The Bible and homosexuality [Kerry thinks the bible is for homosexuality]

Just another Idiot....

"There was an article recently claiming that Sodom and Gomorra were about abuse of power, not sexuality. This is one of the reasons I have started rejecting any claims the gays make out of hand. No benefit of the doubt for these folks."

This is slightly off topic but I had the same exact sense as I read a letter in Guitar Player magizine today in which a writer asserted that Rush Limbaugh "(tore) down Chelsea Clinton then a teenager on his right wing radio show?"

I don't listen everyday but I seriously doubt Rush did any such thing. It occured to me that, lately, it's very easy to dismiss these people as out and out liars.

Sir, you forget, kerry is a liar.

A liar about the war, a liar about his sex life, a liar about his voting record, and a liar when it comes to the Bible. I do not believe for even a moment that he has ever read the Bible, maybe looked at some of the pictures (RC bibles have pictures) when he was a kid, but read it? Not a chance.

Kerry is a liar!

Quote" "Kerry must have been reading Bill Clinton's Bible!"

True!

I recently read (maybe here of F.R.) that Klontoon's Hollywood friends actually provided him with an "oversized" Bible that he was often potographed holding in his hand as he exited church services.

At best I place both Klontoon and JFK with the Scribes and Pharaisees.

Mat 23:25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.

Kerry is famously faux Irish, especiallh this Wednesday as he celebrates his beloved St. Patrick's Day, also known as Evacuation Day in Boston.

And the DNC creeps on.

Kerry Ichabod by Science Diet, taken by Binger Gambit.

Communists like John Kerry believe in God and they hate Him. Communists are not atheists. They believe in God and they hate Him.

Kerry doesn't deal with facts, he's stuck in some dead ideology as are most in his league. He's definitely not a leader, he is walking cliche

I've read the Bible, and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways," he said.

Maybe John Kerry "goes both ways".

"Oddly enough, this kind of thing results in part from the difficulty of taking "sola scriptura" too literally." ~ Cicero

On the contrary, eisegesis results from ignorance, misinformation, or downright hostility to God and a legitimate exegesis of his Word.

Some of you may have seen the "letter to Dr. Laura" that's been floating around the internet since 2000-2001.

It's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I'll copy it below for those who haven't seen it, and then do a second post showing a legitimate scholarly rebuttal (exegesis) of each of the points that are made by this grossly ignorant writer:

The letter: "Know the Bible...particularly Leviticus!"

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,
Homer Simpson-Caldwell

Any bets on whether Kerry has ever actually read the Bible? Kerry is an idiot.

If kerry has read the Bible, it must be the PC version.

You got it.
My favorite is when they say patriotism IS burning the flag.

The Demo-rat version is always the opposite of ""normal"".
That's why things are so screwed up.

Re: #49 above.

NOTE: Responses to each of the points brought up by the letter writer are between this symbol: ###

Regarding the letter: "Know the Bible...particularly Leviticus!"

"Dear Dr. Laura

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I want to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Levticus 18:22 c1ear1y shows it to be an abomination. End of debate."

### Dr. Laura is a converted Jew. As a Christian, I cannot answer for her because our foundations for both knowledge and law differ. It is true the Christianity was born of the ancient Jewish faith, but our paths have diverged profoundly over the last two thousand years.

The Mishna calls Jesus a sorcerer and a fraud, Christians worship Him as God.

I would guess that the modern Jewish reasons for why they do not follow Levitical law is because their temple no longer exists, and since the Muslims have a mosque on the site they can’t build a new one.

This, as it seems to me, would tie the law to the temple and not to God Himself. I think they are at least partially correct but for the wrong reasons.

As for the source for Scriptures - both Christians and Jews have the same Old Testament but they only recognize the Torah (and a few of the wisdom books minus the some of the prophetic Psalms.) as being inspired.

The prophets are considered to be apocryphal. 1 The Mishna and the Talmud were written several hundred years after the Romans destroyed their temple, and is the basis of modern Jewish religion.

Hassidic Jews recognize the Kabala which is a rather esoteric interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians on the other hand recognize the sixty-six books which make up the modern Protestant Bible. 2

All these are considered inspired and defensible as such.

Twenty-seven of these inspired books make up what we call the New Testament. They were written in the First Century after the resurrection of Jesus, whom the Christians know as the Christ. 3

God does not make a case for His existence in the Bible, but He reveals Himself as I AM. 4

[Matchett-PI interjects: I think it's really funny to turn the tables on a so-called atheist and insist that he provide PROOF that other people (besides himself) have minds and aren't just pre-programmed robots. WHATEVER criteria he would use to prove that, can also be used to prove there is a God.]

Christians believe the only way God could identify with and objectively reveal Himself to us is by becoming one of us. The Christian sees that every book from Genesis to Revelation speaks of and about Christ.

To the Christian, both physical and moral law is intrinsically woven into the fabric of the universe. It is not my purpose here to explain the Christian philosophy of why moral law (at least for the time being) is optional, unlike physical laws. 5

There are two basic categories of law; that which is offensive to the character of the Creator, and those laws which are commanded by God to a specific purpose.

To say that eating shellfish is an offense to the actual character of God is insulting, make Him out be arbitrary, petty and trivial.

An ancient Israelite eating shrimp was not following God’s plan. God has nothing against shrimp, He made them!

These laws are called ceremonial laws.

They served a purpose to separate the Israelites from their neighbors and to serve as reminders and teaching aids pointing to Christ’s redemption.

In times of war or unrest in modern times, martial law is sometimes declared for a purposed. When that purpose has been served the law is lifted because it is no longer needed.

Just because the law was temporary doesn’t mean the law was any less valid or true. Such the same with ceremonial law, it served it’s purpose and now it is no longer needed because Christ fulfilled the purpose of those laws. 6

Murder however, always has been and always will be wrong.

It is punishable by death unlike the few days of isolation for eating shrimp.

Murder is an offense to God’s character (and I think there is nothing trivial about this) because man has intrinsic value. 7

No man is intrinsically more valuable than another. 8

The Christian does not think of law as being pragmatically based as post-modern man does.

An action is not wrong because of a perceived negative consequence, rather negative consequences occur because the action is wrong.

The Bible tells us not only who God is, but who we are as well. Since He knows us perfectly, He knows what is good for us. So He teaches us through His law just like good parents should do for their children. God understands which direction we are heading, and without taking away our choice He is trying to steer us back from the impending disaster. 9

As C.S. Lewis put it, "there will be two kinds of people in the end; those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done.’ And those to whom God will say ‘Thy will be done.’"

In other words, God will honor our choice. The former will live with God, the latter will be sent away from God — which is Hell.

God has the right to kill and judge men because of who He is, Creator and Redeemer. 10 Vengeance is not ours. 11 God does however use the swords of men in judgment. 12 As long as they were not killing on their own account but under the command of God, they are not guilty of murder. God sanctions human government and rule of law and by implication the force they must use to maintain peace. 13

The conscious, which is both the compulsion to make moral choices and the judge between them, is an attribute given to us by our Creator. 14

Materialism and darwinistic mechanisms (instincts) are completely impotent in explaining why we are moral.

Atheist philosophers admit this.

Nietzsche was quite prophetic in how he described what would happen when man finally realized what he had done in killing God. I admire him because he was one of the most consistent atheists I’ve ever read, and he went mad for his consistency.

Christianity provide the only worldview where you can be both consistent and happy. To the Christian, a man who kills God thinking this gains him freedom is deluding himself; in killing God you kill yourself.

The only way an atheist can be happy is to make a leap of faith into a realm which he claims is not real. He does this because he knows that if all is material then he is nothing more than a ultra-complex machine.

Man doesn’t like thinking of himself this way, so he makes the leap. A Christian doesn’t have these problems of intrinsic value and determinism.

Now that I’ve said a few things about what Christians believe about law and morality, I will address these questions in light of the background which I just gave. ###

The writer to Dr. Laura continues:

"I do need advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?"

### No where is it said to smite anyone for objecting to smells. Is this the best you can do? ###

b. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

### The Bible regulated slavery. There was no law saying you must own slaves. ###

c. I know that 1 am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lcv.15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

### This is ceremonial, to set Israel apart from it’s neighbors. Contact is physical. Are any of these ‘women’ your wife? ###

d. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

"'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. Leviticus 25:44-45 NIV

### Again, the Bible regulates slavery. It says you may buy slaves, not you must buy. Furthermore this law was only for Jews who used slavery as a standard mechanism for labor. Two questions: Are you Jewish? And is slavery a standard mechanism for labor today? ###

e. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

### You are not, that would be murder. God was serious, and just like martial law in times of war or unrest people get shot for seemingly minor crimes, there were Israelite’s who were killed for things that to us seem minor. But God, in His plan was ‘putting his foot down’ that this day is Holy, and no Israelite would take it lightly. This turned out to be extremely important throughout Jewish history in maintaining their identity. This was imperative to God’s plan 15 , so yes, He was serious.

Jesus said that that Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 16 Jesus healed on the Sabbath claiming to be Lord of it and claimed that the Pharisees had missed the point completely by saying ‘it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’ 17

Christians do not observe the Sabbath, we worship on Sunday.

The Sabbath was a shadow of things to come. 18

It symbolized rest from our work and enjoying what God has given us.

Christians have been loosed from the Old Testament Law and are under now the Law of Grace. 19

By His resurrection on the first day of the week 20 and His continued appearances on successive Sundays 21 and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost 22 the church came to adopt a pattern of Sunday worship. 23 Sunday worship was further hallowed when our Lord appeared to John on ‘the Lord’s Day.' 24

How a Jew could answer the above question I haven’t the slightest clue. I think you’ve really got Dr. Laura here because modern Jews still observe and take the Sabbath very seriously. ###

f. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

### I’ll list the two verses each in seven different English translations along with the transliterated Hebrew and lexical definitions.

I’ll have some commentary after, but it should be oblivious that this objection equates apples with oranges.

Leviticus 18:22 (Interlinear Transliterated Bible)
mankind, not Thou shalt lie as with womankind: is abomination. it Wª'et- zaakaar lo' tishkab mishkªbeey 'ishaah Tow`eebaah hiy'
Tow`eebaah = abomination; loathsome, detestable thing.

To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships.

Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony; both such things and the people who do them are described by to`ebah:

"These six things doth the Lord hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him:... a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,... and he that soweth discord among brethren" Prov 6:16-19.

God says, "The scorner is an abomination to men" Prov 24:9 because he spreads his bitterness among God's people, disrupting unity and harmony. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright (c)1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers)

Lev 18:22 "'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. NIV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. NKJV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. NASU
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. KJV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. RSV
Lev 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. NAS
Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. ASV

Leviticus 11:10 Interlinear Transliterated Bible.
And all that not have fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all move in the waters, and of any thing living that which is in the waters, shall be an abomination they
Wªkol 'ªsher 'eeyn- low cªnapiyr wªqasqeset bayamiym uwbanchaaliym mikol sherets hamayim uwmikol nepesh hachayaah 'ªsher bamaayim sheqets heem

sheqets = OT:8263 sheqets (sheh'-kets); from OT:8262; filth, i.e. (figuratively and specifically) an idolatrous object:
KJV - abominable (-tion).
OT:8262 shaqats (shaw-kats'); a primitive root; to be filthy, i.e. (intensively) to loathe, pollute:
KJV - abhor, make abominable, have in abomination, detest, X utterly
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Lev 11:10 But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you. NKJV

Lev 11:10 But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales--whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water--you are to detest. NIV

Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, NASU

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: KJV

Lev 11:10 But anything in the seas or the rivers that has not fins and scales, of the swarming creatures in the waters and of the living creatures that are in the waters, is an abomination to you. RSV

Lev 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers, that do not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you, NAS

Lev 11:10 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of all the living creatures that are in the waters, they are an abomination unto you, ASV

Notice first that all the English translations are unanimous and consistent with each other.

Secondly, notice that the Hebrew words translated abomination or detestable are different in the two verses; to`ebah and sheqets.

Thirdly, notice the underlined it is 18:22 and to you in 11:10.

Now it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the two ‘abominations’ in verses 18:22 and 11:10 are contextually and referentially different.

The abomination is (absolute) in 18:22, and is to an Israelite (relative) in 11:10.

Homosexual apologists argue that to`ebah refers only to homosexual sex in an idolatrous context (temple prostitution) and not to a loving homosexual relationship.

To`ebah is used in context to idolatry but also ‘To`ebah is used in the sphere of jurisprudence and of family or tribal relationships.

Certain acts or characteristics are destructive of societal and familial harmony’ as described in Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words . Besides, the Hebrew language has particular words for temple prostitutes; ‘No Israelite man 25 or woman 26 is to become a shrine prostitute.’27

As you can see, the male (qadesh) and female (qedeshah) temple prostitutes are differentiated so this is not unclear as to what it is saying.

The Bible, contrary to what most people believe, can be very specific.

And if to`ebah only refers to temple prostitution as the homosexual apologists say, why is it not then used here?

They would love for the language to be that fuzzy, but it isn’t.

Furthermore, by the reasoning that these apologists use to attempt to say that there is no longer any law against homosexuality, that same reasoning could be used to decriminalize bestiality and incest.

‘But these are not accepted by society yet,’ you say?

This Christian would say it is ludicrous of man to believe he has the authority to create law.

The universe does not conform itself to what a man declares to be true or lawful; to believe that it does is delusional 28 and patently absurd. 29

Since homosexuality is abomination, this law is not temporary.

It is absolutely wrong. So, anything said in the New Testament couldn’t change that fact.

But, lo and behold, the teaching in the New Testament confirms that homosexuality is wrong. 30

The attempt by homosexual apologists to change the Greek word that is translated natural 31 in Romans 1:26-27 into meaning ‘according to societal standards’ is baseless.

Christian apologist Dr. James White addressed this aberrant translation of phusikos, ‘There isn’t a lexicon on God’s green earth that says that.’

From my three Greek lexicons, phusikos is properly translated as ‘natural,’ they agree with each other and with Dr. White’s statement.

Lastly, the Bible is God’s will and law revealed to us.

The Creator defines law then revealed the law to us.

To say that law is determined by man ‘according to societal standards’ is idolatry.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator-who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. Romans 1:18-32 NIV ###

g. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that 1 wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

### This law applied only to priests who present sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. No one other than a qualified priest could ‘go near the curtain or approach the altar’ 32 to make offerings to God.

An Israelite bought his offering to the priest who would sacrifice it on the Israelite’s behalf. If you had a defect you could have had a qualified priest present your offering and it would have been acceptable to God.

These sacrifices are no longer necessary because Jesus provided the final, complete and perfect sacrifice for our sins. 33 Jesus is now the High Priest (intercessor) for those who have accepted His gift. ####

h. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

### Where does it say they need to die? ###

i. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if wear gloves?

### Are you an ancient Israelite? ###

j. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20: 14)

### Firstly, are you an ancient Israelite? Then none of the penalties of these laws immediately apply to you. Blasphemy and sexual sin will still be judged after death. 35

In other words, punishment for sins against God is currently postponed until after death. 36

Secondly, planting two different crops in the field and wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread were not a capital offenses. The incident described in Leviticus 24:10-16 was an open rebellion and blasphemy against God. The ‘entire assembly must stone’ blasphemers, so I’m sorry you couldn’t have done it privately.

The crime of sleeping with mother and daughter as described in Leviticus 20:14, was capital. The burning under the sentence of the Law took place after the death of the criminal by stoning. 37

Stoning was never a private affair, but done by ‘people of the community.’ 38 So again no, you couldn’t have burned anybody alive nor killed in a private affair.

As I said before, Christians are no longer under the Old Testament law but under grace because Jesus fulfilled the law.

And also as I’ve said before, the Old Testament laws were no less valid or true because they were temporary.

If a temporary law is declared today for some purpose, you are obligated to obey it when it is in force; or you will be punished and rightly so.

We all know this, don’t we?

The accusation of relativism is baseless, those who accuse mix apples with oranges. God can be known. But not to those who do not care about the truth, listening only to what they want to hear. 39

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. Galatians 3:23-25

Jesus brought grace to the world. His mission then was of mercy not condemnation. When He comes back to earth, it will be in judgment of it and us. 40

You are free to bear the penalty of your own sin or to have it taken away; choice is yours.

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery.

They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:3-11 NIV ###

The writer of the letter to Dr. Laura continues:

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Anonymous

### It is.

Mark C Jennings - P.S. Anonymous should do his homework. ###

Footnotes:

1. Because if they took them literally it would mean that they had executed their King.
2. The Catholics recognize a few more.
3. Christ is a title, not a name.
4. Exodus 3:14, John 8:24, 58
5. This is a long story and really a subject that can be treated separately.
6. Matthew 5:17-18
7. Genesis 1:26
8. Job 31:13-15, Psalm 33:13-15, Proverbs 22:2, Mark 10:42-45, Acts 10:28; 17:26, Galatians 3:28
9. Matthew 23:37, Proverbs 24:11-12, Romans 7:24-25
10. Colossians 1:16-23
11. Romans 12:19, Deuteronomy 32:35
12. Deuteronomy 12:29-32, Number 31:3
13. Matthew 22:17-21, Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, 1 Peter 2:13-17
14 Romans 2:14-15
15. John 4:22
16. Mark 2:27
17. Matthew 12:6-12
18. Colossians 2:16-17
19. Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:24-25
20. Matthew 28:1
21. John 20:26
22. Acts 2:1 It was when the day of pentecost was fully come, in which there seems to be a reference to the manner of the expression in the institution of this feast, where it is said (Lev 23:15), You shall count unto you seven sabbaths complete, from the day of the offering of the first-fruits, which was the next day but one after the passover, the sixteenth day of the month Abib, which was the day that Christ arose. This day was fully come, that is, the night preceding, with a part of the day, was fully past. (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database.
23. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2
24. Revelation 1:10 On the Lord's day. Though forcibly detained from church communion with the brethren on "the Lord's day," the weekly commemoration of the resurrection, John was enjoying spiritual communion. The earliest mention of the term. But the consecration of the day to worship, almsgiving, and the Lord's supper, is implied, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2: cf. John 20:19-26. It corresponds to "the Lord's supper," 1 Cor 11:20. Ignatius alludes to "the "Lord's day" ('Ad Magnes,' ix.), and Irenaeus, in the 'Quaests. ad Orthod.,' cxv. (in Justin Martyr). Justin Martyr, 'Apology,' ii., 98, etc., 'On Sunday we hold our joint meeting: for the first day is that on which God, having removed darkness, made the world, and Jesus Christ our Saviour rose from the dead. On the day before Saturday they crucified Him; on the day after Saturday, Sunday, having appeared to His apostles, He taught.' To it Pliny refers ('Ep.,' xcvii., b. x.): 'The Christians, on a fixed day, before dawn, meet and sing a hymn to Christ as God,' etc.
Tertullian, 'De Coron.,' iii., 'On the Lord's day we deem it wrong to fast.' Melito, Bishop of Sardis (second century), wrote a book on the Lord's day ('Eusebius,' iv., 26). Also Dionysius of Corinth (A.D. 170 AD), in Eusebius, 'Ecclesiastical History,' iv., 23, 8; Clement of Alexandrinus (A.D. 194 AD), 'Stromata,' v. and vii., 12; Origen, 'C. Cels.,' viii., 22. Rom 14:5-6, refers not to the Sabbath, but to days of Jewish observance: "He that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it," is not in 'Aleph A B C Delta G f g, Vulgate. The theory that the day of Christ's second coming is meant, is untenable. 'The day of the Lord' is different from [hee (NT:3588) kuriakee (NT:2960) heemera (NT:2250)] "the Lord's (an adjective) day," which in the ancient Church always designates Sunday, though possibly the two shall coincide (at least in parts of the earth), whence a tradition is in Jerome, on Matt 25, that the Lord's coming was expected on the Paschal Lord's day. The visions of the Apocalypse, seals, trumpets, and vials, etc., are grouped in sevens, and naturally begin on the first day of the seven, the birthday of the Church, whose future they set forth (Wordsworth).
(from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 1997 by Biblesoft)
25. OT:6945 qadesh (kaw-dashe'); from OT:6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: KJV - sodomite, unclean. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
26. OT:6948 qedeshah (ked-ay-shaw'); feminine of OT:6945; a female devotee (i.e. prostitute): KJV - harlot, whore.
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.)
27. Deuteronomy 23:17 NIV
28. Romans 1:18-24
29. Job 38:4
30. Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10, Jude 7-8
31. NT:5446 phusikos (foo-see-kos'); from NT:5449; "physical", i.e. (by implication) instinctive: KJV - natural. Compare NT:5591. (Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright (c) 1994, Biblesoft and International Bible Translators, Inc.) NT:5446
fusikos, fusikee, fusikon natural a. produced by nature, inborn b. agreeable to nature c. governed by (the instincts of) nature: 2 Peter 2:12 (from Thayer's Greek Lexicon, Electronic Database. Copyright (c) 2000 by Biblesoft)
32. Leviticus 21:23
33. Hebrews 9:26-28; 10:10-14 (The book of Hebrews explains the purpose of the sacrificial system.)
34. Hebrews 7:23-27
35. Hebrews 9:27
36. Romans 2:4
37. Joshua 7:25
38. Leviticus 20:2
39. 2 Timothy 4:3
40. Revelation 11:17-18

No he thinks it is some kind of beast that rooms the mountains of Tibet.

---It occurred to me that, lately, it's very easy to dismiss these people as out and out liars. ---

They lie to themselves first, so that they are both the deceivers and the deceived.

His nose is gonna grow.

Proposed Marriage Initiative Biblical values included: A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut25:5-10)--

Why did you not post the whole thing in #58 and credit the source? Surely you have it. Promoting a not-so-subtle agenda, your biblically illiterate friends (you too, probably) have been sending it, and the "Dear Dr. Laura" letter out all over the internet.

Just in case you can't find it, I'll post it in its entirety and source it here:

The Presidential Prayer Team is currently urging us
to: "Pray for the President as he seeks wisdom on how
to legally codify the definition of marriage. Pray
that it will be according to Biblical principles.
With any forces insisting on variant definitions of
marriage, pray that God's Word and His standards will
be honored by our government."

Any religious person believes prayer should be
balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer
Team's admirable goals, is a proposed Constitutional
Amendment to codify marriage, as they enjoin, on
biblical principals:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a
union between one man and one or more women. (Gen
29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take
concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam
5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the
wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she
shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be
forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh
10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this
constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor
any state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother
shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his
brother's widow or deliberately does not give her
children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen. 38:6-
10; Deut 25:5-10)

Mayland C. Reilly, M.Ed., MS
Associate Director

Thaanx, but I think the source is the Bible and my nephew e-mailed it to me. I don't do west wing, I don't do Dr. Laura. It makse sense to me that if we're going to live by the Bible's teachings we should be consistent. And your problem with that is?