winsomebulldog

I admit to not being a devoted Pat Robertson listener. I can't remember the last time I saw the 700 Club. But I cannot even begin to understand how anyone claiming to be a Christian could say such a cowardly thing. As one of the anchors on my local news station said just this morning, "What do you take your vows for?" What's the point of vowing to remain faithful in sickness as well as health, and until death do you part if you're just going to bail out because it's inconvenient? Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. But it is a sickness, not some kind of "living death" as Mr. Robertson has implied. Anyone who would abandon their spouse because they have been stricken with Alzheimer's is the lowest form of coward and the epitome of selfish. Shame on him for condoning such heartless behavior!

Me too! Made me laugh, then made me want to cry because it's not really all that funny once you think about it. God forgive me for the times that I've lived these versions of the songs instead of the right ones!

Is he related to wyguy? That was my first thought as well.

Welcome to WB, and I agree with you 100 percent that mental illness is just as real as physical illness. There are a lot of Christians that will attack mental health professionals and tell those who have mental illness that any treatment outside of prayer is wrong, but I consider that nonsense. I am a firm believer in the power of God to heal, but I also believe that God is fine with us seeking out a physician when we are sick. I'm 100% with you on this, too. And you guys can add me to the list, as I've lived with clinical depression my entire adult life. It's been under control for a while now, thanks to a combination of therapy and medication, and the grace of God. I can't remember how many times I've personally witnessed Christians display disdain at the idea of some if not all mental illness. My "favorite" line was, "We all get sad sometimes, but eventually you just have to stop feeling sorry for yourself and get over it." Spoken, of course, by someone who'd never dealt first-hand with depression. Even worse, to me, than this statement was the chorus of agreeing nods from the other Christians who were present. What a shame that so many Christians can be so condescending and dismissive of illnesses that not only dramatically impact the lives of those who have them, but that can and too often do, lead those afflicted with them to take their own lives. It's very sad how unfeeling Christians can be to each other.

Hard to believe it's been 10 years. I'm also of the "NEVER FORGET" mentality. And not to sound militant, but I'm a huge fan of Darryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten," the second verse and chorus being: They took all the footage off my T.V. Said it's too disturbing for you and me It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say If it was up to me I'd show it everyday Some say this country's just out looking for a fight Well, after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right Have you forgotten how it felt that day? To see your homeland under fire And her people blown away Have you forgotten when those towers fell? We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell And we vowed to get the one’s behind bin Laden Have you forgotten? I'm with him. I was very offended when they decided that showing what had happened that day was "bad" for our attitudes. It's so very easy to put that day out of our minds, to just relegate it to the past and let the anger and pain die and fade away. But I think we need to remember it. We need to keep in mind just how terrible it actually was. Because I firmly believe that there are people out there who would repeat it if they got half a chance. And I believe they are our enemies in every sense of the word. A large portion of our society has bought into the touchy-feely "we're all brothers" line and that mentality just makes us more vulnerable. There are a lot of people out there who do not see us as their brothers. They want us dead, they want us to suffer. Even many of our supposed allies celebrated when they saw the towers fall. And that's something I think we ought to be routinely reminded of as well. Because that's the reality of how this world is. Pretending otherwise is just foolish.

I honestly cannot fathom why this should even be an issue. Granted, we are a "melting pot" of different cultures - including languages. Depending up on which region of the nation you live in, you'll find either minor or major influences of other languages upon the English we all speak. Anyone who's ever been to Southern Louisiana knows that their version of English is heavily peppered with French, though their French is no longer the same French that is spoken in either France or Canada. And there is a surprisingly varied difference in the English dialects we all speak as well. I was born and raised in the South and moved up north and found they used expressions I'd never heard before and even words in ways that I'd never heard. EX. up here, the word "Please?" is commonly used in a way that could be interchanged with "What did you say?" Of course, they find many of my expressions and some of my word usage amusing as well. But it's never been something that kept us from understanding each other. Now, I assure you that if I were to move to a foreign country, I would devote a great deal of effort to learning to speak their language. It is not only the smart thing to do, since it makes day to day living easier, it's also the courteous thing to do. And I toss in as an aside that I did take 2 years of French in high school, most of which I've sadly forgotten. My husband took French as well and wound up actually using it on numerous business trips to Switzerland, where they speak multiple languages depending upon which other nation they are closest to. IE, Swiss French, Swiss Italian, Swiss German. His trips were conveniently to the Swiss French region, which meant he could actually understand much of what they said and even answer them in French. (Or at least his horribly accented version of it. ) Visiting for a vacation or some other limited time is one thing. Most of us are not likely to strive to learn a foreign language for a short duration visit. We're not talking about people coming to America temporarily, though. We're talking about people who have moved here, legally or otherwise, who then refuse to learn or use our language. Frankly, I see it as arrogance and rudeness. I know English is a difficult language to learn as a second language. Realistically, many Americans who learned it as their first language barely seem to have a grasp of it. (One more misuse of "your/you're" and I might scream. ) But the point is, we are an English speaking nation. The British might disagree with me on that. Still, I cannot see why we should start including other languages as our "official" language at this point. I know learning English isn't easy, but it is hardly impossible and for anyone who has moved here permanently or for an extended time, it ought to be something they do out of common courtesy.

Just as a possible help, if you have virus protection software on your computer (which I assume you do) most of them will scan a program before installing it to make sure it's clean of viruses. Mine does it all the time. Generally speaking, a bit of research into whatever software you're looking to download can help determine whether or not it's legitimate or a likely source of trouble. I usually Google the software name plus the word "review." There's never any guarantee, but I really haven't had any problems with any of the free software I've downloaded through the years. But then, as I said, my virus protection software does a scan on everything I download and lets me know it's clean. As to the Open Office thing. It's a nice suite of programs, very comparable to Microsoft Office. Having said that, if you aren't skilled at working with Excel, then I don't know that Open Office's version of that will be much help either.

Not to confuse the issue, but I just have to post something I hear all the time. I don't agree with it, but I hear it. I've heard more than one preacher teach that all alcohol is "bad." One of them was, shall we say, not real grounded in a lot of what he taught and thought. He preached against all forms of alcohol and made a very firm distinction between "wine" and "fruit of the vine." Not that they aren't two different things, they obviously are. He just made a big deal of bringing up that difference and basically boiling it all down to "wine" is evil and "fruit of the vine" is grape juice and therefore just fine. Yet, when it was pointed out to him that Jesus turned water into wine, this preacher always found a way to avoid dealing with it. Mostly because I assume he had no way to fit it into his "all alcohol is evil" philosophy. The other preacher takes a slightly different approach. He believes all alcohol is evil, but makes no real distinction between the word "wine" and plain old grape juice. Basically, he believes that the wine Jesus created at that wedding was "non-alcoholic." I can only assume that he believes the same about any and all other instances where wine is mentioned in anything other than a "bad" light. He's very fond of Proverbs 20:1- Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. As a small bit of background on these men, both are admitted alcoholics who went "on the wagon" several decades back. Frankly, I find both of these interpretations absurd. However, I do not argue with them about it. Because as Dragoon already mentioned, some things are stumbling blocks for one while being of no consequence to another. Obviously, if these two men are alcoholics, they should never drink any alcohol. Moderation is not something they can do. And so, they should never drink, period. As I highlighted above, to these two men, all alcohol is "unclean" so if they were to partake, in their minds and hearts, they would have sinned. I have no such conviction. While I believe drunkenness is wrong, I do not feel any conviction that alcohol itself is evil. It, like so many other things, is fine so long as it is not abused. Having said that, I don't drink. I don't like to. I have never even tried beer, though I have had a few low alcohol wine cooler type things throughout the course of my life that I liked okay. I have tried wine and don't much care for it either. The only exception being a fantastic red I had while on a dinner cruise in London a decade ago. So, I don't drink because I don't like the taste of alcohol. Simple as that. I do not, however, think alcohol itself is "evil," and I see no Scripture that suggests it is.

Great point! I've got a couple of others, too. 1. It costs a whole lot more to get a tattoo removed than it costs to get one. Our tastes, beliefs, and so forth tend to change as we get older -- and that independently wealthy thing could come in handy. 2. What's that tattoo going to look like in, say, 20 years when the colors fade and things start to sag a bit with the weight of years? I can't seem to keep myself from thinking about this exact same thing every time I see someone who's gone the whole "tattoo and pierce EVERYTHING" route. Especially when they opt for those weird things in their ears that make giant holes. What, exactly, do you suppose THOSE things are going to look like when they hit, say, 70? Piercings and tattoos are, IMHO, a matter of personal choice. But every single time I see someone who has multiple piercings in their face, I can't help thinking about a much repeated joke about them looking like they fell face first into a tackle box.

My hubby was just saying the other day that he had no idea how any man who'd seen that movie could cheat. Oh, how we've all missed your....uh....insight, wyguy!

Good point!

The scriptural basis for forbidding tattoos aside (I commented on that earlier), where does the notion that only spiritually bankrupt people would get a tattoo come from? Oh, I've seen some pretty bad skin art, even on the bodies of some who professed to be Christians. For the most part, the offensive tattoos that I have seen on the bodies of Christians were things they acquired BEFORE they were saved. Now, I know some would have them removed. But I know others who use them as part of their testimony, meaning it is an indication of where they were before they were saved and just how far God has brought them since. Seriously, some of the most powerful testimonies I have ever heard came from people who'd been what us "good" Christians would consider the very dregs of society, yet had been redeemed by the Lord and now serve Him faithfully. I'm not saying all of them had any tattoos at all, much less tattoos that would be seen as offensive. I'm just saying, that sometimes, despite what has been suggested by some here, tattoos do not directly correlate to a "bad" testimony. Unless, of course, you happen to be the kind of Christian who takes one look at someone else and makes a snap judgment about how "Holy" they are. I am in no way trying to suggest that the only "good" Christians that have tattoos are those who had them before they were saved. I personally know one young man who recently got a tattoo of a fairly simple cross on his upper arm. Without getting into some kind of list of his "good" qualities, I'll just say that he is a faithful Christian, a young man that displays every good trait that any parent would want from their child. I simply cannot fathom how this tattoo that he chose to get, which represents his faith and trust in Christ, is somehow "defiling" his body. I've also heard it argued that tattoos are bad because they are somehow indicating that a person is not satisfied with the way God made them, that they are somehow trying to improve upon God's creation. I find this an odd notion. Honestly (and with sincere curiosity) do those of you who believe that apply the same thinking to every single thing that in any way alters our bodies. For example, are you equally offended by women who get their ear lobes pierced? Or, do you object to coloring or perming, or for that matter, even cutting one's hair - since this does, indeed, alter the natural state in which God created us. How about makeup for women? Or what about cosmetic surgery, even in the case of those who have been born with deformities that are surgically reparable? I have a series of tattoos. They aren't colorful or pretty. In fact, no one would know they were there, if I did not directly point them out. Which I'm not going to be doing, due to their locations. They were given to me by my radiology technicians prior to the start of my treatment for cancer. They are very small dots, no larger than a freckle, used as markers for lining up the lasers for treatment. Am I now defiled? Do the eight or nine tiny dots that are now a permanent part of my skin somehow destroy my testimony or make me "unclean?" I don't think so. And I defy anyone to tell me that they in any way changed my relationship to God. These are the only tattoos I personally have. They hurt quite enough to keep me from wanting to get something larger. Not to mention the fact that my tastes are so fickle that I'm afraid I'd dislike anything I got within a few weeks or months of getting it. The point is, I simply do no see any scriptural basis for declaring that all tattoos are against God.

I just have to address this. I've heard this non-argument used more times than I can count. Leviticus 19:28 is the go-to verse for those trying to say the Bible forbids all tattoos. Yet, never have I seen anyone using this verse acknowledge the verses surrounding it. IE: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee. Lev 19:19 (KJV); Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard. Lev 19:27 (KJV) Mixing cattle breeds is a common practice amongst those who raise them. (I live in a farming community and personally know many farmers, both who raise cattle for beef and for dairy purposes.) The mixing of seeds in a field seems counter intuitive to me, seeing as how I cannot fathom how one would then separate them come time for harvest. However, I know that many crops are products of seeds that have been bio-engineered by combining two different strains of a plant to then produce a stronger or more hardy plant. And then there's that whole blended fabrics thing. I'm sure that those who use Lev. 19:28 to reject all tattoos also make certain to never wear clothing made of blended fabrics, right? Of course, all Christians must have untrimmed beards (per Lev. 19:27) and must never cut the hair along the "corners" of their heads. You see the point I'm making, I hope. It is our nature to want to pick and choose verses - especially from the OT Law - that address the things we find personally offensive. We can argue a lot of things by doing this. Yet, we cannot apply one verse from the Law while choosing to ignore and overlook all the others. Simply speaking, either we are living by the law or we are under grace. If we're going to start teaching that all tattoos are against God, then we might as well ignore the entire New Testament, including the sacrifice of Jesus once for us all, and go back to Levitical Law, including sacrificing animals to atone for our sins. You can't have it both ways. Either Christ fulfilled the Law once and for all, or He did not and we are still under it and bound by it.

Sad to say, my father's entire family is Mormon. And not just Mormon, but high up in the ancestral hierarchy of the group. My grandfather was actually one of the founders of the temple in Memphis, TN. A few years ago, when a new temple was built and dedicated, his name, along with those of others among the original founders, was etched into the corner stone of the new temple. My aunt (the last of my grandfather's children still living) is very proud of this and their whole Mormon heritage. My second cousin (much older than me) is now retired, but is an expert in genealogy. I mean she's such an expert that her aid has been enlisted for the TV show, "Who Do You Think You Are?" When my father met my mother, she insisted that he covert from Mormonism to Baptist, which he did. Still, it's more than a little disconcerting to realize, now that I'm older and have a somewhat better understanding of what Mormonism really is, that one entire branch of my family is heavily immersed in it and proud of that fact. It's also very sad to know that they have been so terribly deceived.

without any more details on this matter i'll just say this the "church" has made up alot of commandments and rules that arn't really bibicly based. it was mentioned that they were living together. However that does not mean by default that they are sleeping togather ( i know some would claim that its immoral because they would be tempted, but as it is written "even where sin abounds, grace abounds more and more, grace to stand up against temptation not to think that its ok to sin) and even paul and peter had women with them as they spread the gosple. and also many others, myself included have found out by personal experience that the church sticks its noses where it just simply doesn't belong and by doing so causes strife and heartache leaving things worse rather than better. and yes there is something called church discipline but it must be based on scripture and even then let scripture interprite itself in it proper context The bold part sums it up completely. You chose to comment without bothering to actually read the entire thread, meaning you skipped over the places where we are told that they openly and without shame admitted that they were sleeping together (and lest you question it, they weren't just sleeping, but admitted to having a physically intimate relationship). And as to your other suggestion that the church was "sticking their noses where it just simply doesn't belong" you also missed the point that this couple sought out the pastor's counsel when seeking to have him marry them. Then they refused to heed his counsel and began sowing strife and discord among the rest of the church membership. I do not mean to sound sharp or rude, but it is rarely wise for us to leap to comment upon the very first post in a thread like this one, or even on the tenth or fiftieth post if we have not taken the time to read all the posts that came before. We cannot have a full understanding of a thread without reading it's entirety. I know I have surrendered to that urge on previous occasions only to realize after further reading, or after having it blatantly pointed out to me, that I have missed a previous post that addressed my question, comments, or concerns. I not try not to be so hasty. While commenting here is not the same as having a personal, face to face conversation with someone, it is not so different when it comes to the discretion we ought to use before giving "voice" to our opinions and thoughts. some people just happen to be more busy than others and have to make wise use of their time. like i said at the begining of my post, "WITHOUT ANY MORE DETAILS". sorry i just didnt have the time to read all the diffrent post about everyones diffrent p.o.v. on the subject... so thats why i stuck with the origanal post I wouldn't have cared if you hadn't asserted "this the "church" has made up alot of commandments and rules that arn't really bibicly based." (Which you then chose not to actually explain. Since it seemed quite evident that they were sowing division in the church and refusing to accept that what they were doing was wrong, I do not know where you got the notion that the pastor removing them from the church was not biblically based.) Then you followed that up with the suggestion that the church was merely being nosy and getting into this couples business for no reason. This made no sense to me since it was clearly expressed that they came to the pastor themselves asking about getting married. They sought out his counsel, not the other way around. And I was hardly expecting you to seek out everyone else's point of view, since that's hardly the relevant point. I was suggesting that you would have done well to at least read e lansing's replies to others' questions, thereby gaining a deeper understanding of what had actually happened. If you are so busy that you do not have time to read through an entire thread, then perhaps a more wise use of your time would be to merely ask for clarification of the OP instead of making accusations about how the church was using unscriptural "rules" and sticking it's nose in where it didn't belong. (IE, you could have asked if the couple was merely living under the same roof or if they had confessed to being physically intimate as well. And you could have asked how the discipline was carried out, quoting the scriptures that deal with church discipline and asking of those standards were followed, instead of simply assuming that they were not.) As I said, I've done the same thing before and have learned that it's better to just keep my mouth shut and my opinion to myself than to post a knee jerk reply to something without taking the time to get the full picture. I'm sorry if my suggestion that you do the same hurt your feelings. That was not my intent.

Speaking from experience (since I did, indeed, find the right one at the age of 16) I cannot express precisely how I knew he was the one. I simply did. Were my hormones involved. No doubt! But it was more than mere hormones. I just knew it. Then again, I was a Christian and I believed and understood that God has plans for us all, including the provision of the person He designed specifically to be our mate. Sadly, we often aren't willing to allow Him to be our guide. Instead we follow our hormones or our emotions alone, getting caught up in peer pressure or trends or society's wholly unbiblical notions of what relationships ought to be. (It doesn't take anyone long with a television to discover that by society's standards, not only premarital, but teen sex is "normal" and even "expected." These days, anyone who actually chooses a life of abstinence is considered odd.) I think physical age is important when it comes to male/female relationships, especially when talking about younger ages. As my husband has pointed out through the years, he is 5 years older than I am. At 40 and 45, that doesn't mean much of anything. But at 16 and 21 - our ages when we met - that five years is huge. Ultimately, I believe we are all different. For the most part, I do not believe the average teen is remotely capable of making the kind of serious decision represented by committing to marriage. However, that is not to say that no teen can do so. There was more than one person who told me I was making a mistake when I became engaged to my husband 6 months after we met. More than 2 decades later, I reckon I can comfortably state that they were the ones making the mistake. Interestingly, my mother, who undoubtedly knew me better than anyone else in the world, never once questioned my commitment to my future husband. She didn't even question me when I walked in the door after our first real date (after which we stood outside and talked for hours about everything from our belief and trust in God to our feelings about having children in the future) and announced "He's the one." She responded with, "I know." So sometimes, God intervenes and places two people together even though neither of them is looking for a mate at the time. I know with every fiber of my being that He did exactly what with my husband and me. We made mistakes. Including living together before we got married. But the fact remains that I knew very early on that I had met the man God had set aside for me. And after just passing 24 years since the day we met, I can't help but be grateful that I not only listened to the still, small voice that whispered within me that this man was the one I would spend the rest of my life with. But that I also refused to give up in the face of doubts from people I loved and respected, and even doubts from my husband, and countless other obstacles and situations that could easily have driven us apart. God had guided me to him and I wasn't going to let him go unless God directed me to do so!

without any more details on this matter i'll just say this the "church" has made up alot of commandments and rules that arn't really bibicly based. it was mentioned that they were living together. However that does not mean by default that they are sleeping togather ( i know some would claim that its immoral because they would be tempted, but as it is written "even where sin abounds, grace abounds more and more, grace to stand up against temptation not to think that its ok to sin) and even paul and peter had women with them as they spread the gosple. and also many others, myself included have found out by personal experience that the church sticks its noses where it just simply doesn't belong and by doing so causes strife and heartache leaving things worse rather than better. and yes there is something called church discipline but it must be based on scripture and even then let scripture interprite itself in it proper context The bold part sums it up completely. You chose to comment without bothering to actually read the entire thread, meaning you skipped over the places where we are told that they openly and without shame admitted that they were sleeping together (and lest you question it, they weren't just sleeping, but admitted to having a physically intimate relationship). And as to your other suggestion that the church was "sticking their noses where it just simply doesn't belong" you also missed the point that this couple sought out the pastor's counsel when seeking to have him marry them. Then they refused to heed his counsel and began sowing strife and discord among the rest of the church membership. I do not mean to sound sharp or rude, but it is rarely wise for us to leap to comment upon the very first post in a thread like this one, or even on the tenth or fiftieth post if we have not taken the time to read all the posts that came before. We cannot have a full understanding of a thread without reading it's entirety. I know I have surrendered to that urge on previous occasions only to realize after further reading, or after having it blatantly pointed out to me, that I have missed a previous post that addressed my question, comments, or concerns. I not try not to be so hasty. While commenting here is not the same as having a personal, face to face conversation with someone, it is not so different when it comes to the discretion we ought to use before giving "voice" to our opinions and thoughts.

Well said, Fez!

Isaiah, nowhere is there any mention of them being born again. The brother is a leader but is he born again? I think there is a confusion in the word 'church' are we talking about born again believers or are we talking about the people who gather on Sunday to hear the sermon preached by a minister/pastor? They are not necessarily one and the same.This young couple may not be born again as is evidenced by their actions. In this case the best thing to do would have been to continue to counsel them and have others in the congregation to minister to them. The brother was not expelled yet they were. Even the other pastors were not in agreement as to what to do. I have posed this situation to a number of born again believers and I have yet to hear 1 (one) person agree that they should have been expelled from the congregation and that is all that it is - a congregation, The term church is being used loosely. Not all who call Jesus Lord will enter into heaven even the rest of that congregation yet they have been allowed to remain. Do they drink? Do they go to places where they should not? Who is to know yet they who call themselves Christian can stay? What about those who abuse their family? It is hidden and they are allowed to stay. This young couple with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him. Where will they learn if not in the church? Perhaps the brother is the one who should have been chastised not the young couple. It seems to me that you have read the opening post and nothing else. E has repeatedly stated that they were, in fact, born again believers. The brother as well. The suggestion that anyone who willfully sins by default is not or cannot be born again is unsupportable. People choose to commit sins by "justifying" those sins within themselves. People have all sorts of "reasons" for why they do what they do, often like the people here it's simply a determination that their sin isn't really sin because they found someone to agree with their definition of this particular sin. And I have no idea where you got the idea that the girl's brother was not removed from the congregation as well. I must also wonder if the other "born again believers" that you have posed the situation to got the entire story or just your version of it. Meaning, did you direct them here and have them read the entire thread, including every one of e lansing's posts about what he did and why so that they could get a full picture of the situation? This logic is not applicable to the situation for one very simple reason. You're talking here about sins that are kept hidden, sins that are practiced in the "shadows," away from the view and knowledge of the rest of the local church body. None of us knows the hidden sins of another, therefore we cannot judge them. However, using your suggestions, let's propose a situation where a church member not only consistently comes to church drunk, but also brings their alcohol into the church with them and drinks during the service. Or how about the person who goes " to places where they shouldn't go." I'm not entirely sure what specific places you mean by this, but let's go with a man who frequents strip clubs. Now suppose that man decided to bring some of his stripper friends to church with him with them wearing their work "attire." Which is to say nothing at all. And then there's the abuser. How about if they come to church and stand up during the invitation or service and begin beating their spouse or children? In these situations would you suggest that the church members should be embraced and mentored? Should their terribly inappropriate and disruptive actions be allowed to continue simply because "with the right mentoring may have become shining examples of who Christ has come to save and have led others to Him?" I mean, "Where will they learn if not in the church?" Seriously, tell me that you would be perfectly fine if any of these situations happened on a regular basis at your weekly church meetings. Tell me that you would not expect them to be asked to stop this behavior. And when they flatly refused to do so, would you condone them continuing to behave this way, to disrupt services and to sow discord among the local congregation? This couple did exactly this. They chose to ignore their sin in spite of the fact that they were professing believers. The girl's brother helped them do this and also condoned their sin. They refused to admit to and repent of the sin they were committing OPENLY. Not only this, they tried to get others to also condone their sin. When their pastor would not do so, they went over his head and were told to abide by his advice. Then they went even higher within the church hierarchy and were told the exact same thing. Yet they STILL refused to repent and accept that they were wrong. I really can't understand why it is so hard for some of you to accept that the Bible flat out tells us to remove disruptive members from the local body if they refuse to repent. As e lansing said, there are plenty of Bible passages that back up the fact that premarital sex is a sin. And the Bible also provides instruction on how to deal with church members who are committing open, obvious, unrepentant sin. There's no doubt that we, as Christians, need to be loving and supportive of those who are struggling. And no one has suggested that the only people who ought to be allowed in church are "perfect" or "sinless" people. The fact is, there are no such people. But we also need to accept that being loving and supportive does not equal being accepting of blatant sin. It brings to mind raising children. If you've got a child who throws a temper tantrum every single time they don't get what they want, do you give them what they want just to shut them up, or do you refuse to submit to their demands and teach them that bad behavior will not be rewarded? How, exactly, would it be beneficial for this couple and her brother to have their behavior condoned? Correcting children is something parents do because they love them. How is what e lansing did any different?

I love your honesty. Let's face it, so many of us would keep a problem like this to ourselves, not wanting to "look bad" by confessing that we aren't perfect. It's that humility that I know God will bless! I'll join you in praying for God to soften your heart in this matter, and to help you find great joy in the days ahead. God bless you!

Well, I can address this from a personal perspective because I was someone who lived with my husband before we were married. We were both saved. I knew very well that it was wrong. He did as well, but still rejected the idea of getting married. He had his reasons. I was young (16) when we met. I was not looking for a potential husband, he (21 & in college) was not looking for a potential wife. God brought us together, though it took a long time for my husband to trust that truth. (The story is just too long to go into here. Read if you want the whole story.) Eventually I nagged him into getting married. We did not do it at a church, but got married on a Saturday morning at a local courthouse with my husband's parents as our witnesses. That was almost 20 years ago and we are not only very happily married, but our marriage has been blessed tremendously. Both of us are so grateful that God put us together. I cannot express how perfectly suited we are for one another. And anyone who dares to try to credit "luck" or "fate" for our meeting will get an immediate response from me that there is no such thing as luck or fate. Nor was it coincidence. My husband and I were quite literally "made" for each other. Now, having said all this, I am commenting to let you know that I completely support your actions, e. We did not get married in a church because we knew very well that we were out of the will of God. We did get married in order to bring our lives back into His will, and we repented of our sin. God has blessed our union since we did that, too. The couple you mentioned allowed her brother to justify their sinful behavior. No doubt they did it because it made them feel better about what they were doing. (My husband used to make statements like, "we're married in the eyes of God.") We are all pretty good at making excuses and justifications for the sin we just don't want to give up. Anyway, when her brother not only went in direct opposition to God's Word, and then not only refused to admit his sin, but began actively working to encourage other church members to "take sides" in the matter, they ceased to be a family in need of counseling and instruction and became a serious threat to the church as a whole. I agree with the suggestions of other posters that the church is made up of sinners and is a gathering place for sinners, where we are supposed to learn and grow. But, there comes a time when sincere questions or uncertainty becomes a deliberate, stubborn refusal to accept either Godly instruction or correction. That's when the church has to set aside the disruptive member/s until they repent of their behavior. It is never an easy thing to do. Nor should it be. But it does have to be done sometimes, for the protection of the rest of the church body. This is clearly supported by the scriptures that have already been posted. This couple and her brother were clearly less concerned by the truth of God's Word than they were with excusing/justifying their behavior and/or proving they were "right." It's one thing to have a legitimate disagreement on something the Bible says or the express meaning of a particular verse or passage. (This is something we all face, especially among different denominations.) But there's a line that this family crossed when they began seeking other members of the congregation to join their "side" in opposing the pastor and the Biblical teaching on marriage and fornication. There is simply no excuse for it. We can only pray that they repent of it and again place their full trust in the Bible instead of their personal interpretations of what they want the Bible to say. In short (which I know very well this isn't ) you did the only thing you could. You counseled them on the right thing to do. You confronted them when they began dividing the church on the issue. You gave them the opportunity to at the very least come up with a Scriptural basis for their position - which we all know is not possible since the Bible is very clear on what sexual relations before marriage is - and you asked them to stop sowing discord in the church. They refused all these, choosing to remain obstinate about their sin. At that point you, as the pastor, had to think about the rest of your congregation. God bless you for having the fortitude to do what had to be done. And I pray that the family will swallow their pride and admit their wrong to God. He can't bless willful sin. Even if they do get married, it won't be a truly happy union until/unless they get right with God.

I do use my iPad in church. I love the thing. First of all, it allows me to carry literally dozens of translations (assuming I wanted to) everywhere I go. In reality, I only use a couple of translations, showing in parallel form on my screen so that I can compare them. In fact, just last Sunday I was showing it off to some of my fellow church members. We were laughing about how it is "cheating" to just be able to tap the screen a few times and go to any verse in the Bible without actually having to remember where it is. Oh, and to whoever it was that said they had trouble waiting for the passages to load, I'd suggest looking into Olive Tree or You Version, both of which have apps for phones and both of which allow you to actually download a complete file of the Bible onto your device so that you don't have to wait for it to load. I didn't get the iPad with 3G access, so I need a local wi-fi connection to get online with it. Our church is small and doesn't even have a telephone line coming in. So internet access there is off the table. Anyway, I love my iPad. I use it all the time and take it everywhere I go. That means I can get access to my Bible anywhere I am. It's a wonderful thing.

And in reply to the gist of this whole discussion, I just have to wonder why it is that so many out there keep trying to make God - the Creator of the entire universe, the One who designed all the sciences and mathematics that define and explain how it all seems to work - fit into the framework of those sciences and mathematics. He created it. He can manipulate it however He likes. He is not bound by physics or time or anything else. Knowing this, why must we continue to try to "explain" how He did it? If you're thinking that God is bound by the very laws of nature that He designed then you're basically saying the miracles do not and cannot exist. In which case, Jesus was not God manifested in the flesh and He did not rise from the dead and we're all just wasting our time following Him. I choose not to go down that path. God is all-knowing, all-encompassing, all-everything. We can't squeeze Him into any of our self-defined boxes.

God bless you bro. What Candice said.

I've seen the same thing. I'm part of LadyC's group that's just started reading the Bible in Chronological order in 90 days and today's reading was exclusively from Job. I came away with thoughts much like what you have said. IE, too many of us seem to tend to act and talk like we know the very mind of God. We back up this supposed "knowledge" with arrogant attitudes and haughty demeanors. We seem to be losing our humility and along with it our love and compassion for others, whether they're fellow Christians or among the lost. It seems that we just don't want to admit that we don't have all the answers or worse, we try to fit the Bible into our pathetically limited sphere of understanding when no such thing is possible. As you said, in the Bible, 1=3, which flat out flies in the face of all our human derived logic. It's a shame that even many Christians are starting to sink into that trend of trying to make God and His Word fit into our human scientific boxes.