Mebe, I understand exactly your point, and agree. I was talking about a world where nobody wanted divorce, not a world where nobody was allowed to get divorced.

Childish visions of Eden I suppose, but if we can't even envision it...

Good grief!!!! Try reading your own posts once in a while...You come across as a self-indulgent, self-important, intolerant, overly-opinionated, self-absorbed, self-righteous know-it-all who cannot tolerate differing opinions. You must suffer fools better than you state, otherwise you couldn't stand yourself.

The rest of you: No religion on earth is more important than another. jesus supposedly taught tolerance, unconditional love and respect which is something many of you so-called "christians" fail to display to fellow posters on an on-going, daily basis.

This board functions best when used to help and support those in need. Trying to cram your beliefs(or "non-beliefs") down someone else's throat does nothing but expose your own intolerance and ignorance.

Actually, if you were in my household, you would be surprised!! There really isnt "rules" per se...like I have in them military. Everyone in the family is motivated to do what they are supposed to because it is in their best interest to do so.

Do you know what earns the worse punishment in our house? Lying and not keeping your word. My kids could break the rule of throwing the ball in the house...and end up breaking a lamp. And there might not be much said or done about that...aside from me saying how disappointed I am in them. But have them lie...or not live up to their word? That ends up ALWAYS being bad on them. As it is on me if I dont (believe me, my wife holds me to my word).

I get it. I think you may not see exactly what I speak of here. I am not saying that we must live in rigid rules and not be open to mistakes. The honorable man or woman is not one that makes no mistakes. It is the honorable person that, when they do make a mistake, does what it takes to make amends and to do right. And begin again to live up to their word and responsibilities.

This society is loaded with "me, me, me." Just the other day, I heard a briefing that was going on in the Army. The briefer started off with "gentleman, the United States is at war." One of the officers in the meeting interjected: "No sir...the United States is not at war." The briefer was puzzled and asked "what do you mean by that?" The officer said "Sir, the United States Army is at war. The people of the United States are in the mall shopping."

I lost a good friend in the helo crash this past week in Iraq. A good man. Duty, honor, country. But he lost his life for what seems to be a nation of people mroe worried about whether the rules will keep them from having "happiness." We are a nation of self-centered, spoiled brats. We are not willing to accept the heavy burdens of life. We have very little patience. We dont want to be inconvenienced.

I get it. I am sick and tired of the entitlement generation that is now a major part of this country. My kids are raised to honor their commitments, be honest and do their best to do right. And when they mess up...apologize, make amends and to do better next time.

Now...what is it I dont get?

Flawed men. I know this. doesnt take away from what they created.


I disagree. I believe they were men of God. But men nonetheless. You see, every sin is the same to God. So slavery is no worse or better than robbing a bank. All fall short. There was only one Man that walked this planet and did not sin. Also, almost every one of them spoke of how they believed slavery should be ended...about how God would judge this nation for this injustice (which He did in the destruction of the Civil War).

They werent perfect. But what they created was the best hope for all oppressed people throughout the world. It has taken a while to make the changes they knew we needed to make. But that was only possible under the system they created.


Who decides? What if the Federal government is unjust? Does the United Nations get to come in and over rule the US government? As long as a state is not breaking the law as outlined by the Constitution...then the citizens of that state are free to do as they please. If they want to pass a law in Indiana that states that everyone must where pink on Tuesdays...then they are free to do so. it is their state.


As I said, I personally am against life in prison for this. I dont like the law. But I am a Virginian. I have no right, nor does my elected representatives in Congress from Virginia, have the right to tell Michigan to change their law. It is consitent with the Constitution. So, it is not my business!


All true. And if the people of that stae want that law changed, then they can have it changed. By that state legislature. Not by outside forces. And not by simply ignoring the law. If we can ignore one law...why cant we ignore them all?


Some people say it isnt shameful for a man to have 12 wives. But this society says it is. Other socities in the world, believe it is okay. So, if this society thinks it is shameful for unwed persons to shack up and create life outside of marriage, then it is shameful. I am not concerned what everyone believes. This society and the majority of people in it have a Judeo-Christian ethic.


As I said, there is a Judeo-Christian ethic in this nation. The nation was created from that ethic. The Founders put religion into the fabric of this nation and its Constitution and laws. To say our laws and our norms are absent a religious base would be plain false. Our laws are based on something bigger than what the Founders wrote. If not, then there really arent norms and everyone is free to do as they please.

That is not the case...and never should be. Complete freedom is anarchy.

Charlie Brown... is that you????

MM, we will need to agree to disagree about the role of the states and our founding fathers. I also do not agree that all sin is equal in the eyes of our Lord.
As far as states rights and their ability to make laws which are out there... I would suggest that there is no practical way for a nation to exist with that mindset. I live in a place where within three minutes driving I can be in three different states. There needs to exist some continuity between the states otherwise you might as well stop everyone at the state borders and hand them a rule of law book.... wouldn't want to get locked up for not knowing the color of the day....

Be careful with how far you take that argument...Few of the Founders were christian, most were Deists who believed in "god the clockmaker" and not the christian god.

Jefferson created his own version of the bible and for the new testament, he did a "cut-and-paste" job, removing all references to miracles and the resurrection, because he thought that part was all poppycock.

The "Jefferson Bible", is the only version that has at any time been handed out to incoming Congressmen and Senators.

Washington would always conveniently leave sunday church services prior to communion as he didn't believe in it.

Religious persecution was what many came to the new world to avoid, so freedom of religious expression was written into the First Amendment.

Interestingly, religious freedom was not considered by the Founders to be a "god-given" right. "God-given" or "natural" rights are not spelled out in the Constitution because the Founders felt that any rights granted you by the government could just as easily be taken away. Natural rights(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot be taken away by any government.

From Christianity Today


All Sins Are Not Equal
Question: Are all sins weighed equally, or is one more important than another? —Linda Linton, Celina, Ohio
J.I. Packer



This question leads into what for many evangelicals has become uncharted territory. We think of conversion as the moment when the guilt of all our sins—past, present, and future—is washed away by the atoning blood of Christ. As sinners justified by faith and heirs of promised glory, we rejoice in salvation and think no more about our continued shortcomings and how God might "weigh" them.

If asked, we explain our attitude as true evangelical assurance. But is it?

The Puritans of history were evangelicals too, but on this point they differed from us considerably. They remembered that Christ taught us to pray daily for forgiveness. One of their spiritual disciplines (not yet one of ours, generally) was self-examination each evening to discern what actions in particular, done or left undone, they needed to ask pardon for.

In the forefront of their minds was the holiness of God, the awfulness of his anger, and his amazing patience in nurturing and correcting his irresponsible, recalcitrant children. These were the realities framing their certainty that the precious blood of Christ cleanses faithful repenters from all sin. Most later evangelicals were with them until the 20th century. We are the ones out of step.

Scripture shows that in God's estimate some sins are worse and bring greater guilt than others, and that some sins do us more damage. Moses rates the golden calf debacle a great sin (). Ezekiel in his horrific allegory says that after Oholah (Samaria) had ruined herself by unfaithfulness to God, Oholibah (Jerusalem) "became more corrupt … in her lust and in her ******, which was worse than that of her sister" (, ESV). John distinguishes sins that do and do not inevitably lead to death ...

Are Sins Equal?






Search LearntheBible.org






Open the Bible Question Form to send your own question.



Q: Are all sins created equal? For example, like comparing someone who committed suicide to someone who said God's name in vain. Would they both receive the same punishment?



A: All sins are equal in that they are all capable of condemning the soul to ******.

James 2:10 states, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

For this, I use the illustration of a chain with many links. The top of the chain is connected to heaven. I am holding on the the bottom of the chain as it swings over the fires of ******. The chain represents the commandments I must keep in order to keep from falling into ******. Each link is a different command or requirement from God. How many of these links need to break in order for me to descend into ******--that is, if I am trusting in my own righteousness? The answer, of course, is one. Any and every sin equally makes us a sinner and deserving of ******.

However, some have taken this to mean that every sin is equal to every other sin in every way. That is not the teaching of scripture.

Jesus told Pilate, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11).

If there is a greater sin, there must also be lesser sins. Luke 12:47-48 teaches that the servant who knew His master's will and did not do it is worthy of more stripes then the one who did not know the master's will. He must have committed the greater sin. I believe that Matthew 11:20-24 teaches that the cities where Jesus ministered were guilty of greater sin than cities like Sodom, Tyre and Sidon in the past. God considers some sins to be greater and therefore other sins to be lesser in deserving punishment.

Sins are also greater or lesser in the harm that they cause. Some sins bring greater reproach to God (2Samuel 12:14). Others bring more harm to others (1Thessalonians 4:5-6). Others are greater or lesser in their natural results. Fornication may bring diseases that do not go away. Other examples can be given. All sin is evil. However, the Bible definitely makes a distinction between sins many times.

However, this is not to condone the Roman Catholic teaching of venial and mortal sins. Venial sins are those that can be forgiven in this life and mortal sins are those that must be paid for in a future life. Some teach that the mortal sins will send the person to ****** unless they are confessed before death. There are variations of the teaching. This false teaching can be used to support the arguments for purgatory. People need somewhere to take care of mortal sins. The mortal sin deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. The venial sin does not. This is false teaching and is not found in the Bible in any form.

Till He comes,

Pastor David Reagan

I do? Huh. good thing you told me that because the last I checked my brain, NONE of that was in there. Good thing you told me what I am thinking and what my motivations are. Whew!


I agree!


Read their writings that they did to support what they wrote. Read their journals, the Federalist Papers, etc. They were VERY clear on their intent. They were very clear where they based their views from and based this nation on. As I said, the basis of this whole thing is that sentence, which bases our inalienable rights given to us by the Creator. Those folks, in their writings, were very clear who that Creator was.


Yes we do!! Thankfully.


As a Christian, I believe it is. But as an American...I can agree, maybe it isnt. But this nation is based on that reality...on that ethic. Whether we want to ignore that or not.


Aaahhh. Who decides what is fair? The majority? The minority? Where are these laws based? The logical conclusion to your argument is a democracy...and we clearly dont want that!! The Founders stated that a democracy was one of the worst forms of government!


I believe a human life is being taken. I believe this "choice" involves three people (mother, father and child) but only one of those three gets the choice (and not the one who is losing their life). So, either humans have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or they dont. As FH stated, an embryo is just a stage of human life, just as an infant is, jsut as an adolescent is, jsut as an adult is. All stages of human life. But human, nonetheless.


Divorce should be the choice of the aggrieved. Of the injured. Not of the selfish, who will not live up to their contract and their word. You make a promise...you sign a contract...you should have to live up to that contract unless the other party decides to agree with you and end it prematurely.

My misunderstanding and yes, that would be fantastic. I'm sure we all agree that what it takes to get this vision is much more education and maturity before entering into marriage.

I'm completely pro-family / pro-marriage, but we have to be very careful as we promote laws that make divorce less attainable and socially acceptable. Lets not forget that the "loving family" of 80 years ago that we so idealize was often a crucible for horrible gender inequality and abuse.

I know that when your spouse is straying and in the fog, what you really want is power to keep them in the marriage. Unfortunately such legal power could be used by people with less pure and loving motives. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I think you need to follow your own advice. The Founders did not think democracy was the WORST form of government, primarily they thought that direct democracy was untenable in a country the physical size of the flegling US. They did recognize that there were some dangers to any democratic form and that was one of the primary purposes of the Electoral College and Senators being appointed by state legislatures. It was meant to avoid the "Tyranny of the Majority".

BTW, just who is the Creator that they were so clear about? It wasn't the christian god, that's for sure and is demonstrated by the writings you profess to be familiar with.

Aaahh...I agree with you. The Federal government was given the power to deal with this!! In order to regulate things between the states. To build conduits to allow passage between the states. I disagree with you that a representative republic created by sovereign states is unworkable. It was this intent by the Founders, who were students of history and of governments. They understood what worked.

Shoot...with your argument, why not have a world government so we dont have the problems between the countries? But then...who decides how we all will live? The majority? I certainly, as an American, dont want the rest of the world telling me how to live. We do things differently here. And we like it this way.

Same goes for Virginia. We dont want to do things the way people in Vermont do. We have things we do that are uniquely Virginian. Sure, we have to be able to interact with other states. And the Federal government referees that. But the Federal government was meant to be the tool of the people AND of the states. Not the other way around!

MM, respectfully, you continue to make this contract argument but it is not accurate in terms of the laws that govern contracts. There is an out clause in every "marriage contract" signed or promised to in our country.... so, only allowing the BS or the "agreived" to break this contract doesn't really hold water since the terms you state were not in force at the time of the "signing." Till death do us part is an intent... not a term of the contract... for if it was, death would be the ONLY cause for divorce. The marriage vows do not say... till death, infidelity, physical abuse etc, do we part... it says death only. This is a tradition... not a term of a contract. What about marriages that do not include those words... and there are many...are they free to just move in and out of marriage on a whim since this was not in their contract?

I said "one of the worst. And yes, they were worried about the tyranny of the majority. Which is why we do not have a democracy...and never should have one!! That is why we have a Bill of Rights. That is why we have inalienable rights...that no one can take away. Not even a majority in a democratic vote!


They absolutely did! As I said, I am a political scientist. I have studied this in depth. If you read their writings, you would know that they did. As I said, they werent creating a Christian government. They were creating a nation based on the Judeo-Christian ethics and laws and norms...and basing all of our rights on being based on the Judeo-Christian God giving them to us.

True. My H and I wrote our own vows and there was no promise "till death.." in them. For that matter, there was no "keep only unto each other," etc. There's no mention of it on the marriage certificate that I signed, either.

Mys

As I said, I am in agreement with you. The issue is that the Commonwealth of Virginia is in a sense, changing the terms of the contract. Very few people go up there and say their vows and enter into marriage thinking about any "out clause." They believe this other person is entering into a life long commitment. And then they just decide "never mind."

The standard definition of marriage is "one-man-one-woman-for-life." All Virginia is doing is trying to codify that and make that "out clause" go away!

MM... I greatly respect you...but my argument in no way supports a "world government." Not even close. I am just not a radical.... lets form a militia in the woods type of person that feels that our slave owning fore fathers could envision the world we live in today (air flight, trains, auto, the internet, etc.). Go back to your argument about pink Wednesdays. Do you really think it is okay for a state to have this type of power? Would we have to change our clothes in mid flight to match the states requirements? A flight to Hawaii would necessitate about 30 changes for me!!

You seem more in favor of affording power to the states than you do to the people. Last I checked... it was United States. Virginians and Pennsylvanians do not need to agree on how to do everything...but you are taking this point to a totally unworkable place. To make something legal in my backyard and punishable by life in prison just 100 yards away seems absurd.

Or, to bring it back to the original topic... there's no reason why someone married in Virginia couldn't go to Nevada (or even next door to West Virginia if they're willing to establish residency. Nevada is convienent because it doesn't have residency requirements like most states.) and get a quickie divorce, anyway. Unless you want to undo the reciprocity agreements surrounding divorce. That would be a mess.

It's not a reason not to pass the law in any particular state, I suppose. It just makes it "yet another rule" that no one really has to follow because there are freely available options around it.

Mys