methinkshe

Both are virgins. It is expected that a betrothed damsel will keep herself pure for the man she is betrothed to. Keep in mind also that "betrothed" is a much stronger term than our modern term "engaged." A bethrothal was a guarantee, where our engagement is not. By simply referring to the other girl in v. 28 as "virgin," the Scripture is making the disctinction that she is a young virgin woman who is not spoken for. I see what you are saying. Permit me to explain something that will help you with your questioner. In OT law, commandments were seen a "behvioral paradigms." What I mean is that the Mosaic law does not cover EVERY possible sin, in EVERY possible scenario that could possibly arise. For example. The law might tell you what to do if your ox gores your neighbor's sheep. But it might not tell you what to do if your goat gores your neighbor's sheep. Well, they would simply apply the law about the ox to goat, and that would be that. It is the same here. If man rapes a virigin who is unbetrothed, the same law which applies to the betrothed woman would be applied to the rape of unmarried girl. It would be death in either case. Well, if the betrothed woman had consentual sex with another man, they would stone her (Deut. 22:21) If she is caught in the act, she and the man are stoned as adulterers. (Deut. 22:23-24). As I stated above, rape was crime punishable by death regardless of whether the woman was betrothed or not. So, in this case, your questioner is trying to manufacture a problem that does not exist. I have not really searched that out before. I will need to look around a bit. But keep this in mind: Commandments were/are frames of reference. Jesus even taught this. Jesus said that if you lust after a woman you have already committed adultery with her in your heart. This is really foreign to our modern way thinking, but the commandment against adultery, was a commandment against ALL sexual impurity, not just "adultery." The commandment agaisnt graven images was also a commandments against ALL idolatrous images graven or not. The specific medium used to create the image was not important. So, there were no technicalities like there are in our modern legal system. If you raped a woman, young or old, married or not, virgin or not, you were put to death. I Glad to help! This is all really helpful, Shiloh. Thanks so much. I don't mind whether or not my atheist questioner receives this explanation; all I mind is that I give the correct one. Thanks to your help I shall now be able to do that.

Yes, I agree with all you say. I am also aware of the injunction to always be prepared to give an account of one's faith. However, once I have fulfilled that objective, then whether or not that account is accepted is not my problem. I, too, hope that the discussion ends up glorifying God - which is why I am anxious to give a true answer and not just a hastily formed opinion.

Glad to be of assistance. In verse 25 the word "tapas" is not used. It is the word "chazak" and it means to "overwhelm" in that particular context. It means to use such strength has necessary to force submission. That is why verse 25 refers to rape. Tapas doesn't mean anything like that, really. It means to "capture" and the nuance used does not imply force. The fact that the man is not put to death is also an indicator that two different things are being addressed in vv. 25-27 and vv. 28-99. Verses 25-27 are talking about criminal rape which was ALWAYS punishible by death, and Verses. 28-29 are talking about consentual, pre-marital sex. I hope that alleviates your confusion. I think I have given you enough to answer or refute the Skeptics you are encountering. If you need more, let me know. Yes, that's really helpful. Just one more thing - in an attempt to pre-empt what I am pretty sure will follow! Why does verse 25 speak of "a betrothed damsel" and verse 28 speak of "a damsel that is a virign"? Much is made of these differences by my atheist questioner, as though the different punishments have nothing whatsoever to do with rape v consensual relations/fornication and are only to do with whether the woman was betrothed or a virgin. It seems to me that there are more than the 2 stated outcomes here, (betrothed/rape, virgin/consensual) there also exists the unstated possibility of virgin/rape and betrothed/consensual for which one is required to deduce the correct punishment; which would be marriage for the latter (which was contracted anyway so didn't need to be stated) and death for the rapist for the former. Is there anything that is apparent in the Hebrew construction specifically (or Hebrew construction in general) or that is not well transmitted in the KJV translation, that makes this obvious? For instance, are there any parallel crime/punishment verses that require similar deduction? I hope you understand what I'm getting at, here! I don't think I've expressed it too well. Thanks so much for your help - it is so appreciated.

Personally I don't have a problem - I know and believe God is absolute righteousness and absolutely just. But atheists like to have a go at God's character and accuse God of being less than just. The way that this particular atheist has phrased his accusation is to suggest that if God is unchanging and is infinitely just, then it must be that the best punishment for rape for all time and in all places is to force the rapist to marry the woman he raped - which doesn't fit well in today's culture.

Oh, dear, that's confused me all over again. Help!

So "lay hold on her" doesn't mean rape, is that correct? Because I think this person has been using the following annotated Bible: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible where a margin note pertaining to these verses says the following. (22:28-29) If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. Does that mean that there has been an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew translated as "lay hold on her"? Many thanks. Yes, because if you read up in vv. 25-27 it says: But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) This passage clearly refers to rape as it was forced upon her against her will and the man is put to death. The Skeptic's Bible is bogus. I read and speak Hebrew. "lay hold" is one word in Hebrew, the word "tapas." It, like most Hebrew words has various nuances depending on the context. It means "capture" and that is probably why they decided to put the word "rape" in there. However, tapas does not mean rape. What the Skeptic's Bible is doing is supplying its own meaning and reading its own bias into the text. It is NOT a translation, by the way. There are standards for makes something a translation. The Skeptics Bible is more like a paraphrase, than translation based on how they handle this passage. More to the point, what this passage is saying is that if a man happens upon a virgin who is not betrothed and he takes her to have relations with her she does not resist but consents to his advance, he shall pay the betrothal price to the father and marry her. Thank you so much for this, Shiloh. I was aware from having read (and been blessed by) many of your posts that you speak and read Hebrew and I was praying that you would be moved to respond to my plea for help. I am so grateful that I now have a correct answer and that I did not offer a quickly formed opinion of my own that was falsely influenced by my questioner's wrong interpretation of "to lay hold." Also, is the same Hebrew word "tapas" used in verse 25 when it DOES mean rape, but in a different context? Or is it a different word altogether? And if it IS the same word, what are the relevant contextual words that give the two uses of "tapas" different definitions? I just need to make sure that I give a full and accurate answer. Thanks so much for your help.

So "lay hold on her" doesn't mean rape, is that correct? Because I think this person has been using the following annotated Bible: The Skeptic's Annotated Bible where a margin note pertaining to these verses says the following. (22:28-29) If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her. Does that mean that there has been an incorrect understanding of the Hebrew translated as "lay hold on her"? Many thanks.

Could someone help? I am speaking to someone about the intrinsic properties of God - just, holy, good, etc. I have been posed this question. Deut 22:28 outlines the punishment that God wants people to impose on rapists. That punishment is to marry the victim. This is not influenced by culture or any such rubbish. If you accept the bible as the word of God then you have to accept that God considers that punishment to be JUST. If you accept that God is the ultimate yardstick for justice then no other punishment can be more just! Deut is 22:28 is not a story of some particular incident of rape; it's GOD'S LAW! Do you support that as the most just possible punishment for rape? These are the verses alluded to: 22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; (22:28-29) 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. I need help to give a correct response and not just an opinion. I personally believe that the culture(s) of the day is very relevant, in spite of what my questioner claims. I also know God is just. But I don't know how to explain why the punishment God set for raping a virgin is peculiar to that time and place and culture bearing in mind that God is unchanging and what was true yesterday is true today. Many thanks.

This is so true; and although it may seem like a climbdown to do good to those that hate you, in my experience there is huge power in repaying evil with good. If one repays evil with evil, then evil is perpetuated. If one repays evil with good, then evil is stopped dead in its tracks. By that we have power over evil - we stop its perpetuation wherever we come across it. And the love of Christ Jesus that, through His Spirit is in us, gives us the grace to show love where, from a natural perspective, it seems undeserved. God shows His love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. And I'm sure that's what He wants us to do to others; show the love of Jesus to them even while they are in the midst of sinning against us.

It is good that your church is untouched by the unclean spirit that claims to be the Holy Spirit and that none of your congregation falls down and convulses or makes weird animal noises or calls down "the fire" or anything else associated with the raising of Kundalini energy, as so many churches have unwittingly done, naively believing that they are experiencing the Holy Spirit - God, the Creator of the universe when, in reality, they are calling on Satan himself to set up "the abomination of desolation" within their own temple/body.

I would love to, but I guess distance prevents.....! There are, of course, many gatherings of Jesus' followers that have not succumbed to the New Age syncretism that is so prevalent in many churches today - especially those that call themselves "charismatic". I can see the one world church emerging before my eyes at a frightening pace. And this one world church has nothing to do with the unity of the Holy Spirit and everything to do with a desire on the part of Satan to establish himself as the recognised (by humanity) god of this world. I am becoming more and more aware of a stealthy movement within churches towards an experiential, touchy-feely attempt at spirituality. And all done in the name of the Holy Spirit. What blasphemy! It is nothing less than an acceptance of Satan, the great deceiver. I repeat: Satansim is alive and well within the church....

Would that this were a joke. It's easy to spot a self-confessed Satanist, less easy to spot Satan when he appears as an angel of light. Many are being deceived so that they are entertaining Satan while believing that they are accepting the Holy Spirit. "The annointment" or "the impartation" or "the fire" are all demonic manifestations - and thousands are falling for the deception. Satan is setting up his throne in the temple ("your body is the temple...") of misguided church-goers and the spiritually hungry, and the abomination of desolation is at hand. The serpent of old, the devil, is appearing as an angel of light; many have been caught up in the deception. Satanism is alive and well in the church....... Editd for typos.

I don't know anything about the author, and I have not read any other threads about this -- all I know is what is in the book. I loved it. I could not find anything really theologically wrong with the book itself, it brought me closer to God as well. It was refreshing to read somebody who believes we are to depend on and abide in God, who loves us and is willing to do anything for that love. I love the description of the Holy Spirit -- the Asian woman was just the form He took -- but the seeing and not really seeing, the ethereal quality, etc, I thought was wonderful. I loved Jesus described as fully God and fully man. I loved the fact that what God wants most is relationship, total communion/communication, and for us to depend on Him. Those concepts were explained in simple enough terms that were easily understood. I read here that the author does not believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus, but I did not get a sense of that in the book. God and Jesus spoke of how He suffered on earth, yet was willing for the sake of love. God was pleased with His Son because of that. I've also heard complaints of universalism in the book, but Jesus said that many WERE called from other paths, which lead nowhere into Christianity. So, once again, I loved the book. I have to admit that I, too, found the book strangely compelling. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, protestant, doctrinal purist! Sure, some of it comes as a shock - but that's the purpose. And the shock element is not there just for the sake of it, but for a real purpose that I have to allow is honest and resaonable and, even more importantly, illuminating. The shock is designed to get any armchair Christians or misinformed God-observers really thinking. And, I believe, in that it succeeds. As long as one allows that it is fiction, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated in the same vein as other works of fiction in the Christian lexicon - Pilgrim's Progress, for instance. I had a quick read through the earlier thread about this book and have to agree with Eric H's comments. Interestingly enough, my 80 yr old mother who is very evangelical C of E and a doctrinal purist, also found the book compelling and bought several copies for non-Christian friends. I think that the one thing it addresses most successfully is why there is pain and suffering in this world and why a good God allows same. It is an area that Christians often find difficult to give satisfactory answers to, especially to those that are in the midst of suffering personal tragedy; but somehow, this book addresses it. I'd recommend it as a book to give seekers, especially those who are going through personal suffering or tragedy.. But be sure to be around afterwards to lead any unbeliever who is touched by the book but is unversed in Scripture, to the Lord Jesus. It's not a "give and go" book so much as an introduction to a compassionate God for those who are experiencing tragedy and suffering. At least, that's how I received it. I agree with this completely, and also what Eric H said. Doctrine should be based on, and explained, exclusively from the Bible. It is the inspired source. I do not believe there is anything in the book which disagrees with Biblical doctrine, but doctrine should be explained with Scriptures, and never with a fictional book. However, after making that stipulation with seekers, I would recommend it as a bridge to Scriptures, just as you say. If it got theology wrong, I would never offer it so as not to confuse, this way I would -- but only as a beginning point. God's word does not return void. William Young's word is NOT God's word, so it is merely a starting place. Yes, I think that "a bridge to Scriptures" is a good description, much as Pilgrim's Progress was in its day. "The Shack" is for a present day and age and for a contemporary audience, and addresses present problems in a way that Pilgrim's Progress cannot hope to do (not that I dismiss it - it will always remain a seminal work in the Christian fiction lexicon - but it doesn't have the immediacy that it would have had at the time of writing.) "The Shack" may not become a classic in the way that Pilgrim's Progress has, but nevertheless, I believe that it addresses those questions that bother so many of us in these times and, as such, is worthy of consideration at the very least.

I don't know anything about the author, and I have not read any other threads about this -- all I know is what is in the book. I loved it. I could not find anything really theologically wrong with the book itself, it brought me closer to God as well. It was refreshing to read somebody who believes we are to depend on and abide in God, who loves us and is willing to do anything for that love. I love the description of the Holy Spirit -- the Asian woman was just the form He took -- but the seeing and not really seeing, the ethereal quality, etc, I thought was wonderful. I loved Jesus described as fully God and fully man. I loved the fact that what God wants most is relationship, total communion/communication, and for us to depend on Him. Those concepts were explained in simple enough terms that were easily understood. I read here that the author does not believe in the substitutionary death of Jesus, but I did not get a sense of that in the book. God and Jesus spoke of how He suffered on earth, yet was willing for the sake of love. God was pleased with His Son because of that. I've also heard complaints of universalism in the book, but Jesus said that many WERE called from other paths, which lead nowhere into Christianity. So, once again, I loved the book. I have to admit that I, too, found the book strangely compelling. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, protestant, doctrinal purist! Sure, some of it comes as a shock - but that's the purpose. And the shock element is not there just for the sake of it, but for a real purpose that I have to allow is honest and resaonable and, even more importantly, illuminating. The shock is designed to get any armchair Christians or misinformed God-observers really thinking. And, I believe, in that it succeeds. As long as one allows that it is fiction, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated in the same vein as other works of fiction in the Christian lexicon - Pilgrim's Progress, for instance. I had a quick read through the earlier thread about this book and have to agree with Eric H's comments. Interestingly enough, my 80 yr old mother who is very evangelical C of E and a doctrinal purist, also found the book compelling and bought several copies for non-Christian friends. I think that the one thing it addresses most successfully is why there is pain and suffering in this world and why a good God allows same. It is an area that Christians often find difficult to give satisfactory answers to, especially to those that are in the midst of suffering personal tragedy; but somehow, this book addresses it. I'd recommend it as a book to give seekers, especially those who are going through personal suffering or tragedy.. But be sure to be around afterwards to lead any unbeliever who is touched by the book but is unversed in Scripture, to the Lord Jesus. It's not a "give and go" book so much as an introduction to a compassionate God for those who are experiencing tragedy and suffering. At least, that's how I received it.

I'm intrigued. Can you elaborate on the fabric of society? The basic foundation of the family unit. Man/woman/children. Ah. Yeah, I can see how homosexuality is totally undermining the inherent structures that support our civilization. Marriage is the RE-union of man and woman. Adam was created, Eve was made from Adam's body - she was a part of him, reunited in marriage and through children. Marriage is a re-union between male and female as much as it is a union between one specific man and one specific woman. Homosexuality DOES undermine society. Male and male were never intended by God to be united, never mind reunited. Taken to a logical conclusion, if all men were homosexual the human race would cease to be. Homosexuality is intrinsically destructive since it promotes a discontinuation of life. Homosexuals cannot procreate. All activity that leads to destruction is of the devil. God is a God of creation and abundance and multiplication. The devil is rightly called "The Destroyer" as all his ways lead to destruction and death.

Well, I think I accurately presented relative truth. It is "truth" based on individual situations, and individual paradigms or frames of reference. A person caught in relative truth would say there are no moral absolutes. Relative truth leads to the "if it feels good, do it" type of mentality. Everything is relative therefore, there no absolutes that define reality. Reality is whatever you make it or believe it to be. Thus relative truth is the rejection of biblical concept of sin. Personally, I think that "relative truth" is an oxymoron; by definition, truth is absolute. Introduce the descriptor "relative" and truth ceases to be truth and becomes a lie. Truth is a 100% accurate account of all existence and all events. Change anything and it ceases to be truth. Just as 99.9% perfect = imperfect, so 99.9% truthful = a lie. Within the whole truth about all existence and all events there are truths concerning individual existences and events. So we may know truth in part, but that is not the same as partial truth which is, in fact, a lie. Within the Bible we find some of the truth, and all of it is absolute. We are not given all of the truth because it would be far too great for us to handle. In any case, the whole truth about all existence and all events would fill millions of books! But what we are given may be relied on as absolute. Edited for typo.

I note that you have posted repeatedly to this thread but with little interaction with other posters, so I decided to check out the website link on your signature to better understand where you are coming from. This is the mission statement: The Keys2Kingdom Ministries is dedicated to raising the spiritual consciousness of the Body of Christ. The sense of destiny that all born again believers posses is something that only the believer himself can access through his relationship with the Holy Spirit, who resides in each disciple of Jesus Christ. Two basic problems exist in the Body of Christ today: 1. Becoming aware that I have a destiny in Christ. 2. Positioning myself to receive revelation from the Holy Spirit as to exactly what that destiny is. Unlike most Christian web-sites that accomodate the unbeliever and new Christians, The Keys2Kingdom is an oasis of spiritual growth for the committed disciple of Christ who seeks the next level of spiritual development. I am concerned about the egocentric nature of the solution to the two basic problems described: it seems to me to be all about what I can do, and nothing about what Christ-in-me has promised to accomplish, as we read in Philippians 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. I'm not convinced about a need to "position myself to receive revelation..." nor about becoming "aware that I have a destiny in Christ." And "raising the spiritual consciousness......" sounds very New Age to me. In short, my "spiritual garbage detector" antenna has perked up! As we are warned in 1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. I am posting these immediate concerns by way of an invitation to you to address them, not by way of condemnation. Your sister in Jesus, MTS

How do you know the will of God? Christ-in-you, by His Spirit, is conforming you to His likeness, renewing your mind, so that His will becomes your will, His desires, your desires. "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." Philippians 2:13 In other words, you TRUST that your will is in conformity with God's will because that is what is promised; and if through stubborness or disobedience or hardness of heart or unconfessed sin or any other reason, your will is not in conformity with God's will, you further TRUST that He will let you know: And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left. Isaiah 30:21. At least, that is my experience, and God has not failed me yet - and I know he never will. Though sometimes, I think, we don't recognise God's will except with hindsight. But if we are faithful to God's Word, and trust Him, we will find that even though we do not know His will at the time, if we obey His written Word, it still will be done, and only later will we recognise God's will in a matter. I recently had a wonderful example of God conforming my will to His, through my obedience to His Word concerning the husband/wife relationship. Breifly, we were recently given notice to quit the house we had rented for over ten years - the landlord needed it for his son who was due to be married. This was problematic for us, not the least because we have a disabled daughter and the house had been adapted for her needs. And we only had two months to find another place. I set about looking for an alternative that I felt was financially viable and would meet our daughter's needs at a basic level. My husband (not born-again, although acknowledges God in some respects) found a house that I felt was not suited to our needs - the rent was too high, the house, I felt, was far too good for us - a huge, but lovely old manse with a large garden etc. etc., and that it was unrealistic to look at such a place. Many circumstances then directed our way - I had to decamp, with our disabled daughter, to look after my mother following a quadruple-heart bypass leaving my husband in charge of finding another house and moving us in. The "far-to-good-for-us" house turned out to be the only place available to meet our moving out deadline and that was even remotely suitable in terms of location and size (we needed anough rooms downstairs to convert one to a bedroom for our disabled daughter) and with landlords who wanted a long term let and didn't mind us making adaptations for our daughter's needs. So while I was away at my mother's he agreed to rent the place and moved us in. I was still very wary and couldn't believe he had taken on such a huge financial responsibility for a house that I felt was unnecessarily grand. But I deferred to my husband as my head, left the responsibility with him, and prayed that the Lord would over-rule if it was all a terrible mistake. But when I arrived back from my mother's - having left our old house and returning to a new one - and after living there for a few days (or, perhaps, I should say living "here" since this place is where we now live) I was overwhelmed by a knowledge that the Lord had provided this place for us - way above my expectations or what I felt I deserved, or needed, or could afford. And He made a way for us to afford it, too. I know with hindsight that it was God's will, God's doing that we now live here. And all I had to do was obey God's written word and not over-rule my husband, to allow him to shoulder his God-ordained responsibility for our family, even though I had grave doubts about the wisdom of his choice of house. I am now so happy here - it is a far, far nicer place than the one we moved from. Our disabled daughter's needs are far better met than in our old place; the location is far more convenient for her school and for other needs. Yet, left to my own devices, I would not have chosen it and would have missed out on a fantastic blessing that God intended for me and my family. I have views from our sitting room windows and from my bedroom windows that are breathtaking - every day "I lift up mine eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help; my help is from the Lord who made heaven and earth." And the sunsets and sunrises are indescribably beautiful; I never close my curtains at night, just lie in bed and watch the sun sink below the horizon as clouds chase pink and orange and yellow trails across its face. Oh, how blessed I am!

Would you care to comment on the following? I appreciate your knowledge of the original lnguages of Scripture. I am still considering the issues explored in the article. The Great Ecclesiastical Conspiracy Many thanks Ruth

I have recently started again posting at Worthy following an absence of a year or so. I would just love to share with you what the Lord has shown me since coming back here. Most importantly, I have been shown that The Lord deals with each of us as individuals. The revelation that God has given me of Himself in a certain area may not be the same as the revelation God has given someone else, even in that same area. God is infinite - He cannot be encapsulated in the personal revelations of Himself which He graciously allows us as individuals. I have now ceased trying to get people to agree with my personal revelation of God - which has to be very limited and very finite because of my human nature. I have begun to understand that God deals with us as individuals and reveals aspects of His infinite character to each of us on an individual basis. If that were not the case then we would all be rather unappealing God-clones. As it is, we express the nature of God within our own God-given personalities, according to His ongoing revelation to each of us individually at any given time. I can now understand how God may reveal a certain aspect of His character to one Christian when they are aged 19 and not give the same revelation to another Christian until they are 90, amd vice versa. I understand how one Christian may understand THIS about God, and another Christian understand THAT. Neither is defective in love or doctrine - just different in terms of the personal revelation of Himself that God has given to that individual at that time. But most of all I have come back to appreciating that as a born again believer, Christ dwells IN me. I am not bound by rules and regulations or religion or anything else - I can only express Jesus in me to the extent that I look to Jesus. I am guilty of trying to make the personal revelations that God has given me as an individual into a doctrine that everyone else must subscribe to. Not so! We are a body! The body of Christ! Let arms be arms, and legs be legs and ********** be ********** - and I do not say that irreverently. I must add that ALL personal revelations of God MUST conform to the character of God revealed in the Bible. The Bible is our yardstick, our teacher, but it isn't the end. The end is Jesus Himself dwelling in us as individuals.

I already have met Him and meet Him continually - He lives in me, He is my life, praise Jesus!

Nice to meet you, Petri. I don't understand, so perhaps someone can explain for me: Why is this important, and why is the book so dangerous? Isn't this the reason why we have churches, to teach sound doctrine to their people? The book is not dangerous to those who know the truth and obey God. Dan's book have same attitude and message as end time apostate's mankind. So it tells about goddesses worship as the Bible says. Dan's side is supporting lies and apostasy and our mission is warn about it and tell love of God in Christ. may God bless you! Dan Brown is a fiction writer......'The DaVinci Code' is no more dangerous than 'Alice in Wonderland'. Well, not exactly. The storyline and the main characters are fictional. That much is true; however, the underlying theories and conspiracies that are woven into the story are far from fictional in the eyes of many and these theories are growing in popularity. For example, the Louvre in France reported a spike in visitors after the release of the Divinci Code. The movie sparked interest in certin pieces of art like Mona Lisa. There people who really do believe that Jesus sired children and those children are alive and well today. There are people, and their numbers are reportedly growing who see some of the theories featured in the movie as plausible. If they embrace those theories, they have to reject the Deity of Jesus, His death and His resurrection. I agree; it is the mixing of truth and lies that is so dangerous which is why the Bible is so vociferous about avoiding such mixtures. "A little leaven leaveneth the whole loaf.........." If the book were out and out fantasy, then it wouldn't have the same potential to mislead those who are not doctrinated in Scripture. As it is, such people easily fall prey to believing the lies because the admixture of truth makes them more plausible.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that whosever believeth on Him (and if you're a woman, doesn't wear pants) should not perish but have everlasting life." I think not!!

I guess the question would be if the scriptures indicate that certain positions in the local church cannot be held by women, why would a person go to God and ask Him if it is permissible? I actually believe that the whole concept of ecclesistical positions (or offices) within the church is unbiblical. There is only service. The one thing that is forbidden to women is to teach men and usurp their authority and thus nullify their responsibility. There are no offices- as in hierarchical positions - only differeneces in types of service. We are ALL servants. There should be no such thing as "positions" in the local church, with the attendant implication of "offices" and a hierarchy of office, only a variety of service. The limitations on women are an exclusion of service and not an exclusion of office.

Yes your spouse be it your first, second or third always comes first and foremost before your children. If your commitment to your spouse was made under the presents of God your flesh has become one. Spiritually speaking your spirits are also meshed together as one. The flesh and spirit of your children is separated from yours as well as their life. But the life of your wife is also your life. Except that the biblical model is that the children are the flesh of two parents who are husband and wife forever joined as Christ Himself said; and if that were the case this whole thing would not even be an issue. So yes it makes a huge difference if it is a second or third or fourth marriage, it makes all of the difference actually. Once we leave that model we have all sorts of problems with men and women who have no connection to the children they are living with or have their "own" other children, so I don't know if we can then go back and apply scripture to those cases which are already well outside of scripture. The bond between parent and child will always be stronger than the bond between a man and a women who are married for a second or third time, and if people cannot accept that they should not re-marry with children in the home. We cannot divorce our children, but we have shown many times over that we are quite capable of divorcing our husbands and wives. I don