Well, let me jump in.

For the woman:

"A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.
Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value.
She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.
She selects wool and flax and works with eager hands.
She is like the merchant ships, bringing her food from afar.
She gets up while it is still dark; she provides food for her family and portions for her servant girls.
She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.
She sets about her work vigorously; her arms are strong for her tasks.
She sees that her trading is profitable, and her lamp does not go out at night.
In her hand she holds the distaff and grasps the spindle with her fingers.
She opens her arms to the poor and extends her hands to the needy.
When it snows, she has no fear for her household: for all of them are clothed in scarlet. She makes coverings for her bed; she is clothed in fine linen and purple.
Her husband is respected at the city gate, where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.
She makes linen garments and sells them, and supplies the merchants with sashes.
She is clothed with strength and dignity; she can laugh at the days to come.
She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.
She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness.
Her children arise and call her blessed, her husband also, and he praises her.
'Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all'.
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.
Give her the reward she has earned, and let her works bring her praise at the city gate. Proverbs 31

Hey everyone...as a way to separate everything, I will use this thread for our discussions...and list the study on a different thread. That way we cannot get the main point to the thread mixed in with our discussion...so we will still have a reference point. hopefully by tomorrow, i will have them up there.

Believer...great passage. the most glorious woman every written about. I plan to have her in part of the study on the wife's roles. good preview though!!

I am glad to hear that you are my sister. i hope once I get this up here that it helps. Too often, we try do do this our own way, instead of following the owners manual. And then wonder why things get so screwed up.

Thankss Froz. I hope it will begin to open some eyes, as it has mine.

2Long. As you know, everyone takes sides in science. And there are whole studies out there, theories...that use an intellectual approach to refuting evolution and have found creationism as a viable alternative.



Sounds to me like not every SERIOUS scientist out there agrees. More soon....

Weaver...I'm glad you wrote and please dont think you dont have a point of view here. We all like you jumping in!!

On the issues you just raised...your problem isnt with someone else's interpretation...your problem lies with God. Because He did really say this stuff, He really did have it put in the Bible.

If you love Jesus, and I have no duobt that you do <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, you also need to understand that these points of view, these principles, these commands and laws, were fully supported by Jesus.

Not one part of what I have said was unloving toward a person who has declared themselves a homosexual. I have no anger, no malice towards them. Jesus, as well as me...have only their highest good in what is said in the Bible, or what I am presenting here.

But with that said...Jesus did say that He was the way, the Truth and the Life...that NO ONE gets to the Father except through Him. He didnt allow for there to be a second way if you were a "good person," but didnt except His work on the Cross. He didnt allow for the worship of God in ways prescribed by Islam, or others. He said He was the Son of God, the Christ...and He was here to redeem us.

Yes, Christianity is VERY narrow. The Bible calls it the narrow road. While I know many people are sincere about their belief in other points of views different from God's Word, they are in God's view...sincerely wrong.

It is not unloving or without agape to tell someone that they are wrong and to try to help them to get right. As a matter of fact, the unloving thing to do is to ignore God's commands and to allow this person to continue as you remain silent.

How does it go again..?? "The only thing needed for evil to survive is for good people to do nothing." Jesus showed us so much love. But He never went against His Father's Word.

In His arms.

Mortarman - I love your patience with the "nonbelievers." I do find it interesting how they just can't resist injecting their opinions into a series that was declared to be for Christians. Then they claim, "I knew that's what you meant but I just had to play the 'devil's adovcate'." I knew that sort of thing would happen, because it's happened every time in the past anytime God and Christianity is brought into a discussion. Nevermind that this time, the declared "target" for THIS discussion is fellow believers and NOT those choosing to follow humanistic beliefs.

A suggestion, though it might seem rude, why not just ignore the posts from nonbelievers and "stay the course" with your intended discussion?

On a public forum, you can't stop anyone from commenting any way they choose, but the thrust of those comments is that "Christianity, God, and Jesus Christ" are "nice ideas" but they have no real impact on the "real world." They seek, intentionally or unintentionally, to "discredit" your basic assumption of the existance of God, the truth of Jesus Christ, and the response of true believers to simply "follow God in humble obedience to His commands and teaching." The "things of God" are foolishness to nonbelievers.

If you are not selective in your responses, you can easily get sidetracked from the avowed purpose and intent of the thread.

God bless and may He increase your patience and discernment.

Miss Manners says that it is rude to let people who aren't invited to a party know that one is being held.

You know, if I were going to start a quick game of "Let's You and Him Fight", I wouldn't have the temerity to involve God as one of the players. But that's just me, and I don't even play "Let's You and Him Fight" anyway.

Fh,fh, fh...

I responded 2 WAT's 2uote of MM's about scientists abandoning randomness in favor of intelligent design behind evolution. It simply isn't so.

It's more subtle than that, as I tried, with humor perhaps, 2 illustrate.

It isn't that "intelligent design" isn't behind evolution. Rather, it is being suggested as a vehicle 2 inject religious belief systems in2 the scientific method. Doesn't work, any more than my suggestion 2 put evolution in2 the bible makes sense (which was my point).

You seem 2 want 2 attribute my (and perhaps WAT's) posting 2 MM's thread as maliscious. As the atheists against the Christians. It ain't. But somehow, I don't think it's enough 2 point that out 2 you. Again.

MM:

"2Long. As you know, everyone takes sides in science."

I suppose so. What does that mean, though? Really. Science isn't a game, it's a tool. Take sides why? Good scientists will take the "side" of reason, not of personalities.

"And there are whole studies out there, theories..."

Studies and theories are NOT the same thing. Not even similar.

Study: The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research.

Theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

"that use an intellectual approach to refuting evolution and have found creationism as a viable alternative."

I can accept that there are people out there that use their intellect 2 refute evolution in favor of the pseudoscience called creationism. I submit, however, that this approach is unscientific. Scientists don't establish theories by applying intellect. They establish them by following simple, basic rules. They make observations, formulate explanations for those observations, bounce those ideas off their peers, and likely get sent back 2 the drawing board perhaps multiple times. Problem solving for curiosity's sake without an agenda is science at its best. Yep, scientists are human, 2, and I've been known 2 follow a favorite interpretation perhaps farther than I should, but I hope that when I do, my peers will help me see where I'm on a sensible track and where I'm wrong. So far, it's working... ...I think! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Science is self-correcting.

Paraphrasing a colleague here: "The best scientists are either children under 12 years old or adults over 60 years old." Innocence and unfettered curiosity on the one hand, and experience and wisdom on the other.


"Michael Denton, molecular biologist

Sounds to me like not every SERIOUS scientist out there agrees. More soon...."

I'd never heard of Denton before, so I did a little internet search. I certainly 2uestion his motives, and his science leaves much 2 be desired. I'm familiar with the extensive record of Earth's evolutionary his2ry. I simply disagree with what I've read from Denton.

Sorry if this 2rned in2 another one of those threadjacks!

-ol' 2long

"It's really more a set of guidelines than actual rules" - Pirates of the Carribean. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

"On a public forum, you can't stop anyone from commenting any way they choose,"

because they're all individuals with free will, and yet you proceed 2 make assumptions about their motives:

"but the thrust of those comments is that "Christianity, God, and Jesus Christ" are "nice ideas""

They ARE "nice ideas".

"but they have no real impact on the "real world.""

I've not said that.

"They seek, intentionally or unintentionally, to "discredit" your basic assumption of the existance of God, the truth of Jesus Christ, and the response of true believers to simply "follow God in humble obedience to His commands and teaching." The "things of God" are foolishness to nonbelievers."

Didn't say that, either.

...anyway, I think you've missed the points of all my many thousands of posts over the past 3.5 years. Maybe the point of my whole life (not that you're obliged).

2 quote Peter Gabriel (not the first time), but in reference 2 MM, his thread, and his generous spirit (and *our* relationship on MB):

"But still the warmth flows through me
And I sense you know me well.
No luck, no golden chances,
No mitigating circumstances now.
It's only common sense,
There are no accidents 'round here"

-Peter Gabriel, "Lay Your Hands on Me"

Peace, tranquility,
-ol' 2long

Might be another case of perception, and although I am not the only one you are talking about, I did not try to discredit MM's basic assumption that there is a God. And I didn't see WAT or 2long do that either. What I read were questions regarding the validity and interpretation of the Bible to explain/prove God's existance. And also as the absolute truth in that existance.

I do believe very much in God and I really am learning to detest the phrases "true believer/non believer" by Fundamentalist Christians such as yourself.

2long made a very good point about the Bible, it's origins and many, many authors.

Just because someone does not follow the same brand of Christianity (or even Christianity at all) that you do does NOT mean that they don't believe in God.

Even WAT said that he struggles with his belief in God, in that it has not been consistent. This tells me that he wasn't trying to discredit the existance of God at all. He just doesn't buy the same interpretation, shown by the way he said "MY God".

There are many, many religions in this world which worship God (the one and the same God) and to say that "your" version of Christianity is the only real truth is arrogant and scary beyond belief, to me anyway. I have gone to a Christian church most of my childhood, and off and on during my adulthood, but your brand of Christianity scares me. And I am slowly realizing just how much after being on this forum for a year.

I'm very sorry MM, but I had to respond to this post by FH.
And I'm sorry that you have to start a new thread for your class. Thank you though for that.

Weaver, no, I was not "referring to" or "including you" in my previous comment. I was specifically referring to 2Long and WAT. If you want to have a discussion about differences in biblical interpretation, I can accommodate you, but on another thread, not this one.

2Long, gee...."sorry about threadjacking" AFTER you spend all that time threadjacking simply because what YOU have to say is SOOOOO important that it MUST be interjected into a thread that someone else decided Christians and Christian living was the purpose and target of the thread.

You're right, 2Long, as you know I strongly disagree with your "scientific god." I embrace science as established by God so that things "work" in the universe, but not to "replace God." I base that, as you know, upon the FACT of Jesus Christ. All the other arguments you raise are "red herrings" compared to the question of "who IS/WAS Jesus Christ?" Argue Christ with me, in another thread if you must engage in such, but why not practice some of the "restraint" and "logic" that you seem to think only you have and leave THIS thread to the author and the "target audience." Will leaving it alone so you can concentrate on all the other threads really be such a biiiiigggg problem that you can't resist simply "being quiet?"

2Long, if you, or WAT, or Weaver, or anyone else wants to discuss tangetial issues, that's fine. But have the common courtesy to take it to a different thread and discuss it to your heart's content.

Once again....the liberal, humanistic philosophy reigns supreme...."it's OKAY to attack Christians and Christian beliefs because they are 'fair game.' Don't do that with any other group, but it's quite okay to bash or denegrate the beliefs of Christians. After all, the INDIVIDUAL is supreme and can do whatever the individual wants regardless of anyone else." But if anyone "DARES" to suggest, let alone state, that secular humanism and/or atheism is wrong, get the 'big guns' out because we CAN'T allow THAT to happen!!!! THAT would not be FAIR!!!!"

Mortarman can take the "high road," it's better and more in alignment with Christ's teaching. As for me, I'm still learning to "let others walk all over me" for the sake of Jesus Christ. I still think it's RUDE on the part of others to interject their humansitic arguments into a Christian discussion and very presumptuous on their part. But then again, if they choose to reject the King of Life, why should anyone be surprised if they put their thoughts above anyone elses thoughts and feel "compelled" to say, "you Christians can feel that way because it's good to feel any way you want, but it's still not TRUTH and the atheistic and humanistic philosophies and opinions ARE the 'real' truth."

Mortarman is attempting to tackle a very difficult and complex subject for nonChristians and Christians alike, the roles of husbands and wives in marriage. Marriage was ordained and established by GOD, not by Man. God "set the rules and set the standards." "Man" has corrupted that as Man has corrupted everything else "of God."

Mortarman is attempting to show to Christians who might not have "studied" the issue of "God-given roles in Marriage" and the issue of humble submission (out of love) to God just WHAT the differences ARE between "God's way" and "Man's way." NonChristians WILL NOT even consider and embrace "God's way" because it FIRST entails accepting there IS a God and then SECOND it requires surrendering one's life to Jesus Christ.

For Christians the whole issue (roles in marriage and everything else) BEGINS with "doing it God's way," not our own innate sinful way.

So, when the ladies have a "Ladies Only" thread, do we get upset and act on the urge to "butt in" and give contrary opinions? Or do we exercise discretion as the "better part of valor" and leave THAT "one" thread to the gender specific participants? If you want to start a "humanistic thread" on the roles of husband and wife according to humanistic principles, then do so.

If someone says "Christians only," "Atheists only," "Women only," "Men only," "Betrayed Spouses only," "Those dealing with an Other Child only," etc., MUST we interject OUR thoughts and opinion into those threads, especially if the underlying "opinion" is "you are all wet and your basic belief that underpins your discussion is FALSE, in my opinion, and MY opinion is supreme?"

Mortarman, I'm sorry also that so little of this thread has actually been spent on the very relevant topic you introduced. Please continue to cast your pearls....there are those who are listening, and keep focused on your target audience.

God bless.

Weaver - there is a marked difference between belief in "A god" and belief in "The God" of Scripture.

Also, if you want to discuss the historicity of the Bible and Canon, I can do that in another thread. According to the "rules" you are stating, I could easily show you that NO text that speaks of historical things is accurate or should be embraced as a "true account." But I don't think you really want to delve into the facts when opinion will suffice.

Even Satan believes there IS a God, he just wants to "be" that "god." Satan KNOWS the "one true God" and KNOWS exactly who Jesus Christ is.

KNOWLEDGE alone is not enough. A willing submission and surrender of one's life to God, through Jesus Christ, is the ONLY way to become a "true Christian." Neither I, nor Mortarman, nor anyone else "established" that TRUTH. God established that truth Himself..."no one comes to the Father but by me." "Enter through the narrow gate." "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life..."

If you want to talk about "scary," then consider the following:

"Humans" have a "problem" with "fundamental Christianity" because they want to retain control. Through Christ, God has "bought and paid for us" and we are His to do with as He sees fit. That goes against our humanistic, "top of the food chain," reasoning.

Weaver, here is the most basic "bottom line" to the whole issue....if Jesus Christ is who he said he was, then all the other things are "irrelevant." It all starts and ends with Jesus Christ. If Jesus Christ was NOT raised from the dead, then ALL Christianity is a joke and irrelevant, a "nice idea," but not really TRUTH.

Argue all you want with "fundamental Christianity," but the underlying issue is always going to come back to "personal pride." "Pride" is the singular biggest cause of sin and was the "downfall" of Lucifer and those who chose to go with him instead of choosing to "go with God."

Of course, if you don't believe in the authority of Scripture, what IS left to base your Christian belief upon? If God is NOT sovereign, then who or what is? If God does not have the "right" to establish the rules and to define "what is, and is not, sin," then who does have that right? Certainly NOT Man, because Man will think ANY behavior is "okay" and will tell others that they have "no right" to disagree with what they want to do or believe, no matter how heinous or disgusting it might be.



Of course you "didn't see that." You ascribe to the same notion that "one god is as good as another, or as good as no god." THAT is NOT the Christian belief. It's not even the Jewish belief. In both cases there is a firm, unequivocable, "I am the Lord thy God, I am One, and there is NO other."

Weaver, if you or WAT or 2Long or anyone else wants to have a discussion about the validity of Scripture, that's a fair topic....but it's a topic of it's own thread and not one to use to undermine Mortarman's thread and discussion with those who ARE born-again believers. If someone is NOT a follower of Jesus Christ, then they are "free" to do whatever they want to do because God's promises are not for them. But for those who DO claim to be Christians, then God has the "say" not us, as to what are His rules and commands and teachings in righteous living, in and out of marriage. God provides that knowledge and training through His revealed Word, the Scripture. So the issue of the "validity" of Scripture IS integral to all understanding of God and to WHY we should obey God and not our own "wants, desires, and human reason."

All I can say is, "wow." This was very enlightening - and confirmatory.

Mortarman - I do offer you an apology for not sticking to my earlier claim to challenge you only on your logic and not your "facts." I couldn't resist the temptation to violate this promise and thusly got sucked in to the futility of a perpetual debate that shouldn't have sprouted here. I should have expected that our respective "facts" were irreconcilable. I'll make sure this doesn't happen again by no longer participating. You're own your own. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

WAT

Mortarman ... please just continue to post what you originally intended to share about what you had learned about marriage gender roles.... Another board discussion about the religous premise on which you base your thoughts is not necessary ... just get your stuff out here because many of us are waiting to read about your original intended subject.

Thanks M.

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

oh, nevermind ... I see you already plan to fix this problem with continuity

thanks dear

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

First off...ForeverHers is right on all accounts, with regards to Christ, the Bible and Christians. There isn't much to add to that. FH, you covered it quite well.

I hear a lot of apologies here, and I guess I would like to say first is...dont worry about it. I take nothing personally in this world, except maybe a punch in the mouth.

Jesus is bigger than me, than all of this. This is His game, His rules, His creation. If He decides to take it personally, then that is up to Him...and I am quite certain He can handle things Himself. I am not here to convince one person to accept Jesus, or the Bible, or Creationism. I will say it again...I do not have that power. All I can do is reason with someone and stand there and give an accounting for the faith I have. To tell people about the very real person I know...Jesus.

You know, I used to get caught up in it all. But then I realized...it would be like describing my father to you. I know him. I am sure all of you do not. I can describe him, and my interactions with him. I can tell you what he was like (until he died in 1996), what he said. I can tell you how he influenced my life.

But at the end of the conversation, you have to afford a little faith in me concerning this. I could be lying about my Dad. He could still be alive. Or he might not have said the things he said, or did the things I said he did. I might have imagined some of it, or just made it up.

And some may question what I would say. And if they did, what would I do? I KNOW the truth about my Dad. I know that this other person does not know my Dad, and does not believe what I say about him. My Dad is physically not here anymore, so there is no way I can bring you to him, or him to you. So, how do I "prove" what I know to be true about my Dad?

Well, the only way I can is to bring others that know my Dad. My mother, my brothers...friends of my father. And they can relate their experiences with him. Some experiences will be new, or a little different. But guess what? The will be a remarkable similarity to how we describe this man.

Jesus Christ has been influencing believers for over 2000 years. Millions have come to know Him, and have had a remarkable sameness in their description of Him, and their relationship to Him.

In the end, with a book about the man Jesus (the Bible) that has not been refuted to date, with millions of believers who have described this person and their very personal and real relationship with Him...that is about all the proof we Christians have for you. Sure, we can go into science and show how evolution is a bigger leap of faith than Creationism is. How Creationism is against the odds...and actually breaks some of the laws of Physics. We can show how Creationism and evolution can NOT co-exist. We can show that if we can not accept the veracity of the Bible because some people think it is too old, or too removed from the actual events...then there is no ancient historical document of any account that can be accepted.

Every scientist...I say again...EVERY scientist has a bias. Evolutionary scientists are not unbiased, while Christian scientists are biased and practice pseudo-science. Every person is biased. You bring something to the table when you go looking in science.

But in that, you take the scientific method, you take the known laws, and you begin to approach this thing you are looking at in order to find out the truth. If you are truly an honest scientist, then even with your bias, you allow EVERY possibility to be possibly valid at the start. And you test until you find the truth.

Evolution has NOT done this! Not even close. It has small parts of the picture...but still has MAJOR problems with the final result. Creationism on the otherhand...up until now, has not had ONE thing proven wrong to it. The Bible has been batting a thousand. Someone asked above how Noah got two of every animal in the world on one boat, or other issues...science, history, etc. has proven almost everything to be true in the Bible after the Great Flood. All of the events have been proven true, or at the very least, have not been proven false.

The Great Flood has yet to be definitively proven true or false. We havent found the boat yet. We havent resolved how two of every animal got on that boat. We have not gotten there. I for one, want to know the answers. And I want science to provide those answers. God gave us a brain to use.

But I can believe that Noah's account is true because everything else in the Bible has been proven true so far. Evolution continues to have to be molded, or changed in order to run away from problems that have occurred or theories that have been proven wrong. I side with the Biblical account because even though I do not have 100% of the answers, I do know that when science has weighed in...it has yet to prove anything false. Thus, my faith allows me to fill in the rest of the puzzle.

Evolutionists have their own faith as well. And they use that faith to overcome some very real problems. It is a statistical impossibility for one DNA strand, in all of its compexity, to have been randomly created. There are so many zeros on the end of that possibility, that it takes an act of faith a lot bigger than mine in God in order to make it work.

Anyway, I digressed. And I do not want to do that. I too would love to sit down on this thread and us discuss in depth more of this. That is why I am going to put the Biblical marriage information on a different thread. It is okay that things went this way, because there are people here that need to hear this, and need answers. But FH is also right in that the intention of this thread was for Christians, and anyone seeking...to understand what God has commanded us to do and be in our marriages. If there is no God, then no problem for those that believe such. For those of us that know God, just like those of us that know my father, then these commandments and rules are VERY relevent to our lives.

So, if you want to cntinue this discussion here, I am all for it. For those that want the study on marriage from God's perspective, then that thread will be out there very soon (next couple of days...I am almost half way thru).

In His arms.

Mortarman:

YOU ARE SO SPECIAL! You were a blessing to me and still are. I so agree with your perspective.

I just now had a little church on a Wednesday afternoon in reading your last post. You really spoke about how I see things and confirmed that others share my viewpoint! Well, I know that you do.....