methinkshe

I have a question (or two or four!!) Where is the earthly abode of the Holy Spirit? 1) In the atmosphere, i.e. everywhere/somewhere/anywhere He pleases? 2) Within regenerate believers? 3) Both 1) and 2). Please reply with supporting Scriptures inasmuch as that is possible. a) Following on from the above question, if your answer is 2) can we infer that at the Rapture the Holy Spirit will depart this earth with raptured believers? and that... b) thereafter, the Holy Spirit will only be found by special annointing as in the O.T. when prophets, for example, were filled with the Spirit to enable them to prophesy. I look forward to hearing your replies as this is a subject that has been niggling away at the back of my mind for quite a while, and came back to me forcefully yesterday in church as we celebrated Pentecost.

Think genuine

Sadly, I have not yet found anyone locally, with a similarly disabled child, who agrees with my stance, so at the moment a support group is not feasible. Even some Christians seem to think that sex education is the best way to protect the mentally retarded from sexual exploitation. Very few are able or willing to understand that sex belongs within marriage (regardless of what present day society would have us believe) and therefore if marriage is denied to those of unsound mind, so also is sex. They start talking about human rights and sexual urges etc etc. Unfortunately, we are up against a widely held belief that if only all children were given enough sex education early enough, teenage pregnancies and other ills associated with promiscuous sex would all be cured, and this despite the fact that the evidence points in the other direction; i.e. that early years sex education actually awakens sexual desires prematurely and increases teenage preegnancies. Abstinence is totally derided and disregarded as being repressive and inappropriate. Sex is considered to be a recreational ativity instead of the procreational activity that God designed it to be, and so long as this attitude prevails, sex education will continue to be viewed by most as the panacea to all ills associated with promiscuous sex/fornication. I count it a great joy that the Lord has tried my faith through my daughter's disability and that it has worked in me patience and perseverance. Not only has my faith endured, it has also increased as in my weakness I learn to lean more and more on my Lord Jesus and His infallible Word and His indwelling Holy Spirit. Our daughter has been a great blessing to our family and has taught us how to remain always thoughtful and responsive to the weak. Without this lesson I am sure I would have been much more inclined to dismiss the truly needy and concentrate on fulfilling my own much lesser needs and desires.

Thank you for your encouragement. It is reasssuring to know from brothers and sisters in Jesus that I am on the right track, even though staff at my daughter's school think I am just a religious nutcase. I totally agree that you are doing what's right for you........ You are a reliable loving Christian who knows how to handle these kinds of things..... I have a question though. For those caretakers who are not Christian and who have worldly morals, would it be the thing to do. My wife was a kindergarten teacher for over 20 years and one of the major problems with kids of that age groups is that parents really don't instruct children any longer about much of anything. So, I have to ask, if a caretaker was not a Christian, would you still feel the same about the classes? There are sooooo many perverts in the world today, what about thoae that have perverts for caretakers? This is really a complicated situation. I have a cousin who became a caretaker for someone in a bit worse shape than the person you are describing here, and when she died from cancer, it seems that no one had any control over who took up the care for the young lady........ it's a scarry thing when you think about it for I know from experience that you can't trust most if any department of health & human services people in any state. I can see what you're saying and I would agree for instances of christian caretakers....... but I have a problem concerning everyone...... I am the only parent at my daughter's school that has withdrawn their child from sex education lessons so one assumes that other parents have no problem with their learning disabled children receiving sex education. There was a recent case reported in the UK newspapers concerning a 48 yr old learning disabled man who was living in a council provided, assisted living home. He had embarked on a homosexual relationship with one of his housemates. The judge ruled that he must be stopped from engaging in this sexual relationship as he judged that he lacked the ability to understand the health risks and lacked the capacity to give informed consent. The judge went on to rule that he should receive sex education in the hope that he would gain the capacity to give informed consent to sexual relations. What I take from this report is that the mentally retarded are extremely vulnerable to being drawn into same-sex relationships especially when they live in same sex council provided homes; and because society in general, and the law in particular, view all sexual relationships (homo or hetero) as equally valid, staff are powerless to prevent such a relationship from developing for fear of being found guilty of sex discrimination or disability discrimination. Only once it has occurred, and if staff feel the relationship is abusive or exploitative, are they able to turn to the courts for a ruling - as in the case mentioned above. But even the judge believes that it is sex education that will protect the man (give him the capacity to make informed decisions) even though he is 48 yrs old and unlikely, in my experience, to develop a mental capacity at that age when he has not achieved it in his previous years of life. And the judge also ruled in favour of sex education against the man's psychiatrist's advice who felt that sex education would only confuse the man. And that's what I feel about my daughter. I know her so well that I understand where her mental capacity begins and ends. I know that she struggles with abstract concepts, that she is unable to process information and apply it to any given situation - her thought processes are very linear and she has no ability to rationalise or compute the consequences of actions. And I know that sex education would simply confuse her as it is outside her experiential realm and thus could only be presented as an abstract concept. As hard as it is, I sincerely believe that children such as my daughter are better served by remaining celibate. If they are deemed of insufficient mental capacity to enter marriage then they are, in my opinion, not of sufficient mental capacity to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. I think that what is being demonstrated in the above court case is a predicament that has arisen because society has rejected marriage as the sanctified union for sexual relationships and has legalised and given its collective blessing to all and any type of sexual relationship outside marriage. The courts can no longer rely on the protection against exploitative sexual relationships that marriage once offered to those "not of sound mind", so turn instead to sex education as the panacea, regardless of the fact that these people are educationally subnormal and thus are incapable of receiving the very education that is supposed to protect them from sexual abuse. In short, society has painted itself into a corner through choosing to disobey God's rules concerning marriage and sexual relations. And I cannot see a way out apart from a return to God and His rules which were given for our individual and collective benefit. If or until that happens, the mentally retarded will remain extremely exposed and vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation.

Thank you for your encouragement. It is reasssuring to know from brothers and sisters in Jesus that I am on the right track, even though staff at my daughter's school think I am just a religious nutcase.

Thank you, Fez, for your blessings and encouragement. I am glad you mentioned Ruth for that is my name! And the Book of Esther has long been a favourite of mine. I can remember when I was very young and just about able to read but still not very good at llistening to sermons, turning instead to the book of Esther in church and reading and rereading it while the sermon was being delivered. It seemed to me better than any fairy story!

Thanks for the encouragement, Candice. I whole-heartedly agree with all you say. I find it very difficult living in this godless, topsy-turvy world where we, her parents, who love her most, are considered to be potentially her most likely abusers. We have been accused of allowing inappropriate male contact (our daughter apparently "disclosed" to a member of staff that a male friend and one of her brothers had been present at her bathtime) when, in fact, it was a misinterpretation of our daughter's speech (which is not very clear at the best of times) and her attempt to relate an event that she always remembers at bathtime because our bathroom window overlooks the garden where the event occurred - she fell over while showing off how she could side-step around the garden table holding on to the edge, and her brother and a family friend helped to pick her up. The member of staff misinterpreted her attempt to retell this story. But it left us having to defend ourselves against an accusation of allowing inappropriate male contact with her. And we've had to rein in her cuddling - she just loves to cuddle people who are kind to her. She is not capable of giving much physically and mentally because of her disabilities, but she yearns to give and receive love and manifests this through being very demonstrative. But because of her poor communication abilities we have had to put a block on this for fear of misunderstanding. For instance, my brother (a head teacher, as it happens) visited recently and we explained to our daughter that it was appropriate to give him a cuddle hello and a cuddle goodby and maybe, if he arrived after she had gone to bed and she was still awake, he would come and give her a cuddle then. But she must not constantly seek cuddles as there are appropriate times and places for cuddles and inappropriate times. Having done this, we thought we had scotched any possiblity for misinterpretation until she turned to her father in the car when he was driving her to school and said: "Uncle ****** give me a cuddle in bed." You can imagine how horrified my husband was. Of course, we knew exactly what she was trying to say, we are familiar with the fact that she leaves out words and whole clauses when she speaks. But a teacher looking for child abuse (and that's what they seem to do these days - look for dirt where none exists and ignore it where it does) could easily have misconstrued this perfectly innocent observation. One feels that one is permanently under suspicion; yet it is THEY whom I feel are offering child abuse through their attempts to sexualise her and see sexual motivation in her every action. She is currently going through a "let's pretend" development stage - very late - most children go through this stage when they are under ten, but she is mentally RETARDED so it is to be expected that she will develop late. She likes to play pretend games with her dolls, for instance. But school like to call it "fantasising". I object because "fantasising" has sexual connotations and I know that's what they're getting at. They are trying to insist that she is having sexual fantasies when, in fact, all she is doing is playing make-believe. They wouldn't suggest that a seven year old is fantasising when they play "let's pretend" games, so why insist that my daughter, with a mental age of seven, is fantasising? It is so hard to live a God-honouring life in this God-denying world where black is white, evil is good, parents are abusers and only the state could possibly know and deliver what is best for a child. Come quickly, Lord Jesus.

I would like to throw open for debate the subject of sexual relationships for the learning disabled. These are my thoughts. In many post Christian societies today, sexual relationships of any description, in or outside marriage, same sex or orthodox, are considered a human right. In the U.K. this is re-inforced through sex education lessons in school. God's order for male and female and for the perpetuation of the human race has been turned on its head. School children are taught that the greatest evil associated with sex is pregnancy - greater even than STDs. Sexual relationships, according to current secular thinking, exist purely for gratification, and the greater the gratification the more excellent is the sexual relationship that promotes it. Thus all types of sexual relationships and practices are judged only by their capacity to gratify those who indulge. Even bestiality is openly discussed in terms of "whatever floats your boat" (I came across such a discussion on a philosophy forum and this was the consensus.) What few people realise is just how vulnerable and exposed this promotion of promiscuity and fornication leaves the mentally retarded. And I deliberately use the non p.c. term "mentally retarded" rather than the pc "learning disabled" since it describes more accurately the condition of those, like my daughter, whose mental development has been arrested for some reason or another. "Learning disabled" is such a broad term that it could include anything from laziness and recalcitrance in the classroom to full scale loss of mental faculties. My 16 year old daughter has cerebral palsy following brain damage when she was 8 months old. She is moderately to severely disabled both physically and mentally - I judge her mental age to be somewhere between 7 and 10 years when compared to a normal child. She can neither stand nor walk independently and has very poor fine and gross motor control - she cannot write using a pencil although she has learned to use a computer keyboard - very slowly! Her gross motor control is poor so that her arm movements, for instance, are very uncontrolled. A problem has recently arisen at her special needs school concerning sex education. I have withdrawn her from these classes (parents in the UK still have that right although it is proposed to withdraw it) not only because I disagree with the content and for that reason withdrew ALL my children from sex education lessons, but more particularly in her case because I do not believe that she has the mental capacity to process the knowledge that would be imparted. Nor is she physically capable of engaging in anything other than passive sex, or of fleeing any unwanted advances since she cannot walk. She is not capable of processing abstract information and applying it in such a way as to understand the consequences. This is recognised by the powers-that-be inasmuch as, for instance, she is deemed incapable of handling her financial affairs and therefore I am appointed to manage them for her. In the UK, a normal 16 year old is allowed to manage their own financial affairs - open a bank account, receive welfare payments etc etc. My problem arises because the general opinion among her teachers is that it is sex education that protects the vulnerable, mentally retarded child from sexual abuse and therefore they view my decision to withdraw her from these lessons as tantamount to withdrawing protection from her. I strongly disagree that sex education provides any protection at all to the mentally retarded child. Moreover, even though I have withdrawn her from formal sex education lessons - overt sexualisation - I am powerless to prevent the covert sexualisation that occurs through everyday conversation. In times gone by when society was more Godfearing than currently it is, marriage was largely accepted as the proper place for sexual relations and sex outside marriage was referred to as "living in sin". And one of the qualifications for entering marriage is soundness of mind. Thus the mentally retarded, llike my daughter, are not considered capable of marrying. And if she cannot marry, then she cannot engage in sexual relations - at least, that would have been the case. In short, it was marriage, and the requirements for marriage, that protected the vulnerable from sexual abuse, not sex education. But not any more. Now that sexual relations are considered by society in general to be totally acceptable outside marriage, the problem arises as to how to protect the mentally retarded from sexual abuse on one hand and how to allow their so called "human right" to a family life - that is, to have sex - on the other. By my reasoning, if a 16 year old child (the age at which the law allows consensual sex) has a mental age of 7 or 8, then by definition, any sexual relations with that child are as abusive as engaging in sexual relations with a child with a chronological age of 7 or 8. However, it appears that majority opinion concerning sex and the mentally retarded is that sex education can provide the means to allow non-abusive sexual relationships regardless of the mental age and capacity of the child. Thus it is sufficient protection, apparently, to teach about the use of condoms (to prevent pregnancy and STDs) and how to "say no" if you don't fancy sex at any given time. There is no understanding that knowledge that cannot be processed and applied is burdensome to the mentally retarded, just as it would be to a seven year old. Premature sexualisation of children robs them of innocence; it opens their eyes to a function and activity which the law does not allow until they achieve an age of 16 thus tainting perfectly innocent, curiosity-driven exploration of gender attributes. With knowledge comes culpability. It is akin to Adam and Eve's original fall - on eating from the tree of knowledge their eyes were opened and they knew they were naked. And what if my daughter never achieves a mental age of 16? If that proves to be the case, then sexual relationships will always be abusive for her - at least, by my reckoning. If she is never able to process information in such a way as to fully understand the consequences of any given action, then she can never be responsible for her actions and can never meet the requirement for consensual sexual relations. One cannot consent to that which one is incapable of fully understanding. Once again we see the unintended consequences of ignoring God's order and God's plan for marriage and sex and procreation. By abandoning marriage as the sanctified place for sexual relations we have exposed the weak and vulnerable to sexual abuse. And it is always the weak and vulnerable that suffer first when we see fit to ignore God's Word on any matter. So far I have limited the "sex education" that I give my daughter to that which I gave my other children when they were under ten. I explain that when mummies and daddies love one another they get married and only then do they have babies. I explain that babies grow in a mummy's tummy and come out when they are born. I do not go into any detail about the mechanics of sex or birth as young children tend to find it either repulsive, funny or frightening - or all three. Only when they achieve a certain level of mental, emotional and physical maturity do I discuss sex in more detail and even then I wait for their prompting rather than impose unwanted knowledge on them prematurely. I would be interested to hear anyone else's opinions on this subject and especially to hear from anyone else in a similar situation. Blessings in Jesus.

I love this question! Why do I delight in the Law and, if I may add, every word that proceeds from the mouth of God? Because it is truth. And my experience bears out the truth of God's words. I can accurately predict the consequences of certain actions because God has warned against them and tells us what to expect if we do not heed his warnings. So, for instance, I know where homosexuality leads; I know where divorce leads; I know where being unequally yoked leads; it doesn't matter what society or man's law, or fashion, or current culture says on any matter, if any of these disagree with God's Word, it is they who will found to be wrong and God's Words that will be found to be right and the truth of the matter. And the longer I live the more I prove the absolute truth of God's words. It's like having a precious secret whereby one can know the outcome before it happens. Better still, it guides every step of one's way. Once you believe that God's words are 100% truth, and actually see it working in one's life, living by God's Word becomes easy. And even when one hits a brick wall of lack of understanding, one can move forward in total trust knowing that God will always be proved right even though one cannot see how. And even the Levitical hygiene laws are still apposite - they provide the best way, for instance, of preventing transmission of disease. And the ceremonial laws reveal to me the character of God, especially His holiness, which is awe-inspiring - and awe is a quality that often seems to me to be lacking in the church today. It is so liberating it almost makes me jump for joy!

Ultimately, in the New Heven and New Earth, the spiritual man's abode will be on earth. Earth was deisgned for man. In fact, the New Jerusalem will descend out of heven to earth and God Himself will be on the earth dwelling with man. There is nothing from Scripture to indicate that God ever intended man to dwell permanently in Heaven. Man's abode is earth. It is likely that earth was designed to be a microcosm of Heaven. Just as God is the Sovereign of the universe man was given dominion over the earth and over the all works of God's hands. Adam was created to be earthly man made in God's image. God made Adam EXACTLY how He wanted Him, so there was no need translate Him. God was fellowshipping with Adam on earth. Why would Adam need to go to heaven?? Secondly Elijah and Enoch were sinners like you and me and their translation to heaven are exceptional events. They are exceptions, but not the rule. I would not try to create a belief system out of what happened to them. I am just glad did have a plan in place redeem us! I do not believe that insects were part of the original creation, just as I do not believe that cancer-eating bacteria was part of the original creation either. Just as thorns and thistles, diease, decay and everything assoicated with those things did not occur prior to the fall, I don't think insects and diease-causing parasites were there either. In fact, Noah is not expected to take any insects on to the ark. Now keep in mind, that is my opinion. I am not stating that as dogmatic, absolute fact. We live in a broken world and often we assume that the what we expereince in this broken world is normal. We have no point of reference for anything else. We all suffer from a lack of understanding. I am sure at some time in eternity, we will find answers to many of our questions and we may be surprised at how simple the answers were, after all. Thanks, Shiloh, I very much appreciate your insights and your willingness to share them with me. They have been a great help.

Thanks for your questions. First of all, in terms of death where plants are concerned. The Bible never includes plants as living creatures. They are not "alive" in the same way humans and animals are alive. Plants have no conscience, no awareness of existences. They do not have a brain and central nervous system. They do not have a will nor emotions. Plants do not have the breath of life and they do not have a soul. So eating a piece of fruit or vegetable was not a problem before the fall. All creatures were intended to be vegetarians, as was man prior to the fall. What we would NOT expect to see prior to the fall trees trees falling due to age and decay and termite infestation. When God told Noah to round up the animals, none of the families of living things Noah was commanded to bring on to the ark were plants or vegetation (except what they would use for food) for the purpose of preserving those forming of living things. So plant life dying prior to the fall is not a problem and is not what is referred to when we are talking about no pre-fall death. What we are referring to is the death of creatures that have within them the breath of life. God gave animlals and man nepesh chaiah (breath of life). Now to your first question: IF (and it is a big IF) death was originally beneficial (at least in terms of plant life) inasmuch as it lead to multiplication, could it be that death as we now perceive it was a satanic corruption of God's original purpose concerning death - i.e. that it belonged to the plant order and was designed by God as a means of multiplication? Plants do not "die" in the biblical sense, so there was no original beneficial form of death. There is no satanic corruption of death. Death is itself a corruption or perversion of life. It is an undoing of what God made. It is the polar opposite of life. God created things to live. He did not engineer death into His creation. Death is not "satanic." Satan is not the author of death. Satan is not the author of anything. Satan has no creative ability. He is still just an angel and while angels are supernatural, they are not divine. True creative ability belongs to God alone. In fact, the Hebrew word for "create" used in Genesis 1 is used in connection with God exclusively in Scripure. It is never used to refer to anything that man makes. All Satan can do is pervert creation. Death as we know it, is the consequence for disobedience and is a perversion and undoing of life. No, earth was created by God for man. There was no danger of ovecrowding, which is where I think your question is leading. One thing to keep in mind is that the topography of the earth before the fall, was probably a lot different than we know today. In fact, that topography probably did not change until the flood. There was probably a lot more land, smaller oceans and seas. and all of the land was hospitable as opposed to what we have today in areas where humans cannot live (swamps, desert, and the extremes of the North Pole and Antartica). We really have no point of reference for anything other than what we know and it is natrual to assume that what we know about biological life is the way it has always been, but the Bible paints a different picture. It was a supernatural envioronment and it will be a long time before we fully understand what was lost. There is a limit to what we can know and there is a limit even to speculation. Intelligent speculation is not bad, so long as we recognize it for what it is. Thankyou, Shiloh. This is all very helpful. May I ask a few more questions following on from this? No, I am not at all concerned by overcrowding. What I am trying to understand is the difference between earthly man whose abode is on earth and spiritual man whose abode is in heaven. Maybe I have made some wrong assumtptions in my thinking which is as follows. I assume that God's perfect will for mankind, represented by Adam, was that his eternal state would be spiritual, that is, fit to dwell in heaven, and not that he should remain earthbound, if I may express it like that - it is very clumsy, I know. (I am thinking again of the passage in 1 Cornithians that I quoted in my previous post). Thus there must have been a way that Adam, had he not sinned, could be translated from earthly man to spiritual/heavenly man - hence my mention of Enoch and Elijah. If he was not originally destined to die, then how was he to become fit for heaven, i.e. have a spiritual/heavenly body? I know I might be oversteppoing the mark here since I also accept that God, in His omniscience, knew that Adam WOULD sin. So maybe God did not need/have an alternative plan for Adam had he not sinned. Also, what about animal death? Are insects included in the "containing the breath of llife" order of animals? How could a grass eating animal not munch on a grass-dwelling insect causing its death? I hope you do not think I am trying to split hairs - that really is not my intention. I just want to understand the truth. I KNOW God's Word IS true, but I am also aware of my lack of understanding.

Shiloh, I have huge respect for your Biblical knowledge and understanding and your sincere seeking for truth and would be most grateful for your help on the above point. This is where I am at the moment. God told Adam: ".....but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.

I have found that it is all about knowing Jesus, who He is, what He has said, what He has done. My trust is in Him alone, and my tiny-as-as-mustard-seed faith allows me to belleve that Jesus is exactly who He has revealed Himself to be in the Bible. And I have proved it to myself through experience. But experience followed faith - it did not lead.

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one answer to the question posed in the OP: why choose Christianity? It is found in John 15:16. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and [that] your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you."

Whilst I totally agree with your conclusion that it is sin in the world that gives rise to homosexuallity, I have to offer that your dismissiveness of the condition and the unwitting contribution that parents might make to it, sounds a little smug to my ears. If nothing else, it should serve as a warning to parents that if they do not comply with God's order vis a vis marriage, and more specifically the warning to not be unequally yoked, they could find themselves raising a homosexually inclined child through their omissions. I know of what I speak. I recognise the lack of transferral of a male child's natural affections from his mother to his father, so that he can identify with his maleness. And it is because the father is inadequate and fails to, or is incapable of, embracing the child either in body or soul or spirit. So the mother takes up the slack and unwittingly becomes the controlling influence in her child's life when, in God's order, his role model should, shortly past weaning, have passed from mother to father. I hope you understand.

May I share a synopsis of what the Lord has been teaching me over the years concerning my eternal security? I offer this in a spirit of humility, asking for correction if in any way I have strayed from the Truth. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved," is such a simple message - isn't it? But who is Jesus Christ? Jesus said: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." Jesus also said: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him...." So who is the Father? As Paul explained to the men of Athens, the Father is: "God that made the world and all things therein..." And, as John says: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. " So Jesus Christ is co-Creator with the Father and through Him all things were made. What has this to do with eternal security, you might ask? It is my experience that many who call themselves Christian have believed in "another Jesus". Often, these are the ones who doubt their salvation and whose salvation is in doubt; they are the ones to whom Jesus will say: "depart from Me, I never knew you". It is not sufficient to believe in a name detached from the nature/character of the One who bears that name. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one - the triune God, Creator of ALL things. And because God is Creator of all things, all things belong to Him - including every man and woman and child that has ever lived on this planet. We are His to dispose of as He wills simply by virtue of the fact that He made us. If (and He has) He has revealed Himself to be a righteous and holy God who detests sin and has declared that the penalty of sin is death, then that's His prerogative. Alternatively, if He did not create mankind and if mankind was self-created through spontaneous generation, then God has no right to demand anything of man and certainly not to impose a death penalty on those who fail to meet His standard. Only a creator has a legitimate right of ownership (which even the world recognises in a minor way in patent and copyright law) and the right to impose conditions on his creation and dispose of it according to his will. So, unless we accept that Jesus is our co-Creator, and all else that He has, in His Word, revealed Himself to be, then we are following "another Jesus" - a god after our own imagination - and an imaginary Jesus cannot save us from the righteous judgement of the one, true Creator God. To draw an analogy:- Suppose a longstanding, Worthy Poster (someone like Shiloh, if you'll forgive the liberty, Shiloh) offers an invitation to all who read this baord. "Come to me as I have a valuable gift I wish to give to each one of you. I will be speaking at such-and-such a conference for a period of seven days. Those who have followed my posts on the Worthy Board will know me by what I say. Just come up to me at the end of the conference and I will give you your gift." Now imagine that when you arrive at the conference, seven speakers are lined up to deliver seven sermons. And they're all called Shiloh - (please allow, for the sake of this analogy, that this is a quirk of the conference organisers!) You listen carefully to each speaker. Which one is Shiloh from Worthy? To whom shall you go to collect your gift? You have never seen a photo of him, you can only identify him by what he says and then only because you have come to know him over the weeks/months/years through reading his many posts on Worthy. The first speaker stands up and proceeds to deliver a sermon that directly contradicts many of the posts that Shiloh has made on Worthy. You know that cannot be the Shiloh you are looking for. Ditto the next five speakers. Finally, the seventh speaker delivers a sermon that re-iterates everything Shiloh has ever said in the various Worthy forums. You absolutely KNOW this is the Shiloh you are looking for and, sure enough, when you meet him backstage, he presents you with the promised gift - a beautiful, golden casket filled with precious jewels. But some Worthy members who rarely read Shiloh's posts are confused. They are not sure which of the seven speakers is the Shiloh from Worthy. But eager to receive the promised free gift, at the end of the day they seek out one of the other Shilohs. And, sure enough, each of the other Shilohs also has a free gift to offer those who come to collect. On opening the gifts they are found to contain wooden boxes filled to the brim with polished lumps of coal. So you return home, carrying your gift. Carefully you stow it away in a safe place in your home but, oh dear, that very night, a small fire breaks out. And although you manage to extinguish the flames, the safe place where you stowed your gift has been reduced to ashes. Those with the golden casket filled with precious stones find that their gift is intact, albeit a little sooty. But those who accepted the wooden box filled with polished coals find not a trace left of their gift - in fact, it simply added to the conflagration. Which Jesus have we turned to for the free gift of salvation? The Jesus revealed in the Bible (from Genesis right through to Revelation) or another Jesus; one who we like a little better because he doesn't tell people they are deserving of eternal punishment, or because he doesn't claim to have created the world and all that is in it in six days and is happy to let you believe anything you like about your origins. Or a Jesus who promises health, wealth and happiness - wow, so much more appealing than "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me..." We "work out our salvation with fear and trembling" not because God needs to know whether our faith is true (as if He needed anything from us) but so that we can know our faith is firmly placed in the true Creator God, in His Son Jesus and in the Holy Spirit, and not in another god, another Jesus, another spirit. And when our faith stands the trials and tests of life we count it as pure joy because the fiery trials of life do not destroy it, so we receive assurance that our faith is real and our trust in the eternal Jesus, Son of the Living God, is secure. In the words of the hymn: I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've committed unto Him, against that day. In a way, I think the question is wrong. We should not be asking; "can I lose my salvation," but rather, "in whom have I believed/placed my trust?" The salvation from God's judgement and the penalty for sin that Jesus has secured through His once and for all sacrifice is available to all of mankind and is absolute and total. The only thing lacking is whether the individual believes that the triune Creator God is who He has revealed Himself to be and has done what He has revealed Himself to have done from the very beginning of the world; through His revelation of Himself in the creation, to the Patriarchs, the Prophets, and His Son, Jesus, and His atoning sacrifice for sin, and thus may be trusted to fulfil his promise to believers vis a vis the coming judgement and their eternal state. So it's not so much what I believe, but in whom have I believed. The triune God revealed in the Bible - the WAY, the TRUTH, the LIFE, or a god of my imagination - a lie.

Do you believe other promises of the bible are 'spiritually' fulfilled to? If by this question you are asking whether I believe that other promises in the Bible are ONLY fulfilled spiritually, then the answer is no. I believe that what occurs on earth, according to God's will, has first been pre-ordained (exists, if you like) in heaven - which necessarily means spiritually. Thus, for instance, Jesus' atoning sacrifice existed as a spiritual reality in heaven before the foundation of the earth. This is why Jesus taught us to pray: "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." John was taken up to heaven to view the spiritual reality of what must occur on earth. Some of what he saw was past, some present and some future in terms of time as perceived on earth. Spiritually it all pre-exists in heaven. Much of what John was shown was shrouded in symbolism - beasts with horns, for instance - as that is the only way to describe a spiritual reality in physical terms. For instance, how does one describe an authority that governs the hearts of unregenerate man? This authority is invisible - it is spiritual. But it is very real. So it appears as a great and wicked city - Babylon.

An interesting topic. I understand the New Jerusalem to be a spiritual city synonymous with the Bride - i.e. the redeemed. "9Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls filled with the seven final plagues (afflictions, calamities) came and spoke to me. He said, Come with me! I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10Then in the Spirit He conveyed me away to a vast and lofty mountain and exhibited to me the holy (hallowed, consecrated) city of Jerusalem descending out of heaven from God,(G)" Revelation 21 On inviting John to come with him to be shown the bride, the angel shows him the New Jerusalem descending from heaven indicating that the bride IS the New Jerusalem. This is also consistent with the city of Babylon being a spiritual authority, as well as being a physical city. Just as spiritual Babylon is the authority that governs the spirits of unregenerate men, spiritual Jerusalem is the authority that governs the spirits of regenerate men. And Jesus is her cornerstone. The redeemed are living stones built on Jesus the cornerstone and the foundations laid by the Apostles. 1 Peter 2:5 [Come] and, like living stones, be yourselves built [into] a spiritual house, for a holy (dedicated, consecrated) priesthood, to offer up [those] spiritual sacrifices [that are] acceptable and pleasing to God through Jesus Christ.

No, it didn't. I agree with Shiloh. How is subjecting a woman to live forever with a man that raped her considered a good thing? I'm rather lost on that. Even if she is doomed to starve, how is it better for her to live a life of fear, abuse, pain, shame, mistreatment? There are things worse than dying. Apart from all else, the implications are horrendous. I gave one example of how this could be exploited if it were the case that the punishment for raping a virgin is to marry her. Any undesirable male, rejected by a young girl (or even her parents if arranged marriages were the cultural norm) as a marriage partner, would just have to lie in wait and rape her and, hey presto - he gets to marry her anyway - against her wishes and those of her parents. I cannot for one moment believe that God would endorse such behaviour, never mind prescribe it judicially.

Yes, two verses before (v 25) the penalty for raping a betrothed virgin is death. I don't think that argument is sound because verse 25 deals with rape - "force" is the word used. Death is the penalty.

Thanks very much for the web link - I may just do as you suggest, but I'll just wait to see what Shiloh has to say first since he has been so helpful in the matter. I'm most grateful to you. And I'm glad that you are in agreement re the NIV. My late father always used to say that it was a pernicious translation, and I am now learning exactly why.

Shiloh, I had just begun to formulate an answer for my atheist questioner when I checked the NIV translation and was stopped in my tracks. Here is the NIV translation and as you will see, in verse 28, "rape" is used where the KJV translates as "lay hold on". 23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death