Posted on 11/20/2012 9:21:01 PM PST by John Leland 1789
Is that a statistic for the United States?
If that is true, and I don't doubt, it can only bring very deep confusion to the country in the long run, and certainly God will withhold His holy hand from blessing the nation that has taken this course in its morality.
I lay a very great share of the blame and responsibility upon the "Christian" churches in our land which preach only what men want to hear, and not the Truths of God from His Word. Mere civic clubs they have become !
Scientific studies of such seem to be more around 4% or so. Not sure why there is such a discrepancy - but 4%, although still high, seems more reasonable.
One can tell by relative human testes size that there is some “competition” to establish paternity. It seems somewhat ‘hard wired’ in human nature. Not that one shouldn't strive to overcome such animalstic urges.
See post number 5 in this thread.
See post number 5 in this thread.
When anyone chooses to be a public figure, their trustworthiness, by default, is judged by their actions.
I was hammered for being too stupid to count, this would not have happened 50 years ago, it would have been face to face and there would have been an ass whipping, maybe mine but that would be beside the point.
I have no argument in the political sense as it could cause security problems.
But other wise it is between Him and God, if you read the scripture that tell about the woman caught in adultery and brought to Jesus and he told them ( those with out sin first cast a stone )
This seems to put the people who are doing the hammering of Patraeus in the same place as the scribes and Pharisees and puts Patraeus in the place the woman who committed adultery was in, Jesus said nothing good about the scribes and Pharisees.
I doubt that either position is a good one to be in where our Lord is concerned, we can not be the opposite of every thing Jesus says to be and be his followers.
The Catholic Church does not allow annulments for marriages when, at some point,
The Catholic Church does not allow annulments for marriages when, at some point
Two believers are not to do so because if they are really believers they are also capable of and believers of forgiveness.
That’s right.
Truman would get kicked out of the Democratic party for a statement like that today(and for his support of Israel).
“How can I trust a man if his wife cannot?” - Harry Truman
“If your wife can’t trust you, why should I?” - Ross Perot
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
Otherwise, using Scripture against the clear commands of Scripture is a device from the Satanic bag of tricks (Matthew ch. 4 ; Luke ch. 4), taught by liberal churches to liberal professing Christians ; a device to make sin seem less sinful.
“How can I trust a man if his wife cannot?” - Harry Truman
“If your wife can’t trust you, why should I?” - Ross Perot
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
Otherwise, using Scripture against the clear commands of Scripture is a device from the Satanic bag of tricks (Matthew ch. 4 ; Luke ch. 4), taught by liberal churches to liberal professing Christians ; a device to make sin seem less sinful.
The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning.
“The comparison between the General and the woman taken in adultery in the Gospel of John ch. 8 would work if the woman with whom the General was committing adultery was one of the principle attackers of the General, seeking his stoning. “
I often felt that among the accusers was the man who committed adultery with the woman, and Jesus, through his divinity, pointed out the hypocrisy of the whole affair, then asked the woman to never commit adultery again.
You seem to be assuming that the scribes and pharisees are the ones who the woman was committing adultery with, maybe i have missed it but i see no such evidence.
They caught her in the act, but their first failure to imitate the Law as given in the Torah was to also bring the man along. Who was the man who committed adultery with the woman? If they caught her in the act, they know full well who the man was and either
1) They singled out the woman and let the man stay there
or
2) One of the accusers was the man who committed the act with the woman.
They caught her in the act with a man, and either of those two happened, or both were true.
1) They singled out the woman and let the man stay there
or
2) One of the accusers was the man who committed the act with the woman.
They caught her in the act with a man, and either of those two happened, or both were true.
They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.
Jesus had no interest in winning arguments, telling it the way it was being his only concern made them back off because they had all sinned,if not adultery, then something else.
I believe we should call sin what it is,but at the same time
i think we can carry it too far when it becomes personal.
The Bible is not about a woman trusting her husband, it is about us trusting God.
Each one of us have a different circumstance in this life and God will deal with us accordingly, and there is that word assumption again because i am also assuming.
“The Bible is not about a woman trusting her husband, it is about us trusting God.”
This is a red herring
God (Jesus) calls himself the husband to Israel, Judah, and the believers at various times.
Adultery is still wrong because it is a breach of a relationship ordained of God, and often a breach of a vow made to God, if it is performed through a religious officiator. It’s a double breach of trust.
“They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.”
Doesn’t negate the fact that they caught the woman and the man in the act, and readily let the man go unpunished, which still means one or both of the two points I mentioned.
“Each one of us have a different circumstance in this life and God will deal with us accordingly, and there is that word assumption again because i am also assuming.”
Assuming, yes, but then again, what I mentioned is strongly about the context, one way or another, at least #1 happened, which would be hypocrisy on the Pharisees part for letting the man go, when they supposedly knew the 615 laws given by God to Moses and written in the Torah. In fact, read Deuteronomy 22:22-24.
“They were not really interested in the woman, their intent was to get Jesus to say something that would make him look bad.”
Indeed they were, which adds additional hypocrisy to the pretending to know the laws given by God while deliberately doing something contrary even to them. They were merely acting like they cared.
One way or another, jesus wrote something which we will never know that cut the accusers to the core. Even I have no problem in what I said in saying either/or, but honestly all I really can say that I know is that Jesus knew something through his divine power that shocked the Pharisees.
“Possible, but an assumption.”
My own words admitted limited certainty on the real details, but they purposefully went against Biblical principles in what they did, and either one is possible. I am not claiming absolute fact, but either of those points are true. One way or another, they let the man involved with the woman go. Correct?
My own words admitted limited certainty on the real details, but they purposefully went against Biblical principles in what they did, and either one is possible. I am not claiming absolute fact, but either of those points are true. One way or another, they let the man involved with the woman go. Correct?
I’m not married, but I still commit as much adultery as I can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.