Leaderboard

God gave instruction to Moses regarding divorce in Deuteronomy 24:1. It reads, “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house”. The word here translated “indecency” is the Hebrew word ervah. It means nudity, disgrace, blemish, same or uncleanliness. According to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, “Her offense could not have been adultery, for that was punished by death (Deut. 22:22; Matt. 19:9). It was simply some behavior the husband considered improper or disgraceful. The Jews understood this Mosaic precept to mean that a man might divorce his wife for almost any reason (Matt. 19:4-6). Christ, explained, however, that it was not God’s will for divorce to be thus easily obtained (Matt. 19:8)” Leslie Vernick comments on this in her book “The Emotionally Destructive Marriage.” “Moses permitted divorce only as a concession to people’s hard hearts. God’s ideal for marriage hasn’t changed. He still wants it to be a lifetime relationship, but hard hearts still cause serious wounds to people and relationships. There are times it is just not wise or safe to stay married if the destructive person has not had a change of heart. They would have too much power to continue to hurt you." Protestant Christians traditionally state the Bible only gives one reason for divorce which is adultery, based on the words of Christ (Matt. 19:8). Some also include abandonment, based on Paul’s epistle (1 Cor. 7:15). The Seventh-day Adventist church added the Pauline Privilege to the church manual at the General Conference Session in 2000. Monicaque Sharman, author of the book, “The Bible, Sex, and this Generation,” points out that she believes the adultery exception spoken by Christ is often misunderstood. First mentioned during the Sermon on the Mount, Christ was preaching about adultery. In verse 28 He says that if a man looks on a woman with lust, he commits adultery. In verse 32, He says if a man divorces his wife, he also commits adultery. “In Matt 5:32 Jesus is teaching that divorce by the husband is tantamount to breaking the seventh commandment. If however, the husband has not divorced his wife, and she has sex with another man, then this first husband is not sinning.”). In this view, Jesus was not saying a man should divorce his wife if she commits adultery. Nor was He teaching that adultery is a justifiable reason for divorce. He was pointing out that when a man divorces his wife (which results in her sleeping with another) it is the man that unjustly put her away that is guilty of adultery. God commanded Hosea to marry a prostitute and never told Hosea to divorce her due to her adultery. Jesus is not encouraging men to divorce their wives in the event of adultery. His point is that the man is guilty of adultery when he unjustly divorces his wife. These teachings from Jesus are found in Matthew 5:31, 32; 19:4-9; Mark 10:2-12 and Luke 16:18. Notice that in Matthew 18:4-9, the Pharisees are asking Jesus what the justifiable grounds are to divorce. Jesus could have simply responded that adultery was the only justifiable grounds but He did not. In fact, He basically said there are no justifiable grounds. He said what God has put together, let no man separate. That was His answer. Then, to double down on that answer, He said, that if a man divorces his wife he causes her to commit adultery (unless she commits adultery before the divorce). Jesus answered the Pharisees’ question in verse six. The adultery is mentioned in verse nine. So here is the question. In verse nine was Jesus making an exception to His response in verse six? OR in verse nine was He doubling down on His answer in verse six? How would it be doubling down? In verse six Jesus said no man is to separate what God has put together. In verse nine, He is going one step further. Not only should no man separate what God has put together, if you do, you cause your wife to commit adultery. When we look at this passage in Mark, Jesus doesn’t even say anything about adultery when answering the Pharisees. It isn’t until they go into the house and the disciples ask Him about it that He brings up adultery. The passage in Luke does not even mention adultery exception at all. These passages are problematic. They are difficult to understand due to the Greek words that were used. The so-called “adultery” exception isn’t best translated adultery. The Greek word porneía is the word some English translations have translated into adultery. That is not the Greek word for adultery and Jesus uses the Greek word for adultery in the same sentence that He uses porneía. So adultery may not even be the issue in the so-called “adultery exception.” Remarriage The traditional Protestant belief is that if a couple divorces without “Biblical” grounds (i.e. adultery or abandonment) they are not allowed to remarry. This is based on an interpretation of Matthew 5:31, 32. It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Dr. Stephen Jones, in his book “The Bible Says: Divorce and Remarriage is Not Adultery” provides an alternative interpretation for these verses. He contrasts the requirement by Moses to provide a written divorce decree with the Babylonian law (Law of Hammurabi) which only required a verbal directive. The written decree is the point of emphasis Jesus is making. When Jesus states he who divorces his wife makes her commit adultery, in context of the previous verse, it is implied Jesus is referring to divorce without a written decree. Dr. Jones also provides an alternate interpretation of the term translated adultery in the passage. Hebrews 12:16 refers to Esau committing adultery but there is no record of Esau having extra-marital sex. He did, however, marry a Hittite woman. 1 Cor. 5:1 applies the term fornication to incest. Jude 7 applies the term to going after strange flesh. These are all examples of unlawful unions. Thus, Dr. Jones reasons the adultery referenced by Jesus may have applied to an unlawful union. Thus, a man should issue his wife a written divorce decree unless the marriage was unlawful, in which case a written decree would not be required. Some point to 1 Corinthians 7:11 as instruction that a divorced person should not remarry unless they return and remarry the one they divorced. The verse actually encourages wives to stay with their husband and not leave. If they do leave, Paul says, let them remain unmarried. The word translated “leave” is not the same word as divorce. It simply means separate. Paul is telling wives that separate from their husbands (without getting divorced) not to marry someone else. Jesus taught that the man who divorced his wife caused her to commit adultery and should he marry again would cause his new wife to commit adultery. There is disagreement among scholars if the “adultery” being referenced by Jesus is a continue state or a one-time act. When a person divorced without grounds marries again, is the first sexual encounter with the new husband and wife the only act of adultery or is the entire second marriage an adulterous relationship? Scholars are divided on the answer to that question. The case of Will E. gives some guidance on the issue. Will E’s first marriage ended in divorce, he then fathered a child with another woman and then married a third. Some brothers felt he should divorce his second wife and marry the woman with whom he had fathered a child (his first wife was already remarried.) Commenting on this, Ellen White wrote, “I would say his case cannot be improved by leaving the present wife.”[ii] Years later, Will E. had become a very successful preacher and led many to Christ. A large church was considering ordaining him as an elder and asked Mrs. White what her opinion was. She wrote, “I do not think any such questions as that ought to be placed before me… I do not believe that God wants me to take any such burden upon me.”[iii] The decision was left to the local church to decide. In Genesis 2:28 God says, “It is not good for man to be alone.” In 1 Corinthians 7:9, The Apostle Paul, says it is better to marry than burn (in lust) for those that cannot contain themselves. Does this only apply to those that had “Biblical” grounds for divorce? Some believe that is the case. Others disagree. Monicque Sharman (2003) The Bible, Sex, and this Generation. New York: iUniverse, Inc., page 81 [ii] Ellen G. White, Letter 175, 1901 [iii] Ellen G. White, Ms 2, 1913

I'm all for your mode of expression. I was merely explaining that I agree with you.

Some of the messages of Leviticus 18 has to us is that first of all don't live in terror but trust in God. Second, don't do anything to help God. That makes your God too small. God is sufficient to run the universe including your little part of the world. The land that the Canaanites saw as the cursed land due to the unpredictable amounts of rain God offered to his people as the promised land. Are there promises God offers to us that we see as curses? Sex belongs in the home between spouses, not with your children nor in-laws, or pets, or with people outside of the family. While we find good people in the Bible with multiple wives the story tells us that arrangement caused too many headaches and was not wise. There can be other unwise choices but God works with us although we suffer the consequences. Don't trust in mystical acts that are pure superstition.

From the scripture context and learning about the culture of ancient Canaan. The Canaanites were people, people who married and raised children. For some reason the Canaanites came to the conclusion that they needed to help Baal and the gods of life by going to their house of worship and at key times during the year that they all had to unite their life forces. This was not a bunch of men going to temple for purely homosexual relations. This was the whole community coming together, whole families were involved and having sex with not only men with men but these were whole families both men and women having sex with their children and their neighbor's children and with their neighbors spouses and with in-laws and aunts and uncles and their children having sex with their brothers, sisters, neighbor children, the parents of those children, and with their pets. They did this out of desperation out of fear that Baal might not be strong enough to win the victory over the Leviathan this cycle and thus famine will come and they all starve. Leviticus 18 is talking about things that the Hebrews were NOT to do when they came together to worship the Lord. When you look at all the things that the Canaanites were doing at worship, and that it was all of them where do you get the idea that this text is talking about people who are homosexual? Were all the little children naturally homosexuals? Were all these married couples naturally homosexuals? Then why is not the whole chapter focused on homosexuality instead of one mention in a whole list of things that the Hebrews were not allowed to do in the sanctuary/temple which the Canaanites did when they went to their temples to worship? Second comes from the idea among the Canaanites that in raping a man would steal some of their life force so that food that would have grown in the victim's garden will now grow in your garden. Animals that would have been born to the victim's flocks would now be born to your flocks, children that would have been born to the victim's wife will now be born to your wife.

I am currently studying a unit on divorce in graduate school. We read everything from the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy to scientific research articles. Of course, last week's Sabbath School lesson focused on divorce. I think this is a topic that most in the church really are not well educated on because so little information is provided. In Sabbath School, the question was asked if remarriage is allowed. The answer given was only if the divorce was a result of adultery. I think there is a problem there. Such a position elevates divorce to a very high level of sin. It is saying that if a man commits adultery and his wife divorces him for it, he can never remarry. Or, if a man divorces his wife and she has not committed adultery, he can never remarry. It is as if he has to pay for his sin the rest of his life. What other sin is like that? If I steal from a man is there a punishment that I must endure for the rest of my life or is there a way I receive forgiveness and put it behind me? I don't think Jesus was saying the man can never remarry. He said if the man divorces his wife for any other reason than adultery he causes his wife to commit adultery when she marries another man and he himself commits adultery when he marries another woman. He said this in the same context that he said that when a man looks at a women in lust, he commits adultery in his heart. He was preaching on the spirit of the law. A man doesn't commit physical adultery when he lusts after a woman. He commits spiritual adultery. It is a sin he needs to repent of. A man doesn't commit physical adultery when he divorces his wife for a reason other than adultery. However he commits spiritual adultery (in the same sense as he does when he lusts after a woman) if he remarries. It is a sin he needs to repent of. Jesus was not teaching that Moses was wrong to permit divorce. He was teaching that divorce should not be taken lightly which is what the Jews were doing at the time. Yes, divorce is allowed. Moses allowed divorce and Moses wasn't wrong to do so. However Moses allowed it because of the hardness of the heart. When divorce happens, someone (perhaps both parties) need to repent. It is not a light matter. However I do not see that Jesus was teaching that a person that gets divorced needs to perform penance for the rest of their lives to atone for it.

It seems that even the plainest of beliefs can be distorted when someone wants to take issue with the Bible. When God first created the earth and placed the two people in the garden and said they should cleave to each other as one. That was His model of relationships. Like the Sabbath and any number of other beliefs in the Bible, if God was going to change it, He should have made it CLEAR in the Scriptures. We should not be minutely parsing out texts to pursue an idea that has not been a part of the behavior of God's people for thousands of years. Homosexuality has never been acceptable in the Christian or Jewish tradition until the last few years. Paul spoke much about having the mind of Christ, putting on Christ, and even stated he was waiting for Christ to be formed within the Christians in some of the churches he worked for. To continue to claim your homosexuality as a Christian would seem to be continuing to hold on to your own mind and you reflect nothing of Jesus in you. I feel confident to say Jesus did not present a gay personality and if He is shining thru a person, they will not be hanging on to their homosexuality. Jesus came to save people from their sins, not in them. This does not necessarily mean they will change to being heterosexual as even Paul suggested if one could be not married, all the better. The thing that concerns me is when people claiming to be Christians and/or Seventh-day Adventists affirm people in their sin, they are also affirming them into perdition. And the Scriptures do state the penalties for such an act of unkindness towards another person. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Cor 11:3 So, I would think long and hard before I would take something so simple and plain as the model God gave in the Garden of Eden and twist it around to approve of wrong doing.

?✨ ? Signs and wonders ? ?✨

I'll believe your honesty when you believe mine. It seems you are looking for opinion to support your prejudices, not honest Bible interpretation. Wanderer and I have both made substantial comments on the content of Leviticus 18. You have not. When the Sodom and Gibeah stories state that "all" of the men of the city gathered around the house, wanting to "know" the visiting man or men, it is not dishonest to say that means something like 100%. "If my position is shown by the evidence to be not consistent with the Bible, I will freely acknowledge that." That's already been done, and your "free acknowledgement" seems to be taking the form of accusations of dishonesty. That doesn't look very good. I for one did not decide "ahead of time" what the text meant. Failing to find any reason not to do so, I merely took it at face value. And, for that, you call me "dishonest." Until you can make a better show of good faith, I have to think that your thread is better ignored.

5 Things You Didn't Know About The 1939 World's Fair_2 On April 30, 1939, the New York World’s Fair opened in New York City. The opening ceremony, which featured a speech by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, ushered in the first day of television broadcasting in New York. Here are five things you didn't know about the 1939 World's Fair... The Idea for the Fair Stemmed From the Great Depression The idea to hold a monumental exposition in New York didn't form out of nothing. In 1935, while the Great Depression was still taking its prolonged toll on the economy and society, business leaders decided a large exposition or world's fair would help revitalize the area, both in terms of finances (due to increased labor and payment) and morale. The planners determined that creating a positive showcase for technology and the future could help the area survive the continued economic troubles. 63 Nations Participated In The Fair Spanning 1,200 acres at Flushing Meadow Park in Queens, the fairground was marked by two imposing structures–the “Perisphere” and the “Trylon”–and exhibited such new technology as FM radio, robotics, fluorescent lighting, and a crude fax machine. Sixty-three nations participated in the fair, which enjoyed large crowds before the outbreak of World War II interrupted many of its scheduled events. It turned out to be the best-attended event of the first half of the 20th century, The Fair Had the Original Futurama Yep. The popular TV show Futurama took its name from the Futurama exhibition at the 1939 World's Fair. This Futurama was a vision of what the world would look like 21 years later, in 1960. It was also called the World of Tomorrow (which was referenced at the beginning of the animated Futurama, too) and contained a conveyor belt that carried observers around a model town, showing off technology. A color TV was demonstrated there, as was a robot that could smoke. (No, really, one of the advertised characteristics of this robot was that it could smoke.) There were predictions of technology like "rocketguns," meant to provide fast trans-Atlantic travel, and a decidedly suburban cast to the whole exhibit. The Perisphere Contained the Longest Escalator in the World To enter the Perisphere and get a look at the exhibit inside visitors had to first enter the Trylon and take a ride up a custom made escalator. The escalator into the Perisphere was the longest electric escalator in the world at that time. Once visitors were done inside, they descended via The Helicline. The Helicline was a 950-foot-long, 18-foot-wide curved ramp with a mirrored underside, that led visitors back down to ground level. Since it was one of the highest open-air areas at the fair, the Helicline was a popular spot to take in views of the fairgrounds. The Fair Gave Many European Culinary Stars a Way out of the Battle Zone A large portion of the fair was dedicated to food, both to innovations from existing American companies such as the Nabisco icebox cake and a fried version of the Taylor Pork Roll -- Wonder Bread had an entire pavilion and its own wheat field -- and to international displays meant simply for entertainment and gastronomical interest. An unexpected perk for chefs working at the World's Fair was that many of them were able to stay in the United States even as World War II was chewing up Europe. French chefs, in particular, benefited as the French pavilion's restaurant provided the basis for what would become established French restaurants in the U.S.

a) Some of us have used other Scriptures to show that the face reading is not only reasonable, but necessary, and you have repeatedly objected to the introduction of other Scriptures. But the Bible must interpret itself. You yourself have not given us one reason to question the face reading. b) The same goes for the universality of the prohibition. Other Scriptures answer that question. An unnatural abomination does not improve with age. You cite a certain percentage of the population that you claim naturally prefers the homosexual approach, but the Bible stories that you seem so determined to exclude show that the number was more like 100% in certain societies that were ripe for destruction. This correlation is highly pertinent, not for judging individuals, but for understanding the nature of what has evidently ensnared them.

I honestly have looked at every text in Leviticus 18. I commented on the opening comments, on the list of forms of sexual sin in the chapter, on the closing comments. I have also consistently and continually tried to call people back to that inquiry when they have headed off on tangents. I honestly can't see how I could have been *more* focused on the scripture. Unless the only way to satisfy is to simply capitulate and agree with what is proposed by others. I'm trying to actively engage. I have *already stipulated* that on a face reading this text forbids male same-sex contact. I don't see anything in this scripture that goes beyond that prohibition. Claims have been made but no evidence adduced. I am trying to enquire into whether (a) the face reading is a reasonable reading of the text and (b) whether this prohibition is binding for all human beings for all times or only for the people of Israel newly arrived in Canaan. I'm not sure how someone could read this whole thread and claim that I have refused to engage with Leviticus 18, though.

Paul did indeed use "something like it," and I was only explaining his point, not making one of my own. We could stick with the texts in Leviticus, but unless we were to twist them to suit ourselves, they would only lead us to the same conclusion. It is highly significant that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, as that eliminates the argument that the Old Testament only condemned it for being an acknowledgement of false gods.

Bravus has said many words, urging us to discuss the actual Bible texts, but he himself has neither offered any substantial commentary on any Scriptures, nor directly addressed any of the points made by others. I have to question the value of a post such as this, when the Bible references are too clear to miss (unless we have become too sophisticated to see the obvious). The only purpose being served seems to be to further desensitize us all by discussing something that Paul said shouldn't even be named among us.

Seeing I was the one to make the assertion that, except to the desensitized, homosexuality is naturally repugnant, it seems to be for me to respond to this. That observation was but one small point in the midst of a number of scriptural references or allusions. Paul himself makes the point that such practices are contrary to nature, from which I took the liberty to make the above observation. I am not suggesting that we use our feelings alone as a guide, but when our sensibilities happen to coincide with the Word of God, then I doubt the safety of questioning them. My position is that 100% of us are incapable of love. Only God's grace can give us the power, and it is bestowed only on those who are willing to be made willing to obey.

It is perhaps not best to boast that our Adventist theologians are more sophisticated than their Evangelical counterparts. If we have a better understanding of Bible truth, it is because God has blessed us to that end. God forbid that we should become so sophisticated that we can no longer see the obvious. What should distinguish us from the Evangelicals is not our willingness to tolerate or excuse sin. It is their willingness to resort the power of the state to enforce their dogmas.

Very true. I happened to be reading in I Chronicles this morning, where it says that the word of David, commanding the armies of Israel to be counted, was abominable to Joab. I recall the Book of Exodus making the observation that every shepherd was an abomination to the Egyptians. Clearly, the word means "detestable." I'm afraid that the self-styled "loving relationship," in the context of homosexual behaviour, is like Casper the friendly ghost. The Bible strictly forbids having anything to do with those who call up the spirits, and there are no good fallen angels. I recall hearing a sermon in which Ron Halverson, Sr. describes his experience in going to Casper, Wyoming to hold a series of evangelistic meetings. Let's just say that the ghosts were not friendly.

Nicely said, brother. I seem to recall Mrs. White describing "Christian perfection" (notice the qualifier) as that state where the impulse to bless others springs constantly from within. I believe it is a biblical view that God has predestined every believer to reach that state, now in this life, conformed to the image of His Son. If we don't have the faith to take hold of this promise, it could be argued that we are not really believers at all. It's all by the power of God's grace, combined with our effort. Why would it also be dependent on our own efforts? Otherwise, it would probably violate our free will. We've got to be wholeheartedly with the program, but only God can perfect our Christian character, and only He knows how and when that is accomplished. Besides the inherently blasphemous nature of the "sinful Christ" heresy, it tends to make us our own saviours, in a kind of competition with Christ (as in, "He can't have had any kind of advantage over us"), rather than in reliance on Him and on His righteousness alone.

How did Jesus seek to counter religious misunderstandings of God’s law? He set out to tell the truth about His Father and the kind of obedience that is really pleasing to Him. He often did so at great risk on the Sabbath. You would think it was all innocent and good. He simply healed people […] The post The Teaching and Example of Jesus (12:3) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

I have been hesitant to post here because our church finds itself on the one hand getting many converts and reaching out in fellowship to the popular evangelical churches who have a very hard line on this topic, and much of our finances come from appealing to this mindset. Yet on the other hand, our leaders tend to be more careful readers of the Bible than the typical evangelical. And they have pointed out that these verses run into three different groupings. One grouping is dealing with how the Canaanites would worship Baal. Canaan/Israel is in an area about 150 miles wide by about 50 miles long, yet it has the most diverse geography, and meteorology in a small space and one of if not the most diverse for plants and animals than any place else on earth. California is second but is 17 times the size and does not have nearly the diversity. This small piece of land is where Europe, Asia, Africa and the Arabian deserts all meet, with their weather patterns and life forms. This variety is what the Bible means when saying that the land if flowing with milk and honey. This also gives both a predictability yet unpredictability to how it will be year after year for things such growing food which one of these four patterns will be reflected this year. Each year they saw themselves as unsure if the rains from Baal will come from over the Mediterranean sea indicating Baal raising from the dead on the third day and defeating the chaos monster and brings the rains of life for their gardens to grow or will the winds come from the Arabian desert with dry air and Baal staying dead from his fight with the chaos monster and the gardens dry up and the people starve. Therefore at certain key points in the agricultural cycle (which happen to be the feasts and fast of the land) the Canaanites believed that they needed to help out Baal and the gods of life gain victory over the gods of death and famine. They believed that they could help Baal out by uniting their life-forces. They would do this by making bread of mixed grains (Ezekiel 4:9 bread is this unkosher unclean bread talking about the Hebrews being in the unclean lands). wearing clothes made out of different textiles, and everyone uniting their bodies. They would go to the temple and worship Baal on these critical points of the agricultural cycle by having orgies. Everyone having sex with each other. Parents with their children, their neighbors, their neighbor''s children as their neighbors having sex with the parents children, throw in the animals as well. But this was done not necessarily for pleasure but out of desperation that this activity was somehow helping Baal and the gods of life so that they don't starve to death. And thus we find in the Bible instructions on what the Hebrews can and cannot do when they come to worship Yahweh. Yes, they were allowed to worship on the say days that were critical points of the agricultural cycle with some of their less objectionable traditions such as the two goats for Yom Kippur and the unlevened bread for the spring feast, and the grain sheaf for feast of first fruits. But they were NOT to do any of the uniting of the life forces. They were not to be like the Canaanites feeling fearful that Baal might loose and thus need their help, but rather they were to not trust in works but rejoice that Yahweh is victorious (One interesting question of discussion. Do any of us eat Ezekiel 4:9 bread? Do any of us wear clothes of mixed textiles or do we only eat bread made of one grain and wear clothes made of 100% of the same textile? If we are doing some of the same things in the same sin list as homosexual activity why do we say that some of it applys to them but does not apply to us.?) So the first context were we find texts about homosexual activity is when the Bible says that the Hebrews can and cannot do when coming to a worship service.

5 Things You Didn't Know About Watergate_3 On April 29, 1974, President Richard Nixon announced the release of the Watergate tapes, which included the “smoking gun” that led to Nixon’s resignation. Here are five things you didn't know about Watergate... The Bungled Watergate Break-in Wasn't the First Most summaries of the Watergate scandal focus on the June 1972 break-in that saw burglars nabbed due to poor planning and a guard with good eyes. However, that wasn't the first time operatives from the Committee to Re-elect the President (a.k.a. "CREEP") made their way into the Democratic National Committee headquarters. That was in May 1972, when burglars managed to get into the Watergate complex and offices unnoticed. The burglars stole documents and wiretapped phones but were unable to get more information when it turned out that the wiretaps weren't working. That led to the second burglary attempt. There Was an Attempt at a Break-in at a Second Building That Failed One of the co-conspirators charged in the Watergate break-in was a lawyer named G. Gordon Liddy. He was providing legal counsel to the re-election committee, and when the second Watergate burglary was thwarted, he was in the process of trying to plan another break-in at George S. McGovern's headquarters. McGovern went on to become the Democratic nominee in the 1972 elections, only to lose to Nixon, whose reputation was not yet completely sullied by Watergate, as far as the public was concerned. The Tapes Contained "the Smoking Gun" When you hear people talk about "smoking guns," especially when comparing Watergate with current political scandals, they're referring back to one piece of conversation on one tape that was released in August 1974. (Tthe tapes and corresponding transcripts were released in batches, often due to multiple court orders that they be released; Nixon was determined to keep as many under wraps as he could). The tape in question contained a recording of Nixon telling the FBI to stop investigating the Watergate break-in shortly after it occurred. This was considered proof that Nixon wanted to cover up the scandal and was the final piece of evidence that led to his resignation. Nixon Wanted to Show He Had Nothing to Hide -- by Editing the Transcripts Nixon stalled the release of the tapes and transcripts as much as possible, and when he finally did start releasing them, he edited what he could as well. Initially, he released some tapes, 19 in March of 1974, but in April a subpoena for more tapes appeared. Nixon released only the transcripts to these tapes at first, and the transcripts were edited by Nixon for what he claimed were discussions that were not relevant to Watergate. While he asked if the House Judiciary Committee would want to listen to the tapes and compare them to the transcripts, the editing did nothing to help his case. Eventually, he was forced to turn over the actual tapes, one of which held that all-important order to the FBI. A Note With a Phone Number Was All It Took to Cast Suspicion on Nixon When the Watergate burglars were originally caught, there was not a real indication that they were connected to Nixon until detectives investigating the case found that the burglars had the re-election committee's phone number -- and more than one copy of it. While that alone didn't definitively link Nixon himself to the crime, it was enough to move the investigation in that direction.

And false prophets

Maybe the church needs a Sabbath School program especially designed for heterosexual misfits! ?

While I will agree with the idea that the story of Sodom was about rape, it consistently overlooks one thing. The wicked crowd outside Lot's door were offered females for the purposes of heterosexual rape (I tend to think the daughters of Lot were not enthused with Dad's offer to these men, for some reason), but they chose to attempt the rape of those who presented themselves as men. Yeah, you can argue that it wasn't about that and they were trying to assert themselves over strangers, or you can dance around it anyway you want, but it was still a same-sex event. I have no idea how male victims of rape dealt with sexual victimization back then, but it is such a devastating event in the lives of men who are victimized by homosexual rape today that many people do not know that it even occurs. Many men feel like, "How am I going to tell someone that this happened to me?" It is a hugely under reported crime. So, I guess we can pretend it is not about homosexuality.

Some have explained John 8:32-36 to mean that we are free so long as we do exactly what we are told. Have you parents ever tried that with your children? “Now children, we want freedom in our home. We can have freedom so long as you do exactly what you are told. Do I make […] The post Misunderstandings of Law (12:1) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

I think the key to your question is in verse 3. " According to the doings of the land of Egypt, where you dwelt, you shall not do; and according to the doings of the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you, you shall not do; nor shall you walk in their ordinances." God is trying to purify a people for Himself, and if they follow the customs of the Egyptians -- or of the Canaanites whom He has already devoted to destruction -- that's simply not going to work. This chapter contains a long list of practices that are abhorrent to God. Homosexual behaviour is but one item in the list, except for one thing. Three items in the list are singled out as being wickedness, abomination, and perversion, respectively. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to suppose that those three are especially offensive to God. That said, we must always bear in mind that pride is the number one worst sin in God's eyes, so there is never any place for us to look down on anyone else.

Your position seems to betray a lack of basic understanding of the actual story. The two angels, along with Jehovah Himself (i.e. God the Son), appeared to Abraham in the guise of men who just happened to be passing that way. Having enjoyed Abraham's hospitality, the two angels (still in the form of men) eventually go on into Sodom, while Yahweh stops to talk further with Abraham. Lot finds these "men" in the open square, and for obvious reasons urges them to avail themselves of the relative safety of his home. The men of Sodom are clearly looking for someone to rape. Feeling the cultural imperatives of hospitality, Lot offers them his two virgin daughters, but the Sodomites are not interested. They want the "men," and if Lot will not turn them over, the men of Sodom are determined to take them by force. To suggest, as you have, that homosexuality is not a major part of this story, is simply ludicrous. I don't know who has made the false suggestion to which you refer. The two stories I have mentioned do seem to suggest that homosexuality may tend to prevail and manifest itself more and more in society as a whole, when the general level of depravity has advanced to the point where divine judgment is imminent, but that would never give anyone license to pass judgment on any individuals. I'm not sure what kind of engagement you are seeking. Those five texts speak for themselves, and so far no one has even suggested a reason not to take them at face value.