but then it's all based upon guesswork, no absolute source like the Bible, Koran or Book of Mormon.

I could note that there is the suggestion at the web site that Jesus was 'rained' out of the sky, not born of woman at all but came directly from father God, the sun. That's an idea so ridiculous no one would ever believe it. The virgin Mary becoming pregnant without having sex at all is very believable. Don't you think? Faith moves mountains of lies, turns them into absolute truths.

God created Adam and Eve as adults. They did not go through puberty. All the eye witnesses say that and they are all respectable.

B'Gone...

What? No link? lol

"According to the Bible, the first man and woman, once united in marriage, were naked before God, and not ashamed. There was no shame in their nakedness nor in the fulfillment of their sexual gift." --- Mohler

I don't think you can assume that there was sex in the Garden. There were no children listed as born in the Garden. In fact, the way it's worded, I could make out a case for the "fall" being puberty.

I could make out a case for the time in the Garden being childhood, a time of innocence before sexuality starts.

Sex is sacred to some religions and a sin to others because all religions are confidence scams. The key ingredient in the con, (short for confidence scam) is FAITH.

Faith is never in anyone or anything other than the con man who uses a distraction, "faith in God" to pull off the scam. Did people got to Billy Graham's crusades to see God or Billy? Did the money president 'W' put on Billy Graham's plate go to God or Billy? Religion is the poorest of places to find morality, sexual or otherwise.

Felicity:

You are 100% right. How dare you bring legitimate questions and common sense to these boards.

Can't you see we are here to argue about the unknowable.

"Let the Eagles soar...."

Scott Adams:

Do you want me to copy the web site to here?

Just one: He shows that the author of Revelation used at least two documents for information obtained by way of 'hallucinations', divine revelation.

1. The ancient Egyptian book of the dead has the ONLY written reference to the "second death."

2. The ancient "map of the universe" shows all the places mentioned that come into play at 'rapture time' including showing stars as tiny little 'firefly size' living creatures, the flat earth, the abyss, and more. Is there a "shaft" from the surface of the earth to the abyss?

You would convict and sentence to death anyone with that kind of evidence accused of killing a cop were you on the jury. And to cap it all off he says the above two are NOT the proof the Bible is a hoax, just Revelation. Proving a literary hoax has a convention, showing that the author(s) used information from other writings and misrepresented them. That's done in outline form on page 2 "proof" at the site for the CRITICAL part of the Bible, (Moses speaking to God and Jesus dying on the cross to mention a couple).

The Bible is NOW a PROVED hoax. It wasn't expected to ever happen, so it will take a little getting used to. The sooner one starts the sooner one is relieved, God isn't as dumb as the Bible and those that slop at the altar make God.

Egypt was a mystery, no one knew anything about it until the 18th century. That's why this is so long coming. Until the time of Napaleon no European knew anything about Egypt.

I hope this answers your question of me. The Bible is not a valid source for anything, especially human sexual protocol.

Why do I think some religions regard sex as sacred while others regard it as a sin? That question is beyond vague. I doubt there's a religion around that declares sex to be a sin - within the confines of marriage, that is. Why it's a sin when indulged in without marriage probably has nothing to do with sex but a lot to do with the possible results of the sex - like kids, which the state doesn't want to end up having to house, feed and clothe.

A more interesting question is why is the exposure of uncovered human body parts such an anathema in some religions, main-line primarily, and so hohum in others. (We had an attorney-general who demanded a statue's naked breast be covered: We harbor a university that demands coeds wear skirts down to their feet.) Apparently, body parts titillate and titillation leads right to the bedroom? We were created naked, weren't we?

It's more than peculiar that God means us to spend out lives having to fight the sex demons because of a drive which He gave us in the first place. Go figure. (In American culture, foreinstance, sex is one of the biggest money makers around - thus we're bombarded with it - at the same time as we're preaching abstinence to our kids. Talk about a confusing message.)

"According to the Bible, the first man and woman, once united in marriage,"

WAAAAAIIIIIT a minute....when did GOD "MARRY" A&E?

UH, uh....nope.

Show us WHERE in the written Bible it says God 'MARRIED' Adam to Eve.

"We may, for example, make sex an object of worship or denigrate it as inherently sinful. It is neither, of course -- but it takes a revealed instruction from God to make this known."

AND WHO IS GOING TO DO THAT 'REVEALING'? Let me guesss....hmmmmmm.....

Male
Organized Religion Zealot

Look in the mirror, there, sir.
What do you see?
Nothing like god, to you or to me.
Who is that person?
What do they want?
Where do they get that ego to taunt
When do they grow? (It's an option, you know)
How do we reveal these slaves of Ego?

1st Peter 2 (NIV):

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Where are my slaves???? I want some slaves!!! My authority over my slaves comes from God!!! How dare Abraham Lincoln!!!

JESUS: The original "Liberal Jew"

This thread sure is interesting.......makes me think. Oh yea, the Bible may not be a hoax, but it may also not be the Word of God. The Bible is a political manifesto, desined to manipulate the masses into a false sense of security. The stories in the Bible either contradict each other, were borrowd from other cultures, or entirely made up to scare people(Revelations was made up to basically scare Nero). Sex is not something to be taken lightly, nor is it to be feared. Tread carefully. As with anything that brings great joy, there is also great sadness.
Marriage is no longer about love anymore, it seems people are getting married just to get married. How is sex so sacred in marriage if marriage is treated as a fad?

BGONE says:

"Sex is a gift that comes with rules"

Just one tiny problem, your source. The Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org just in case. We know that hoaxes are done to con people into believing that which is not so.

Perhaps sex is a gift. Without some form of rules sex would stand alone among the games people play. Thus one must agree with you on those points.

Could you please supply some evidence beyond that garnered from a proved bogus document, the Bible. It's riddled with passages that say you're wrong? I'm afraid I agree with you but your source doesn't. Preplexing.

I would like to ask you one question: Have you taken the time to really read this website that you so frequently use? Have you taken the time to study rather than just accept someone else's viewpoint. I know this is the case for most Christians and non-Christians alike. I want you to give me some solid evidence that the Bible is a hoax aside from this website. Without that any evidence or claim that you have is bogus and without merit.

I will pray that if you do not know the Savior, that He will bring you to that realization of your need of Him.

I would be interested to read your response. I hope that you do not see this as a condescending reply...I just want to know if you are thinking these things through.

Yes it does come with rules.

PERSONAL rules and rules of LAW.

Fantasy religions need not get involved.

Mr. Mohler,

You describe your interpretation of the sexual opinions of a tribe of bronze age goat-herders, taken from an English translation of some Greek and Masoretic Hebrew texts, themselves compilations of stories and letters written at various times and places.

Why should I care? While the sexual adventures of primitive man may be interesting, what relevance does your fetish for these murderous and rape-filled myths have to me? You seem to believe that your personal beliefs about sex should apply to everyone. Where does that kind of arrogance come from?

"Sex is a gift that comes with rules"

Just one tiny problem, your source. The Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org just in case. We know that hoaxes are done to con people into believing that which is not so.

Perhaps sex is a gift. Without some form of rules sex would stand alone among the games people play. Thus one must agree with you on those points.

Could you please supply some evidence beyond that garnered from a proved bogus document, the Bible. It's riddled with passages that say you're wrong? I'm afraid I agree with you but your source doesn't. Preplexing.

Thank you Dr. Mohler for a concise rendering of Biblical truth.

It is amazing to me that those who have not been born again by the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross continue to take passages of scripture and try to tell Christians what they mean and how we are in error. The Bible is clear that the things of God are spiritually discerned. So unless the Holy Spirit dwells within, there is no understanding!

For Ba'al,

You quoted Ezekiel 16:49, but if you had read one verse further, you would have seen that the Bible also speaks of the abominations committed by those in Sodom.

Abominations & things that are abominable sound very similar to the words used in Leviticus which say that "if a man lies with a man, he commits an Abomination and shall be put to death." So you see, Ezekiel 16 does NOT teach what you wish it would teach, for it clearly implies that Homosexuality is an abomination.

Andrew,

"Everything changed when I met my wife. Rules had nothing to do with it. Just 35 years of a kind of joy that I almost certainly don't deserve."

So there's a rule (even if its self-imposed) isn't there implicit in your devotion to your wife? That you won't look at anyone else?

Rom 2:14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
Rom 2:15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

I'd say it takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in Christ.

Hope you meet Him. You'll know then its HE who kept you faithful for 35 years to your wife.

A clear presentation, which is always a relief amidst all of the misunderstanding about the actual biblical message about sex.

(Forgive my earlier typos, while I have the chance to apologize. I was hurried...)

When I insisted that one might READ the bible for clear understanding of God's revealed will concerning sexual relationships and violations thereof, I didn't take into consideration that there are even STILL those who read the word and distort original intent of the writers and contextual implications. So, reading it (assuming one has little antagonism toward it) should be clear, however it is also abundantly clear how easily it has been manipulated to mean any number of things to suit the culture at the time.

Given all this talk about rules and consequences, it is so important to realize that God is such a merciful, gracious God to give us His son to redeem even the most shameful sins, most of which I am guilty of times 10. The gospel is one of redemption for all who release self-control and actualization for no esteem of self but the gloriy of Christ in us. The most marvelous thing happens in that...the sins committed, time lost,tears shed, all of it can be covered by Christ's sacrifice. Amazing. That's MY personal experience...hehe.

We really need to get a handle on the sexuality issue. We must understand how crucial these issues are in relation to the credibility and authority of scripture. Sex IS important given its relationship to marriage, God's spirit in us, us in Christ, Christ in God...unio mystica! It is neither an idol nor sin within proper context.

Great synopsis, Dr. Mohler.

Ba'al,change "GOD'S approval" to GOD'S mercy,in your second sentence.They did not deserve mercy,they probably did not even ask for it.But their Uncle Abraham interceded on their behalf to the LORD there by the terebinth trees "Gen.18".For this reason they were spared.
Also in Ch.14 Abram rescued Lot from that nasty little conflict Lot's home town boys got themselves into.
As for the Ammonites,Moabites,they did grow as a people.They also grew to become Israel's farily constant enemies.
Concerning the Jewish communities amusement in measuring the Moabites ancestry.Perhaps GOD also was amused as Ruth the Moabitess took her place in CHRISTS genealogy.As we measure,so are we measured.

Dr. Mohler, another excellent and concise summation of the biblical position. The gift of sexual union is an act of God's graciousness to undeserving sinners like me who not only warrant God's immediate judgment but should never experience one moment of pleasure. What a gracious God that He gives us pleasures. But these are trifles compared to the pleasures of the Cross! Pleasures forevermore.

BARRY: There's picture writing showing what's going to happen to BA'AL at http://www.hoax-buster.org Satan is going to accuse BA'AL of fornicating and BA'AL either denies and the lie detector will catch him or BA'AL can be truthful. In either case BA'AL get's fed to the monster Eater and taken completely out of existence. If that don't bring BA'AL to the confessional and get that sin forgiven BA'Al will, as you note, be punished.

By the way, have you found the other source of "second death" that is referred to in Revelation yet? Surely Revelation author wasn't looking at that same picture writing and could make out a little of the scripting as well. It's a shame he couldn't spell the whole name, Amenophis and had to shorten it to "Amen the faithful and true witness."

Thanks again Dr. Mohler. I agree with your posting. God created the form of procreation for humankind. It was just like God to make it a pleasing experience. God also created the context of this experience and that is within the "rules" or context of marriage. Pure and simple.

Ba'al,

Just because God doesn't punish you for your sin immediately doesn't mean you will be exempt later. Unless of course you repent of your sins and believe in Christ who is the one and only source for salvation of those sins.

The Bible is fuul of people who make bad decisions sexually. King David was an adulterer (and a murderer). Abraham claimed his wife was his sister.

These people all suffered consequences just as you or I will, sooner or later, one way or another, when we disobey God.

Thanks, Dr. Mohler! I agree with you completely, and my husband and I have both lived by these boundries with no regrets and much joy. The only advice that I give to young Christians and others who believe in abstinence is to not marry too quickly. Even though it's not the majority, I have seen a few too many of my friends who also abstained until marraige marry too quickly and end up divorced within a year or two. Some marry quickly and end up just fine, I know, but it's just my word of realistic caution. Lust is too often confused with love in every religion, culture, and age group.

Andrew,

"I confess: I am truly one of the evil ones: a rich, white, Ivy educated, straight, atheist male. It really can't be worse than that."

Yes, Andrew, it can: You might have been gay.

Dr. Mohler's entire post is accurate and insightful. However, this part of the post really caught my eye:
"Thus, humans are the only creatures to reflect on the meaning of sex in literature, poetry, and moral debates --- or in a forum like this."

Human beings have a choice. Do we choose to be human and glorify the God Who made us, or do we choose to be animals? Because we have that choice. Alone among all of creation, human beings have the choice to rise above our mere instincts and aspire to something more.

The libertines among us are encouraging us to behave like animals. According to them, we should have sex whenever and however it pleases us, with whoever might be willing to join the fun. Cats do it, dogs do it, horses do it ... but should humans do it?

We will never reach our potential as human beings unless we are willing to act like human beings. Acting like human beings requires us to make choices and -- on occasion -- to deny our instincts. Thankfully, God gave us the blueprint to follow in His Word.

Ba'al,
The Bible is filled with imperfect, fallible humans who are undeservedly blessed by God. Take Paul for example, who murdered Christians for a living before God converted him into the greatest ambassador for the gospel that the world has ever known. Ultimately the Bible is about God's grace given to undeserving sinners, which is why we Christians embrace it with such fervor. God's main message is that all of life is about Him and his greatness, not about us and what we do or don't do.

Andrew,
You seem to find virtue in the fact that you have remained faithful to your wife these 35 years. (BTW, I too find that wonderful.) But my question to you is why? If there are no rules, then why do you remain faithful to your wife?

Trent

First, what makes you think I have not read the entire Bible?

Second, is not God's approval of Lot and his daughters to be ascertained from the Bible because (1) God did not destroy them as he did all of Sodom and Gomorrah, including Lot's wife, and (2) Lot even thrived to the extent that the children he had with his daughters were the fathers of entire tribes -- much as the children of Jacob became the tribes of Israel?

Or are we to interpret this story as an allegory? (Perhaps this was a way for the Judean redactors of these stories to poke fun at their Moabite neighbors by making them the children of an incestuous union?)

Mr. Mohler clearly does not think anything in Genesis is an allegory. His writings here and elsewhere indicate that he takes it as literal truth.

It seems to me that Christians like to pick and choose among their scriptures. But when other people do it they get touchy.

Well said! Thanks for the contribution, Dr. Mohler.

It would be interesting to ask all those women that Andrew had sex with 35 years ago who were "willing and female" how they are doing today. I have a sense all the roosters that were coming home to roost on their lives psychologically as an outgrowth of those kind of interactions, hadn't revealed themselves 35 years ago. Perhaps another man (like Andrew) interacting with Andrew's own daughters in the same fashion in today's world of HPV, HIV, and other STDs, along with the additional risk of unwanted pregnancy might drive the point home. It seems the simple things in life often confuse the wise.

Dr Mohler put very clearly the teaching of sex in the Bible. Don't have to explain further.

My advice for the poster, who quoted Lot's story from Genesis, is to read the entire Bible, not to take out a text out of context. The Bible says clearly all these things (whether bad or good) written for our instruction, correction, reproof, and learning. Another poster says he "has grown in wisdom." Proverb says, "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom." When you fear God all rules fall in line.Then you realize that your so-called "past and present experiences" and "wisdom" are all false in light of God's wisdom.

It is interesting to me how many of you here cite experiences contrary to what the Christian position is on sex, directly from the bible, to "prove" your point. It is a false assumption that because someone experiences a partitular sexual diviation within life (past or present) that its mere existence somehow disproves, invalidates or ruins any Christian's theology. The bible (if simply READ) is replete with examples of misuse of sexual relationship relegated to the marriage bed BY God. A true believer of Jesus Christ will adhere to both testaments which admonish the same, as even Jesus declared that marriage was between a man and woman as written in Genesis. For the poster who acknowledged his relationship to his wife and his atheism, alongside his past relationships with other women: it matters little what anyone's particular experience IS. To the Christian, the bible is and always will be the truth and we believe that the law is written on the hearts of all men, whether or not they choose to obey it (and it is clear that many do not accept Christianity or the bible as truth.) Again, it is a faulty argument to hold out one's "experience" in the face of perceived objective truth, as if it somehow destroys the "rule." There are plenty of "rule breakers" in society who never get "caught."

Well put, Dr. Mohler!

DEAR SIR, AS I HAVE AGED, I WOULD LIKE TO THINK I HAVE GROWN IN WISDOM. ONLY THROUGH WISDOM WILL I KNOW AND THEREIN LIES THE DILEMMA..
YOU SPEAK WISELY OF RULES, BUT NOT ALL PEOPLE PLAY BY THE SAME RULES SO RULE ONE SHOULD BE GROUND RULES. WE SHOULD BE HONEST AND UPFRONT AS TO HOW WE VIEW OUR OWN SEXUALITY. CERTAINLY A PRIVATE CONVERSATION BUT ONE THAT SHOULD NOT CARRY WITH IT ANY IMMEDIATE EXPECTATIONS. FOR THAT REASON, PERHAPS IT WOULD BE BEST TO DISCUSS IN A GROUP OF FRIENDS...AS ADULTS...THE PROBLEM THEN ARISES THAT CHILDREN MATURE QUICKLY PHYSICALLY SO WE GO BACK TO THE GROUND RULES OF THE PARENTS. BEFORE I GET LOST IN THOUGHT HERE ARE MY OWN. MAKE CERTAIN YOU PLAY BY THE SAME RULES SERIOUS LONG TERM FRIENDSHIPS WITH PRIVILEGES REPRESENT A SACRED TRUST IN ANOTHER. DO NOT VIOLATE THAT TRUST UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES AND IF YOU CONSIDER DISSOLVING ONE FOR ANOTHER, THE TRANSITION SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A TIME ORIENTED GOAL OF CELIBACY TO INSURE CLEAR, REASONED, AND RESPECTFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE HEARTS INVOLVED. UNLESS THERE IS A NEED TO REPOPULATE GENERATIONS QUICKLY, MONOGAMY IS PREFERRED SINCE THE WORLD IS ALREADY GETTING CROWDED. IN SOME CASES LIKE DUBYA, THE OFF-SPRING SHOULD BE EVALUATED TO INSURE THEY TAKE AFTER THE SMART MOTHER INSTEAD OF THE DUMB A$$ FATHER...EXCUSE MY POLITICAL LEANINGS, BUT WE ARE IN CRITICAL TIMES AND THIS SEX LESSON WAS A WORTHLESS GAMBLE BASED UPON OLD INTELLIGENCE. ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS HA HA HA COW!!! WHO IS SORRY NOW? NOT ME, FOR MY MIND, HEART, AND SOUL ARE CLEAN. AND THE FAT BETWEEN CHENEY'S EARS HAS NOW BECOME LEAN. AKA MEAT HOLE IN HIS EAR!!! OH DEAR OH DEAR!!! CHUCKLES...SORRY...BUT WE LIVE IN THE WORLD AND RULES MUST BE FLEXIBLE TO ADAPT TO THE REALITIES ON THE GROUND. PLEASE NOTE I SAYD FLEXIBLE FOR GOD'S RULES WERE NEVER MADE TO BE BENT NOR BROKEN. GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I HOPE I HAVE NOT OFFENDED YOU OR YOUR READERS.AMEN

I really wish critics (the copy + paste commandos) would do themselves a favor and read the entire Bible for themselves. If they did, they would learn that just because something is present in the Bible (someone telling a lie, for example) doesn't confer God's approval on the matter.

Back to the subject at hand, I found Dr. Mohler's answer on this subject to be both insightful and surprisingly brief considering the length of some of his other responses. Nonetheless, he hits the nail on the head on all points here.

Gen.19:15,16-Shows us that Lot his wife and two daughters literally had to be pulled away from Sodom.They were not eager to leave the hood and its values.
After reading Ba'als scripture references it appears Lots' family were true citizens of Sodom.
They got out of Sodom,but Sodom did not get out of them.

Fundamentalist Christians like Al Mohler like to rant about Sodomites in their midst. So it's interesting that Genesis says very little about what the the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were doing that was sinful. The Sodomites do seem to want to "know" the two angels who visited Lot, so Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead, which seems to have been acceptable in the eyes of the Lord, since Lot went on to father two distinct peoples (as noted above).

Therefore it is worth calling attention to Ezekiel 16:49 "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.' Not much about sex there but it does sound like a pretty good description of the right wing politics that Mr. Mohler supports as much as he can.

These guys seem to get most of what they think about sex from the Book of Genesis. It is interesting that they take it literally.

So Reverend Mohler, what about Lot and his daughters? A fine family values story from the same book. What are we to make of it? Indeed, what will we tell the children?

19:30 And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar: and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.
19:31 And the firstborn said unto the younger, Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth:
19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:33 And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:34 And it came to pass on the morrow, that the firstborn said unto the younger, Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.
19:35 And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose.
19:36 Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.
19:37 And the first born bare a son, and called his name Moab: the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day.
19:38 And the younger, she also bare a son, and called his name Benammi: the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.

I really love the rules thing. I do. I confess: I am one of the truly evil ones: a rich, white, Ivy educated, straight, atheist male. It really can't be worse than that. Yet, somehow, I have been married and faithful to the same spectacular woman for 35 years. I have already exchanged pledges with her three times, and I would do it again tomorrow.

BUT, before I became involved with my wife, I had sex with everything that was willing and female. Am I proud of that? No. Am I ashamed of any of that? No. Did I or do I care one wit for rules? No. Was it at all gratifying? Sometimes. Everything changed when I met my wife. Rules had nothing to do with it. Just 35 years of a kind of joy that I almost certainly don't deserve.

Dr. Mohler,

I'm sorry for you. Your words have only constructed a complete fantasyland, which has nothing to do with human or divine reality.

May God bless you and protect you, lost as you are in your in your self-created intellectual wasteland.

succinctly well put.

Another popular deception is that only recently have we understood sex well enough to put the proper moral boundaries (usually none) around it. It was here on day one, properly bounded with numerous specific directives in Exodus and Leviticus, and specifically taught again to the church by Jesus and Paul. Our "modern view" of sexuality would teach nothing to the old fashioned Corinthians who did everything we do now and then some. Paul correctly points out that this behavior is inconsistent with the church even though some in the church once did those things.
The most telling deception is that many believe it's so impossible to control themselves that it just must be the way they are made - and hence be right after all. This logic does not apply to other commandments though... The freedom in we can have in Christ means we can use his power to control ourselves, no matter how hard we think it may be - and, admittedly some sins do seem harder than others. Still, they've all been paid for.