# I am mad this morning



## Randy (Mar 13, 2007)

Where are the Christians stadning up in defense of this General that has stated that adultry and homosexuality in our armed services is wrong and immoral.  He is being dragged through the mud because of his statements and views all over the news and not one christian has stood up behind him that I have seen.

Well I for one am glad he said it and has the guts to stand up for what is moral and right in or country.

We let these people in and stay in with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and they still will not stop pushing their agenda.


----------



## Eshad (Mar 13, 2007)

I heard that also this morning Randy, and I support him fully!  It is very refreshing to hear a top figure stand for what is right, and call it for what it is: wrong!


----------



## addictedtodeer (Mar 13, 2007)

Randy said:


> Where are the Christians stadning up in defense of this General that has stated that adultry and homosexuality in our armed services is wrong and immoral.  He is being dragged through the mud because of his statements and views all over the news and not one christian has stood up behind him that I have seen.
> 
> Well I for one am glad he said it and has the guts to stand up for what is moral and right in or country.
> 
> We let these people in and stay in with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and they still will not stop pushing their agenda.



Amen!


----------



## Sharpshooter (Mar 13, 2007)

Preach on Brother Randy!


----------



## PWalls (Mar 13, 2007)

Where's the link. That would be awesome and I would support him wholeheartedly.


----------



## Lead Poison (Mar 13, 2007)

Eshad said:


> I heard that also this morning Randy, and I support him fully!  It is very refreshing to hear a top figure stand for what is right, and call it for what it is: wrong!


----------



## BuckyD (Mar 13, 2007)

*Let Me tell you...*

The "Immoral" Alliance has demanded and apology.. He told them to pound Salt... 

Yahoo link to video

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070313...ary_gays_12;_ylt=AhbYjcloTQDma70OZHy7h11sbEwB


----------



## Foxfire (Mar 13, 2007)

Send letters to your Congressman /woman and Church leaders.  

Foxfire/Y2KZ71


----------



## FishFanatic (Mar 13, 2007)

I totally agree.  I found it pretty unbelievable the response this interview brought on.  He is not pushing to ban gays from the military or anything.  He merely stated that he thought homosexuality is immoral.  Amazing the reaction this set off.


----------



## PWalls (Mar 13, 2007)

Thanks for the link.

And, good for him. Way to stand up for his views.


----------



## No. GA. Mt. Man (Mar 13, 2007)

I couldn't agree more Randy.


----------



## leroy (Mar 13, 2007)

FishFanatic said:


> I totally agree.  I found it pretty unbelievable the response this interview brought on.  He is not pushing to ban gays from the military or anything.  He merely stated that he thought homosexuality is immoral.  Amazing the reaction this set off.



But thats how it is now if you take a stand saying its wrong your a homophobic or a biggot. Thats the sad direction our country is going and it is only going to get worse


----------



## elfiii (Mar 13, 2007)

Randy said:


> Well I for one am glad he said it and has the guts to stand up for what is moral and right in or country.



I'm with ya'!


----------



## ssmith (Mar 14, 2007)

Stand up and be counted-AFA-American Family Association has a article on it and a way to send a e mail to the president-just did that this morning-time to make our voices heard


----------



## Eshad (Mar 14, 2007)

ssmith said:


> Stand up and be counted-AFA-American Family Association has a article on it and a way to send a e mail to the president-just did that this morning-time to make our voices heard




Participated this morning!


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

leroy said:


> But thats how it is now if you take a stand saying its wrong your a homophobic or a biggot.


If you take the stand that someone who is not like you is inferior to you or does not deserve equal treatment because of that difference, you're a bigot.  Tough.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> If you take the stand that someone who is not like you is inferior to you or does not deserve equal treatment because of that difference, you're a bigot.  Tough.



Not if what that person is doing is wrong or immoral.  Murders, theives, adulters, homosexuals as are many others are  immoral and we should not be expected to put up with this immorallity.  That is what this General said.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

What about rapists?  Are they immoral?  The same book you quote to declare homosexuals immoral also states that unbetrothed female virgins who are victims of rape must marry their rapists.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> What about rapists?  Are they immoral?  The same book you quote to declare homosexuals immoral also states that unbetrothed female virgins who are victims of rape must marry their rapists.



Scripture please?

But yes rapists are also immoral.


----------



## dixie (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> Where are the Christians stadning up in defense of this General that has stated that adultry and homosexuality in our armed services is wrong and immoral.  He is being dragged through the mud because of his statements and views all over the news and not one christian has stood up behind him that I have seen.
> 
> Well I for one am glad he said it and has the guts to stand up for what is moral and right in or country.
> 
> We let these people in and stay in with the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy and they still will not stop pushing their agenda.



Randy, I believe the support for him is there but, as usual, the far lefts propaganda machines refuse to report it.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

Dixie,
That may be but I do not see it and I use a lot of different types of media, left right and in the middle and I hav seen nothing except for AFA.


----------



## dixie (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> Dixie,
> That may be but I do not see it and I use a lot of different types of media, left right and in the middle and I hav seen nothing except for AFA.



Thats my point Randy, the support won't be reported but the support for the left will be


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> Scripture please?





			
				Deuteronomy said:
			
		

> 28  If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
> 
> 29  then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.





Randy said:


> But yes rapists are also immoral.


I would agree yet it would appear from above that God takes a different view when the victim is a virgin not yet betrothed.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SOTMD,
A little reading for you.  This is how people misread the Bible some times.

Some Muslims claim that the following passage from the Holy Bible condones rape:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives." Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

At first glance this passage does seem to condone rape. That is, until one takes a careful look at the context as well as the original languages. We must remember that the Holy Bible was not written in English. The OT was written in Hebrew, with parts of it written in Aramaic. The NT was written in Koine or common Greek. This means that if we want to know whether an English translation has faithfully and accurately translated the inspired author's intended meaning we must turn to the original language of the sacred text. Once this is done, it will become quite apparent that the Holy Bible does not sanction rape at all.

In the first place, the word which the NIV translates as rape comes from two Hebrew words, taphas and shakab. Here are the meanings listed by the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon in reference to these two words:

taphas - 

# 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield 

a) (Qal) 
1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully 
b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands) 

AV - take 27, taken 12, handle 8, hold 8, catch 4, surprised 2, misc 4; 65
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

Here is one example of how this word is used:

"The priests did not ask, ‘Where is the LORD?’ Those who deal (taphas) with the law did not know me; the leaders rebelled against me. The prophets prophesied by Baal, following worthless idols." Jeremiah 2:8


shakab - 

# 07901
1) to lie down 

a) (Qal) 
1) to lie, lie down, lie on
2) to lodge
3) to lie (of sexual relations)
4) to lie down (in death)
5) to rest, relax (fig) 
b) (Niphal) to be lain with (sexually)
c) (Pual) to be lain with (sexually)
d) (Hiphil) to make to lie down
e) (Hophal) to be laid 

AV - lie 106, sleep 48, lie down 43, rest 3, lien 2, misc 10; 212
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As Brown-Driver-Briggs demonstrates, the word can be used in relation to sexual intercourse as well as for other things. The following examples help demonstrate that shakab does not necessarily imply a forced sexual act:

"And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘If any man's wife goes astray and behaves unfaithfully toward him, and a man lies (shakab) with her carnally, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and it is concealed that she has defiled herself, and there was no witness against her, nor was she caught—" Numbers 5:11-13 NKJV

Here, the word shakab refers to a voluntary sexual act between two consenting parties, in this case to a woman who voluntarily chooses to commit adultery. It is clear that the woman in question wasn't forced into having sex. Again:

"If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening." Leviticus 15:18

These examples clearly demonstrate that these terms do not in and of themselves necessarily imply that rape is in view. This is reflected in the way Deuteronomy 22 has been translated by the following translations:

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Now someone may want to argue that the preceding examples do not combine the two words together as is the case with Deuteronomy 22. Hence, the use of the word taphas in conjunction with shakab in Deuteronomy implies that the sexual act was forced upon the maiden without her consent. A careful reading of both the passage itself, as well as its surrounding context, dispels such a notion. We quote the passage again, yet this time adding the surrounding context for further clarification:

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

Although vv. 25-27 refers to a woman that is betrothed, the point is still clear. By screaming, the woman indicates that she is being forced to have sex without her consent. Hence, when the woman does not scream this indicates that she willfully chose to engage in the sexual act with the man. This is further seen from vv. 28-29 where both the man and the woman are held accountable, i.e. "and THEY ARE found out." This is unlike the woman of vv. 25-27 who is said to be not guilty.

Also notice that in v. 25 a different word is used when signifying rape, namely chazaq. If the inspired author wanted to imply that the woman in vv. 28-29 was being raped, he could have used this same word chazaq; especially since this is the word he uses in the preceding verses to refer to an actual rape incident. The fact that he didn't use it should further caution us from reading rape into vv. 28-29.

This is supported by other OT passages. In the places where rape is mentioned none of them use the word taphas. The words chazaq and anah are used:

"Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized (laqach) her and lay (shakab) with her and humiliated (anah) her. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, ‘Get me this girl for my wife.’ Now Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. But his sons were with his livestock in the field, so Jacob held his peace until they came. And Hamor the father of Shechem went out to Jacob to speak with him. The sons of Jacob had come in from the field as soon as they heard of it, and the men were indignant and very angry, because he had done an outrageous thing (n’balah) in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter, for such a thing must not be done." Genesis 34:1-7 ESV

And:

"Then Amnon said to Tamar, ‘Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand.’ And Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them into the chamber to Amnon her brother. But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, ‘Come, lie with me, my sister.’ She answered him, ‘No, my brother, do not violate (anah) me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing (n’balah). As for me, where could I carry my shame? And as for you, you would be as one of the outrageous fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.’ But he would not listen to her, and being stronger (chazaq) than she, he violated (anah) her and lay (shakab) with her. Then Amnon hated her with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, ‘Get up! Go!’ But she said to him, ‘No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.’ But he would not listen to her. He called the young man who served him and said, "Put this woman out of my presence and bolt the door after her.’ Now she was wearing a long robe with sleeves, for thus were the virgin daughters of the king dressed. So his servant put her out and bolted the door after her. And Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the long robe that she wore. And she laid her hand on her head and went away, crying aloud as she went. And her brother Absalom said to her, ‘Has Amnon your brother been with you? Now hold your peace, my sister. He is your brother; do not take this to heart.’ So Tamar lived, a desolate woman, in her brother Absalom's house. When King David heard of all these things, he was very angry. But Absalom spoke to Amnon neither good nor bad, for Absalom hated Amnon, because he had violated (anah) his sister Tamar ... But Jonadab the son of Shimeah, David's brother, said, ‘Let not my lord suppose that they have killed all the young men the king's sons, for Amnon alone is dead. For by the command of Absalom this has been determined from the day he violated (anah) his sister Tamar.’" 2 Samuel 13:10-22, 32 ESV

Notice that neither passage uses the word taphas, providing additional support that this word in of itself doesn’t necessarily imply the use of force. It also demonstrates our point that if the inspired author had rape in view he could have simply used chazaq, or even laqach, since these are the very words he used elsewhere to indicate that a rape had occurred.

The final line of evidence demonstrating that Deuteronomy 22:28 does not condone rape comes from Exodus:

"If a man entices (pathah) a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies (shakab) with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17

Note that in this passage the word pathah is used in place of taphas. Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon defines pathah as:



# 06601
1) to be spacious, be open, be wide 

a) (Qal) to be spacious or open or wide
b) (Hiphil) to make spacious, make open 
2) to be simple, entice, deceive, persuade 
a) (Qal) 
1) to be open-minded, be simple, be naive
2) to be enticed, be deceived 
b) (Niphal) to be deceived, be gullible
c) (Piel) 
1) to persuade, seduce
2) to deceive 
d) (Pual) 
1) to be persuaded
2) to be deceived 

AV - entice 10, deceive 8, persuade 4, flatter 2, allure 1, enlarge 1, silly one 1, silly 1; 28
(Source: Blue Letter Bible)

As can be seen, the word can mean entice, persuade, deceive etc. The following passage uses the word in a slightly similar fashion to that of Exodus, namely how God will allure or draw Israel back to his love:

"‘Therefore I am now going to allure (pathath) her; I will lead her into the desert and speak tenderly to her. There I will give her back her vineyards, and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope. There she will sing as in the days of her youth, as in the day she came up out of Egypt. In that day,’ declares the LORD, ‘you will call me "my husband"; you will no longer call me "my master." I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the LORD.’" Hosea 2:14-20

It is clear from the context that Exodus is referring to a man persuading or enticing a woman into having sex. Hence, this passage lends support to the fact that the woman in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 consented to the sexual act, and wasn't forced into having sex. In other words, there was no rape involved between the man and the woman.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

So The Bible can be misinterpreted, Randy?


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> So The Bible can be misinterpreted, Randy?



Nope.  Mis-read or not understand what you are reading.  That is why the Bible requires a lot of study.  If you try jerking verses out from anywhere you can make them say about anything you want to.  But taken in context and understanding it is a very useful thing!

Those who say there are many interpretations just do not understand what they are reading.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> Nope.  Mis-read or not understand what you are reading.





			
				m-w.com said:
			
		

> misinterpret
> 
> Main Entry: mis·in·ter·pret
> Function: transitive verb
> ...


Talking in circles gets you nowhere, Randy.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Talking in circles gets you nowhere, Randy.



Ahh, but it gets you where you want to be.  You read the Bible and understand it clearly and it is even shown to you over nd over yet you continue to circle the truth in order to continue your ways.  But I am still praying for you.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> Ahh, but it gets you where you want to be.  You read the Bible and understand it clearly and it is even shown to you over nd over yet you continue to circle the truth in order to continue your ways.  But I am still praying for you.


The above paragraph applies to you, as well.

As to your claim that it is not possible to misinterpret The Bible, the simple fact that there are multiple translations in English, and I would think other languages, with often very different wording makes it obvious that it is quite possible to come to different conclusions about what it says.

As for taking things in context, passages used to condemn homosexuality are constantly taken out of context and/or grossly misinterpreted.


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> The above paragraph applies to you, as well.
> 
> As to your claim that it is not possible to misinterpret The Bible, the simple fact that there are multiple translations in English, and I would think other languages, with often very different wording makes it obvious that it is quite possible to come to different conclusions about what it says.
> 
> As for taking things in context, passages used to condemn homosexuality are constantly taken out of context and/or grossly misinterpreted.



So I take it you can show me somewhere the Bible accepts homosexuality?


----------



## Randy (Mar 14, 2007)

There is one thing I find very interesting about the subject.  I admittedly have not been to a "gay" church.  But of all the denominations and religions in this world that have misread the Bible and followed differing ways, I know of not one that agrees that homosexuality is acceptable.  Not even islamics!


----------



## elfiii (Mar 14, 2007)

Randy said:


> There is one thing I find very interesting about the subject.  I admittedly have not been to a "gay" church.  But of all the denominations and religions in this world that have misread the Bible and followed differing ways, I know of not one that agrees that homosexuality is acceptable.  Not even islamics!



Well almost. The Episcopal Church USA has accepted and ordained an openly gay Bishop. I don't go to church much anymore for that reason.


----------



## Headshot (Mar 14, 2007)

Why can't the General speak his mind without such criticism?  (Others influential people can.)  Sen. Harry Reid called the President a loser in front of school children; Sen. Kerry called our soldiers/Marines murderers; Sen. Durbin said we ran terrible prisons in Iraq.  Seems they could express their opinions.  

Doesn't free speech apply to all of our citizens -- especially to a 4-star general?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 14, 2007)

Headshot said:


> Doesn't free speech apply to all of our citizens -- especially to a 4-star general?



Not when the liberal media is involved....

They try there best to brainwash views that their view is the only view...

DB BB


----------



## pnome (Mar 14, 2007)

The bible does not condone homosexuality in any verse that I could ever find.  

It does state plainly that it is a "toevah"  or abomination.

Of course, so is eating a pig.  Why is homosexuality more of a sin than eating pork?  It's no different in the bible.   

I think I'll have some toevah for dinner tonight now that I think about it.


----------



## pnome (Mar 14, 2007)

Headshot said:


> Doesn't free speech apply to all of our citizens -- especially to a 4-star general?



No one arrested him for his statements.  He is free to make them.  Calling this a "free speech" issue is no different than the Dixie Chicks saying their Emmy win was a win for free speech.


----------



## DartonHunter101 (Mar 14, 2007)

pnome said:


> The bible does not condone homosexuality in any verse that I could ever find.
> 
> It does state plainly that it is a "toevah"  or abomination.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree if you are saying God's view on eating pork is the same as his view on homosexuality, and it being the same in his eyes. Perhaps You are reading the bible one verse at a time, and not taking in consideration the whole bible's view on these topics. That is how people  misinterpret  the bible and come to different conclusions, and they all cannot be right. There is only one truth, every version cannot be truth. The bible clearly states that those who practice these things, or approve of them, will not inherit God's kingdom. 1 Cor 6:9-10, Romans 1:24-32. The bible never states that about eating pork will stop you from entering god's kingdom. Lev 11:26 says it will make you unclen, so many other things., but I know of no place God says his view on the specific act of eating pork alone was something detestable to him. It was part of the mosaic law, which was done away with by Jesus death. A lot of the Mosiac law was given to the jews for health reasons, not because of detestablity in God's personal tatse. Homosexuality is something detestable to God. But God's view on homosexuality has not changed. From the begining of the bible to the end. From Lev 18:22 when he laid out the Mosiac law, until  Jude 7. Revalition also shows god is going to hold accountable those that teach homosexuality is ok , Rev 2:14, 2:20.  The only things that where part of the Mosaic laws that are in force today is covered in Acts 21: 20-24.


----------



## pnome (Mar 14, 2007)

DartonHunter101 said:


> I have to disagree if you are saying God's view on eating pork is the same as his view on homosexuality, and it being the same in his eyes. Perhaps You are reading the bible one verse at a time, and not taking in consideration the whole bible's view on these topics. That is how people  misinterpret  the bible and come to different conclusions, and they all cannot be right. There is only one truth, every version cannot be truth. The bible clearly states that those who practice these things, or approve of them, will not inherit God's kingdom. 1 Cor 6:9-10, Romans 1:24-32. The bible never states that about eating pork will stop you from entering god's kingdom. Lev 11:26 says it will make you unclen, so many other things., but I know of no place God says his view on the specific act of eating pork alone was something detestable to him. It was part of the mosaic law, which was done away with by Jesus death. A lot of the Mosiac law was given to the jews for health reasons, not because of detestablity in God's personal tatse. Homosexuality is something detestable to God. But God's view on homosexuality has not changed. From the begining of the bible to the end. From Lev 18:22 when he laid out the Mosiac law, until  Jude 7. Revalition also shows god is going to hold accountable those that teach homosexuality is ok , Rev 2:14, 2:20.  The only things that where part of the Mosaic laws that are in force today is covered in Acts 21: 20-24.




Your Bible-fu is mightier than mine.    That makes sense to me.  Good answer.


----------



## DartonHunter101 (Mar 14, 2007)

any sin is bad, true. But all sin is not equal. Homosexuality is something God detests, God said it, not man. If you practice this sin, homosexuality God said don't be mislead: you will not inherit the kingdom of God.(1Cor 6:9-11). Notice Paul said that is what some of them (1st century christians) were, but they changed, in others words stopped that practice ( homosexuality). People who practice sin willfully  will not inherit the kingdom. God has to determine what willfully is, but if you go around saying homosexuality is ok, and practice it, you are in opposition to god.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 15, 2007)

Help support the General.... Sign this online petition...

http://familypolicy.net/us-a/?p=566

DB BB


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 18, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Help support the General.... Sign this online petition...
> 
> http://familypolicy.net/us-a/?p=566
> 
> DB BB



Please forgive me if I don't.  I'm no more interested in the general's views on homosexuality than I am Tim Hardaway's.  I really don't care what Alec Baldwin or Bruce Willis have to say on it either.  Now if he wanted to share his views on something taxpayers are paying him to handle, then that might be different.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 19, 2007)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Please forgive me if I don't.  I'm no more interested in the general's views on homosexuality than I am Tim Hardaway's.  I really don't care what Alec Baldwin or Bruce Willis have to say on it either.  Now if he wanted to share his views on something taxpayers are paying him to handle, then that might be different.



Your choice.

Pretty sad when we as taxpayers think that homosexuality is just a social issue... and that our taxes don't go to fund social issues right....

DB BB


----------



## FishFanatic (Mar 19, 2007)

Someone posted on here about everyone being entitled to free speech.  The military do not have this right.  As far as I know, there should not be an issue with the comment this general made, but he would not be able to insult the president in public for example.  

Milliondollar makes somewhat of a good point.  This general was not asked to be a spokesperson against homosexuality.  I think he ultimately could have chose a better place or time.  Do I agree with what he said, yes.  Homosexuality is immoral, along with alot of other things.  Should homosexuals be kept from marriage?  My first thought is yes, but does it really matter anymore?  Look at our divorce rate in the U.S.  Look at how much of that rate is due to adultery.  We as a country have defiled God's gift of marriage over and over again.  Why would homosexuals not have as much right to screw up marriage as adulterers?  They are seen in the same light when God looks at them.  The issue is not their transgression, its the fact that they have not come to realize that Christ is the truth.  All the sin is simply details.   Why not put all our efforts into the bigger issue affecting marriage?  Adultery, divorce rate, etc.  Homosexuals trying to get married is a small percentage compared to the bigger issue at hand.  The truth is, we as a society have been conditioned to the "icky" factor.  Homosexuals are more "icky" than adulterers.  Well, I'm a good example of an individual who has a different view of which is more disturbing.  I was cheated on by my wife over fifteen times(that I know of) over the course of four years.   My marriage never had a chance.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 19, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Help support the General.... Sign this online petition...
> 
> http://familypolicy.net/us-a/?p=566
> 
> DB BB



Thanks for the link.  The American Family Association is doing the same.  They have an editorial worth reading:
Liberal media pushing for Gen. Pace’s forced resignation; here's one quote from it:

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth points out that the Pace view is consistent with the writings of the Apostle Paul, who denounced homosexuality as an unrighteous behavior that would keep someone out of heaven.  So if the Post finds what Pace said objectionable, it is also taking issue with the traditional Christian view of homosexuality. *Of course, it's easier for the Post to write an editorial denouncing Pace than attacking a disciple of Jesus Christ who doesn't serve in the Bush Administration.*


----------



## THREEJAYS (Mar 20, 2007)

A sign of the times I'm afraid


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 20, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> The next thing they will want to do is adopt children and expose them to the perversion.


 

sad thing is they already can, just look at rosie...

It sure looks as though the end is very near...

DB BB


----------



## jason8047 (Mar 21, 2007)

I think I have to disagree with what was said earlier about all sin not being equal.  I believe that all sin is equal in Gods eyes.  God will not tolerate any sin.  This being said, I do think different sins effect you differently.  I guess it would be better to say that in life the sin is equal but the earthly consequenses are not.  If you rob the gas station on the corner its a sin and you'll go to jail if you get caught.  Go and murder some innocent children in Texas and you're probably gonna die.  Both sins are just sin in Gods eyes because he can forgive you of either, this depends on you, but your worldly sentence will be different.  Back to the subject at hand.  I deal with the problem of homosexuality every day.  I know many gay people and it really bothers me because I know that its wrong and I know that they know its wrong too.  I see about 5 women that are gay on a regular basis and 2 of these on a daily basis.  I love all of them to death but it really bothers me that they justify their actions somehow when they know that they are really wrong.  I feel if I preach to them about it theyre gonna get mad but if I dont Im in the wrong, but should I preach to them what they already know???I just am at total loss when it comes to this.  I dont feel that I am the Christian I should be because I still love all of these people and consider them my friends and dont continually let them know how wrong they are living.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

jason8047 said:


> I deal with the problem of homosexuality every day.  I know many gay people and it really bothers me because I know that its wrong and I know that they know its wrong too.


How do you know, "they know its wrong too?"

I know plenty of homosexuals and not one of them thinks it's wrong.  I'd say more but I'm tired of all the lies, half-truths, distortions and outright hatred against homosexuals.  The only place in The Bible where it is possibly forbidden is the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  You can't just pick-and-choose which of those laws you think are still relevent, though.  Either they all are and people who wear cotton-poly blend clothing and shop on Sunday are in big trouble, or they have been replaced by the Commandments as stated by Christ:  Love God and love each other.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> I think that Georgia at one time had laws against sodomy. We have laws that are suppost to protect us from thiefs, murdereres, and other types of lawlessness. If we do away with the laws that protect us, what will be the latter outcome? What kind of future will our children have?


So you need a law to _protect_ you from any sexual activity other than the kind that directly makes babies?  I'm not going to get graphic but you know what I mean.  If those laws were enforced evenly across the board, I would guess that probably 85 to 95% of the adult population in this state would be in jail.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 21, 2007)

SOTMD,

Homosexuality goes against Nature itself, if that isn't enough to tell people it is wrong than, only the good Lord can confict Homosexuals of the Sin they are committing....

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Homosexuality goes against Nature itself, if that isn't enough to tell people it is wrong than, only the good Lord can confict Homosexuals of the Sin they are committing....


Please kindly go inform all the non-human animals that engage in homosexual activity that they should just stop it because it's "not natural" and they're not going to go to Heaven if they don't.

Next, please get rid of your car, move out of your house and back into a cave and stop going to the store when you need something.  If cars, houses and stores were "natural," the God Lord would have provided them from the beginning.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 21, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Please kindly go inform all the non-human animals that engage in homosexual activity that they should just stop it because it's "not natural" and they're going to go to ImadummyImadummyImadummyImadummy.



I knew you wouldn't get the statement....

I shouldn't even bother with trying to talk with you, unless God conficts you of your Homosexual beliefs then you will never see the light....

DB BB


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 21, 2007)

Here we go again.  When will people finally understand that the Bible was written for its time.  Can anyone please explain to me why the person who sleeps with your daughter owes you money, as in 50 Shekels?  *During the time that the Bible was written, women were considered property.*  Why else would you have to pay the father?  You would not pay the father in this day and time.  Can anyone please tell me why this part of the scripture mentioned earlier was not discussed?  We talked about the RAPe portion of this scripture, but no mention of the fact that the father would be given a payment for the loss of his daughters virginity.  What about the daughter?  Does she not count?  Well, there is your answer.  Ofcourse she does not count, she was considered property.

In addition, for all you people who consider HOMOSEXUALS inmorral.  Please answer me just one question.  If you are an honest person, I already know your answer.  *On what day did you decide to be attracted to the opposite sex?  I am looking for a day/month/year.*  This had to be a day that you remember, because it was such a huge decision.  Do I like girls, and be considered normal, or do I like boys, and have my parents and everyone I know hate me.  Or, is this a decision that I make daily.  If it is a choice, I should be able to change it tomorrow.  Think about it,for all of you heterosexuals, could you become gay tomorrow?  If you believe that you make this choice, then just do it for one day.  Guess what, you can't.  You are born that way.

Does I agree with the practicve of homosexuality, *NO.  The act is the choice, the feelings are not, just as our heterosexual feelings were not our choice.

Please, please, prove to me that you could become a homosexual tomorrow morning, if you wanted to.  Don't try to get smart and tell me that you could have gay sex tomorrow.  Yes, you could, but would it be pleasurable, NO.*


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I knew you wouldn't get the statement....
> 
> I shouldn't even bother with trying to talk with you, unless God conficts you of your Homosexual beliefs then you will never see the light....
> 
> DB BB


You say homosexuality is unnatural.  I point out that it exists throughout the animal kingdom.  You counter that you knew I wouldn't get it.  Therefore, the existence of something throughout nature in no way means that it's natural?  Brilliant.

What about left-handedness?  Is it natural?  After all, a very small percentage of the population is left-handed.

Hypothetically, if the Old Testament indicated using one's left hand is a sin, would you therefore consider anyone with a natural tendency to use the left hand combined with an inability to use the right a sinner for using his or her left hand?  What if _you_ were that left-handed person?  After all, you didn't _choose_ to be left-handed and, try as you might, using your right hand just is not an option.


----------



## jason8047 (Mar 21, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> How do you know, "they know its wrong too?"
> 
> I know plenty of homosexuals and not one of them thinks it's wrong.  I'd say more but I'm tired of all the lies, half-truths, distortions and outright hatred against homosexuals.  The only place in The Bible where it is possibly forbidden is the laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  You can't just pick-and-choose which of those laws you think are still relevent, though.  Either they all are and people who wear cotton-poly blend clothing and shop on Sunday are in big trouble, or they have been replaced by the Commandments as stated by Christ:  Love God and love each other.


 I wasnt trying to distort or belittle anyone.  I dont hate these people, they are my close friends.  I am not saying that homosexuality is worse than any other sin because sin is sin.  I sin but am forgiven.  If you just look at the sin in peoples lives I know that no one is any better than anyoen else.  I do believe if you are saved your sins are forgiven and that is what matters to me.  Do I live perfect???Not by any means.  Just because of my friends sexual orientation I wont stop being their friend but I still think its wrong, but I also know that I do things that are wrong too.  I wasnt trying to offend you in any way but I just wanted to state how I felt and the situation I was dealing with.  I wont judge anyone because it isnt my place but I feel like I should share my beliefs with people and maybe I can have a positive influence on someone or if I find I have been wrong I can correct my own behavior.  Whatever anyone does is between them and God unless it is truely hurting others, then I believe we have a responsibilty to step up and stop it.  Homosexuality is your choice and Ill leave it at that but rape, and child molesting or murder is different and should be treated differently here on earth.  I just am not one to fight with people because it does no good.  I think if you just love people for who they are but let them know what you think it will do more good than bashing anyone.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

jason8047 said:


> Homosexuality is your choice


Homosexuality is _not_ a choice.  Heterosexuality is also not a choice.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> They know its wrong because God has given us all a conscience. We all know what is right and what is wrong.


Yes, we have a conscience.  My conscience tells me to not do things that hurt other people.  Homosexuality hurts no one . . . except those who _choose_ to be hurt by it.


----------



## pnome (Mar 21, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Homosexuality is _not_ a choice.  Heterosexuality is also not a choice.



Maybe so, but engaging in homosexual _acts_ is.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> Aids has killed thousands of people. It has killed children, it has killed innocent people thru blood transfusions. It has broken up marriages, it has corrupted children in schools where it is being taught that its ok.
> 
> I choose to believe what Gods word says about the matter.


AIDS is a disease.  It was not caused by homosexuality.

The only marriages that get broken up are ones that never should have happened in the first place.  If you want to place blame, place it on the pressure of society on gays to try to be straight.

You can't make the claim that homosexuality is harmful because teaching children that it is not harmful is harmful.

Your last sentence is telling.  Religious beliefs are, indeed, a choice.  Sexual orientation, however, is not.  You condemn what is _not_ a choice by virtue of a _definite_ choice on your part.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> I'm providing a link to a short story written on the subject of homosexuality. It's entited "Father's Day 1995, how one Father dealt with the gay nineties. It would take maybe 5 minutes to read.
> 
> http://jesuslovesme.org/fatherstxt.htm


Larry gets no sympathy from me.  The author was writing from an obvious bias or Randy would not have essentially agreed that he chose to be gay.

I am blessed that my parents are not like Randy's.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> you were born into this world condemned


Condemned by God's design.  He's a sick puppy if that is the case.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 21, 2007)

fishing technician said:


> I think that Georgia at one time had laws against sodomy. We have laws that are suppost to protect us from thiefs, murdereres, and other types of lawlessness. If we do away with the laws that protect us, what will be the latter outcome? What kind of future will our children have?



Man this is rich stuff right here.  I for one sleep much better and feel so much safer at night knowing that 2 men aren't committing sodomy somewhere in another part of the state.

But if sodomy laws are done away with, I'm adding extra lights, upgrading my security system and changing the locks.  Just think....this world is not safe with the risk of two guys across town doing something I don't personally do.


----------



## FishFanatic (Mar 22, 2007)

This analogy may not be totally accurate, but here it is.  Suppose a guy has super strong desires to sleep with lots of women....very promiscuous.  But at some point in his life, maybe when he becomes a Christian and realizes that it is wrong, he doesn't act on his desire anymore.  There are a lot of Christians that have had to deal with this problem.  Who's to say that desire is not there at various times during their life?  But he still doesn't act on it.  Why can't a homosexual do the same?  They come to accept Christ as their savior, and realize the error of their ways.  And through God's help, do not act on their desires.  There are alot of stories out there of homosexuals who have done exactly that.  How is that explained?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 22, 2007)

Tell that to Ted Haggard.


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 22, 2007)

No answers to my question?  Why can't any of you guys who believe that you choose to be gay tell me the day that they decided to be heterosexual?  If it is a choice, then surely you remember making the choice to be a heterosexual.  

Secondly, if it is a choice, then choose to be gay for one day.  Just one day, that is all I ask.


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Mar 22, 2007)

HuntDawg said:


> No answers to my question?  Why can't any of you guys who believe that you choose to be gay tell me the day that they decided to be heterosexual?  If it is a choice, then surely you remember making the choice to be a heterosexual.
> 
> Secondly, if it is a choice, then choose to be gay for one day.  Just one day, that is all I ask.



Heterosexual is normal, nature is evidence of this.  You make the choice to be abnormal; just do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself.  Don't try to make me accept you because you think you were born that way.  You are abnormal.  Nothing in creation could possibly influence you to your lifestyle, it was something you chose.  I guess you think if God had created Adam and Steve and Eve then Eve would just be the odd one out.  I think if God had created the three that one of the guys wouldn't have made it to night fall.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 22, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> Heterosexual is normal, nature is evidence of this.  You make the choice to be abnormal; just do everyone a favor and keep it to yourself.  Don't try to make me accept you because you think you were born that way.  You are abnormal.



What other abnormalities are chosen besides homosexuality?  
Let's stick with less obvious or visible abnormalities like autism, irritable bowel, bipolar disorder, dyslexia, and back spasms.  I'll wager that obvious ones like cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, spina bifida, etc are not chosen.  Thus my question....since there are some abnormalities/disorders that are not chosen, and as you assert, some that are indeed chosen, which ones fall under which banner?  If you aren't sure, please tell me exactly where you found this so I can peruse this resource to distinguish between chosen and non-chosen abnormalities.  Thanks in advance!

Also, did Huntdawg profess to being homosexual?  The way you keep saying "you"as in "you are abnormal" leads me to believe I've missed something.

And no, lest I be labeled abnormal,  I am not homosexual.  Just ask my wife.  I didn't choose to be one way or the other, fwiw.


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Mar 22, 2007)

Six million dollar ham said:


> What other abnormalities are chosen besides homosexuality?
> Let's stick with less obvious or visible abnormalities like autism, irritable bowel, bipolar disorder, dyslexia, and back spasms.  I'll wager that obvious ones like cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, spina bifida, etc are not chosen.  Thus my question....since there are some abnormalities/disorders that are not chosen, and as you assert, some that are indeed chosen, which ones fall under which banner?  If you aren't sure, please tell me exactly where you found this so I can peruse this resource to distinguish between chosen and non-chosen abnormalities.  Thanks in advance!
> 
> Also, did Huntdawg profess to being homosexual?  The way you keep saying "you"as in "you are abnormal" leads me to believe I've missed something.
> ...




You believe it's a disease, that is your choice I don't.  None the less here is a resource you can peruse "THE HOLY BIBLE". 

huntdawg, I apologize for assuming you are gay, by your comments I figured you had to be.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 23, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> You believe it's a disease, that is your choice I don't.  None the less here is a resource you can peruse "THE HOLY BIBLE".
> 
> .



I didn't say it's a disease.  I called it the same thing you did, an abnormality.  What a copout.  You don't know what you're saying, you won't admit that you are clueless, and it's in the bible.  Good rock solid debate here.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 23, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> Nothing in creation could possibly influence you to your lifestyle, it was something you chose.


What's makes you heterosexual?

Biology sets your gender, right?

Does biology set your sexual orientation or do you choose it?

You didn't choose to be heterosexual, your brain chemistry is wired for heterosexual _orientation_.

Everyone's brain chemistry is different.

A small percentage of people are wired for a homosexual orientation.

The laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy regarding homosexual activity in The Bible were, in my opinion, added by man via freewill.  Just as other Old Testament laws regarding birthright when there are multiple wives, laws preventing dwarves and blind people from approaching the altar, laws preventing the eating of shellfish, etc. make no sense as other than laws created by man.  Christ himself _castigated_ people for following dietary laws; he came just short of calling them a bunch of *&%%^$$!! morons _for_ following them, in fact.  That right there is proof enough to me that the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy were not entirely the word of God.


----------



## addictedtodeer (Mar 23, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> What's makes you heterosexual?
> 
> Biology sets your gender, right?
> 
> ...



I'm new to this thread, and I'm just curious what do you do with the book of Romans specifically chapter 1?
1 Corinthians 6:9-10?

God lists Homosexuality as a sin along with many other sins.
We all have a tendency to sin in one way or another, some we will struggle against the rest of our lives, that is way we need to be saved. No sin is  greater or lesser. All sin  shows that we are rightly condemned and deserving of wrath. That is why in 1 Corinthians 6 Paul continues:

_1Co 6:11  And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God_. 

The issue is not which sin you commit; it is are you saved from your sins? Whether you are a liar, a gossip, a homosexual, a murderer or disobedient to your parents, Christ has the power to save from them all and to have you conquer them.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 23, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> Christ has the power to save from them all and to have you conquer them.



That'll preach, addicted.  Good post, thanks


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 23, 2007)

*From the beginning...*

One more (ad nauseum to some, I'm sure ):

God said He "made them male and female" Gen 1:27

NOT  "male and male"  

_For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh._ (Genesis 2:24)


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 23, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> One more (ad nauseum to some, I'm sure ):
> 
> God said He "made them male and female" Gen 1:27
> 
> ...



If this is the case I will pray for my sinful brother.  Even though he's proven himself heterosexual in what I'd call a very impressive fashion over the years, he's not married.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 23, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> One more (ad nauseum to some, I'm sure ):
> 
> God said He "made them male and female" Gen 1:27
> 
> ...



AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 23, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> I'm new to this thread, and I'm just curious what do you do with the book of Romans specifically chapter 1?


Romans is Paul's letter to the Romans.  They are Paul's words, _not_ God's.



addictedtodeer said:


> 1 Corinthians 6:9-10?


Again, the words of Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, _not_ the word of God.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 23, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Romans is Paul's letter to the Romans.  They are Paul's words, _not_ God's.
> 
> 
> Again, the words of Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians, _not_ the word of God.



So I guess you don't think that The Bible is the Word of God.

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 23, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> So I guess you don't think that The Bible is the Word of God.


Anything spoken or written by someone as their own thoughts is definitely not the word of God.  Last I checked, Paul was Paul rather than God.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 23, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Anything spoken or written by someone as their own thoughts is definitely not the word of God.  Last I checked, Paul was Paul rather than God.



You call it Paul's thoughts, but I see it as God's thoughts written by Paul...

That explains your belief and lifestyle. Wasn't a big surprise to get that response.... That is why there is no use in debating things with you.... You will never accept what is written in The Bible as God's word unless God convicts you of it, then maybe you will see the difference...

DB BB


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 23, 2007)

No, I am not gay.  I am smart enough to know that I did not choose to be *Heterosexual.  I speak strongly on the matter, because I know I was born a heterosexual and I feel for the people who are treated so terribly by our own Christian people.  

For the third time in this thread, if you believe that your sexual orientation is chosen, then when did you decide to be a heterosexual?  Why do you not have to make this choice everyday?  Why will no one on the otherside answer this question? 

Yes, it is written in the BIBLE that the act is wrong.  I can not argue that at all.  What I can argue is the FACT that the Bible was written by men of the time it was written.  I go back to the rape question earlier in this thread.  Someone brought up the fact that the father should recieve 50 shekels.  Do you consider this scripture to be the word of GOD?  What about the women?  Her feelings or loss is not even mentioned.  All that is mentioned is the fact that her father should receive a monetary compensation.  How in the world could anyone believe that this is the word of GOD?  The God that I worship, and his son, would show compassion for the women.  My God could care less if her father is given a monetary compensation.

Again, for all of you homosexual haters, when did you decide to be a heterosexual?*


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 23, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You call it Paul's thoughts, but I see it as God's thoughts written by Paul...
> 
> That explains your belief and lifestyle. Wasn't a big surprise to get that response.... That is why there is no use in debating things with you.... You will never accept what is written in The Bible as God's word unless God convicts you of it, then maybe you will see the difference...





			
				Double Barrel BB said:
			
		

> God chooses who will be Saved


Putting those quotes of yours together, I see no point in changing my thinking as God already has already decided whether I will be saved or ****ed.

The election thread has been a real eye-opener for me.  It would appear that a good number of folks think it's all been decided ahead of time by God; some will go to Heaven and some will not and there's nothing you can do to change God's will.  That makes religion a non-issue, then.  If you have no control whatsoever over your destiny, why bother to even _try_?  That way of thinking seems to me to be incredibly sad and self-defeating.


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 23, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Putting those quotes of yours together, I see no point in changing my thinking as God already has already decided whether I will be saved or ****ed.
> 
> The election thread has been a real eye-opener for me.  It would appear that a good number of folks think it's all been decided ahead of time by God; some will go to Heaven and some will not and there's nothing you can do to change God's will.  That makes religion a non-issue, then.  If you have no control whatsoever over your destiny, why bother to even _try_?  That way of thinking seems to me to be incredibly sad and self-defeating.



You seem to be an intelligent person.  I am very pleased to see someone on this topic who actually thinks for themselves.  You analogy with the adnormalties was right on.  

I can not wait until the day that it is common knowledge that homosexuals are born the way they are.  It will be a sad day for the people who have been led by the blind.  It reminds me of when people thought the world was flat.  If you tried to prove different, you were labeled a sinner.  I do not know how they pulled scripture out to make the world flat, but they used the BIBLE to chastise a lot of people in thinking that it was indeed flat.


----------



## Lead Poison (Mar 23, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> One more (ad nauseum to some, I'm sure ):
> 
> God said He "made them male and female" Gen 1:27
> 
> ...



StriperAddict, you're right. This really is all that needs to be said. It isn't hard to understand; sadly many simply refuse to do so. 

Never be ashamed to stand for God!


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Mar 23, 2007)

HuntDawg said:


> Again, for all of you homosexual haters, when did you decide to be a heterosexual?



Again for all you homosexual lovers, it is just plain common sense.  I bet you are glad we don't have a bunch of gay deer or turkeys running around then you wouldn't have much of a reason to be on this message board.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Mar 23, 2007)

SE.GAcoondawg said:


> Again for all you homosexual lovers, it is just plain common sense.  I bet you are glad we don't have a bunch of gay deer or turkeys running around then you wouldn't have much of a reason to be on this message board.



Actually all it takes is one or two good heterosexual males in nature to impregnate all the hens or does whether they are lesbians or not for a given area.  There are homosexual animals I have read about....their genes just don't get passed on too readily.  Or does the bible say God made all animals heterosexual?

And you still haven't answered about which abnormalities are chosen and which ones are not chosen.  Please make me 2 lists.  Thanks.

"Homosexual lovers"?  Nice.  Lots of class there bro.


----------



## SBG (Mar 23, 2007)

So, we are only to accept the parts of the Bible that does not offend us? 


If one tiny part of the Bible is wrong, then you should throw all of it in the trash sense it would be worthless garbage.


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Mar 23, 2007)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Actually all it takes is one or two good heterosexual males in nature to impregnate all the hens or does whether they are lesbians or not for a given area.  There are homosexual animals I have read about....their genes just don't get passed on too readily.  Or does the bible say God made all animals heterosexual?
> 
> And you still haven't answered about which abnormalities are chosen and which ones are not chosen.  Please make me 2 lists.  Thanks.
> 
> "Homosexual lovers"?  Nice.  Lots of class there bro.



I notice no such comment for the one who posted homosexual haters, I guess thats alright cause ya'll have to stick together.  Maybe it's alright because he used haters instead of lovers.  I apologize if it offended you that I changed one word.  This is going no where I shouldn't have gotten involved in this thread.  I'm done.


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 23, 2007)

SBG said:


> So, we are only to accept the parts of the Bible that does not offend us?
> 
> 
> If one tiny part of the Bible is wrong, then you should throw all of it in the trash sense it would be worthless garbage.



SBG, I am not saying the Bible is wrong.  What I am saying is that the Bible was written by men at a certain time period that delt with the laws and issues of the time.  We no longer treat women as property.  The Bible is full of great lessons.  Many apply to today, but there are other parts of the Bible that do not apply to today.  

One example is Adultry.  Is adultry wrong?  Yes, but back in the days of the old testament, you did not need to commit adultry, you had many wives.  If you wanted to be with another woman, you just offered her father something of monetary value and made her your wife.  We do not believe in this tradition today.  

What I am trying to say is that there are many people in the Christian community who pick and choose what they want to interprete in the Bible and then they say it is Gods word.  Well if one verse is to be read literally, then all the versus should be read litaerally.  

I can here it now.  Some guy will get on here and say that a certain verse is not to be interpreted, but then they will turn around and say that another is to be interpreted.


----------



## FishFanatic (Mar 23, 2007)

HuntDawg said:


> SBG, I am not saying the Bible is wrong.  What I am saying is that the Bible was written by men at a certain time period that delt with the laws and issues of the time.  We no longer treat women as property.  The Bible is full of great lessons.  Many apply to today, but there are other parts of the Bible that do not apply to today.
> 
> One example is Adultry.  Is adultry wrong?  Yes, but back in the days of the old testament, you did not need to commit adultry, you had many wives.  If you wanted to be with another woman, you just offered her father something of monetary value and made her your wife.  We do not believe in this tradition today.
> 
> ...



I'm a devoted Christian.  I live by the New Testament.  It applies to modern times.  The Old Testament was the life and times of Israel, with God's interaction with them throughout.  I am not held to the rules and standards of the old testament.  Only the NT.  Some of the rules of the OT are also in the NT, and I follow those rules.  But the OT is the book where non-believers love to tee of on.  They wouldn't have a case if it were not for many Christians trying to apply many of the customs of the Jewish people to Christians today.  I'm refering to customs that are not validated by the new testament.  Your above statement does not apply to me.  I do not pick and choose.  As a gentile, it was made clear that the OT does not apply to me.  I don't feel that I'm going against the grain with this either.  This is how I, a commons sense, down to earth, very rational Christian reads the New Testament.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 25, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Putting those quotes of yours together, I see no point in changing my thinking as God already has already decided whether I will be saved or ****ed.
> 
> The election thread has been a real eye-opener for me. It would appear that a good number of folks think it's all been decided ahead of time by God; some will go to Heaven and some will not and there's nothing you can do to change God's will. That makes religion a non-issue, then. If you have no control whatsoever over your destiny, why bother to even _try_? That way of thinking seems to me to be incredibly sad and self-defeating.


 
That is right, you will not see what God has not revealed to you.

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 26, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> That is right, you will not see what God has not revealed to you.


He has not revealed to me that being gay is wrong.  That's good enough for me.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 26, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> He has not revealed to me that being gay is wrong.  That's good enough for me.



Just curious, you say The Bible is just a document written by men right?

So then do you even believe in Christ?

I mean if the book is just a book, and if you believe in Christ, then you must have some faith that it is more than just a man wrote book....

DB BB


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 26, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Just curious, you say The Bible is just a document written by men right?
> 
> So then do you even believe in Christ?
> 
> ...



I am one of those that believe the Bible was written by men.  Yes, I believe in Christ and do believe that the Bible was written by men of God, but my entire arguement is that the Bible was written in a time period that delt with the issues of the day.  Yes, many of the issues written about apply to today.

My arguement is the fact that things change over time with increased knowlegde of mankind.  The Bible does not mention North America.  It does not mention North America, because the people who wrote the Bible did not know that North America exists.  Does that mean there were no people over here, of course not.  Are the poeple who lived here 1500 years ago in ImadummyImadummyImadummyImadummy because they did not know Christ?  I do not think so.    

Back to the gay question.  Let's say that in the future, it is proven that homosexuality is a genetic defect and it is common knowledge. Are the people who used the Bible as their weapon of choice against homosexuals going to stop being Christians because the Bible contradicts what they were lead to believe from the word of God.  Of course not.  This is why I say that the Bible was written for its time, by people who lived by laws of the time.

It is a fact that during the time the Bible was written, women were treated as property.  They had no value other than the value they brought to their husband or father.  We know this belief and treatment today to be wrong.  Are we any less Christians because we do not treat women as property?  Ofcourse not.  I go back to the earlier part of this thread where someone mentioned about the passage that says a man who lies with a virgin will pay he father 50 Shekels and will take the women as his wife.  This passage only talks about a monetary value placed ont the woman and how it in some way lost her value to her father.  Do we work this way in our society today,  No, we do not care about any monetary value to the father of the girl, we care about the girl.  The Bible does not mention at all about the gilrs feeling or how thi will effect her life.  All it alks about is the loss to the man.  This is wrong, yet is is in the Bible, written by men inspired by God.  How can you explain to me that this is written by a God inspeired man and it not be correct? 

 All I am saying is that the men who wrote the Bible were speaking about the life that they knew.  Yes, they may have well been God inspired, but the words that they used were for the laws and traditions of the time period.  We find fault in many of these laws and traditions, does that mean we are not Christians?


----------



## addictedtodeer (Mar 26, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Anything spoken or written by someone as their own thoughts is definitely not the word of God.  Last I checked, Paul was Paul rather than God.



OK so how do you deal with 2 Peter 1:19-21:
_And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit._ 

and 2 Peter 3:15,16
_And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. 
_

Notice that Peter states that all scriptures is inspired by God not the man writing it. He then in the next chapter refers specifically to Paul's letters and by his wording calls them scripture.  By Peter's testimony Paul's letters that you dismiss are on par with scripture and therefore not inspired by the human mind or will but of God's.


----------



## PWalls (Mar 26, 2007)

HuntDawg said:


> I am one of those that believe the Bible was written by men.  Yes, I believe in Christ and do believe that the Bible was written by men of God, but my entire arguement is that the Bible was written in a time period that delt with the issues of the day.  Yes, many of the issues written about apply to today.
> 
> All I am saying is that the men who wrote the Bible were speaking about the life that they knew.  Yes, they may have well been God inspired, but the words that they used were for the laws and traditions of the time period.  We find fault in many of these laws and traditions, does that mean we are not Christians?



The Bible was written by men. But, it *WAS* (not may) inspired by God. Every word in it is the Word of God. Period. No grey area. It was not written by men for men. It was written by God thru men.

*The bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God.*

You can be a Christian and possibly believe other than that, but you are not a strong or mature Christian and need to do some gut checking and prayer. If that offends you, then let me know and I'll add you to my prayer list.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 26, 2007)

HuntDawg said:


> I am one of those that believe the Bible was written by men.  Yes, I believe in Christ and do believe that the Bible was written by men of God, but my entire arguement is that the Bible was written in a time period that delt with the issues of the day.  Yes, many of the issues written about apply to today.
> 
> My arguement is the fact that things change over time with increased knowlegde of mankind.  The Bible does not mention North America.  It does not mention North America, because the people who wrote the Bible did not know that North America exists.  Does that mean there were no people over here, of course not.  Are the poeple who lived here 1500 years ago in ImadummyImadummyImadummyImadummy because they did not know Christ?  I do not think so.
> 
> ...




I am pretty sure that post #24 in this thread pretty much took care of the issue with the supposed rape and paying the father.... I will let you read it, because it seems to be a rather long post....

On the case that the Bible was written for a time period...
God never changes, so to me His word never changes. If you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Then God is the only One that can tell you other wise.

It seems to me that alot of people tend to do this to The Bible, because it doesn't fit into their lives, because they want to believe in a God that fits their definition. Well, sorry to tell you this, but God's ways are higher than our way's, so to put a disclaimer on The Bible that this was written for a certain time period than that is nothing more than a copout, something to ease your concious.

DB BB


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 26, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> ....
> 
> On the case that the Bible was written for a time period...
> God never changes, so to me His word never changes. If you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Then God is the only One that can tell you other wise.
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 26, 2007)

addictedtodeer said:


> Notice that *Peter* states that all scriptures is inspired by God not the man writing it. He then in the next chapter refers specifically to Paul's letters and by his wording calls them scripture.  By *Peter*'s testimony Paul's letters that you dismiss are on par with scripture and therefore not inspired by the human mind or will but of God's.


If Janey says God told her the Moon is made of green cheese then Sally says Janey's words are the word of God, does that make the Moon made of green cheese?


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 26, 2007)

So, if you work on the Sabath, you should be put to death.  I guess no one on this board has ever worked the Sabath.  let me guess, this is from the old testament, therefor it does not count.  Well except for the 10 commandments, those always count.  Oh, I see now.


----------



## HuntDawg (Mar 26, 2007)

Are any of you denying that Women were considered property during the time the Bible was written?  Is it the word of God that women are property?


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 26, 2007)

*The last 3 posts... what a waste*

Here's just one resource for some of you supposed "seekers" out there:  Christian Answers-Directory

My guess is you'll shoot down all the messengers as well as the messages there,  since your mind is so made up to trash the Bible


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 26, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> On the case that the Bible was written for a time period...
> God never changes, so to me His word never changes. If you don't believe that the Bible is the Word of God. Then God is the only One that can tell you other wise.





			
				Leviticus said:
			
		

> 1  And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them,
> 
> 2  Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
> 
> ...





			
				Mark said:
			
		

> 14  And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:
> 
> 15  there is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.
> 
> ...


If God never changes, why did he set elaborate and very _specific_ laws in the time of Moses on which animals can be eaten only to turn around when he was manifested in flesh as Christ and tell the people they were a bunch of idiots for worrying about which animals can and can't be eaten?



Double Barrel BB said:


> It seems to me that alot of people tend to do this to The Bible, because it doesn't fit into their lives, because they want to believe in a God that fits their definition. Well, sorry to tell you this, but God's ways are higher than our way's, so to put a disclaimer on The Bible that this was written for a certain time period than that is nothing more than a copout, something to ease your concious.


If that is the case, why is there no call to amend the U.S. Constitution to prevent second marriages?  Could it be because the majority of the population think the restriction is outdated and need not be followed?


			
				Luke said:
			
		

> 18  Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.


Does your church deny membership to sufferers of testicular cancer or great-great-great-grandchildren of children born out of wedlock?  The Bible is quite clear on this.  Is it because people now would consider it cruel to deny them?


			
				Deuteronomy said:
			
		

> 1  He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
> 
> 2  [An illegitimate child] shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.



If you took fruit or vegetables from your neighbor's garden without permission and they called the police, would the court dimiss any charges brought or would you be prosecuted for theft?


			
				Deuteronomy said:
			
		

> 24  When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill at thine own pleasure; but thou shalt not put any in thy vessel.
> 
> 25  When thou comest into the standing corn of thy neighbor, then thou mayest pluck the ears with thine hand; but thou shalt not move a sickle unto thy neighbor's standing corn.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 26, 2007)

So you don't have a real response, I take it?


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 26, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> So you don't have a real response, I take it?



Somewhere with all your 'knowledge' on bible you missed the fact about Christ being the fulfillment of the law...  but it's more than that.  A born again believer in Christ has the 'letter of the law' written in his/her heart, because Christ dwells there, He has become that person's salvation.  

I could argue semantics forever with you and others who twist the scriptures to keep yourselves free from the conviction of sin.  But try to understand one thing...  real life starts happening when the Holy Spirit begins convicts you, and you begin to see your need for forgiveness. Then you will see your need for a Savior.  The fact that this is NOT happening should be of grave concern to you, and my prayer is that God Himself will open your eyes and lead you on this 'path of righteousness', which is literally to every believer...  Christ in you, the hope of glory.

See Gal. 2:19-21


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 26, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> So you don't have a real response, I take it?


 

There is no sense to respond to someone that has been given up to a reprobate mind. I will let God deal with your Heart and Soul. Nothing I can say will change your mind, only God can do that.

DB BB


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 26, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> Somewhere with all your 'knowledge' on bible you missed the fact about Christ being the fulfillment of the law... but it's more than that. A born again believer in Christ has the 'letter of the law' written in his/her heart, because Christ dwells there, He has become that person's salvation.
> 
> I could argue semantics forever with you and others who twist the scriptures to keep yourselves free from the conviction of sin. But try to understand one thing... real life starts happening when the Holy Spirit begins convicts you, and you begin to see your need for forgiveness. Then you will see your need for a Savior. The fact that this is NOT happening should be of grave concern to you, and my prayer is that God Himself will open your eyes and lead you on this 'path of righteousness', which is literally to every believer... Christ in you, the hope of glory.
> 
> See Gal. 2:19-21


 

AMEN Brother!!!!!!!!!!! AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 27, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> Somewhere with all your 'knowledge' on bible you missed the fact about Christ being the fulfillment of the law...


That gets debated back-and-forth here and elsewhere.

If you say Christ fulfilled the law, how do you rationalize insisting that some of the law _must_ be followed while claiming some can be ignored?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 27, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> There is no sense to respond to someone that has been given up to a reprobate mind. I will let God deal with your Heart and Soul. Nothing I can say will change your mind, only God can do that.


That's the easy way out, isn't it?  I raise valid questions with scripture and you ignore them in favor of simply calling me evil.

When I was younger, my faith was _very_ strong.  I couldn't understand how anyone could even _question_ their faith.  I was an acolyte at our church for nine years, from 4th grade through graduation.  Sometimes I served at two or even three services on Sundays as I would step in when others had forgotten it was their day.

A few years ago, I decided to read The Bible from start to finish to strengthen my faith.  I forget how far I made it but I stopped as the translation I had, _The Living Bible_, was rather poor.  I've got a King James version as well but the translators of that one apparently felt flowery language was more important than clarity.  I _have_ started again with a recent translation of the first five books, though.  The more I read, however, the more my faith weakens and the more The Bible seems tainted by the biases of men, remember we have freewill, rather than being fully the word of God.

The God of the Old Testament was cruel, capricious, vindictive and irrational.  Animal sacrifice, slavery, rewarding dishonesty, women as chattel, genocide, killing the of children of enemies, polygamy, compelling Pharoah to _not_ let the Israelites go so more plagues could be visited upon the Egyptians, punishing ten generations of descendents for transgressions and even accidents of birth of ancestors, punishing dwarves and the blind and so on and so on do not seem to me to be the actions of a loving, or especially a just, God.  They do, however, come across quite well as the writings of men.

Men _are_ cruel; God is not.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> That's the easy way out, isn't it?  I raise valid questions with scripture and you ignore them in favor of simply calling me evil.



Maybe this will help you: but then you will proably discount this as well....

Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible
Leviticus Chapter 11

The ceremonial law is described by the apostle (Heb. 9:9, 10) to consist, not only "in gifts and sacrifices,’’ which hitherto have been treated of in this book, but "in meats, and drinks, and divers washings’’ from ceremonial uncleanness, the laws concerning which begin with this chapter, which puts a difference between some sorts of flesh-meat and others, allowing some to be eaten as clean and forbidding others as unclean. "There is one kind of flesh of men.’’ Nature startles at the thought of eating this, and none do it but such as have arrived at the highest degree of barbarity, and become but one remove from brutes; therefore there needed no law against it. But there is "another kind of flesh of beasts,’’ concerning which the law directs here (v. 1-8), "another of fishes’’ (v. 9–12), "another of birds’’ (v. 13–19), and "another of creeping things,’’ which are distinguished into two sorts, flying creeping things (v. 20–28) and creeping things upon the earth (v. 29–43). And the law concludes with the general rule of holiness, and reasons for it (v. 44, etc.).
Verses 1-8 Now that Aaron was consecrated a high priest over the house of God, God spoke to him with Moses, and appointed them both as joint-commissioners to deliver his will to the people. He spoke both to Moses and to Aaron about this matter; for it was particularly required of the priests that they should put a difference between clean and unclean, and teach the people to do so. After the flood, when God entered into covenant with Noah and his sons, he allowed them to eat flesh (Gen. 9:13), whereas before they were confined to the productions of the earth. But the liberty allowed to the sons of Noah is here limited to the sons of Israel. They might eat flesh, but not all kinds of flesh; some they must look upon as unclean and forbidden to them, others as clean and allowed them. The law in this matter is both very particular and very strict. But what reason can be given for this law? Why may not God’s people have as free a use of all the creatures as other people? 1. It is reason enough that God would have it so: his will, as it is law sufficient, so it is reason sufficient; for his will is his wisdom. He saw good thus to try and exercise the obedience of his people, not only in the solemnities of his altar, but in matters of daily occurrence at their own table, that they might remember they were under authority. Thus God had tried the obedience of man in innocency, by forbidding him to eat of one particular tree. 2. Most of the meats forbidden as unclean are such as were really unwholesome, and not fit to be eaten; and those of them that we think wholesome enough, and use accordingly, as the rabbit, the hare, and the swine, perhaps in those countries, and to their bodies, might be hurtful. And then God in this law did by them but as a wise and loving father does by his children, whom he restrains from eating that which he knows will make them sick. Note, The Lord is for the body, and it is not only folly, but sin against God, to prejudice our health for the pleasing of our appetite. 3. God would thus teach his people to distinguish themselves from other people, not only in their religious worship, but in the common actions of life. Thus he would show them that they must not be numbered among the nations. It should seem there had been, before this, some difference between the Hebrews and other nations in their food, kept up by tradition; for the Egyptians and they would not eat together, Gen. 43:32. And even before the flood there was a distinction of beasts into clean and not clean (Gen. 7:2), which distinction was quite lost, with many other instances of religion, among the Gentiles. But by this law it is reduced to a certainty, and ordered to be kept up among the Jews, that thus, by having a diet peculiar to themselves, they might be kept from familiar conversation with their idolatrous neighbours, and might typify God’s spiritual Israel, who not in these little things, but in the temper of their spirits, and the course of their lives, should be governed by a sober singularity, and not be conformed to this world. The learned observe further, That most of the creatures which by this law were to be abominated as unclean were such as were had in high veneration among the heathen, not so much for food as for divination and sacrifice to their gods; and therefore those are here mentioned as unclean, and an abomination, which yet they would not be in any temptation to eat, that they might keep up a religious loathing of that for which the Gentiles had a superstitious value. The swine, with the later Gentiles, was sacred to Venus, the owl to Minerva, the eagle to Jupiter, the dog to Hecate, etc., and all these are here made unclean. As to the beasts, there is a general rule laid down, that those which both part the hoof and chew the cud were clean, and those only: these are particularly mentioned in the repetition of this law (Deu. 14:4, 5), where it appears that the Israelites had variety enough allowed them, and needed not to complain of the confinement they were under. Those beasts that did not both chew the cud and divide the hoof were unclean, by which rule the flesh of swine, and of hares, and of rabbits, was prohibited to them, though commonly used among us. Therefore, particularly at the eating of any of these, we should give thanks for the liberty granted us in this matter by the gospel, which teaches us that every creature of God is good, and we are to call nothing common or unclean. Some observe a significancy in the rule here laid down for them to distinguish by, or at least think it may be alluded to. Meditation, and other acts of devotion done by the hidden man of the heart, may be signified by the chewing of the cud, digesting our spiritual food; justice and charity towards men, and the acts of a good conversation, may be signified by the dividing of the hoof. Now either of these without the other will not serve to recommend us to God, but both must go together, good affections in the heart and good works in the life: if either be wanting, we are not clean, surely we are not clean. Of all the creatures here forbidden as unclean, none has been more dreaded and detested by the pious Jews than swine’s flesh. Many were put to death by Antiochus because they would not eat it. This, probably, they were most in danger of being tempted to, and therefore possessed themselves and their children with a particular antipathy to it, calling it not by its proper name, but a strange thing. It should seem the Gentiles used it superstitiously (Isa. 65:4), they eat swine’s flesh; and therefore God forbids all use of it to his people, lest they should learn of their neighbours to make that ill use of it. Some suggest that the prohibition of these beasts as unclean was intended to be a caution to the people against the bad qualities of these creatures. We must not be filthy nor wallow in the mire as swine, nor be timorous and faint-hearted as hares, nor dwell in the earth as rabbits; let not man that is in honour make himself like these beasts that perish. The law forbade, not only the eating of them, but the very touching of them; for those that would be kept from any sin must be careful to avoid all temptations to it, and every thing that looks towards it or leads to it.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> That's the easy way out, isn't it?  I raise valid questions with scripture and you ignore them in favor of simply calling me evil.



Verses 9-19 Here is, 1. A general rule concerning fishes, which were clean and which not. All that had fins and scales they might eat, and only those odd sorts of water-animals that have not were forbidden, v. 9, 10. The ancients accounted fish the most delicate food (so far were they from allowing it on fasting-days, or making it an instance of mortification to eat fish); therefore God did not lay much restraint upon his people in them; for he is a Master that allows his servants not only for necessity but for delight. Concerning the prohibited fish it is said, They shall be an abomination to you (v. 10–12), that is, "You shall count them unclean, and not only not eat of them, but keep at a distance from them.’’ Note, Whatever is unclean should be to us an abomination; touch not the unclean thing. But observe, It was to be an abomination only to Jews; the neighbouring nations were under none of these obligations, nor are these things to be an abomination to us Christians. The Jews were honoured with peculiar privileges, and therefore, lest they should be proud of those, Transeunt cum onere—They were likewise laid under peculiar restraints. Thus God’s spiritual Israel, as they are dignified above others by the gospel-covenant of adoption and friendship, so they must be mortified more than others by the gospel-commands of self-denial and bearing the cross. 2. Concerning fowls here is no general rule given, but a particular enumeration of those fowls that they must abstain from as unclean, which implies an allowance of all others. The critics here have their hands full to find out what is the true signification of the Hebrew words here used, some of which still remain uncertain, some sorts of fowls being peculiar to some countries. Were the law in force now, we should be concerned to know with certainty what are prohibited by it; and perhaps if we did, and were better acquainted with the nature of the fowls here mentioned, we should admire the knowledge of Adam, in giving them names expressive of their natures, Gen. 2:20. But the law being repealed, and the learning in a great measure lost, it is sufficient for us to observe that of the fowls here forbidden, (1.) Some are birds of prey, as the eagle, vulture, etc., and God would have his people to abhor every thing that is barbarous and cruel, and not to live by blood and rapine. Doves that are preyed upon were fit to be food for man and offerings to God; but kites and hawks that prey upon them must be looked upon as an abomination to God and man; for the condition of those that are persecuted for righteousness’ sake appears to an eye of faith every way better than that of their persecutors. (2.) Others of them are solitary birds, that abide in dark and desolate places, as the owl and the pelican (Ps. 102:6), and the cormorant and raven (Isa. 34:11); for God’s Israel should not be a melancholy people, nor affect sadness and constant solitude. (3.) Others of them feed upon that which is impure, as the stork on serpents, others of them on worms; and we must not only abstain from all impurity ourselves, but from communion with those that allow themselves in it. (4.) Others of them were used by the Egyptians and other Gentiles in their divinations. Some birds were reckoned fortunate, others ominous; and their soothsayers had great regard to the flights of these birds, all which therefore must be an abomination to God’s people, who must not learn the way of the heathen.
Verses 20-42 Here is the law, 1. Concerning flying insects, as flies, wasps, bees, etc.; these they might not eat (v. 20), nor indeed are they fit to be eaten; but there were several sorts of locusts which in those countries were very good meat, and much used: John Baptist lived upon them in the desert, and they are here allowed them, v. 21, 22. 2. Concerning the creeping things on the earth; these were all forbidden (v. 29, 30, and again, v. 41, 42); for it was the curse of the serpent that upon his belly he should go, and therefore between him and man there was an enmity put (Gen. 3:15), which was preserved by this law. Dust is the meat of the creeping things, and therefore they are not fit to be man’s meat. 3. Concerning the dead carcasses of all these unclean animals. (1.) Every one that touched them was to be unclean until the evening, v. 24–28. This law is often repeated, to possess them with a dread of every thing that was prohibited, though no particular reason for the prohibition did appear, but only the will of the Law-maker. Not that they were to be looked upon as defiling to the conscience, or that it was a sin against God to touch them, unless done in contempt of the law: in many cases, somebody must of necessity touch them, to remove them; but it was a ceremonial uncleanness they contracted, which for the time forbade them to come into the tabernacle, or to eat of any of the holy things, or so much as to converse familiarly with their neighbours. But the uncleanness continued only till the evening, to signify that all ceremonial pollutions were to come to an end by the death of Christ in the evening of the world. And we must learn, by daily renewing our repentance every night for the sins of the day, to cleanse ourselves from the pollution we contract by them, that we may not lie down in our uncleanness. Even unclean animals they might touch while they were alive without contracting any ceremonial uncleanness by it, as horses and dogs, because they were allowed to use them for service; but they might not touch them when they were dead, because they might not eat their flesh; and what must not be eaten must not be touched, Gen. 3:3. (2.) Even the vessels, or other things they fell upon, were thereby made unclean until the evening (v. 32), and if they were earthen vessels they must be broken, v. 33. This taught them carefully to avoid every thing that was polluting, even in their common actions. Not only the vessels of the sanctuary, but every pot in Jerusalem and Judah, must be holiness to the Lord, Zec. 14:20, 21. The laws in these cases are very critical, and the observance of them would be difficult, we should think, if every thing that a dead mouse or rat, for instance, falls upon must be unclean; and if it were an oven, or ranges for pots, they must all be broken down, v. 35. The exceptions also are very nice, v. 36, etc. All this was designed to exercise them to a constant care and exactness in their obedience, and to teach us, who by Christ are delivered from these burdensome observances, not to be less circumspect in the more weighty matters of the law. We ought as industriously to preserve our precious souls from the pollutions of sin, and as speedily to cleanse them when they are polluted, as they were to preserve and cleanse their bodies and household goods from those ceremonial pollutions.
Verses 43-47 Here is, I. The exposition of this law, or a key to let us into the meaning of it. It was not intended merely for a bill of fare, or as the directions of a physician about their diet, but God would hereby teach them to sanctify themselves and to be holy, v. 44. That is, 1. They must hereby learn to put a difference between good and evil, and to reckon that it could not be all alike what they did, when it was not all alike what they ate. 2. To maintain a constant observance of the divine law, and to govern themselves by that in all their actions, even those that are common, which ought to be performed after a godly sort, 3 Jn. 6. Even eating and drinking must be by rule, and to the glory of God, 1 Co. 10:31. 3. To distinguish themselves from all their neighbours, as a people set apart for God, and obliged not to walk as the Gentiles: and all this is holiness. Thus these rudiments of the world were their tutors and governors (Gal. 4:2, 3), to bring them to that which is the revival of our first state in Adam and the earnest of our best state with Christ, that is, holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. This is indeed the great design of all the ordinances, that by them we may sanctify ourselves and learn to be holy. Even This law concerning their food, which seemed to stoop so very low, aimed thus high, for it was the statute-law of heaven, under the Old Testament as well as the New, that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. The caution therefore (v. 43) is, You shall not make yourselves abominable. Note, By having fellowship with sin, which is abominable, we make ourselves abominable. That man is truly miserable who is in the sight of God abominable; and none are so but those that make themselves so. The Jewish writers themselves suggest that the intention of this law was to forbid them all communion by marriage, or otherwise, with the heathen, Deu. 7:2, 3. And thus the moral of it is obligatory on us, forbidding us to have fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness; and, without this real holiness of the heart and life, he that offereth an oblation is as if he offered swine’s blood (Isa. 66:3); and, if it was such a provocation for a man to eat swine’s flesh himself, much more it must be so to offer swine’s blood at God’s altar; see Prov. 15:8. II. The reasons of this law; and they are all taken from the Law-maker himself, to whom we must have respect in all acts of obedience. 1. I am the Lord your God, v. 44. "Therefore you are bound to do thus, in pure obedience.’’ God’s sovereignty over us, and propriety in us, oblige us to do whatever he commands us, how much soever it crosses our inclinations. 2. I am holy, v. 44, and again, v. 45. If God be holy, we must be so, else we cannot expect to be accepted of him. His holiness is his glory (Ex. 15:11), and therefore it becomes his house for ever, Ps. 93:5. This great precept, thus enforced, though it comes in here in the midst of abrogated laws, is quoted and stamped for a gospel precept, 1 Pt. 1:16, where it is intimated that all these ceremonial restraints were designed to teach us that we must not fashion ourselves according to our former lusts in our ignorance, v. 14. 3. I am the Lord that bringeth you out of the land of Egypt, v. 45. This was a reason why they should cheerfully submit to distinguishing laws, having of late been so wonderfully dignified with distinguishing favours. He that had done more for them than for any other people might justly expect more from them. III. The conclusion of this statute: This is the law of the beasts, and of the fowl, etc., v. 46, 47. This law was to them a statute for ever, that is, as long as that economy lasted; but under the gospel we find it expressly repealed by a voice from heaven to Peter (Acts 10:15), as it had before been virtually set aside by the death of Christ, with the other ordinances that perished in the using: Touch not, taste not, handle not, Col. 2:21, 22. And now we are sure that meat commends us not to God (1 Co. 8:8), and that nothing is unclean of itself (Rom. 14:14), nor does that defile a man which goes into his mouth, but that which comes out from the heart, Mt. 15:11. Let us therefore, 1. Give thanks to God that we are not under this yoke, but that to us every creature of God is allowed as good, and nothing to be refused. 2. Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and take heed of those doctrines which command to abstain from meats, and so would revive Moses again, 1 Tim. 4:3, 4. 3. Be strictly and conscientiously temperate in the use of the good creatures God has allowed us. If God’s law has given us liberty, let us lay restraints upon ourselves, and never feed ourselves without fear, lest our table be a snare. Set a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite; and be not desirous of dainties or varieties, Prov. 23:2, 3. Nature is content with little, grace with less, but lust with nothing.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> That's the easy way out, isn't it?  I raise valid questions with scripture and you ignore them in favor of simply calling me evil.



I posted Matthew Henry's Commentary, but I doubt you will accept his explainations.




SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> A few years ago, I decided to read The Bible from start to finish to strengthen my faith.  I forget how far I made it but I stopped as the translation I had, _The Living Bible_, was rather poor.  I've got a King James version as well but the translators of that one apparently felt flowery language was more important than clarity.  I _have_ started again with a recent translation of the first five books, though.  The more I read, however, the more my faith weakens and the more The Bible seems tainted by the biases of men, remember we have freewill, rather than being fully the word of God.
> 
> The God of the Old Testament was cruel, capricious, vindictive and irrational.  Animal sacrifice, slavery, rewarding dishonesty, women as chattel, genocide, killing the of children of enemies, polygamy, compelling Pharoah to _not_ let the Israelites go so more plagues could be visited upon the Egyptians, punishing ten generations of descendents for transgressions and even accidents of birth of ancestors, punishing dwarves and the blind and so on and so on do not seem to me to be the actions of a loving, or especially a just, God.  They do, however, come across quite well as the writings of men.
> 
> Men _are_ cruel; God is not.



The problem is you are trying to humanize God. You are saying He is cruel, and unjust. Well who are you to decide that God is the way you have described Him? Does God answer to you or anyone else?

I don't believe freewill the way most people do. As you have probably read in some of my posts. But that is another topic....

If you can't see that all things that are written in the Bible was done for a reason, yeah, maybe we don't know the reason, but God does and that is good enough for me.

Is God a loving God? YES. His love is PURE LOVE, nothing like any of our love emotions.

If you have read the old testament then you also know that God is a Jealous God, an Angered God, etc.

What you haven't realized is the emotions of God are not the same emotions of man. We have sin that affects the way our emotions work, He has none.

DB BB


----------



## Festus (Mar 27, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> If you have read the old testament then you also know that God is a Jealous God, an Angered God, etc.
> 
> What you haven't realized is the emotions of God are not the same emotions of man. We have sin that affects the way our emotions work, He has none.
> 
> DB BB



Isn't this a contradiction?  In the first sentence you say that God is a jealous and angered God,  but in the next sentence you say God does not have the same emotions as man.  
Aren't jealousy and anger human emotions?


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

Festus said:


> Isn't this a contradiction?  In the first sentence you say that God is a jealous and angered God,  but in the next sentence you say God does not have the same emotions as man.
> Aren't jealousy and anger human emotions?



Yes they are human emotions, but our emotions are tainted with Sin, God's is not... that is the difference... no contradiction....

DB BB


----------



## Festus (Mar 27, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Yes they are human emotions, but our emotions are tainted with Sin, God's is not... that is the difference... no contradiction....
> 
> DB BB



This is where my beliefs differ from some of you on this forum.  I believe that God is a loving and understanding God.    I don't believe that God is angry, jealous or vindictive in any way.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 27, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I posted Matthew Henry's Commentary, but I doubt you will accept his explainations.


It certainly reads like a lot of fancy rationalizations.  The sons of Noah could eat anything.  The sons of Israel had strict restrictions mandated by the Lord.  Then Christ comes along and calls the people fools for following those laws.



Double Barrel BB said:


> The problem is you are trying to humanize God. You are saying He is cruel, and unjust. Well who are you to decide that God is the way you have described Him?


If God wants us to love and respect him, the Old Testament gives us little reason other than fear of his wrath.  Do you love your parents because they cared for and nutured you or because you were terrified of what punishment might come next?



Double Barrel BB said:


> Is God a loving God? YES. His love is PURE LOVE, nothing like any of our love emotions.


I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the notion of a being of PURE LOVE willfully slaughtering innocent children.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> If God wants us to love and respect him, the Old Testament gives us little reason other than fear of his wrath.  Do you love your parents because they cared for and nutured you or because you were terrified of what punishment might come next?
> 
> I find it difficult, if not impossible, to accept the notion of a being of PURE LOVE willfully slaughtering innocent children.



I don't even know why I bother trying to give you sources of information, seems to me that you have already made you mind up. That is why I have posted numerous times that God is the only being that can change anyones mind.

On the note of my parents discplining me. I look back now and see that everything my parents did was for my benefit, including discpline. And yes I deserved what I got because if you don't obey then you need to be corrected. The problem with today's society is that the notion of Honoring the Father and Mother has been thrown out the door.

Yes I did fear my parents, the reason I feared them is because I also respected their authority over me. I knew that if I was bad, then there were consequences to behavior. But I also knew that they Loved me, I haven't had the benefit of knowing that kind of love with a child of my own but I have and do love my foster children as if they were my own.

Like I said before in another post, God has a reason for everything He does or lets happen. Not always are we going to figure out why He does or lets things happen the way He does. Maybe He has revealed His reasons to others and not you or me, that is His perrogative.

I answer to God. God does not answer to me.

DB BB


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 27, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> ...God is the only being that can change anyones mind.
> 
> On the note of my parents disciplining me. I look back now and see that everything my parents did was for my benefit, including discipline. And yes I deserved what I got because if you don't obey then you need to be corrected. The problem with today's society is that the notion of Honoring the Father and Mother has been thrown out the door.
> 
> ...



B,  I hope that the encouragement you bring in this post is not lost on any reader.  It isn't lost on me, with my thanks.   



SOMD,  There is a greater spiritual work woven in God's law that you seem to be missing in the judgment of God.  God judges sin because of His love, and while you'll automatically say that's a contradiction...  think for a moment of the cross.  All those laws we've ever broken were NAILED there when we accept Jesus' sacrifice for our sins (Col 1:20-22).  God allowed His only Son to be nailed in our place.  This 'cruel and in-humane' punishment was for our victory over sin and death.  And for such obedience as that, God exalted Christ and gave Him "the name above all names" (Phil 2:9-11).   I know I will weep when I see those nail scars on His feet and hands (the only moment in eternity for a believer where we are sad, IMO!) but He "will wipe away all our tears" (Rev 21:4)  because of that great sacrificial love in which I/we have believed!

That is the great news of the gospel, and is one reason that the picture of sacrifice was done before the children of Israel... as a type of the sacrifice of Christ.  

I would encourage you to put your focus and research there on the cross of Christ, because in Christ "all things are fulfilled" (Eph 1:9,10)   and  you can be "complete in Him" (Colossians 2:9-11)  also.  

So...  the law "is our tutor to lead us to Christ" (Gal 3:24) , and once believed, He becomes our life, NOT the 'written pages of law'.  
(I am not going down the road of "then you can break the law when-ever you want", etc., we've been down that thread ad nausem, and if you are tempted to say that, you're missing the greater work of the Spirit of God, which dwells in believers in Christ).


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 27, 2007)

Festus said:


> Isn't this a contradiction?  In the first sentence you say that God is a jealous and angered God,  but in the next sentence you say God does not have the same emotions as man.
> Aren't jealousy and anger human emotions?



God's 'anger' over sin drove Jesus Christ to die in our place because He loved us so much.  

I doubt a 'human' could come up with a better _anger management plan _!!!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 27, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> B,  I hope that the encouragement you bring in this post is not lost on any reader.  It isn't lost on me, with my thanks.



Thanks SA!!  

I always look forward to reading your posts, you seem to have the special God given ability to clarify things!  

DB BB


----------



## Festus (Mar 27, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> God's 'anger' over sin drove Jesus Christ to die in our place because He loved us so much.
> 
> I doubt a 'human' could come up with a better _anger management plan _!!!



I have to disagree.  God didn't offer his son as a sacrifice for our sins because he was angry.  God offered his son to show compassion, understanding and love for us.   Jesus lovingly suffered for our sins.


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 27, 2007)

Festus said:


> I have to disagree.  God didn't offer his son as a sacrifice for our sins because he was angry at us.  God offered his son to show compassion, understanding and love for us.   Jesus lovingly suffered for our sins.  He didn't die out of anger or defiance towards  us sinners.




God is 'angry'...   at sin.  

God's loving remedy...  

the cross. (Rom 5:8)


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 27, 2007)

Yet God deliberately created us with a sinful nature and surrounded us with temptation.  It was in his power not to do so yet he did.

Would you build a house and deliberately put large holes in the outer walls then become enraged when bugs and other critters get in?


----------



## StriperAddict (Mar 27, 2007)

So you're saying sin should go 'un-checked' because God 'let' Adam & Eve 'slip' ??   


Your logic is just painful.  What disdain you have for the Almighty and His love for you.  An open door of mercy & grace is right before you, yet you go on in your rant against the Lord.  


Nevertheless, SOMD, God bless you and I mean that, esp. when it comes to finding new life in Christ, who willingly went to the cross for you.  But as far as this debate, I'm through.  I can only pray that some of the posts here were not missed in the heart of others.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 28, 2007)

StriperAddict said:


> So you're saying sin should go 'un-checked' because God 'let' Adam & Eve 'slip' ??


No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying if, as many have stated here, God knows what is to come then he knew Adam & Eve would "slip."  If he knew this would happen yet still created them, he therefore deliberately chose to give man a sinful nature, knowing full well that he would then punish Adam & Eve and all of their descendents, and eventually destroy the Earth, for doing _exactly_ what he knew they would do.

I refuse to believe that God purposefully sets us up to fail then punishes us for doing so but that's the only conclusion that can be drawn from the line of reasoning many here appear to be following.

That does _not_ mean I don't believe in God.


----------



## PWalls (Mar 28, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> he therefore deliberately chose to give man a sinful nature, knowing full well that he would then punish Adam & Eve and all of their descendents, and eventually destroy the Earth, for doing _exactly_ what he knew they would do.



He did not give man a sinful nature. Please read your Bible again. He created man in his image. He gave man free-will to make his own choices. Sin entered when man chose to do what God told him not to do.

God was not the author of sin nor was He the author of our sin-nature.

He had to send Jesus to die for us because of the choice our forefather made.


----------



## Festus (Mar 28, 2007)

PWalls said:


> He did not give man a sinful nature. Please read your Bible again. He created man in his image. He gave man free-will to make his own choices. Sin entered when man chose to do what God told him not to do.
> 
> God was not the author of sin nor was He the author of our sin-nature.
> 
> He had to send Jesus to die for us because of the choice our forefather made.



I understand what SMD is alluding to. True..God gave man free will to make his own choices. 
But at the same time God created man knowing that it would be impossible for us to live a sin free life.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying if, as many have stated here, God knows what is to come then he knew Adam & Eve would "slip."  If he knew this would happen yet still created them, he therefore deliberately chose to give man a sinful nature, knowing full well that he would then punish Adam & Eve and all of their descendents, and eventually destroy the Earth, for doing _exactly_ what he knew they would do.
> 
> ...



God is God, he is not man. He does not think like man, He does not act like man.

SOTMD, I guess now you are blaming God for the sin-nature you have? It is not you, it is Him? Right? It is all God's fault for letting man have the choice?

DB BB


----------



## Festus (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> God is God, he is not man. He does not think like man, He does not act like man.
> 
> SOTMD, I guess now you are blaming God for the sin-nature you have? It is not you, it is Him? Right? It is all God's fault for letting man have the choice?
> 
> DB BB



Man does have a choice on some of the sins he commits.  But it's impossible for man to live a sin free life.  No matter how hard you try to live by Gods word...your still going to be a sinner.   I don't think SMD is blaming God....but simply stating the fact that when God created us he knew that it would be impossible for us to live sin free.


----------



## Randy (Mar 28, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> No, that's not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying if, as many have stated here, God knows what is to come then he knew Adam & Eve would "slip."  If he knew this would happen yet still created them, he therefore deliberately chose to give man a sinful nature, knowing full well that he would then punish Adam & Eve and all of their descendents, and eventually destroy the Earth, for doing _exactly_ what he knew they would do.
> 
> ...



You finally said something I agree with.  He set us up with free will to choose the right way.  Your statement is one I have put here before and why I do not believe God knows what we will be before we are born.

Of course I still do not believe your choice is the right one but I am still praying for you.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

Festus said:


> Man does have a choice on some of the sins he commits.  But it's impossible for man to live a sin free life.  No matter how hard you try to live by Gods word...your still going to be a sinner.



I agree with you there...



Festus said:


> I don't think SMD is blaming God....but simply stating the fact that when God created us he knew that it would be impossible for us to live sin free.



Yes, we can't live sin free. God creating Adam and Eve with a freewill to choose between eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is not setting us up for failure. Can you imagine how different this world would be if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the tree? It was their Choice.  I believe that God knew they would, but also knew they possibly may not. That goes along with knowing all things, knowing all pathways that may change depending upon our choice.

Example: I have a choice between A and B. I choose B, which leads to a different outcome than if I had choosen A. I believe God knows both outcomes ahead of time.

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I believe that God knew they would, but also knew they possibly may not.
> DB BB



Read that again.  That does not even make sense!  Either He knows or He don't know!  He can't know they will with a possibility they won't!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

Randy said:


> Read that again.  That does not even make sense!  Either He knows or He don't know!  He can't know they will with a possibility they won't!



Why not?  Every path we choose in life has a different ending. Why can't an Omniscient God know everything.....

To me it makes more sense than thinking God has limited himself in his knowledge....

DB BB


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Can you imagine how different this world would be if Adam and Eve had not eaten of the tree?


Since the tree was of knowledge, good and evil, had they not eaten of it, they would not know good from evil.  That leaves open the chance that one would anger the other (how many spouses never have arguments?) and the other kill him or her, as they would not know that murder was evil.  That would be it, then.  No more human race.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

SouthOfTheMasonDixon said:


> Since the tree was of knowledge, good and evil, had they not eaten of it, they would not know good from evil.  That leaves open the chance that one would anger the other (how many spouses never have arguments?) and the other kill him or her, as they would not know that murder was evil.  That would be it, then.  No more human race.



I hope you are joking, but just incase you are not.

Genesis 1-7
1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons

I believe they knew only Good until the transgression, but once they transgressed they knew evil, and that seperated them by spiritual death from God.

But you believe that the Bible was written by man, so therefore none of what I have quoted would be accurate in your eyes...

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> Why not?  Every path we choose in life has a different ending. Why can't an Omniscient God know everything.....
> 
> To me it makes more sense than thinking God has limited himself in his knowledge....
> 
> DB BB



He can't KNOW you will do something if there is a chance you will do something else.  That can not happen.  I think he put man here hoping he would make the right decissions but not knowing they if they woudl or not.

If He knew they were going eat the fruit then why would he tell them not to.  Just to agg them on?  I don't think he works like that.  I think he puts each and every one of us here hoping we will make the right choices (most of the time) and follow His word.  I do not think he puts a person here on earth knowing all the time that person will eventually be a murder, child molester or lier.  We make the choice, He hopes we make the right one.

And yes He as the power to interfere some time and change our minds.  I don't know why but I am sure He has a reason.  I also don't know why he ever gave us the choice in the first place.  He could have made us all perfect.  But he didn't.  He made us sinful, he gave us freewill.  He'll help you out all you ask Him for and see that your needs are met.  But he does not make choices for us nor does He know what those choices will be until we do.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

Randy said:


> He can't KNOW you will do something if there is a chance you will do something else.  That can not happen.  I think he put man here hoping he would make the right decissions but not knowing they if they woudl or not.
> 
> If He knew they were going eat the fruit then why would he tell them not to.  Just to agg them on?  I don't think he works like that.  I think he puts each and every one of us here hoping we will make the right choices (most of the time) and follow His word.  I do not think he puts a person here on earth knowing all the time that person will eventually be a murder, child molester or lier.  We make the choice, He hopes we make the right one.
> 
> And yes He as the power to interfere some time and change our minds.  I don't know why but I am sure He has a reason.  I also don't know why he ever gave us the choice in the first place.  He could have made us all perfect.  But he didn't.  He made us sinful, he gave us freewill.  He'll help you out all you ask Him for and see that your needs are met.  But he does not make choices for us nor does He know what those choices will be until we do.



You are putting human limitations on God.

Being omnicient means you know all things PERIOD. I know you don't believe that God is Omniscient, you have posted it on here before. That is one place where I do not agree with you.

You say He made us Sinful. Then you are also saying that God is the author of Sin. Which is another place I do not agree with you.

I know of atleast 1 choice he has made for me. Election which is another topic that has been discussed extensively in another post.

Romans 3:10-18
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. 13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: 14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: 15 Their feet are swift to shed blood: 16 Destruction and misery are in their ways: 17 And the way of peace have they not known: 18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

DB BB


----------



## Randy (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> You say He made us Sinful. Then you are also saying that God is the author of Sin. Which is another place I do not agree with you.



I should clear something up as I misspoke.  He did not make us sinful but made us with sinful tendancies/desires.  We did not become sinful until the fruit!


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 28, 2007)

Randy said:


> I should clear something up as I misspoke.  He did not make us sinful but made us with sinful tendancies/desires.  We did not become sinful until the fruit!



To me that still says you believe that God is the author of Sin. I don't understand that point....

DB BB


----------



## PWalls (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> To me that still says you believe that God is the author of Sin. I don't understand that point....
> 
> DB BB



God did not create Sin. Sin is a choice to do something other than God instructs us to do. Adam deliberately ate of a fruit off of the tree that God told him not to eat off of. That was SIN. God did not create the sin for Adam to do. He gave Adam the ability to make choices. Adam chose to listen to his wife whom the Serpent had already tempted. He chose to do something that God told him not to do.

Satan tempts. God tests. There is a huge difference betwen the two. Temptation is a choice offered hoping for a negative outcome. Testing is a choice offered hoping for a positive outcome.


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 28, 2007)

Double Barrel BB said:


> I hope you are joking, but just incase you are not.
> 
> . . .
> 
> I believe they knew only Good until the transgression, but once they transgressed they knew evil, and that seperated them by spiritual death from God.


They knew neither good _nor_ evil.  They were innocent.  Because of that innocence, the serpent was able to easily talk them into eating of the Tree of Knowledge.  As soon as they had, they realized they were naked and covered themselves, thinking that it was evil to be unclothed.

Had they not eaten of the fruit, they would know not that murder was evil.  Therefore, murder would not necessarily have been something they would hestitate to do, if angered.  So my comment above was only partially a joke.

As for God being the "author of sin," again, God made _everything_.  God made Adam, Eve _and_ the serpent who tempted them.  God made the humans sinful by nature, though not aware of what sin was, and he made the _evil_ serpent, who tempted them to exercise that sinful nature.

You say that God looked at all possible outcomes and chose to allow things to progress as they did.  What possible outcome could be expected if man was created sinful by nature, yet innocent of what sin was, and was tempted by a cunning, evil serpent that God also created?


----------



## SouthOfTheMasonDixon (Mar 28, 2007)

Woodswalker said:


> i always feel badly of myself to jump into the the midst of these discussions, but we're back to the one god or the two or more gods scenarios, seems like?
> 
> one god, then good & evil flows from that point or source.  two or more gods, then evil can easily be accounted for, since it'd be coming from the second or additional gods.
> 
> we're being asked, once again, to determine the "source(s)" of good & evil.


The Ten Commandments instructs us to have no other gods above God.  That implies that there _are_ other gods.  In addition, he mentions at least one in Leviticus (Molech).  I am not a polytheist but so far I have yet to come across a statement from God in The Bible that he is the _only_ god rather than the only god we are to worship.  Needless to say, that kinda creeps me out.


----------



## Double Barrel BB (Mar 29, 2007)

PWalls said:


> God did not create Sin. Sin is a choice to do something other than God instructs us to do. Adam deliberately ate of a fruit off of the tree that God told him not to eat off of. That was SIN. God did not create the sin for Adam to do. He gave Adam the ability to make choices. Adam chose to listen to his wife whom the Serpent had already tempted. He chose to do something that God told him not to do.
> 
> Satan tempts. God tests. There is a huge difference betwen the two. Temptation is a choice offered hoping for a negative outcome. Testing is a choice offered hoping for a positive outcome.




AMEN!!!!!

Thanks for explaining my point Pwalls.... this says it all....

DB BB


----------

