Actually, no it isnt. It is actually very sound.

Only if you believe that one or two Scriptures outline the whole. I also can take 3-5 lines out of the Book and make a case for something that appears to be correct, but when put into context with the whole of the Book, then it doesnt.

Nope! I have been waiting for 4-5 pages now for someoen to finally ask this! I have in the past offered up the rest of Scripture that completes the subject of marriage, and divorce. I have not brought it back up, because it was very evident the first time that I wrote it last year...that no one on that side even read what I wrote and thus, no discussion ensued.

I am very reticent in the current climate to bring it up again, pecisely because so far on these three to 5 pages, I have had my motivations and even my intelligence questioned. So, I have held back to see if anyone wants to put down their sword and maybe just sit at the table and talk. For those, then I would love to bring the rest of Scripture up to support what I have been saying.

I didnt say this!

I have been saying the same for the opposing position for the last 8 months!!

I'm listening MM but for clarity..they were NOT taken from one book but MANY and both OT and new.

Look again.

Again, Noodle, no one disagrees about the struggle with sin or the temptations to sin that we all face daily.

But the question again is, if you are a born again believer can you LOSE your salvation because you "sinned again" in whatever form of sin you care to choose?

Are your sins, as a born again believer, ALL forgiven or are they not?

If they ARE forgiven, where does a "stain" remain that has not been covered by the blood of Christ so that we ARE justified in God's sight?

We, that is, all born again believers, WILL be judged for what we did in this life, and that judgment will be handled by God when He judges the "works" of believers, not in determining whether or not they ARE saved. Some will enter heaven by the proverbial "skin of their teeth" with NO "good works" to be rewarded by God, but they WILL be in heaven nonetheless, because entry into heaven is NOT dependent in any way upon "works based salvation," it is dependent upon "faith alone based salvation."

Ditto!

I have kept very quietly in the corner because of my situation -- my H and I met during our divorces, and some (including me) consider that to have been adulterous. While our spouses had moved on to others, we were not legally, morally (or emotionally) ready to begin a relationship.

**but, enough about me**

This thread is horrifying on so many levels. The pain, the attacks on the character of loving people like Mrs. W and LA... it's disguisting.

I think that JJ and this thread should move to the quiet place that was set up for this discussion. It would be very easy for a moderator to move the thread over there. Has JJ or MM asked?

Yes, this is a public site and anyone can post as long as they follow the rules. But **should they**? To most willing to put themselves in harm's way and share an opinion on this thread, no, not all should. And if JJ is a person of compassion, she would see that the harm far outweighs the good.

I have been both FBS and FWS... I know the pain... and I struggled with whether or not I should be here as my situation can be triggering for some... and for the most part, I rarely post... but this whole thing is so sickening and has gotten so out of hand with the religous debate (God must be shaking His mighty head!)... I just had to say something -- for my own piece of mind. (What's left of it)

FH.... IMHO... there is no proof that God exists or that Christ was risen from the dead....it is on faith that I believe this. Proof would have everyone of sound mind believing the same thing.... proof is a standard that no religion has ever reached... just like there is no proof of an afterlife.

I understand. You are correct. But, many were left out also that complete what we are talking about here. These are only a subset of the complete word on marriage, adultery, divorce.

This has all been like when my wife and I were newly married. We received a card in the mail to come to a Revelations Bible study. So, we went!

It was four weeks long, and went along real well. We were learnign a lot from the classes. What we didnt know was what was in store the last week.

It was at a 7th Day Adventist church. On the last day of this, they began to speak about the Sabbath and about Saturday and such. I raised my hand and asked "but doesnt Romans 14:5 state that"one man esteem one day above another and another man esteems everyday alike. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind." Man...was I in for it!

They escorted us out immediately to a back room and basically told us that we were sinning by not keeping the Sabbath. Their ears were closed to the Scripture I jsut gave them. They held onto the one they had which was to keep the Sabbath.

Now, if that was the only thing Scripture said about the Sabbath, then they would be right. But other parts, including the Romans passage I just gave, stated that it wasnt important what day it was....but that there is a day that we esteem.

We ran out of that place as fast as we could!

I feel like that here. So many are stuck here on these verse and refused last year to look at the rest. This is what I call context. Seeing Scripture in its entirety.

Those folks at the 7th Day Adventist church didnt want to do that. And so far, neother have those on the "opposing" side.

Since you have asked, I will begin to compile these and post them once I have them together.

Looking foreward to hearing the support for these seemingly odd conclusions.

My mistake. I pulled the quote from your post. My apology.

However the answer still remains the same. So what part of the "rinse" do you object to or find "wrong?"

See, Noodle? I wish you would learn not to be contentious. I mean, it doesnt really affect me. But many get baited because of the way you say things. The better way to have said this was:


Doesnt that sound better? Isnt that less confrontational?

Believe me, I used to be the same way. And talking that way got me nowhere. You and I can have this discussion and it can be fruitful. And it doesnt require things like this.

I like my style MM..that's why I use it.

MEDC, I know, or at least I think I know, what you are trying to say. So let me try to be a little more precise.

The PROOF is the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles, the many people who Jesus appeared to during 40 days before Jesus ascended to heaven, the empty tomb, the Roman Guard, the attempts by the Jews to deny that Jesus had actually risen from the dead, etc.

The FAITH is that He is who He said He is and "there is no other name under heaven by which we can be saved."

But even as Jesus said, "even if someone were raised from the dead, ye still would not believe." Unbelief is the "norm," unfortuntately. Rejection of even facts is not usual.

Interpretation of facts is usually highly influenced by the preconceptions and biases brought to bear on the facts.

Let's take it out of the current realm of discussion for just a second, hopefully to add more clarity.

There is a LAW of Biology that states: Life begets life. Life cannot come from non-life. That is an accepted FACT of Biology that is essentially accepted by everyone as being FACT, whether or not they happen to believe in God.

But those very same people who deny God and accept the Biological Law also "believe" that life DID come from nonlife, "at least once." There is absolutely NO proof that such a thing ever occurred, while there is abundant proof that life ALWAYS comes from life. PROOF is not the question. Faith is the issue and faith itself is NOT proof. Not that God exists and not that Evolution is "how we got here. If it is evolution, then the "sinfulness" of adultery or "affair marriages" is a social construct and nothing more. There is, then, no "right or wrong" that applies other than what any given society chooses to apply to itself.

Without God, we are free to do whatever we want to do because "God's rules" wouldn't apply.

By the same token, "forgiveness of sin" does not apply UNLESS God is real and Jesus IS who He says He is.

Noodle, you asked:



The truth? Everywhere. Both sides of this issue have valid points. I've been trying to discern "THE" truth here, and cannot.

What if I am wrong in some of my beliefs, that some things I think are not sin are, or vice versa? What becomes of me then?

Pep-





What exactly does this have to do with what you said here?



I only wanted to let Mr W know that my husband is not a troll. I brought him here.

I am taking issue with what I see as a blatant attempt to encourage folks to disrespect and disregard him based solely on my previous offense. The old "guilty by association" thing. His words and actions can stand or fall on their own merits.

UNCOOL


My husband will return to either defend or retract his words as either he sees fit, or as the Lord leads him. Not always the same for any of us on this journey I believe.
I'm outta that one! LOL!

I will support him and follow him as as my husband as humbly as I can...even if sometimes I disagree with him. Definitely one of the most difficult things I have ever tried to do. God help me! LOL!

I do still read most all of your posts, and let me please say that I still respect and regard you wisdom greatly, even when I know that you do not wish for, nor would appreciate any replies from me. Thank You.

Good question.

I have heard a lot of answers for this but the one I most agree with is that sin is willfull.

If you have the indwelling spirit..you CAN'T sin unaware.

The spirit will be offended by sin and react to it.

So then the real issue becomes your heart/spirit/will...as it ever was.

oh..and forgot to add..that if you DID sin unaware that would be "covered" by your status as saved.

In general it would be coverred either way...but there is some question about what it MEANS if you know something is sin and rebel to pursue it.

Some say that it means you were never saved in the first place..some say it means you put your salvation in check...but general consensus is..it's not good.

FH... the story is 2000 years old and there is no proof that can be verified today. A person could argue that this whole thing is nothing more than a story agreed upon by a group with an agenda. I worked in a profession where proof was required.... where I needed to testify as to fact... and nothing here would stand up to that scrutiny today. We believe there to be 40 eyewitnesses because we have faith in Scripture.... we believe there to be an empty tomb because of our faith...not our senses.

Noodle, you are "right on" with respect to sin, although there are some times when we sin and it isn't until later that we are brought to awareness of our sin. This is true of a lot of unbelievers and is also true of Christians.

More than anything else, it has to do with "accountability" to God for our sins.

I think the point that point that is being raised is one that concerns "Eternal Security" and those who hold to either God's "inability" to forgive sins or a persons ability to LOSE their salvation once they have had a true, born again, conversion.

Here is an example, maybe this will help explain what I mean:

Some professing Christians believe it is sinful to receive blood transfusions. They give scripture to back up this belief.

I've been a Christian for a long time, but had never heard that belief before. If I had ever had need of a blood transfusion, do you think the Holy Spirit would have convicted me that it was wrong? What if I went ahead and had one, then later came to believe it was indeed a sin? Am I still sinning if I still have that blood coursing through my veins? I don't know!

When I first became a Christian, there were many sins taught in the Bible that I was not aware of...It took time and study to learn them, and I still don't think i really understand all there is to understand about sin.

I didn't always know that pride is considered sin.
I didn't always know that jealousy is considered a sin.
And I am sure that I committed both offenses without being aware that they were sins. And, of course I have committed both sins AFTER knowing that they were sins.

I also believe it is much easier to avoid sins of action than sins of thought, and much easier to prove them as well.

MEDC, 'cmon... you know that isn't "all there is to it."

By using that reasoning almost NOTHING historical could be "proved." Eyewitness testimony IS valid even if the person who gave the testimony is no longer living.

Faith is about believing the truth of the testimony, not that the evidence is invalid.

How does one prove the historical validity of things where the people who recorded their eyewitness statements are no longer living?

and btw, I knew you meant "2000" and not "200." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

The Apostle Paul talks about knowing the things he should do, but not doing them, and wanting to do right but not doing right, etc....the struggle between the flesh and the spirit, and he's talking about saved people.