I'm curious about this one.  I never heard this come up as a contradiction.  So if you would please...enlighten me? 

ok, good luck on your paper.  Sounds interesting. 

You previously asked me if I believe a believer should marry an unbeliever and you quoted scripture that was clear the answer was no.  This scripture you gave above does not contradict this.  This is a total diff scripture.  This is a situation when two unbelievers marry and one becomes a believer.  The question is.....does the believer now leave the marriage?  The answer is no.  The believer in the marriage will sanctify the marriage.  Do you know what that means?  That means in an unbelieving household there is a believer that is "set apart" for God and will be a good witness to her/his family.  If they separate there's no light/witness in the home.  There's a greater chance now that the unbeliever will come to the faith as well as any children in the house. 

Besides all that, God hates divorce.  He says that once man and woman join they should not separate but stay together.  I've known lots of these mixed marriages over the years and have seen some wonderful things come out as a result of them with the unbelieving spouse coming into the faith with his wife who first became a believer and vice versa. 

So no contradiction here. 

I've heard that there's more about riches or finances than any other subject in scripture.  There are some who are rich and doomed and some who are rich and blessed.  You're right that our earthly riches are not going to save us.  As long as we understand that and do good with how God blessed us we should be ok.  When we look at our riches as being above others and put our trust in them instead of God, we're not in a good place.  There is a wealth and health gospel floating around that is totally bogus.  Wealth is not a universal reward for being pious.  Some of the most Godly people thru the centuries didn't have two cents to call their own......like the poor old widow who gave all she had.  Jesus didn't have a place to lay his head and he came from two complete nobodys. 

Being rich or poor has nothing to do with our salvation.  Riches or material possessions are not the problem.  The love of these things can be a big problem if they get in the way of your love for God. 

and I had a hunch where you got that from.  The Catholics love this verse and love to use it for prohibiting birth control.  Like we agreed on it has to do with rebellion against God and nothing more.  Rebellion to God is like the sin of witchcraft he says.  It's like we've been seduced or hypnotized by the opposition. 

All you had to say was Catholic and I completely understand.  But reading the bible once at 14 is not really how you read this book.  That was good and a start but it's truly a lifetime of study.  I've been reading this for over 40 years and I keep finding new information.  It's like finding another puzzle piece.   You seem to know more than most so I'm thinking you've either put these things to a test on others or you've been contemplating them for a while now.  Well....either that or you've got some bible hating site that's feeding you......  Not like there's a shortage out there. 

These other nations were very very evil.  If you go back in history and read about these nations you'd understand why God did what he did.  The Assyrians for instance did some pretty horrific things that make the Jeffrey Dalmers and Mansons of our days look like kindergarteners.  God looked down after the flood and lovingly picked a nation to be a light to other nations.  This rag tag group of Jews that God picked were a minority compared to some of the other nations out there.  But it all goes back to Gen 12 and God's promise to Abraham anyhow.  That's why he did all those miracle in Egypt to prove that the God of Abraham was the true God.  Many Egyptians were convinced and went with the Jews during the Exodus out of Egypt.  God was all for the other nations coming into the faith of the Jews.  That was also a promise to Abraham, that many nations would be blessed as a result of him and his descendants. 

well it may look like that from our perspective but God knew that Job could handle this.  I would think it an honor if God thought me strong enough to take such a situation. (but I think God knows I'm a wus!).   Testing is not unbiblical.  Tempting is.  We can test God and he says he tests us.   God does test us, but not for his benefit....for ours!  Yes God knew the outcome with Job.  But did Job?  Testing of our faith is a good thing really.  It's not pleasant when you're in the thick of it, but the outcome shows the evidence for your faith.  They say you only know what a teabag is made of when it gets into hot water right?  Same with us.   I don't know how I will react to a situation until I get into it.  It's good spiritual building character to be tested once in a while.  Just like being in school and being tested on what you've been taught.  You don't know what you've really retained until you've been tested on it.  Right? 

I know alot of Christians over the years who took great solace in the book of Job.  I'm thinking what Job went thru has helped millions of Christians over the years.  God richly rewarded him afterwards.  Did you know that God doubled all that was taken from him but his children?  The reason for this is because he would be reunited with his children.....all of them eternally.  For me, if I thought God was going to do that for my kids, I would gladly suffer as Job did. 

oh, ok.  There were seven sayings of Christ on the cross total.  We piece them together by looking at all the gospels.  The gospels remember are four eyewittness accounts from 4 diff perspectives.  The fact that they agree and can fit together but are not copy cats speaks well for the case against collusion.  To get the total picture of these 3 1/2 yrs you have to piece all the gospels together like a puzzle.  Quite often there is repetition and other times one says what another leaves out. 

There is no contradiction here just three diff accounts of what Christ said on the cross.  I'd have to look up but I think the first two you gave me were the last two (of 7) statements he said before he died. 

Catholic mis-education?....Is that truly from where all your questions stem?  Did you get a good Catholic education otherwise?...it seems you did by your writing and critical questioning here on JU.....and writing a research paper on  flesh eating bacteria isn't chump change either. Good going on that.

It was His Way (salvation plan) of dealing with sin....Original Sin transmitted by Adam and Eve and actual sin....pride being the #1.   

Yes and no....Depends what you mean by "necessary".

Yes, as long as you realize that both Christ and Judas employed their free will...Christ in dying for us as He did and Judas' free will in betraying Him.

Of course I'm going to judge god by "what little" I can see, given that "what little" we can see in the Old Testament is wholesale slaughter of nations for his "plan", rules which have no place in a modern, and/or moral society, and his New Testament appearance is suddenly so much gentler (until of course you hit Revelations, along with many other passages prior). Add on to that that apparently he'll gladly damn us simply for using logic based on "what little" we've seen, instead of gently explaining and rehabilitating.

Consider. In some countries in Africa, the adult infection rate for AIDS is 40% and up. The Catholic Church still forbids the use of condoms and actively dissuades these people from using them. That's lunacy, pure and simple. And in regards to the Unbeliever spouse thing, both are referring to marriage.

Look at it this way. In the old testament god saw people working together peacably (tower of babyl). So God destroys the tower, scrambles everyones language, and later goes on to order a series of wars. I don't care what "plan" a parent would have; if they made one child beat up the rest of his children, that's just... disgusting. Let's not forget his wholesale murder of the entire planet except for one family, with a rainbow being his reminder of mercy. Come on.

Now for the record, I consider the Old Testament to be by and large simply legends with only some points rooted in something historical. I don't think the entire earth flooded, or literal giants getting taken down by slings.

New Testament is certainly an improvement, given Jesus decides his father's rules such as stoning someone to death for wearing linen and wool in the same outfit, stoning someone to death for eating bacon-wrapped shrimp, stoning someone to death for having sex on their period, and sending women out into the wilderness to live in huts made of sticks when they're on the rag, and sacrificing an animal for every other minor infraction you'll commit ten times a day are outdated and unnecessary. That having been said, if you don't get the memo that Jesus died for you you're screwed anyway, which is what I find injust.

If there is a god claimed to be one of love and mercy who is genuinely concerned with human affairs and has an afterlife prepared, I find it much more logical that he would discuss the things you did in life with you, (briefly) punish and rehabilitate in the case of murderers or the massively bigoted (for example), and then just chill out. That's a relationship - not being forced to follow orders on pain of eternal torment.

I could spend all day on this one.  I actually wrote a blog on this so it'll be better for you to read what I wrote.  But the Tower of Babylon was the beginning of false religion.    They were working against God and like I said....there's more to this story than what you are seeing.  It's actually quite interesting...the whole thing.  This was not a good peaceable thing.  And this will be similar to when the Anti Christ comes on the scene.  The first thing he's going to do is bring "peace."  But it's not real peace.  This is a warning and all the Christians are watching for this even now. 

Do a check sometime on Nimrod.....the mighty hunter.  He was the ruler/leader of this rebellion. 

Here are the two articles I posted about this.  The second article deals more specifically with Nimrod and His Tower of Babal. 

http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/337204/This_Woman_is_a_Whore

http://kfc.joeuser.com/article/337310/The_Birth_of_The_Whore

nephilim_x posts:

The high incidence of AIDS is happening for a reason... what is it? Sexual contact. Why is the adult infection rate of AIDS so high? Is it becasue of married couples who practice fidelty....God's absolute standard?

or is it becasue of people going against God's standard ...and engaging in fornication, in extra marital sex, in homo sex, in in prostitition, in rape, etc?

Please consider this:

UNAIDS, the international agency which coordinates research and treatment for AIDS around the world, is a strong supporter of condoms. Its official position is that: “The male latex condom is the single, most efficient, available technology to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”

Note the stress on the word “technology”. The condom is just a technology. And technology is not much good for changing behaviour.

The West is addicted to technology as a substitute for free will and moral effort. If you eat too much, you get gastric banding surgery. If you’re depressed, you take Prozac. If you’re a smoker, you wear nicotine patches. Here in Africa, this fantasy has collided with the reality of the AIDS crisis. There is no technology to tame sexual desire. There is only self-restraint and faithfulness to your partner. These will eventually rein in AIDS; condoms won’t.

Chinwuba Iyizoba is an electrical engineer in Enugu, Nigeria

Besides it's long time medical knowledge (but kept politically quiet) that condoms don't prevent the transmission of STDs and HIV.

A. Granted, kids who engage in “unprotected” sex are vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and unwanted pregnancies. But this raises another crucial question: How much protection do condoms provide? Studies have found condom failure rates in protecting against pregnancies for teens to be as high as 22.5 percent. As for protecting against STDs, in 2001 several government health agencies together released a report on condom effectiveness. The report found evidence that condoms are about 85 percent effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. (Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?) The report also found condoms to be somewhat effective in protecting men (but not women) from gonorrhea. But the prominent scientists who prepared the report found no conclusive evidence that condoms protect against any other STD, including HPV, the primary cause of cervical cancer, which kills more women than AIDS does. Sixty-eight million Americans now have an incurable STD. Many caught those incurable STDs while using condoms. No one has ever caught AIDS or any other STD from being abstinent.

 I think Pope Benedict is very wise in his admonition to stop using condoms and I'm not saying this becasue I'm Catholic, but becasue I understand that God knows best and He gave us His commands for a good reason....He wants us to be happy in this world and supernaturally happy with Him in the next.

No, it's never lunacy when you're thinking with God.

Condoms are not going to work for those who think raping babies cures their AIDS.  Condoms are not going to work for those raping period. 

What's needed over there is Christ......and that makes a big diff...the other thing needed over there is education on exactly how and why all this is happening. 

Fixing the outside only, with condoms, is like putting a small band-aid on a gaping hole.  That's why they haven't been able to stop the bleeding over there.  It really has little to do with condoms.  Education both in the physical sense and spiritual is what's really needed. 

Just to be clear....I have no problem with the condom usuage but Lula does bring up some good points. 

We always reap what we sow....in fact you always reap more than what yu sow.  To see small children affected, it breaks my heart.  But the fault isn't with God.  The fault lies with man. 

Now this is the freewill that we've been talking about so much on the other sites.  Man is much more prone to use his freewill for evil than for good. 

Of course, I know that HIV/AIDS in Africa, as well as other parts of the world, comes from things other than sexual contact.

I do think though that the majority of cases comes from sexual transmission such as I detailed. So, since contracting HIV/AIDS is behavior based...why not use common sense and control the behavior....The solution is teaching and practicing self control not birth control by condoms or anything else.

And btw, while there may be a stigma for having HIV/AIDS in Africa, there sure isn't one here in the US...it's a politically protected incurable disease and we still are passing laws that attempt to force acceptance of homo-sex as just an alternate (healthy) lifestyle. When in truth, it's a deathstyle and anyone who denies this is lying.

It wasn't my depiction, it's a quote from Chinwuba Iyizoba is an electrical engineer in Enugu, Nigeria. I agree 100% with his analysis. He made his point.."Here in Africa, this fantasy has collided with the reality of the AIDS crisis. There is no technology to tame sexual desire. There is only self-restraint and faithfulness to your partner. These will eventually rein in AIDS; condoms won’t." 

 For those who push and sell condoms, people are just commodities, units, it's a utilitarian type of thing, they are never considered as made in the image and likeness of God having great dignity....condoms are about money...check out Planned Parenthood if you don't believe it....that's why they are sexualizing our children in schools through their sex education classes. Schools teach smoking is bad, but sexual relations (that can potentially kill) is OK as long as the child uses a condom. Go figure! Woe to them...St.Matt. 18:6 comes to mind. God will not be mocked.

Maybe so...but who in their right mind wants to take a chance with their health and life? I am a mother and I think this question is paramount...(Is 85 percent good enough in protecting your child against a deadly and incurable virus?).

I'm teaching them in accordance with God's law and with the Church....practice chastity before marriage and fidelty afterwards.  

Lula. The point was that even when abstinent you could still catch aids. And 85% protection is a damn sight better than 0%, and you both know just as well as I that up and expecting everyone to just stop having sex is about as likely as me not being repulsed by everything you've just said, particularly given the socioeconomic troubles of Africa.

Of course rapists aren't going to use condoms, but if they were permitted to use condoms in the first place, it's more likely they wouldn't be raping babies because they wouldn't have had AIDS in the first place. Additionally, abstinence only education is a hilarious failure even in the first world. Furthermore as far as sex ed goes, I don't know about how yours went but youths had experimented a fair bit well before sex ed was even touched in my classes. Tell a child not to do something and you end up driving them to do it half the time.

As far as Christ "helping" situations and him being oh so needed in Africa, I say unreservedly HEY FOLKS THERE WAS SOMETHING HERE WITH A SWEAR BUT NOW THERE ISN'T, and I've been trying to be polite most of the time. This is the same claptrap that was used against natives in North America and Australia; was used again in Africa, parts of the Middle East and Asia. People still suffer today from the philosophy of "white mans burden". Look up the Congo Free State sometime, read about how disgustingly low people sank, and ask yourself if the victims deserved it because they weren't Christian anyway.

I'm done with responses to Lulu. Between repeated calls for the exclusion of non-Christians, an extreme amount of cognitive dissonance (and sudden dropping of issues such as evolution once the church's stance no longer matched Lulus), and the utterly inhuman stance that widespread disease and social ruin is better than wearing a condom because you believe your god wants it that way... I quite honestly feel nauseous. Many nations have had excellent success in reducing infection rates thanks to condoms... but then why do I bother to say any of this when you refuse to budge, even when proven wrong?

Lulu, I do not wish you any ill will, but yeah. I'm done with responding to you. Have a nice day.

"No way, this woman would rather see aids flourish than people use condoms... I feel sick..."

"HE SWORE AT ME!"

You were actually polite and I get the impression that you would actually acknowledge the need for practical solutions before spiritual ones can take root, particularly in a continent as large, diverse and turbulent as Africa, so wording changed.

And again, I apologize for the delay in getting to you, KFC. Just as I've said, priorities have to be in place, and right now that's focusing on my education. I just read your two entries right now, and while I understand the perspective from which you're writing, I still have to question the issue of Babyl. As you noted earlier, God knew Judas would do what he did, and let it happen (as I understand, it was essential for it to happen). So why does God interfere with Babyl? (This of course is assuming a literal, rather than metaphorical take on the situation) Both are men using their free will for evil actions (Judas, clearly; Babyl, debatably since the sun isn't quite as close as ancient Babylonians might want) As I've mentioned I find it odd for Gods character to change through the Bible, but that comes down to literalist interpretations (which are usually what I'm stuck arguing against).

As I've said earlier, I feel that if there is a god, he acts more as a spectator - letting people live their lives as they would choose to live them. Where we disagree, obviously, is the aftermath of such a life, and ultimately I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree.

I disagree regarding New World Order; there have been several times throughout history that the End Times have been declared, to no result. We here in Canada can barely even keep Quebec as a part of the nation; the US has been divided sharply by politics with "real americans" defined by whatever they see themselves as. Africa is utterly ravaged by war; Israel is pretty much never going to get along with the rest of the middle east for a huge variety of reasons; China and the Koreas are not terribly fond of Japan (to put it lightly); the Koreas themselves hate each other (and good luck dislodging the communist government in NK, as awful as it is).

I would honestly put mankind running out of resources as a much more pressing affair than a NWO. For example, current estimates place us at 13 more years of Indium supply. Indium is used in electronics, medical technology, and nuclear engineering. This is among a variety of different issues, and I see us running out of higher technology long before world peace is even a possibility. Not that life was completely awful in the old west, but I quite enjoy having high end medical technology and communications available.