I agree that what we choose to call the division of peoples IS a side issue; I only brought it up because parts of this thread had degenerated into regionalism - taking God's divisions (Shem, Ham, and Japheth) and breaking them into a myriad of regional "races." Making (and keeping) distinction in Caucasian, Asian, and Negroid peoples is a world apart from trying to say French people can't marry Germans or Americans or Canadians or Scots - which is what some were trying to assert here. However, I was a little too narrow with the Bible terminology; in Genesis 10, God refers to tongues, nations, countries, families, AND generations...(This relates well to the Acts 17 verse.)

According to Genesis 43:32, it's not true that "only Israel under the Law was ever concerned with such things." The Bible says, "the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination to the Egyptians."

I disagree with most of what has been posted on this thread, but I DON'T want to argue - I would like to try to understand where y'all are coming from!
For instance, Acts 17:26 is about the physical bodies of people, which is what gets married...while Galatians 3:28 is completely spiritual (I know this has been said already...bear with me!) My question is - How can you make one part of the list in that verse ("Jew nor Greek") PHYSICAL and leave the other parts of the same list SPIRITUAL? My point is that if we are not supposed to take any note of "race" now that we're in Christ, why are we to notice any PHYSICAL difference in male and female - the verse DOES say "there is neither male nor female!!!" So I just want to know how you reconcile that...

I also want to say that I appreciate these discussions because they make me THINK and search the scriptures...THANKS!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Hi, Pam.

As far as I can tell, any worldly system of thought develops over time. Ideas percolate through the decades or centuries until the time is right and a suitable "messenger" is in place to deliver the new "truth". I tend to look at human history in terms of what God is doing and what Satan is doing. That's what everything boils down to, anyway, don't you think? The Wiki link below has an explanation of the history of evolutionary thought and it's impact on culture, society and religion. I would add that occultists like Blavatsky, et al, were used as conduits by satanic forces through their demon possession and automatic writing to provide the spiritual, philosophical impetus behind the evolutionary movement. We just need to look around us in modern society to see the devastation that evolutionary thought has brought us.

There is one race of man and that is the race of Adam. Brandon is right, there is no choice but to use the word "race" when speaking about the different nations on this earth because no one would know what you're talking about if you use the word nation. Once society accepts the satanic concept of humanity being divided into different races based on genetic differences, or on how far up the evolutionary ladder one race is compared to another, it becomes easier to dehumanize certain families of mankind. Blavatsky's body of material she received directly from a demon or devil "guide", as well as "scientific" evolutionary thought was incorporated into Hitler's highly occultic belief system.

On a side note, I think there may be some confusion over the term "nation". I could be wrong but I believe that biblically a nation can be defined as the descendants of a particular father which is laid out in Gen 10 in the table of nations. These biblical nations do have boundaries, etc as set out by God. In our modern language we use "nation" to describe a sovereign state which may be made up of people from the same "biblical" nation or family (take Iran or Egypt for instance) or to describe countries like America which is made up of many of the familes or nations of mankind.

One of the ways that I see this lie of different races within the race of man affect the church is that we yet again try to take Israel's role upon our selves. The Savior came through the Jews and that is why God had rules about intermarriage between Israelites and gentiles. Really, the gentile national distinctions aren't very important in the scheme of things, at least not in the context we have been discussing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evoluti...ionary_thought

Jennifer

Now you're cherry-picking. Why stop at the sons of Noah? You have all sorts of "ites" throughout Scripture -- Canaanites, Amelikites, Israelites, and on. Where do you get the doctrine that a Hamite can't marry a Japhethite?

When someone quotes a verse that says something about nations and boundaries, they are quoting a verse that is taking about nations and boundaries.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

This verse was presented as a proof text for disallowing "race mixing." The verse says nations, and doesn't even include a command preventing migration, let along intermarriage between nations. If you (or someone else) is going to hold up this verse as proof that "race mixing" is not allowed, you're going to have to first explain why it's okay for a German to marry a Frenchman, since they have different "bounds of habitation." Then you're going to have to explain why you don't advocate that we white people all move back to Europe (presumably our original "bounds of habitation") and give the Americas back to the American Indians. Maybe after that is all settled, we can figure out what that verse has to do with marriage of people from different nationalities, but only after you tell all those people, like me, with mixed heritages where they can go to get spouses.

I am talking about God's commandments, not cultural taboos. That was an abomination to the Egyptians, not God. And, by the way, who did Joseph marry?

Marriage is always between a man and a woman. There should not need to be any discussion of that fact here. The question is, in Christ, do we need to concern ourselves with segregation? Galations 3:28 and Collosians 3:11 teach clearly that there is no reason to consider it in Christ. Marriage, by definition, from the first occurrance, is between a man and a woman. The definition of Marriage from the Bible never includes "race" as a component. Whom did Moses marry? Whom did Joseph marry? Whom did Boaz marry? They all married women, from different "races." This goes beyond marriage, of course. If you're going to ignore Gal 3:28 and Col 3:11 and make an issue out of Blacks "staying in Africa" and Whites "staying in Europe" (who knows where everyone in America is supposed to go) you're also going to end up having to segregate your churches, etc.

If someone is going to "forbid" marriage between two people, they had better come up with a solid Scriptural basis for it. The idea that they have to be from the same "ites" (if such a thing can even be determined now) is nothing you can get from Scripture, unless you are Hebrew under the law considering marriage with a Canaanite!

This is a great point. In the Bible, it really comes down to these three:

1. Jews
2. Dogs (Gentiles like me)
3. the Church (made up of both)

In all of this discussion, nobody has presented any Scripture supporting the forbidding of Gentiles "mixing" with other Gentiles. It almost (almost) surprises me how strained this doctrine of "race mixing" is, since there is just go clear way to prove it from Scripture.

A little more on this:

Genesis 10, the word Nations is used four times:

Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Genesis 10:20 These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations.
Genesis 10:31 These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.
Genesis 10:32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.

Note that the word nations refers to the families of the sons of Noah. Applying the distinction of nations (to hold to "bounds of habitation" via Acts 17:26) to just the three (Ham, Japheth, and Shem) is completely arbitrary and insufficient, if you are serious about the non-intermarriage between nations stuff. The Bible goes a lot further than just the top three in defining the nations, so my objection and question about Germans marrying French is in point of fact quite germane.

Re: " Love & Race"
 

Aloha Brandon,

I agree with all that you have said regarding this issue. There is a point in this "discussion" that, as far as I know, has not been brought up, but I think is very appropriate to the issue. And that is the "culture" in which each of us (who have commented on the issue) has been raised (or "trained").

I have said it before, but I will say it again: Generally speaking - "CULTURE" will "TRUMP" religion almost all of the time! That is one of the reason's for God giving us His Holy word so that: . . . "ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." [John 8:32] And that includes being "free" from ALL "cultural" BIASES and PREJUDICES!

It would be interesting to know what the "cultural" background is of those people who hold to the belief that "mixed" marriages are not Biblical. I would venture to say that these "personal beliefs" stem from the "culture" that these people were brought up in and not from the Bible.

Several of us have pointed out (from the Scriptures) that there is no Biblical prohibition (for Christians) to marry outside of their "race" or "culture". In those past "Threads" on this issue, we repeatedly asked for Scriptural PROOF of such a "prohibition", for Christians, and were never given any - other than the prohibitions given to the Israelites (which we are NOT).

And now, in dealing with the issue in this Thread (Love & Race) we have again asked for Scripture prohibiting Christians marrying outside of their "race and "culture", and all we have gotten (so far) is someone's "personal opinion" as to WHY they don't believe that "mixed" marriages are "right".

When we Christians place "regional customs" or "cultural traditions" above or before clear Biblical teaching, we are in effect "making the word of God of none effect" (in our lives - Mark 7:13).

If someone on this Forum believes that it is Scripturally "wrong" for a Christian (man or woman) to marry outside of their "race" or "culture", I ask them to "show me" (from the Scriptures) - WHY it is "wrong"? And if they cannot demonstrate (from the Scriptures) WHY it is "wrong", I would ask them to examine their hearts and ask themselves WHY do I believe this, IF I CANNOT "prove" (from Scripture) WHAT I believe?

Colossians 4:6 Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

I spent my computer time tonight reading the other "race" thread...I'm going camping tomorrow and may not be back (on here) until Monday...didn't want you to think I ran! I still have more info and questions (YES, WITH SCRIPTURE!!!)

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Don't you agree that God was filled with wrath, when his people intermarried with non-Hebrews? God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith.
It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith.
Same holds true today.
A Christian has very little in common with a non-Christian.

Sis Renee,

I always thought that Corinthians 7:14 was dealing with people who were ALREADY married. That if you were already married and didn't know this, you should of course stay married and that the children are holy, due to the believing spouse.

I never thought of it as being that anyone could marry an unbeliever. If that is so, from the Bible, I am sure that it would be a much more difficult marriage!

Jassy

Hi Sis,

I understand what you're saying, yet if we go back and depend on what God said to the Hebrews and we are to follow that, then you would have to say that His Church is very messed up today!!! We have intermingled all kinds of faiths and "races" (oh dear this is becoming a very touchy word to use here!).

How is God going to deal with all this intermingling? As I was saying in a previous post, I'm 3/4th German - if I can't marry outside my nationality, then I'm going to have to pack up and move to Germany to marry a German. The problem with that is that I'm already NOT PURE GERMAN stock! America is a really hodgepodge of peoples!

I believe God's warning for the Hebrews was to keep them from worshipping IDOLS, because they were dispersed into many lands of NON-Hebrews. Many around them were idol-worshippers.

It is my belief that we are now in the dispensational time of Paul's preaching on GRACE. The Church is now under GRACE and no longer under Hebrewic LAW. Do you believe that everything in the Bible applies to everyone? Or how do you pick and choose, and decide which Scriptures apply to YOU? For me, that would be very confusing and I admit that I was, in the past, very confused about this very issue. I feel much more secure, in knowing that Paul has brought a new gospel to the Church. Please note that Paul even called it "my gospel" (See Romans 2:16, 16:25 and 2 Timothy 2:8) and said that God would judge people by Jesus Christ, according to his (Paul's) gospel!

You said that "God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith. It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith. Same holds true today."

Where do you get that from, in the Bible, that the "Same holds true today."?

Jassy

Aloha biblereader,

You must remember "context" - you said: "Same holds true today." But the New Testament doesn't say that.

From 2 Corinthians Chapter 1:1 to 2 Corinthians 11:1 you can NOT find the words "husband", "husbands", "wife", "wives", "marry", "married", or "marriage". In other words the teaching (in context) of 2 Corinthians 6: 1-18 is NOT about marriage - although that is how most pastors "apply" it!

Read the verses:

2 Corinthians 6:1 We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.
2 (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)
3 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed:
4 But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,
5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;
6 By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned,
7 By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,
8 By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true;
9 As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed;
10 As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.
11 O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged.
12 Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels.
13 Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.

These verses are NOT talking about "marriage". In the context they are talking about doing THE WORK OF GOD! Verse 1 talks about WORKERS; Verse 3 is talking about the "MINISTRY"; verse 4 talks about MINISTERS OF GOD; Verses 4-10 are talking about the "MINISTRY"; and Verse 14 is speaking about being "UNEQUALLY YOKED" - as in hooking up a Horse and a Ox together (for "WORK") or harnessing a Horse and a Jackass together (for "WORK"). {My wife and I have been married for 48 years, we aren't "YOKED" TOGETHER - we are "JOINED" TOGETHER - Matthew 19:6 & Mark 10:9}

The verses are simply saying - when you go out to do the "WORK" OF GOD, do NOT get hooked up ("yoked") with UNBELIEVERS! The words husband, husbands, wife, wives, marry, married, or marriage, cannot be found for at least four Chapters of either side of Chapter 6. {You couldn't find a reference to "marriage" or a "husband" or "wife" if you had a 300,000 thousand candle power spotlight!}

Now, am I recommending that a Christian marry a lost person? Of course NOT! I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord"; but if they have married "outside of the faith", there is NO "penalty" - it's NOT the "same" as in the Old Testament. And although I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person, there is NO CONDEMNATION if you have. 2 Corinthians Chapter 6 does NOT "apply" to "marriage". In the "context" it is speaking about doing the "WORK" of God with UNBELIEVERS. (as Billy Graham has done for years!)

When I first became a Christian 50 years ago the divorce rate (in the U.S.A.) between "Christians" was about 20% lower than non-Christians. Today the divorce rate (in the U.S.A.) between "Christians" is ONLY ABOUT 5% LOWER than non-Christians; so marrying a "Christian" today is NOT a "guarantee" that everything is going to "work out fine". :(

We have to be careful about what we say about this issue. There are many Christian men and women who are married to a spouse that is "lost". And although they may have problems because of this disparity between them, there are NO "penalties", and there is NO CONDEMNATION!

My family is Scot-Irish, we are very fair skinned and light eyed. And my family is about as southern as you can get, if you know what I mean. My younger brother met his wife while stationed at Scofield Barracks in Hawaii. She is very dark skinned, dark eyed, and the first time I met her she had a huge Afro! :)

But I tell you, I am thankful for her, she is a wonderful girl and I love her to death. She is saved and trusts in the Lord Jesus. And that is my hope, because my younger brother is not saved. I recently visited and tried to speak to my brother about the Lord (have many times over the years), but he will not speak about it with me. But he listens to her. They have been married 30 years and have 5 wonderful children. So, she is my greatest hope that my brother will someday accept the Lord.

14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

Same holds true today. We are supposed to separate ourselves from those in darkness, from those who are unrighteous, from those who are idol worshippers.
Now, if a woman or man decides to marry, and become ONE, (sexual intercourse) with a spouse who is in darkness, lost, and not in fellowship with Jesus, and God, that person is doing the opposite of what God tells them to do. That's rebellion.
With rebellion there is a penalty, always, God set it up that way, so his dumb as sheep children would learn to do what HE says, and WHY we should mind Him.
This is pretty plain, God saying NOT to yoke yourself(2 oxen yoked together MUST pull together, eventually) with unbelievers.
If people think this verse does not apply to marriage, then what situations DOES it apply to?
Where else, what other relationship is so close, so PERSONAL, so GODLY, than marriage, and the intimate relationship that is to be found in a marriage?
Why would God say to not be in fellowship with unbelievers, but, say, on the other hand, HEY, it's ok to marry this bible hating atheist, and have sex with him, sure, go right ahead. No problem in MY eyes.
The same holds true today, is what I said, and that's why I said it.
Maybe every word I said just now wasn't picture perfect, and in my passion to get it out I might have slipped up on a couple of words, but really, Jassy, you know as well as I do that marriage to a lost man is a MISERABLE relationship. I don't think God had that in mind, when He talked about husbands and wives.
BTW, for the other person here, talking about marriage, the bible says NOTHING about wedding rings, or marriage licenses. But, we sure do think they're important, dont' we?

Man, I am tired. Time for rest. Love to you all who read this.
Peace, joy, and grow in the knowledge of God.

biblereader,

Your post # 53 confused me for a minute. You had a quotation box supposedly containing Jassy's preceding post but you edited what Jassy actually said and added your own comments. So it wasn't Jassy's quote. It was your response to what Jassy wrote.

Your sister in Christ,
Jennifer

TO: biblereader

Please note - your post #53 is deceitful and confusing. You placed a QUOTE Box there of my supposedly original post #50, which was NOT a quote of me!! You both ADDED, and TOOK AWAY FROM my original quote.

If you do not know how to use quote boxes, then please ask the administrator or do not use them. I do not think it is fair or kind to misuse quote boxes and attribute to me something that I did not say.

Forums can be confusing enough, without misappropriating quotations.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Jassy

Sure, do please take the time to look it up from God's Word and not what you FEEL or THINK. The key words in your quote were the use of "I just can't believe..." or "I don't believe..." It doesn't matter what YOU feel or think! The only thing that matters is the TRUTH - what God's Word says about it.

So, I will be waiting for Bible Scriptures on MARRIAGE, that support what you are trying to say.

Thanks sis,
Jassy

Hi, Sis Jassy:
you said:
your post #53 is deceitful and confusing.
I say, that sounds very close to being wrongfully accused, since, God knows, I had NO intention of deliberately being deceitful.
Please tell me how to use the quote boxes, so I don't get wrongfully accused in the future.
Thanks, sis, that would be great to learn how to use those quote boxes, which would clear up a lot of confusion among the readers. :)
I now ask you:
Can you supply Scripture verses that support a lost person marrying a saved person?

Would you advise, knowing what you do, a saved woman to marry a lost man?
If you would, what would be the encouragement you would give her?
From the bible, not from personal knowledge or feelings about it. Bible only.

If not, why not? What would you tell her is the reason you do NOT want her to marry a lost man?
Using Scripture verses only, not feelings. Only scripture to validate either or both questions I asked.
Thanks.

By the way, how many people IN HERE have been married to the same man or woman, for more than 20 years?
(a side question, for future reference)

Seems like their advice would be valuable.
Sister Jassy, I will wait for you to answer my questions. I'm sure you can tell me why it's ok with God to marry a lost person, or why its NOT ok with God to link a lost person to a saved person. Please only use Bible verses in context, that support a lost sinner marrying a born again child of God.
I would like to see, and I'm sure you can supply, the bible verses where God encourages the spiritual, physical, and emotional union of that.

I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ONE RACE MARRYING ANOTHER RACE.

OK Georgie, I'm glad you have a good marriage. I, now, do too. Been married 26 years to the same man, with one year off for a divorce, but, we remarried. I think of a husband and wife as a TEAM. Plus, we are united together. What is your definition of united together in a marriage?
You say the verses are saying when you do the work of the Lord, don't get hooked up with lost people.
Where do you do the work of the Lord, George?
Whom do you work, as a team with, in doing the work of the Lord?
Before you begin doing the "work of the Lord", do you examine the other team member, to make sure they are born again, or, how do you determine if the person you are to do the work of the Lord with, is equal to you?
(if you're not to be unequally yoked, then you should be equally yoked, right?)
Where do you do the work of the Lord?
Another question I hope you answer is, don't you live your life as a constant witness, in your home, in front of your family?
You sound like a pretty knowledgeable guy, so, define the work of the Lord, as Jesus means it, from the bible, tell me where you do the work of the Lord, and where you do NOT do the work of the Lord, and tell me how you decide, biblically, if a person is suitable to work WITH you, doing the work of the Lord Jesus?

Georgie, I have more questions, please answer them.
In studying this morning about marriages, I came across these puzzling verses:
(And, THANK YOU for insisting, Jassy, that I use Scripture, because that has brought to the forefront, these questions)
3: So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Further on, the bible says something like we're delivered from the law, if we're born again, so are women who marry and remarry, another man, NOT an adulterer, or yes, she is an adulterer, as long as her past husband lives?
If a saved woman was divorced BEFORE she was saved, then married another man BEFORE she was saved, but then got born again while she was married to the 2nd husband, do the SCRIPTURES say she is an adulteress, or is NOT?

Also, Ro 8:1 1: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2: For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3: For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5: For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6: For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7: Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8: So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9: But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
This
validates that the woman is NOT under condemnation, if she is in the Spirit, and yet, remarried. Right?
Or, is divorce such a carnal thing, that the divorced wife IS under condemnation, but, since Jesus says there is NO condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus, is the divorce not a sin to her?

Now, in John 4:18, Jesus says the woman has had 5 husbands, so is He saying she is still an adulteress?
Or, is He saying she has NO husband now, since she's obviously divorced from the other five?
17: The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband:
18: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.

So, is a born again man or woman under condemnation if they become divorced, and do not remarry the same man again?
Or are they free from condemnation if they, being saved, end up being divorced, through no fault of theirs, and then marry another man?
I hope I'm not too confusing here.
What does Jesus clearly say about that?

I find that disrespectful and condescending.

How can anyone make First Corinthians 7:39 say that it is fine for a saved person to marry a lost person?

"...she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

If "ONLY IN THE LORD" doesn't refer to another believer, what does it refer to?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

I believe the only "no condemnation" for saved people is conditional on not walking after the flesh (Romans 8:1.) How could one choose to have such an intimate union as marriage with a friend of the world (THE ENEMY OF GOD-James 4:4) and be walking after the Spirit?

As I stated in my last post, I don't see how I Cor. 7:39 could be any clearer!

And as far as being "unequally yoked," I looked up some English definitions... One of the definitions of "yoke" in an old (1828) and a new (1999) dictionary is "join," and BOTH of my dictionaries use MARRIAGE as an illustration under "yoke." (For "yoke," the newer Webster's says "TIE, LINK, esp. MARRIAGE." [The all-caps were in the dictionary!])

In First Corinthians 6:15-16, the "members of Christ" are (of course) the antithesis of the "members of an harlot." In a general sense, could not the "members of Christ" correlate to believers, while the "members of an harlot" would most likely be unbelievers? At the idea of joining them, Paul says "God forbid!"

In our original example of marriage, God joined two "sons of God." (Luke 3:38 with Genesis 5:2) Saved people are "sons of God" (John 1:12 and I John 3:1;) it is not consistent to assume that God would join his sons to the sons of Belial.

In addition, there are numerous Bible principles that definitely can apply to a marriage relationship even if the word "marriage" is not in the passage:
Amos 3:3 "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?"
I Cor. 15:33 "Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners."
I Timothy 6:1-5 (That's a lot of typing...look it up!) Lost people don't "consent to...the words of our Lord Jesus Christ," so the command is to "withdraw thyself," not "go ahead and hang around them...better yet, marry one too!"
II Timothy 3:1-5 (Another long passage...) This one has the list of folks we're supposed to "turn away" from, and it includes "blasphemers," "unholy," and "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God," terms that can obviously be applied to lost people!

How can you promote the idea that there are "NO PENALTIES" for acting in direct opposition to God's written word? How can you believe there are "NO PENALTIES" just because the Bible does not specify the consequences for every one of our actions? It's like God giving us his express desires and us saying "Or else, what?!?" Unthinkable!


Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Welcome back from your camping weekend, sister Pam! Hope you and your family had a wonderful time!

Thank you for pointing out that phrase "only in the Lord" since I think that I (and others here?) overlooked that.

Jassy

Thank you! It wasn't exactly a fun family camping thing, though...me and my three boys camped at a craft festival to "peddle our wares!" My daughter and husband had to stay home to take care of the animals; our profit margin is substantially lower when we have to pay someone to do the animals! So, the ground was hard, we almost froze to death the first night while roasting during the day, and we barely made enough to cover the expenses...but we made it home safely and built some character, I guess!!!

2 Corinthians 6:14 does not deal with marriage. It would apply to, say, a believer working with Catholics in a faith-based anti-abortion organization or any other inter-faith organization that includes faiths other than Christianity.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

1 Corinthians 7:39 obviously says that a believing widow can remarry but only to another believer. I think by extension we can say that a believer, whether male or female should only marry another believer, but maybe it's not a general principle. Considering what Paul writes earlier in the chapter, if a believer marries an unbeliever the believer has disobeyed God but is still bound by marriage to the unbeliever. We have forgiveness of our sins but that doesn't mean we don't suffer for them in this life.

The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

That's my take on it, FWIW.

Jennifer

Hey, I just wanted to note that I didn't intentionally put that winking guy in my post #63...I'm not big on adding those guys to my posts; apparently my use of punctuation caused him!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

It's me again! I had one more thought on Second Corinthians 6:14...

I do acknowledge that "marriage" is not mentioned in the passage, but I do still hold that the principle of separation of lost and saved folks definitely applies to the marriage relationship. The word "fellowship" will reference over to Ephesians 5:11 - "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them." Verse seven of the same chapter tells us not to be partakers with the "children of disobedience," which are lost folks according to chapter 2 verses 1-2. Ephesians 5 is, of course, a quintessential passage on marriage with no paragraph divisions (to mark a possible change of subject) in the whole chapter! So, "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (I Corinthians 2:13,) the separation principles of II Corinthians chapter six are definitively applicable to marriage!

I have to tell y'all - I have been SO excited about all this study...it has given me a renewed appreciation for this GREAT BOOK...THE KING JAMES BIBLE!!!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Pam,
I hope you don't mind me jumping into this topic but it has caught my interest, as well! I've always wondered about these things but never really looked into them before. So let me start by saying that I am just learning here.

I believe in Paul's day Jews, maybe not gentiles, were betrothed sometimes years before they were of age to marry (I could be wrong). If a young man had become a believer after his betrothal to a young woman, and she was not a believer, should he still marry her? I have wondered before if that is what Paul is referring to in 1 Corinthians chapter 7.

7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
7:36-38 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

I have to back away from imposing rules of conduct upon individuals and circumstances when the scriptures don't explicitly say to. I think just one little error in interpretation today can cause bigger errors tomorrow. I think this is one reason for different sects and denominations, namely, not rightly dividing the Word and adding to or taking away from what it says because it seems right in our own eyes.

I'm not saying that I think its a good idea for believers to marry unbelievers and I'm not saying scripture doesn't teach that it shouldn't be done, I just don't see any of the verses that you've referenced that say so. 1 Corinthians 7:39 is the closest to doing that but really it only says that believing widows should marry a believer. Also, Paul says in 7:25 that he is not speaking by commandment of the Lord before he goes into whether it is better to marry or not to marry your virgins.

In 7:39 he may have been addressing a problem of lonely or destitute widows marrying unbelievers out of desperation with disasterous results. There may have been many more women believers than men believers, who knows? And women tend to live longer than men, and older men tend to marry younger women rather than the reverse.

These are just some thoughts I was mulling around in my head as I was working in my yard so I came in to post them.

Jennifer

Posting New Thread
 

This is a really interesting thread going here. In studying about this, I came up with some other questions. I'm going to post that under: "Acceptable and Unacceptable Reasons for Divorce."

I know that the Jewish people were given some acceptable reasons for divorcing, such as a spouse that committed adultery. I don't know think that the New Testament gets into that subject.

I'll post this now and then start a new Thread.

Jassy

Re: " Love & Race"
 

Pam,

Did you read my Post #51? :confused: If you did - can you quote one place WHERE I recommended that a Christian should marry a lost person? :( Just one place - maybe? :tsk:

Did you SKIP that part where I said: What I am not going to do is "condemn" a Christian who HAS MARRIED a lost person, and put a STUMBLING BLOCK before them over the matter! And you had better be extremely careful that you don't either. :eek:

Read my Post - don't just proceed with your private opinion on this matter and disregard what I said in regards of the use of 2 Corinthians 6:1-18 as a prohibition to marriage; because I clearly demonstrated, from the Scriptures, that the verses cited have NOTHING to do with MARRIAGE - and everything to do with doing the "WORK" of God with unbelievers!

Can you not read English? I said: "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". But if a Christian has already married a lost person, are you going to "CONDEMN" them? Hmmm? Are you going to claim that such a marriage is LESS PERFECT than the marriage of two saved people? I said: "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". You completely MISSED MY POINT!

WHERE did I: "promote the idea that there are "NO PENALTIES" for acting in direct opposition to God's written word?" Hmmm? But IF a Christian is already married to a lost person we have NO BUSINESS "condemning" them - that's all there is to it!

You said:
I don't deal in "In a general sense"; "could not" (?) or "most likely" - those terms involve "SPECULATION", and when it comes to the Holy words of God I try to avoid personal "SPECULATION" at all costs. Your personal concept of a marriage between a saved person and a lost person is a private interpretation and PERVERTS what God has said about them!"

1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

Do you understand these verses? An UNBELIEVING Husband is "SANCTIFIED" by his BELIEVING WIFE! An UNBELIEVING WIFE is "SANCTIFIED" by her BELIEVING HUSBAND (she is NOT considered a "HARLOT" as you have so "graciously" judged!)! Do you understand the meaning of the word "SANCTIFIED"? That marriage IS SANCTIFIED by God; and in God's eyes the UNBELIEVING SPOUSE is "SANCTIFIED" by the BELIEVING SPOUSE - whether you agree with God or not; and whether you like it or not!

You had better be REAL CAREFUL in CONDEMNING these marriages (or the people in them), because, according to God's Holy word - God makes them "right" (in His sight) - in spite of a believer's poor judgment! :mad:

I grow tired of people (like yourself) taking my words out of context. I grow weary of people taking my words and twisting them, and making them say something I DID NOT SAY! And I especially get upset when someone (like yourself) IGNORES most of what I have said and tries to put words in my mouth - which I never uttered! :eek:

As to the "DEFINITION" of the word "YOKE" in the Holy Bible. If you want the Bible "Definition" of a word in the Bible, you look up every single verse in the Bible where that word is USED, and get God's "DEFINITION" - NOT some man's personal "opinion" of what a word "means"!

There are 53 places in the Old Testament where the word "YOKE" is used; and there are 6 verses in the New Testament where it is used. In addition, in the New Testament, there is one place where the word "YOKED" is used and one place where the word "YOKEFELLOW" is used.

I am not going to list all 61 verses here, but I have READ them - and NO WHERE'S IN THE ENTIRE BIBLE is the word "YOKE" EVER USED TO DESCRIBE "MARRIAGE"! :tsk: If you don't believe me - READ them (check them out), but if you refuse to READ them, then don't give us this HOGWASH of some "Dictionary" applying the word "YOKE" to marriage, when the Bible SAYS NOTHING OF THE SORT!

The Holy Bible is ALWAYS its own BEST DICTIONARY! But it takes WORK to read ALL of those verses, and it's so much EASIER just to go to some man (or men) and get their "OPINION" as to what a Bible word "means", rather than read through 50, or 100, or possibly hundreds of verses (such as the word heart, etc.) to find out what God has to say about it.

Is the "DICTIONARY" your "FINAL AUTHORITY" or is the King James Bible your FINAL AUTHORITY in ALL matters of faith and practice? Hmmm?

There are far too many saved people married to unsaved people in the world today, for us to go around and judge that all of those unsaved spouses are the equivalent to "HARLOTS"! :mad:

Let's be absolutely clear - I have never recommended (on the AV1611 Bible Forums) that a saved person marry a lost person. I do not recommend it; but IF a saved person IS MARRIED to a lost person I DO NOT CONDEMN them or their "Marriage", and neither does God - and neither should you! :eek:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

George,
As is obvious to anyone reading this thread, YOU are the one who has resorted to personal attacks and are twisting and ignoring MY words! Even a cursory reading of your post #71 reveals that your primary goal was to be inflammatory, not to discuss scripture as is supposed to be our purpose here! Of the dozen Bible references I gave in my post #63, I believe you only commented on ONE, and then you only mentioned it in order to fuss on my proposed correlation! Furthermore, why would you spend a third of your post railing on me for looking up an English word in an English dictionary but refuse to discuss the plain scriptural exhortations and commands that I listed?

By the way, YOU could benefit from the use of an English dictionary - When I said "In a general sense," the word "general" is defined as "concerned with universal rather than particular aspects," so my proposed correlation is legitimate! Also, I cannot understand why anyone would have a problem speculating that a harlot would "most likely" be an unbeliever ("Ye shall know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:16.) [I DID NOT say or speculate, as you slanderously reported, that all "unsaved spouses are the equivalent to harlots." While you're looking up "general," you should check out "correlate," too - "to bear mutually corresponding relations." This embodies exactly what I meant to say...that the harlot in that passage could represent a lost person!]

Now can we discuss scripture or not? And can you do it civilly?

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

George,
After a few re-reads of these posts, I have come to a conclusion - that you and I are "not on the same page," not in regard to our belief system, but in what we are TRYING to discuss. It was my understanding that the original hijack of this thread had to do with a saved person currently choosing to marry a lost person, not (as I believe you are trying to defend) "what about if a saved and lost person are already married."

The fact remains that you slandered me (well, libeled me, because it's not oral,) and you strongly intimated that I couldn't even read and didn't hold the Bible as my "final authority." You don't even know me! I did not, as you claim that people "like [my]self do," take your words out of context, twist them, ignore them, or put words into your mouth; on the contrary, the only part of my post that had anything to do directly with YOU was the "NO PENALTIES" quote (and you DID state that quite emphatically!) But just to clarify, I am trying to discuss a saved person choosing to marry a lost person, not a saved and lost person already married; that may make a difference in what you were saying and/or in how I used your quote. Agreed? However, I still don't understand why you came out of the gate swinging!

Besides the inflammatory remarks, one thing that you asked did disquiet me - a question you asked in regard to a marriage between a saved and lost person..."Are you going to claim that such a marriage is LESS PERFECT than the marriage of two saved people?" I wouldn't just "claim" that, I would declare it unequivocably!!! The first thing that comes to mind is Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" There is a myriad of things that a saved person and a lost person cannot agree on, so in order to keep the peace, they wouldn't be able to share those things...the fewer things you share, the greater the distance between you. How about a love for the King James Bible? There would be a great gulf between me and my husband if we did not share that conviction. Oh, but wait, MAYBE if you are talking about a saved but backslidden person I MAY be able to concede that that marriage MIGHT could be as satisfying (as "perfect," in your words) as any marriage between two LOST people...

I simply must go for now! I kind of hate that we hijacked this thread, because I am still working on a study of the original "love and race" topic! Oh well, maybe later...

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

In answer to your sarcastic, condescending (not to mention juvenile) question, yes, George, I CAN read English! For the record, I had a 4.0 in all my college English courses...and I have a greater-than-3rd-grade understanding of English parts of speech which means that I can see that when a word is used as a NOUN instead of a VERB, it sometimes has a VERY different meaning (Bible or dictionary!) as is the case with your pet word "YOKE!" I HAVE read ALL the verses in question, and I would LOVE to see you run the references and give me a BIBLE DEFINITION for the word "YOKED" in II Corinthians six because I have not been able to find that word (or "yoke" or "yokes" etc.) used as a VERB (which anybody who can "read English" knows has a completely different meaning than the word "yoke" as a NOUN) anywhere else in the Bible! In addition, anyone who read all the references to "yoke," etc., in the Bible, would come to the EXACT SAME CONCLUSION about the definition that Webster did...that to "yoke" (as a verb) is to "join!" (In the preface to his 1828 edition, Webster gives God the glory for his work, and the introduction and the dictionary itself are replete with Bible references.) The point is that the fact that a word is used "X number" of times in the Bible can be totally irrelevant to its actual meaning in a specific passage...

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Re: "Love & Race"
 

My "comments" in BLUE.

Partial quote from custer's Post #41
custer said:

"I DON'T want to argue". For a woman who claims: "I DON'T want to argue" - you sure have been doing a whole lot of it lately! :tsk: Out of 73 Posts on the Thread "Love and Race" you have posted at least 11 of them! Lets see, that works out to about 15% of all of the Posts regarding this issue - NOT BAD for a woman who claimed: "I DON'T want to argue". :rolleyes: {Especially since 9 of those 11 Posts were made AFTER YOU SPOKE THOSE WORDS!}

custer’s Post #37
custer’s Post #41
And now we come to your disingenuous comments on my wife’s (Renee) Post #40.

custer’s Post # 62

1 Corinthians 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.]

Did the Apostle Paul FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person in 1 Corinthians 7:39? Are you reading into the verse something other than what it said? (like you do with my wife’s words and with mine also) :( He said a saved widow is at liberty “to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.” My wife clearly said: “I see nothing in Chapter 7 of first Corinthians (where it deals with men and women) that has any forbidding of someone marrying an unbeliever.”

Paul gave instructions to a believer to marry “only in the Lord”. He did not FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person (Paul didn’t deal with that specific issue.)

And as I said in my Post #51 (and reiterated in my Post #71) - "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". And "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". But what you MISSED is that my Post #51 was dealing with “biblereaders” response to Renee’s Post #48, where “biblereader” claimed:

“Don't you agree that God was filled with wrath, when his people intermarried with non-Hebrews? God said NOT to marry anyone outside the faith.
It's all through the Old Testament. All through it. And, the penalties for disobeying God, by marrying someone NOT of their faith.”

”Same holds true today.” {UNTRUE!}

“A Christian has very little in common with a non-Christian.” {DUH!} :confused:

Since my wife (Renee quoted 2Corinthians 6:14 and “biblereader” was “taking issue” with her, I thought it would be proper to inform her that, in the context, the whole Chapter 6 of 2Corinthians had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH MARRIAGE - that is UNLESS someone takes the verses OUT OF CONTEXT and privately interprets them to prove a “theological point”!

Christians can “SPITITUALIZE” verses in the Bible to “MEAN” anything they want to (just like all Cults do), but “spiritualizing” Bible verses DOES NOT produce SOUND DOCTRINE. I want to know WHAT GOD SAYS; and I want to embrace and believe in “sound doctrine” – NOT what some woman “THINKS” a verse “MEANS”.

Your Post #63 in response to my Post #51 was more of the same, i.e. taking someone else’s words and twisting them; and taking them out of context; and making them say something other than WHAT THEY SAID (a bad habit)! For someone that said: “I DON'T want to argue”, WHY did you stick your nose into something that had nothing to do with you, (especially when you misrepresented what I said – just like you did with my wife before)?

I am going to say this for the last time: "I always recommend that a Christian marry "in the Lord". And "I DO NOT RECOMMEND marrying a lost person". Did you get that? Is that CLEAR NOW?

Both your Posts and “biblereaders”, in regards to this issue, are almost “infantile”. What Christian doesn’t know better than to marry a lost person? Hmmm? What Christian doesn’t know that the Lord would have a saved person marry “only in the Lord”? This is BASIC BIBLE KNOWLEDGE that almost all Christians know (or should know). I knew and understood it back in 1960, so you and “biblereader” aren’t telling us anything “new” or “earthshaking”.

What I was dealing with is IF a saved Christian man or woman HAS married a lost person, there is no “penalty” or “condemnation” of that marriage after it is consummated. The saved man or woman clearly was out of the will of the Lord in marrying a lost person, but once they are married, the lost spouse is “sanctified” by the saved spouse; and we Christians should NOT be looking down our noses at the marriage – because God has SANCTIFIED it.

You see God made a provision for a saved Christian (out of God's will), “else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.” [1Corinthians 7:14]

My point in all this is that we Christians better be circumspect when it comes to judging these matters. We had better be mighty careful (just because we may have “good” marriages), that we don’t go around judging Christians that may have ignorantly or willfully married a lost person. Once the “deed is done”, God “SANCTIFIES” the lost spouse – He makes that Marriage “legitimate”. If the saved spouse is “sanctified” already, and if God then “sanctifies” the lost spouse, then the marriage must be “SANCTIFIED”. So WHAT BUSINESS IS IT of ours to “CRITICIZE” these marriages, or the saved Christian who entered into such a marriage? IT'S STILL A MARRIAGE! Who knows? “For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?” [1 Corinthians 7:16]

All I have got to say is - we saved people better NOT be responsible for putting A STUMBLING BLOCK in the way of any saved person who has an unsaved spouse. We had better NOT be responsible for the “BREAKUP” of such marriages “God hath called us {a saved spouse} to peace” [1 Corinthians 7:15].
You are “beating a dead horse” here. :deadhorse: You already have my testimony (several times now) on this issue; and my wife’s testimony in regards to 1Corinthians Chapter 7. If you are wondering WHY I have sternly reproved and rebuked you - You TWISTED my words and my wife’s words; and CHANGED them to suit your purposes; and then SUBSTITUTED your own words in their place. I refuse to stand by and let another “Christian” get away with that - without at least letting them know that they are “out of order”.

You should have stuck with the subject at hand, and given us your “SCRIPTURAL” reasons WHY Christians shouldn’t marry someone of another "race" (whatever that is), culture, or color, rather than venturing into a side issue, which has demonstrated that you are disingenuous about what you say: “I DON'T want to argue”; imperceptive or careless to Scriptural exposition; and dishonest in dealing with other people’s WORDS! :eek:

Don't expect any more personal "replies" from me in regards to anything more you may have to say on this Forum. I refuse to have a "Cat Fight" with an emancipated Westernized "Christian" woman, who thinks she knows everything, and who refuses to receive instruction. There is NO PROFIT in it! :(

Proverbs 26:12 Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? there is more hope of a fool than of him.

{The verse applies to women also.}

Bro. George, :amen: my brother in law married an American woman. The woman lived in West Virginia and they both are a missionary here in the Philippines. I know that they are in good terms and I don't see any problem with regards to their relationship. The only problem is that when a believer chosen to marry an unbeliever. It is not wrong at all to choose a helpmate of any background or race as long he/she is a beleiver in the Lord.

So, I see now that it was ma'am Renee that is your wife. God bless you sir and ma'am.

Madaydayaw ti nagan ni Hesu Kristo!!!

Your last line there was a very good (and pertinent) point and is why I haven't understood George's "NO PENALTIES" assertion. I'm thinking Galatians 6:7, "...whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." I am "speculating" (boy, is that gonna get me in trouble!) that others in this thread won't accept that clear verse because "marriage" is not in the passage!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Pam,

Galatians chapter 6 has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a believer is allowed to marry an unbeliever. Neither do:

Ephesians :5:11
2 Corinthians 6:14
James 4:4
Amos: 3:33
I Corinthians 15:33
1 Timothy 6:1-5
2 Timothy 3:15

all of which you cited in defense of your argument.

You have twisted and misappropriated God's Word to try to support your opinion about something.

Less serious but still annoying, you also misrepresented what I have said in this thread. You zeroed in on my second to last post where I stated that Paul said that a believing widow is free to marry but only to a fellow believer. I said on that post that perhaps we could extend that to all believers but that I was not sure if that was a general principle. Then I simply acknowledged that when we make bad decisions we usually suffer for them.

Four hours later I posted again where I changed my position. After thinking about it I realized I was in error. My last post is my opinion. Did you read it? Just to be clear, I'll quote myself:

I would recommend that you read a good, solid book on biblical exegesis. I would also recommend you read Galatians chapter 6 and apply it to yourself, as we all should do.

In Christ,
Jennifer

What is going on? I was SOOOO trying to SUPPORT you! And the above quote (from your second post) says that you are still "not saying scripture doesn't teach that it shouldn't be done..." (How does that constitute changing your opinion?) The fact that you don't believe my scripture references back it up is not related to that statement!

I apologize profusely for making you feel that I misrepresented what you said; I sincerely hope that it is obvious from this post that that was not my intent! And if I've misunderstood and commented out-of-line on this post, I apologize in advance!

I cannot for the life of me understand, though, why everyone that has posted on here believes that all the clear scripture passages that teach that saved people should separate from lost people can apply to friend relationships, work/business relationships, etc. but cannot apply to the most intimate human relationship of all - marriage! CAN ANYONE PLEASE ADDRESS THAT???

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

[QUOTE=George;21953]

Paul gave instructions to a believer to marry “only in the Lord”. He did not FORBID a saved person from marrying a lost person (Paul didn’t deal with that specific issue.) [QUOTE]

Since y'all don't know me, let me preface this post by telling you:
THESE ARE SINCERE QUESTIONS/STATEMENTS! Hopefully that cannot be misunderstood!

Aren't those first two sentences (in George's quote above) completely contrary to each other? Or, does the Bible give us "instructions," and we get to choose whether or not to follow those "instructions," as long as the word "FORBID" is not in any way connected with the issue?

Seriously, if the above quote is at all coherent, SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL ME WHAT I AM MISSING!!!

Pam
www.custerfamilyfarm.com

Edit: I just saw that somehow I goofed up the quote thing...sorry, hopefully it's still understandable!