Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man

Reverend Charles Morris - Photo Credit: Nation Newspaper

Reverend Charles Morris considers himself to be the most misunderstood man in Barbados. In has been just over a week the Anglican priest, who has been unassigned a Church for some time, deposited a thesis which has created consternation in a society known for its Christian influence.

Reverend Morris’ thesis states that no where in the Bible does it condemn pre-marital sex. He agrees however the Christian thing to do is to have sex in wedlock. BU has been able to attract over time some of the best dividers of the word in the world, we are certain the BU family is equipped to validate Morris’ thesis or shatter it to smithereens.

306 thoughts on “Reverend Charles Morris Maybe A Misunderstood Man


  1. Reverend Morris the Anglican priest is not a man of God.

    Chances are, if you’re asking “Is God against premarital sex?” you’re either looking for an excuse to engage in premarital sex or you are hoping for a reason to NOT feel guilty because you already have.
    The good news is: You CARE what God thinks. Even better news is: He cares what you do.
    Is God against premarital sex? In the Bible, premarital sex is lumped in with other “fornication” or “sexual immorality.” The short answer is: God is very much against it.
    If you looked in a dictionary for the definition of the word fornication, you would read, “Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not married to each other.” And another way that pre-marital sex is described in the Bible is with the words “adultery” or “lewdness.” And the people who participate in pre-marital sex are referred to as “whoremongers” and “whores.”
    It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1 Thessalonians 4:3). 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 warns us, “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
    The Apostle Paul reminds us in 1 Corinthians that we, as Christians, have invited Jesus Christ to live inside us. So any sexual sin we commit also stains our great Savior who, through the Holy Spirit, wants only to unite us with God. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (1 Corinthians 6:13).
    “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:18-20).
    In addition to breaking our fellowship with God, there are plenty of common-sense reasons to avoid premarital sex. It can result in guilt and shame, AIDS or other sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancies which may then tempt us to consider abortion. And Galatians 5:19-21 reads, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness … of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. “Again, we see that pre-marital sex is not something that God wants us involved with. God wants us to stay away from such behavior. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, “For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel (body) in sanctification and honor, not in lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which do not know God.”
    What about those who say premarital sex is OK because God gave us our appetite for sex and therefore it must be good?
    We should remember that God gave us all sorts of appetites, but our sinful nature makes it possible for us to turn even the best of appetites into gluttony.
    The theologian C.S. Lewis made this point by looking at our society’s obsession with nudity as evidenced by “strip-tease” clubs. “Suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate onto the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let everyone see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon. Should you not think that in that country, something had gone wrong with the appetite for food?” Lewis wrote in the book Mere Christianity.
    Or look at how strange it would be if we pursued food the way some of us pursue promiscuous sex. We would purchase a steak or a succulent lobster, admire it, cut off one juicy bite, chew it up, then spit it out, and toss the rest in the trash. Then we would order something new and different to taste.
    We would be silly to forget that food has something far more valuable to offer than the flavor. It offers nutrition – without which we would die.
    The commitment of marriage is what adds the nutritional value to otherwise frivolous relationships. It offers each partner opportunities for refinement and sanctification as they work through the problems that they would simply flee in an uncommitted pairing.
    We should also remember that when we resist the temptation to engage in premarital sex or other sexual immorality, we are storing up favor with God, as we see in James 1:2-3:
    “Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance.”
    Brother reverend Morris I pray for you turn away from misleading people and repent for deceiving people into committing and justifying sin. I love you my brother and I hope you come out of darkness and into the light.

    Yours truly
    Brother Richard Gumbs


  2. @Brudder No teet Gumbs,

    Will you please stop misleading the people with your hypocrisy? You all so called God men are responsible for many crimes against humanity. Many like you dress in sheep’s clothing just waiting to devour the ignorant and illiterate . You all expect no one to question or challenge your words or actions BECAUSE you claim to be a GOD man. You have perpetuated a farce called religion, where men like you have become the Gods of the congregation. You all thirst for POWER over the flock. Man go and jump off a cliff please.


  3. Islandgal246,
    First of all sister we can agree to disagree but we should maintain respect for each other. Your resentment towards me seems to be from what I wrote previously and it is like an acknowledgement of you guilty conscience. I hope in time if you read the bible for yourself and ask God to help get understanding about the right and wrong choices in life. You are not really mad at me but you are really mad at the statement I made which in some way identifies who you are and maybe the kind of life style you live. God loves you and all you have to ask is for forgiveness. May the lord bless you and keep you. I love you my sister. And I have already forgiven you, you see, I have no choice that is what God expects of me.
    Yours truly Brother Richards Gumbs


  4. “You are not really mad at me but you are really mad at the statement I made which in some way identifies who you are and maybe the kind of life style you live.”

    If only you knew how I live brudder Gumbs if only you knew. I do not have to believe in your God to live a moral life, however your profession says more about HYPOCRISY than anything else.


  5. @ Br. Gumble
    If you are a man of the cloth your above comments to IG are not wise as they are judgemental and against the principles and teachings of the Bible. You should cease and decease any further comments of such nature as there are anti christian


  6. Greetings my brothers and sisters,
    The problem with today’s world people does not have the backbone to preach and tell each other the facts as it is. And that is a sign of weakness. We have to fear God and keep his commandment for that is the whole duty of man. The wages of sin is death. Conviction is the courage to tell people the truth. For people to change they must admit guilt and turn away. God expect us to stand up for what is right. We must never compromise on values. Remember what God said above all thing the heart of man is desperately wicked, who can know it. The fear of God is to hate evil. He did not say compromise or tolerate evil. He said why do you call me God or Lord and does not my Will. God curses sin, none of us is perfect but we must call bad wrong and not fool ourselves. It is ok to hate me; I still love all of you. But I will continue to tell it as it is and have no fear for who hate you, because of standing for moral values. I fear God; he can kill both soul and body. May the lord bless you and keep you. Seek and you shall find ask and it will be given. The soul that sinneth shall surely die, but the gift of God is everlasting life.
    Until another day
    Yours truly Brother Richard Gumbs.


  7. @ac & Islandgirl
    What you sharpening them collins with girls? My Lord! Both sides too. LOL! Gumbs got to get some manure to grow back them teet. LOL!


  8. MARRIAGE AND SEX

    Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University

    During much of Christian history, sex in marriage has been condoned as a necessary evil for producing children. Before the sexual revolution of our times, calling a lady “sexy” would have been insulting. Nowadays many ladies would accept that adjective as a prized compliment. “The Victorian person,” writes Rollo May, “sought to have love without falling into sex; the modern person seeks to have sex without falling into love.”1

    The attitude of society toward sex has truly swung from one extreme to another. From the Puritan view of sex as a necessary evil for procreation, we have come to the popular Playboy view of sex as a necessary thing for recreation.

    From the age of warning “Beware of sex,” we have come to the age of shouting “Hurrah for sex.” Homo sapiens has become homo sexualis, packed with sexual drives and techniques.

    Both extremes are wrong and fail to fulfill God’s intended function of sex. The past negative view of sex made married people feel guilty about their sexual relations; the present permissive view of sex turns people into robots, capable of engaging in much sex but with little meaning or even fun in it.

    In spite of the increasing number of books on the techniques of love-making, more and more people are telling marriage counselors: “We make much love, but it isn’t much good. We find little meaning or even fun in it!”

    Objective of the Chapter.

    This chapter examines the Biblical view of sex. We shall consider various aspects of sex within and without marriage in the light of the Biblical teaching. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first part surveys the past attitudes toward sex, from ancient Israel to modern times. The second part examines the Biblical view of the nature and function of sex. Attention will also be given to the morality or immorality of contraception. The third part addresses the question of whether or not there will be marital relationships in the world to come. The overall objective of the chapter is to counteract the secular and hedonistic view of sex by helping Christians understand and experience sex as God intended it to be.


  9. PART I:

    PAST ATTITUDES TOWARD SEX

    Ancient Israel.

    The Hebrew people understood and interpreted human sexuality as a positive gift from God. They were not affected by the later Greek dualism between spirit and matter which considered sexual intercourse and evil “fleshy” activity to be shunned if possible. Such thinking was foreign to the Hebrews who saw sex within marriage as beautiful and enjoyable. A wedding was a time of great celebration, partly because it marked the beginning of the sexual life of the couple.

    The bridal pair retired to a nuptial tent or chamber at the end of the wedding festivities to make love together while lying on a clean, white sheet. Blood on the sheet indicated that the bride had been a virgin and provided evidence of the consummation of marriage (Deut 22:13-19). A newly betrothed man was even excused from participating in war in order to be able to enjoy his bride (Deut 20:7)!

    This indicates that the ancient Hebrews had a healthy attitude toward sex. They saw it as a divine gift which gave pleasure to the persons involved while providing the means for the propagation of the race. The classic example of the exaltation of human sexuality is found in the Song of Songs.

    This book has often been a source of embarrassment to Jews and Christians alike. Some interpreters, like Sebastian Castellio, have viewed the Song of Songs as an obscene description of human love which does not belong in the Biblical canon. Others, like Calvin, have defended the inclusion of the book in the canon by interpreting it as an allegory symbolizing the love of God for His people. The book, however, is not an allegory. It is a romantic celebration of human sexuality. According to some traditions, portions of the book were sung during wedding processionals and wedding feasts.

    When the Hebrews came to the land of Canaan, they were exposed to the evil and excesses of the fertility cults associated with the worship of Baal, which included sacred prostitution. To correct these evils, several regulations were given. There were strict prohibitions, for example, against revealing in public one’s “private parts” (Gen 9:21; 2 Sam 6:20), incest (Lev 18:6-18; 20:11-12,14, 20; Deut 27:20,22), bestiality (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13), and various kinds of sexual “irregularities” (Ex 22:16; Lev 19:20,29; 15:24; 18:19; 20:18; Deut 25:11). Overall, however, the Jews had a healthy view of sex, although they saw it primarily in terms of its reproductive function.

    New Testament Times.

    In New Testament times, we find the beginning of two extreme attitudes toward sex: licentiousness and celibacy. Some interpreted the freedom of the Gospel as freedom to engage freely in sexual relations outside marriage. Jude speaks of “ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 4). Peter warns against the enticement of false teachers who had “eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin” (2 Pet 2:14). The problem of sexual permissiveness and perversion had become so noticeable in the Corinthian church that Paul openly rebuked those who engaged in incestuous and adulterous sexual relations (1 Cor 5:1, 6:16-18).

    Other Christians were influenced by Greek philosophical ideas which viewed anything related to the physical aspect of life as evil. Since the sexual act involves “fleshly” contact and pleasure, it was viewed as inherently evil. This thinking prevailed in the Greco-Roman world, and exercised considerable influence among some Christians. In Corinth, for example, there were some Christians who maintained that unmarried people should remain single and those who were married should refrain from sexual activity (1 Cor 7:1-5, 8-11, 25-28).

    Paul responded to these “ascetic” believers by affirming that it was right and proper for married persons to engage in sexual activities: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. . . . Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season . . . lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control” (1 Cor 7:3,5). Paul counsels unmarried and the widows to remain single (1 Cor 7:8, 25-26). His reason, however, is based not on theological but on practical considerations, namely, on the need to avoid the added burdens of a family during the end-time persecution which Paul believed would soon break out (1 Cor 7:26-31). Paul’s counsel does not reflect a negative view of sexuality because his advice was predicated solely on practical considerations. This is indicated by his counsel, “It is better to marry than to be aflame with passion. . . . if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin” (1 Cor 7:9, 28).

    Christian Church.

    The negative view of sexuality, already present in embryonic form during apostolic times among some Christians, developed fully during the early church, shaping the sexual attitudes of Christians up to modern times. This view can be traced back to Greek philosophy, especially to Platonic thought, which saw man as having two parts: the soul, which is good, and the body, which is bad. Such dualistic thinking influenced Christianity through a movement known as Gnosticism. This heretical movement taught that all matter, including the human body, was evil. Only the spark of the divine in man (soul) is good and through special knowledge (gnosis) such a spark could be released from the human body and returned to the divine realm. Thus, salvation was perceived as the liberation of the soul from the prison-house of the body.

    This dualistic teaching greatly influenced Christian thought through the centuries to the point that many Christians gradually abandoned the Biblical view of the resurrection of the body, replacing it with the Greek concept of the immortality of the soul. The fundamental error of this view, which an increasing number of scholars are rejecting as unBiblical, is its assumption that matter is evil and must be destroyed. Such a view is clearly discredited by those Biblical texts which teach that matter, including the human body, is the product of God’s good creation (Gen 1:4, 10 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). The Psalmist declares: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works” (Psalm 139:13-14).

    The adoption of the unBiblical Greek notion of the human body as intrinsically evil has led many Christians through the centuries into a warped attitude toward sex. Its effect still lingers, as many today are still uneasy about their marital sexual relations, viewing them as something tainted with sin.

    Augustine’s Role.

    The church father who has molded the negative Christian attitudes toward sex more than any other person is Augustine (354-430).2 He regarded the sexual drives and excitement which cannot always be rationally controlled as the result of sin. He speculated that if sin had not come in, marital intercourse would be without the excitement of sexual desire. The male semen could be introduced into the womb of the wife without the heat of passion, in a natural way similar to the natural menstrual flow of blood emitted from the womb.

    As a result of sin, the sexual act is now accompanied by powerful drives which Augustine called concupiscence, or lust. The satisfaction of lust through intercourse, was for him, a necessary evil to bring children into this world.

    In effect, Augustine equated original sin with the sexual act and its lustful desires since the act is the channel through which he thought the guilt of Adam’s first transgression is transmitted from parent to child. By making the sexual act the means whereby original sin is transmitted, Augustine made sex for pleasure a sinful activity. This view necessitated the administration of baptism immediately after birth to remove the stain of the original sin from the soul of the new born baby.

    The major fallacy of this view is its reduction of original sin to a biological factor which can be transmitted like an infectious disease through sexual intercourse. In Scripture, however, sin is volational and not biological. It is a willful transgression of a divine moral principle (1 John 3:4), and not a biological infection transmitted through sexual contact.

    What can be transmitted is not the guilt of sin, as Augustine believed, but its punishment. Guilt is the personal transgression of a divine principle, which cannot be imputed upon a third party. The punishment of our wrong doings, however, can be passed on in terms of sickness and/or evil hereditary tendencies. Scripture tells us that God visits “the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation” (Ex 34:7). In the case of Adam’s sin, what has been passed on to mankind are the consequences of its punishment, which include evil inclinations and death. These consequences cannot be mechanically removed through infant baptism.

    Original Sin.

    The notion of original sin is derived primarily from Romans 5:12 where Paul says that “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” In this statement the apostle simply affirms the fact that mankind shares in Adam’s sin and death. He makes no attempt to explain how this happens. He makes no allusion to sexual procreation as the channel through which mankind has become partakers of Adam’s sin and death. The context clearly indicates that Paul’s concern is to affirm the fundamental truth that Adam’s disobedience has made us sinners and Christ’s obedience has made us righteous: “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Rom 5:19).

    The concept to which Paul alludes to establish the connection between the sin of Adam and that of mankind is not that of biological transmission of sin through sexual procreation, but that of corporate solidarity. As Achan’s sin became the sin of his household because its members shared in a corporate solidarity with him (Josh 7:24), so Adam’s sin has become the sin of mankind because its members share in a corporate solidarity with him. This Pauline argument provides no support to the Augustinian attempt to equate original sin with sexual excitement and intercourse.

    Augustine’s association of original sin with sex has been widely accepted throughout Christian history, conditioning the sexual attitudes not only of Roman Catholics but also of Christians in general. As Derrick Baily notes, “Augustine must bear no small measure of responsibility for the insinuation into our culture of the idea, still widely current, that Christianity regards sexuality as something peculiarly tainted with evil.”3

    Partly as a reaction to this negative view of sex as a necessary evil for the propagation of the human race, a completely different and pleasure oriented (hedonistic) view of sex has emerged. The sexual revolution of our time has glamorized sexual profligacy and prowess, ridiculing sexual chastity as a prudish superstition. The catastrophic consequences of the sexual revolution can be seen in the ever-increasing number of divorces, abortions, incidents of incest, sexual abuse of children, and the loss of the true meaning and function of sex. In the light of this painful reality, it is imperative for Christians to understand and experience the Biblical meaning and function of sex.


  10. @ IG246 & ROK

    [2] great videos parodied through none other than our sarcastically-minded Trini brothas & sistas…

    The sad reality is that this is part of the human condition… It can be said for believers as well as unbelievers; those who profess a faith as well as those who have even more faith to profess nothing…

    So nothing NEW* there guys!!!

    The examples we ought to choose to look for are those who are faithful to their convictions, beliefs and to the moral compass which navigates their lives…

    You see the issue of HYPOCRISY* is really a mask worn by believers as well as all others… No one is really exempt from the vicissitudes, predilections or permutations of the human nature – the only difference comes in those who choose to honor CHRIST* through inner faithfulness, irrespective of social convention…

    Any thing less is mere form, ritual and ceremony!!!


  11. PART II:

    THE BIBLICAL VIEW OF SEX

    Image of God.

    The book of Genesis is the logical starting point for our quest into the Biblical view of sex. The first statement relating to human sexuality is found in Genesis 1:27: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” It is noteworthy that while after every previous act of creation, Scripture says that God saw that “it was good” (Gen 1:12,18,21,25), after the creation of mankind as male and female, it says that God saw that “it was very good” (Gen 1:31). This initial divine appraisal of human sexuality as “very good” shows that Scripture sees the male/female sexual distinction as part of the goodness and perfection of God’s original creation.

    It is important to note also that human sexual duality as male and female is related explicitly to God’s own image. Theologians have long debated the possible nature of this relation. Since Scripture distinguishes human beings from other creatures, theologians have usually thought that the image of God in humanity refers to the rational, moral and spiritual faculties God has given to men and women. This is a valid interpretation since these faculties distinguish human maleness and femaleness from that of lower creatures.

    There is, however, another possible way in which human maleness and femaleness reflects the image of God, namely in the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing in the Trinity. The God of Biblical revelation is not a solitary single Being who lives in eternal aloofness but is a fellowship of Three Beings so intimately and mysteriously united that we worship them as one God.

    This mysterious oneness-in-relationship of the Trinity is reflected as a divine image in man, not as a single individual but as a sexual duality of maleness and femaleness, mysteriously united in marriage as “one flesh.” The love uniting husband and wife points to the love that eternally unites the Three Beings of the Trinity. In this sense, it constitutes a reflection of the image of God in humanity.


  12. A “Unisex” God?

    Some theologians interpret the image of God, not in terms of a similarity of oneness-in-fellowship, but in terms of a correspondence in sexual distinctions within each person of the Godhead. Paul Jewett articulates this view saying:

    “If we are to think of God as sexual, we have to think of the divine as both feminine and masculine if this symbolization of God is to convey a personal wholeness. God becomes he/she. Otherwise the attribution of personality to God would be skewed or out of balance. A purely masculine God would be as intolerable as a purely masculine human, and the same could be said for the purely feminine.”4

    The attempt to make God into a unisex Being consisting of both feminine and masculine characteristics, if not properly qualified, can lead to a disastrous misrepresentation of the God of Biblical revelation. While it is true that God possesses not only masculine but also feminine qualities, since He compares His love, for example, to that of a woman’s for her sucking child (Is 49:15), the fact remains that the possession of feminine qualities does not make God into a “he/she” androgynous Being.

    We recognize varying degrees of masculinity and femininity in every person , yet we do not regard a man who possesses unusual feminine gentleness as a he/she person.

    The fact that the Bible sometimes presents God as our Father (Jer 31:9; Matt 23:9), while at other times compares God to a crying or compassionate mother (Is 42:14; 49:15), does not mean that God is an androgynous he/she Being. It is important to see the distinction between those statements which describe the person of God (God is our Father) and those which describe the qualities of God (God is like a crying or compassionate mother). The former identifies the person of God, the latter compares the compassion of God to that of a mother.

    Today, both liberal and evangelical feminists are clamoring for a re-symbolization of the Godhead based on impersonal or unisex categories. This is seen as the first indispensable step to clearing the way for the elimination of sexual and functional role distinctions in the home and in the church. To achieve this, they advocate dropping the masculine names of God, adopting, instead, non-personal names such as “parent, Benefactor, Almighty” or androgynous names such as “Father-Mother” for God and “Son-Daughter” for Christ.

    The ultimate result of such efforts is not merely switching labels on the same product, but rather introducing new labels for an entirely different product. Biblical faith knows nothing of an androgynous Godhead, partly masculine and partly feminine.

    Any attempt to introduce a female counterpart in the person of God means to reject the God of Biblical revelation, accepting, instead, the one fabricated by feminist speculations.

    In light of the foregoing considerations, we reject as unBiblical the attempts to interpret the image of God in human maleness and femaleness as indicative of sexual distinctions within the persons of the Godhead. God transcends human sexual distinctions, yet He has chosen to reveal Himself predominantly through male terms and imageries because the male role within the family and church best represents the role that He sustains toward the human family. The image of God in humanity must rather be seen, as discussed earlier, in the rational, moral and spiritual faculties God has given to men and women, as well as in the capacity of a man and a woman to experience a oneness of fellowship similar to the one existing within the Trinity.


  13. @ TM Blackette,

    The problem is that your believers seem to think that they are none of those things and the talk down and preach down to others as if they are sinless, while we on this secular side know that men of the cloth are only human, so you need to take your comments to them. Telling me that it applies to believers and non believers is not an excuse and may even be part of your own hypocrisy to try to brush it over. Hypocrisy cannot be a mask, but a means of believers trying to make themselves look like more than they are. It is about image for the believer and not about truth. That is where the hypocrisy comes in.


  14. @ac

    LOL! Obviously, the preacher man is a technological dinosaur, otherwise he phone would have been on vibrate right through getting the little piece; or at least as soon as the man got back home. Suppose somebody else had called him and his phone rang while he was hiding in the closet? He rass would be g-rass the same way.


  15. @TM Blackett,
    “…yet He has chosen to reveal Himself predominantly through male terms and imageries because the male role within the family and church best represents the role that He sustains toward the human family.”

    Which came first, God or the family? You must know God better that he knows himself. How could you thousands of years later know what was in God’s head or why he choose to do what he did? All you can do is accept what is written but you obviously clutching at straws and saying it as though you have the facts when you have none. Your hypocritical slip is showing.


  16. Rok what irks me about these so called Christians is that they feel by talking down to those who have a different belief that as Christians they are superior. Yet they preach that their Bible teaches tolerance and kindness. They preach hellfire and damnation to those who do not follow the scriptures and forgiveness to those who have transgressed. Many keep jumping in and out asking for forgiveness after doing immeasurable harm to others. Rape, murder and stealing is ok as long as you ask for forgiveness. I am of the opinion that Jesus Christ is a criminal since he is always discovered in prison. Instead of preaching verses that make no sense why don’t these believers live a life of service to their fellow man? Talk is cheap haven’t they not heard that before?


  17. “If we are to think of God as sexual, we have to think of the divine as both feminine and masculine if this symbolization of God is to convey a personal wholeness.”

    We have this way of deceiving ourselves. Never in any passage of the Bible is God referred to as female. It is always, “He”. God says he is a man but you now to say he is both man and woman.

    I came to the conclusion long ago that the Creator has to be equally man and woman… but is God is a man and portrays himself as a man, then he could never be the Creator. Now, after all these thousands of years, you and your intellectuals, realising this mistake now seeks to correct it, but it cannot be corrected. God claims to be man and that is why the society is male oriented and for no other reason.

    The dichotomy is that women accept God as a man, but many of them still believe that men are dogs. They turned around the word. This has always puzzled me.

    BTW, is this a basis for a re-write of the Bible?


  18. @ac
    “I am of the opinion that Jesus Christ is a criminal since he is always discovered in prison.”

    Good one, but the Christians will come after you for that. Remember that he was said to be always among the ungodly to make them godly… so be careful, you may be giving license to this one. However, you think that criminals are idiots? How else to get out before your time on good behaviour or be accepted back into society without the distrust? Just become a preacher and all your woes are gone and the money coming in. No need to snatch a handbags for money when you can make them empty their handbags in church without touching them or their handbags. You don’t pay taxes on it either.


  19. Rok ……man has to show his superiority over woman and that is why the Bible was written to show precisely that. If God was a woman how many men would you see as leaders in the church? Many have this belief and cannot get away form it, they also see God as a white man as well. This has enslaved the back race mentally and will continue to do that. Religion has to get a complete overhaul for it to be relevant.


  20. “Just become a preacher and all your woes are gone and the money coming in. No need to snatch a handbags for money when you can make them empty their handbags in church without touching them or their handbags. You don’t pay taxes on it either.” LOLLL

    And there will always be suckers waiting to empty their purses to these frauds.


  21. Rok I have come to the conclusion that the creator is neither male or female but is a creation of man. Ever since man has acquired knowledge man has only used it to suppress each other . There own bible distinctly as law says man should not make any graven image or images that have a likeness to things in heaven or earth.So for people to put a face or sexuality to God is the same as idoltry. I once asked the same question. “Why would God be called by such a name that represents idol worship? no one seems to have an answer!in response they gave me a list of a thousand names representing GOD.


  22. @ac,

    “So for people to put a face or sexuality to God is the same as idolatry.”

    You hit the nail on the head. I always argued that a Creator will not insist that people serve “him” and always beating chest saying I am lord god… has to be something other than the Creator trying to make us believe otherwise. A boss does not have to convince workers that he is the boss… he/she can just fire them if they don’t do what he/she says. More complex nowadays but still the same.


  23. BTW ac, the Creator may be both male and female and yet neither one. That rules out God as the Creator. God is a mere Massa.


  24. Wait ROK you come back …? Wah happen man, you went fah a enlargement operation too like Bonny? Wah part ah you get bigger now ?


  25. @BAFBFP

    Man, I never went nowhere… and I may return but never come back. Forward ever.

    Truthfully, I just got so busy it was impossible. I am a little less busy now but still busy, so I finding some time.


  26. MOCKERS –
    THE JUDGMENT OF GOD DOES FALL
    DEUTERONOMY 30:7
    And the Lord your God will put all these curses upon your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecute you
    PSALM 109
    1) O God of my praise! Keep not silence, 2) For the mouths of the wicked and the mouth of deceit are opened against me; they have spoken to me and against me with lying TONGUES. 3) They have compassed me about also with words of hatred and have fought against me without a cause. 4) In return for my love they are my adversaries, but I resort to prayer. 5) And they have rewarded and laid upon me evil for good, and hatred for my love. 6) Set a wicked man over his [as a judge], and let [a malicious] accuser stand at his right hand. 7) When [the wicked] is judged, let him be condemned, and let his prayer [for leniency] be turned into a sin. 8) Let his days be few; and let another take his office and charge. 9) Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. 10) Let his children be continual vagabonds [as was Cain] and beg; let them seek their bread and be driven far from their ruined homes. 11) Let the creditor and extortioner seize all that he has; and let strangers [barbarians and foreigners] plunder the fruits of his labor. 12) Let there be none to extend or continue mercy and kindness to him, neither let there be any to have pity on his fatherless children. 13) Let his posterity be cut off, and in the generation following let their names be blotted out. 14) Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered by the Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out. 15) Let them be before the Lord continually, that He may cut off the memory of them from the earth!– 16) Because the man did not [earnestly] remember to show mercy, but pursued and persecuted the poor and needy man, and the broken in heart [he was ready] to slay. 17) Yes, he loved cursing, and it came [back] upon him; he delighted not in blessing, and it was far from him. 18) He clothed himself also with cursing as with his garment, and it seeped into his inward [life] like water, and like oil into his bones. 19) Let it be to him as the raiment with which he covers himself and as the girdle with which he is girded continually. 20) Let this be the reward of my adversaries from the Lord, and of those who speak evil against my life.

    ISAIAH 54:17
    But no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper, and every tongue that shall rise against you in judgment you shall show to be in the wrong. This [peace, righteousness, security, triumph over opposition] is the heritage of the servants of the Lord [those in whom the ideal Servant of the Lord is reproduced]; this is the righteousness or the vindication which they obtain from Me [this is that which I impart to them as their justification], says the Lord.

    THERE IS NO HATE, MALICE, RACISM, ETC. ON THIS SITE. THESE ARE SINS IN THE EYES OF GOD, AND ARE ALSO DEMONS. THE BIBLE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT SIN CANNOT GET INTO HEAVEN.


  27. I notice that when you challenge Christians, they get hysterical. Have to be careful because when you shake the foundation of anyone’s faith they sometimes react violently, but most definitely hysterically. This is not good for their mental health and an indication that they are on the precipice of irrational thought and action.


  28. @Show respect for men of God

    I think you have it the wrong way around. Men of God need to have some respect for others. What they need to understand is that they are men of belief and not proof. There is nothing to prove here because it is belief and belief is not truth. It may be your truth but that is you. Have some respect for those who are not believing the same thing you do. Hold on to your faith and stop shouting. You are acting irrationally. You prize heaven, those who believe otherwise do not prize it so when you spouting your faith thinking that you have something on somebody, you don’t. They can also spout their faith at you too and where will that lead?

    A SHOUTING MATCH?


  29. HOW TO ACT AND TALK TO A FOOL
    Job’s wife was foolish when she told him curse God and die because of his intense suffering. He answered her wisely:
    “ His wife said to him, ‘Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!’ He replied, ‘You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?’ In all this, Job did not sin in what he said.” Job 2:10 Thank goodness, she had her husband to set her straight.
    Expect trouble if you confront a fool (Proverbs 9:7-8, 15:12, 17:12).
    Don’t give a fool honor and its rewards. They are “not fitting for a fool” Proverbs 19:10, 26:1 (26:8).
    We should avoid taking a fool to court:
    “If a wise man goes to court with a fool, the fool rages and scoffs, and there is no peace.” Proverbs 29:9
    Don’t ask a fool to deliver a message (Proverbs 26:6) and do not hire a fool (Proverbs 26:10).
    Jesus said not to give what is sacred to pigs (Matthew 7:6). Ask God what you should say to a fool:
    “Wisdom reposes in the heart of the discerning and even among fools she lets herself be known.” Proverbs 14:33
    “Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the assembly at the gate he has nothing to say.” Proverbs 24:7
    “For the fool speaks folly, his mind is busy with evil: He practices ungodliness and spreads error concerning the LORD; the hungry he leaves empty and from the thirsty he withholds water.” Isaiah 32:5-7
    We are to love the foolish. Paul will suffer for others and make sure they understand Jesus’ free gift of grace to them because “I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish.” Romans 1:14

    WHO IS A FOOL?
    Basically a fool is someone who doesn’t know God (Psalm 43:1 53:1). They do not respect God; they mock God (Psalm 74:18, 22 Proverbs 1:7).
    Fools “despise wisdom and discipline” and “hate knowledge”. (Proverbs 1:7, 22).
    Fools “…do not know that they do wrong” Ecclesiastes 5:1.
    Jeremiah complained that his people were fools because they didn’t know God and worshiped idols (Jeremiah 4:22, 5:4, 21, 10:8).
    Fools do not obey Jesus (Matthew 7:26, 25:1-13 Luke 6:46).
    Jesus calls the hypocritical religious leaders fools (Luke 11:46).
    Fools are those who do not consider eternity but think only about the things of this world (Luke 12:20).
    Fools consider themselves wise but became fools because they did not consider God (Romans 1:22).
    Fools do not believe and so perish (1 Corinthians 1:18, 20, 3:18-19).
    Fools consider wisdom foolishness:
    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” 1 Corinthians 2:14
    Fools are those who follow “the god of this age” 2 Corinthians 4:4.
    When we did not believe in Jesus we were fools (Titus 3:3).
    A fool is someone who acts (or condone others who act) any way he pleases and thinks just because he has “faith” he is OK:
    “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless “ James 2:20

    WHAT CAUSES A PERSON TO BECOME A FOOL?
    In a sense everyone is a fool at birth:
    “Surely I was sinful from birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” Psalm 51:5 People are fools because of their sin.
    Because of God’s love for His creation everyone is given a chance to become wise:
    “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16
    Jesus came “into the world” to save the world, but those who do not believe in Him are condemned:
    “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.” John 3:17-18
    People do not believe in Jesus because “their deeds were evil” and they “fear that their deeds will be exposed”:
    “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” John 3:19-20 People who do not choose to believe in Jesus remain fools.
    Everyone can see that there is a God, but because of sin they become fools (Romans 1:22).
    Fools become fools because of “their rebellious ways” Psalm 107:17
    Choosing to sin makes a person a fool because (1 he is a fool to sin and (2 sin separates us from God and blinds our eyes to what is right and what is wise:
    “The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.” Proverbs 14:6
    Extortion and bribes turn men into fools (Job 36:18 Ecclesiastes 7:7).


  30. “The mocker seeks wisdom and finds none, but knowledge comes easily to the discerning.” Proverbs 14:6

    You sought to make a mockery of me, sir. I guess you are not the discerning type, right? So where does that leave you?


  31. @ ROK

    “Telling me that it applies to believers and non believers is not an excuse and may even be part of your own hypocrisy to try to brush it over…”

    What is it about a “STATEMENT OF FACT” that seem to cause you cognitive dissonance?

    What is applicable to BELIEVERS* (in the context in which I spoke) – is it not equally applicable to UNBELIEVERS*?

    Having hoped to tar & feather me with a broad, sweeping brush of generalized prejudgment in your mind – you assume that I am trying to “BRUSH” aside something for which I chose NOT* to place any undue emphasis on…

    But as was said before – “NOTHING NEW THERE!!!”

    As a person of no visible FAITH* – it is commendable how you philosophically engage and take on issues pertaining to God and how your exegesis on the foundational aspects of Biblical interpretation has a classical dialectic to it…

    To the average reader, one would believe that you ONCE* held a profound faith but have somehow RECANTED* and wandered off into the land of NOD*…


  32. @ ROK
    “Which came first, God or the family?
    A: That’s pregiven!!!
    You must know God better that he knows himself.
    A: He revealed HIMSELF* through the person of JESUS CHRIST!!!
    How could you thousands of years later know what was in God’s head or why he choose to do what he did?
    A: We are reminded that “HE DOES NOTHING UNLESS HE REVEALS IT TO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS!!!
    All you can do is accept what is written but you obviously clutching at straws and saying it as though you have the facts when you have none…
    A: Do you know what has been written? What are the FACTS* that are written there? And what are the “STRAWS” you are alluding to?
    Your hypocritical slip is showing…”
    A: This is not a personality contest!!!

    If you are you having problems understanding Biblical contexualization – I can suggest that if in doubt, it is always better to RE-READ the text!!!

    The mind of God is NOT* up for speculative analysis – HIS* will and purpose for MANKIND* was clearly revealed, leaving none of us in any doubt…


  33. Becoming “One Flesh”.

    The oneness of intimate fellowship between a man and a woman is expressed in Genesis 2:24 by the phrase “one flesh:” “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.” The phrase “one flesh,” as already shown in chapter 1, refers to the total union of body, soul, and spirit between marital partners.

    This total union can be experienced especially through sexual intercourse when the act is the expression of genuine love, respect, and commitment. The physical or sexual meaning of the phrase “one flesh” is clearly found in 1 Corinthians 6:16 where Paul applies it to the sexual intercourse between a man and a harlot.

    The phrase becoming one flesh sheds considerable light on God’s estimate of sex within a marital relationship. It tells us that God sees sex as a means through which a husband and a wife can achieve a new unity.

    It is noteworthy that the “one flesh” imagery is never used to describe a child’s relationship to his father and mother. A man must “leave” his father and mother to become “one flesh” with his wife. His relationship to his wife transcends the one to his parents because it consists of a new oneness consummated by the sexual union.

    Becoming one flesh also implies that the purpose of the sexual act is not only procreational, that is, to produce children, but also psychological, that is, the emotional need to consummate a new oneness-relationship.

    Oneness implies the willingness to reveal one’s most intimate physical, emotional and intellectual self to the other. As they come to know each other in the most intimate way, the couple experiences the meaning of becoming one flesh.

    Sexual intercourse does not automatically ensure this oneness intimacy. Rather it consummates the intimacy of perfect sharing which has already developed.

    Sex as “Knowing”.

    Sexual relations within marriage enable a couple to come to know each other in a way which cannot be experienced in any other way. To participate in sexual intercourse means not only to uncover one’s body but also one’s inner being to another.

    This is why Scripture often describes sexual intercourse as “knowing,” the same verb used in Hebrews to refer to knowing God. Genesis 4:1 says: “And Adam knew Eve his wife and she conceived.”5

    Obviously Adam had come to know Eve before their sexual intercourse, but through the latter he came to know her more intimately than ever before.

    Dwight H. Small aptly remarks: “Self-disclosure through sexual intercourse invites self-disclosure at all levels of personal existence. This is an exclusive revelation unique to the couple. They know each other as they know no other person.

    This unique knowledge is tantamount to laying claim to another in genuine belonging . . . the nakedness and physical coupling is symbolic of the fact that nothing is hidden or withheld between them.”6

    The process which leads to sexual intercourse is one of growing knowledge. From the initial casual acquaintance to dating, courtship, marriage, and sexual intercourse, the couple grows in the knowledge of each other and this makes greater intimacy possible.

    Sexual intercourse represents the culmination of this growth in reciprocal knowledge and intimacy. As Elizabeth Achtemeier puts it: “We feel as if the most hidden inner depths of our beings are brought to the surface and revealed and offered to each other as the most intimate expression of our love.”7

    Sex as Pleasure.

    A revolution has taken place in Christian thinking about sex within the last hundred years.

    Until the beginning of our century, Christians generally believed that the primary function of sex was procreative, that is, to produce children.

    Other considerations, such as the unitive, relational and pleasurable aspects of sex were seen as secondary and usually tainted with sin. In the twentieth century the order has been reversed.

    Christians place the relational and pleasurable aspects of sex first and the conception of children last.

    From a Biblical perspective, sexual activity is both unitive and procreative, or we might say, recreative and reproductive. God’s command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28), is a command to be sexual.

    When we obey it, we fulfill God’s purpose by becoming one flesh and producing children. So sex in marriage is both unitive and procreative. “During the Middle Ages,” writes David Phypers, “Christians stressed the procreative aspect of sex while neglecting and sometimes despising its unitive purpose. Today, we stress its unitive role, and may ignore the command to be fruitful and increase in number.”8

    As Christians we need to recover and maintain the Biblical balance between the relational and procreational functions of sex.

    Sexual intercourse is a relational act of perfect sharing that engenders a sense of oneness while offering the possibility of bringing a new life into this world. We need to recognize that sex is a divine gift that can be legitimately enjoyed within marriage.

    Like all other divine gifts, sex is to be partaken of with thankfulness and moderation.


  34. “What is it about a “STATEMENT OF FACT” that seem to cause you cognitive dissonance?”

    It’s not the statement, the cognitive dissonance is with regard to the hypocrisy.

    “one would believe that you ONCE* held a profound faith but have somehow RECANTED*

    Recanted? No, your God is real, just that you have him out of context. You see, just like dealing with the massa, whenever you are finished dealing with your God, you still have to deal with your own soul and existence as we call it. That is because your God is a Massa and not The Creator. He has no spiritual control over anybody and the whole concept of heaven & hell is no more than a dangling carrot in front a race horse.


  35. “HE DOES NOTHING UNLESS HE REVEALS IT TO HIS SERVANTS THE PROPHETS!”

    What a load of rubbish you shouting. Like massa, you have to take a guess at God. He revealed only what you needed to know so that you would bow down and worship.


  36. “Do you know what has been written?”

    I care not except so far as it makes my people vulnerable. That is for you to hold hold on to. It makes no difference to me nor to the truth.

    “If you are you having problems understanding Biblical contexualization”

    That’s the problem. No such thing. Biblical contextualisation is no more than trickery with a strong determination to deceive.


  37. Sex as a Divine Gift.

    It is noteworthy that the wise man Solomon mentions together bread, wine, clothing and marital love as the good gifts that God has approved for our enjoyment: “Go, eat your bread with enjoyment, and drink your wine with a merry heart; for God has already approved what you do.

    Let your garments be always white; let not oil be lacking on your head. Enjoy life with the wife whom you love,all the days of your life which He has given you under the sun, because that is your portion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun” (Eccl 9:7-9).

    Sexual activity is generally more important to humans than it is to animals. It is significant that among the mammals, only the human female is capable of enjoying sexual orgasm as well as the male.

    It is recognized that this experience binds a woman to her partner emotionally as well as physically. The fact that both the human male and female can share together in the pleasure of sexual intercourse indicates that God intended marital sex to be enjoyed by both partners.

    In the Song of Songs, the celebration of sexual love between the bride and bridegroom is expressed in suggestive romantic words: “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me. Come, my beloved, let us go forth into the fields and lodge in the villages; let us go out early to the vineyards . . . There I will give you my love” (Song of Songs 7:10-12).

    The same positive view of marital sex is found in the New Testament. In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul urges husbands and wives to fulfill their marital duties together, because their bodies do not belong to themselves alone but to each other.

    Therefore they should not deprive each other of sex, except by mutual agreement for a time to devote themselves to prayer. Then they should come together again lest Satan tempt them through lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:2-5).

    In Ephesians Paul speaks of the physical union of a man and a woman as a profound “mystery” reflecting Christ’s love for His church. Therefore, we should not be uneasy about marital sex, because when we come together we are experiencing something of the mysterious redemptive love of Christ for the world.

    The author of Hebrews admonishes that “Marriage should be honoured by all, and the marriage bed kept pure” (Heb 13:4 NIV).

    Here, marital sex is extolled as honorable, something not to be embarrassed about. But the same writer adds, “God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral” (Heb 13:4 NIV).

    Bible writers are unanimous in commending sex within marriage and in condemning all forms of sexual activity outside marriage.

    Paul warns the Corinthians, “Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral . . . nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders . . . will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9,10 NIV).

    The book of Revelation places the “fornicators” among those whose “lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur” (Rev 21:8).

    Sex as Procreation.

    In the Bible the function of sex, as noted earlier, is not only unitive but also procreative. It not only serves to engender a mysterious oneness of spirit, but it also offers the possibility of bringing children into this world.

    God’s command “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28) expresses God’s original intent for the purpose of sex. Through marital sex and the birth of children, God enables men and women to reflect His image by sharing in His creative activity. This means that sex in marriage without the intention of having children fails to fulfill a fundamental divine purpose for sex. The lengths to which some married couples will go in order to have children reveals the deep creative urge God has placed within us.

    Of course, not all couples are able to have or are justified in having children. Old age, infertility, and genetic diseases are but some of the factors that make childbearing impossible or inadvisable.

    For the vast majority of couples, however, sex in marriage should include the desire to have children.

    As sex consummates the act of marriage, so children consummate the sexual act.

    This does not mean that every act of sexual union should result in conception, but rather that the desire for having children should be part of the overall intent of sexual relations.

    Various contraceptive techniques make it possible today to separate sexual activity from childbearing.

    A growing number of couples choose to enjoy a lifetime of sexual activity without desiring or planning for children.

    They are not simply concerned about delaying their arrival but in avoiding them altogether. Children are seen as a threat to their high standards of living associated with two incomes and two careers.

    “We are not meant to separate sex from childbearing” writes David Phypers, “and those who do, totally and finally, purely for personal reasons, are surely falling short of God’s purpose for their lives. They run the risk that their marriage and sexual activity may become self-indulgent. They will only look inwards to their own self-satisfaction, rather than outwards to the creative experiences of bringing new life into the world and nurturing it to maturity.”9

    The life-begetting function of sex enables a married couple to further God’s creative work by becoming procreators with Him.

    It is altogether consistent with God’s creative work that the sexual life-begetting experience should be joyous. Did not God’s angels shout for joy at His first creation (Job 38:7)?

    Bringing into life a new person in God’s image is a joyful and solemn privilege delegated by God to married couples. In this sense, they become workers together with God in furthering His creation.

    Importance of Children.

    Children are a fundamental part of our marriage and sexual relationships. They represent God’s blessings upon the marital union.

    The Psalmist expresses this truth, saying: “Sons are a heritage from the Lord, children a reward from Him. Like the arrows in the hands of a warrior are the sons born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them” (Ps 127:3-5 NIV).

    The population explosion has not rescinded God’s command to be fruitful and multiply. World famine is not so much the result of too many people as much as the result of greed, exploitation, irresponsible governments, misuse of natural resources, and unwillingness to adopt more effective methods of agriculture and to teach people responsible family planning.

    While a number of developing countries are facing population explosions, most Western countries are experiencing population stagnation or decline.

    Western societies are aging, and unless the current trend is reversed, it will soon become increasingly difficult for them to support their ever-growing numbers of elderly people.

    We no longer need large families, but we still need families. The church needs Christian families that can share with the world the love of God experienced in the home.

    Society needs the service and moral influence of Christian families. Most Western societies live today in what social analysts call the “Post-Christian era.” This is the era in which social values and practices are influenced no longer by Christian principles but rather by humanistic ideologies.

    The latter promote a secular view of marriage and a hedonistic view of sex.

    Marriage has become a dissolvable social contract rather than a permanent sacred covenant, and sex is regarded primarily as a recreational activity rather than as a procreational responsibility.

    As Christians, we are called not to conform to the world (Rom 12:2) but to transform the world through God’s given principles and power. In the area of marriage and sex, we must show to the world that we obey God’s command to “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:22) and not to “put asunder what God has united” (Matt 19:6).


  38. “The mind of God is NOT* up for speculative analysis.”

    You should remember that when you try interpreting to your own ends. Take a look at your speculative analysis above… Void of facts.


  39. @ ROK
    “Biblical contextualisation is no more than trickery with a strong determination to deceive…”

    Is that a STATEMENT OF FACT* or a self-indulgent opinion?

    As educated as you are – do we conclude that you do NOT* possess the ability to read within “CONTEXT”?

    Most of us would want to believe that you possess the wherewithal to read a passage and be able (according to the DICTIONARY) to “read fully enough to get a good meaning…”

    So c’mon BRUV – please tell us where does the DECEPTION* lie?


  40. @ ROK
    “You should remember that when you try interpreting to your own ends. Take a look at your speculative analysis above… Void of facts…”

    Are we talking about the same things here?

    Your statement subsumes that you yourself have an angle on the MIND OF GOD* which places you in a strategic position to be able to decipher what is FACTUAL* and what’s not…

    Surely you can’t eat your cake and want to have it too???


  41. @ ROK

    You use loose* words like “MASSA”, “HYPOCRISY”, “MY PEOPLE” and a whole sleuth of euphemisms to supposedly describe and justify a position that you hold…

    But does that position have any real basis in the postmodern reality of the 21st century given the fragmentation the world has undergone and the separate reality of people’s lives and their individuality?

    I applaud your MESSIANIC* zeal but it may be ill-placed and time-place distanced from the reality of everyday life on the ground…


  42. Sex Outside Marriage.

    Nowhere has Christian morality come under greater attack than in the whole area of sex outside marriage.

    The Biblical teaching that sex is only for marriage does not even enter the thinking of most people today.

    The Biblical condemnation of illicit sexual acts has become for many a license for sexual experimentation.

    The popular acceptance of sexual permissiveness is evidenced by the introduction and use of “softer terms.”

    Fornication, for example, is referred to as “pre-marital sex” with the accent on the “pre” rather than on the “marital.”

    Adultery is now called “extra-marital sex,” implying an additional experience like some extra-professional activities.

    Homosexuality has gradually been softened from serious perversion through “deviation” to “gay variation.”

    Pornographic literature and films are now available to “mature audiences” or “adults.”

    More and more, Christians are giving in to the specious argument that “Love makes it right.”

    If a man and a woman are deeply and genuinely in love, they have the right to express their love through sexual union without marriage.

    Some contend that pre-marital sex releases people from their inhibitions and moral hangups, giving them a sense of emotional freedom.

    The truth of the matter is that pre-marital sex adds emotional pressure because it reduces sexual love to a purely physical level without the total commitment of two married people.

    Biblical Condemnation.

    The Biblical condemnation of sexual relations before or outside marriage is abundantly clear.

    Adultery, or sexual intercourse between married women or married men and someone other than their marital partners, is condemned as a serious sin.

    Not only is adultery forbidden in both versions of the Decalogue (Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18), but it was also punishable by death in ancient Israel: “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Lev 20:10; cf. 18:20; Deut 22:22-24).

    The same punishment was meted out to a man or a woman who engaged in pre-marital sex (Deut 22:13-21, 23-27).

    The New Testament goes beyond the Old Testament by internalizing the whole sexuality of a person and placing it within the context of motivation.

    Jesus emphasized that to entertain lustful desires toward a person of the opposite sex outside marriage means to be guilty of adultery (Matt 5:27-28).

    The reason for this is that defilement comes not only from outward acts but also from inward thoughts, which in Biblical symbology derive from the heart: “Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man” (Matt 15:19-20).

    Sexual laxness was pervasive in the Greco-Roman world of New Testament times. Hence, one of the conditions the Jerusalem council made for the inclusion of the Gentiles in the Christian Church was that they should abstain from all forms of “unchastity” (Acts 15:20,29).

    Paul’s letters reveal the difficulties the apostle had in leading Gentile converts away from sexual immorality.

    To the Thessalonians, he wrote: “For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each of you know how to take a wife for himself in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God” (1 Thess 4:2-5).

    Here Paul admonishes those who had sexual urges to satisfy them by entering not into temporary relationships “in the passion of lust like the heathen who do not know God,” but into permanent marital relationships.

    Such relationships are to be characterized by “holiness and honor.”

    Paul is most explicit in his condemnation of prostitution. He asks the Corinthians who lived in the celebrated sex center of the Mediterranean world: “Do you now know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh.’ But he who is unified to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him. Shun immorality.

    Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:16-20).

    Reasons for Condemnation.

    In this passage, Paul helps us to see why the Bible strongly condemns sex outside marriage.

    Sex represents the most intimate of all interpersonal relationships, expressing a “one-flesh” unity of total commitment. Such a unity of commitment cannot be expressed or experienced in a casual sexual union with a prostitute where the concern is purely commercial and recreational.

    The only oneness experienced in such sexual unions is the oneness of sexual immorality.

    Sexual immorality is serious because it affects the individual more deeply and permanently than any other sin.

    Paul describes it as a sin committed inside the body: “Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body” (1 Cor 6:18).

    It might be objected that all sins of sensuality such as gluttony or drunkenness affect a person inside the body.

    Yet they do not have the same permanent effect on the personality as the sin of fornication.

    Indulgence in eating or drinking can be overcome, stolen goods can be returned, lies can be retracted and replaced by the truth.

    But the sexual act, once committed with another person, cannot be undone. A radical change has taken place in the interpersonal relationship of the couple involved that can never be undone.

    Something indelible has stamped on them both forever. Even with a prostitute, sexual union leaves its permanent mark. It is a spot in the consciousness that cannot be removed.

    “The immoral man sins against his own body.” This truth is openly rejected by those who regard pre-marital sex not as sinful, but as helpful to a satisfactory sexual adjustment in marriage.

    Some even believe that sexual relations with the person one intends to marry are necessary to guarantee sexual compatibility.

    Such attitudes fail to recognize that sexual intercourse before marriage is the worst possible preparation for marriage. The reasons for this are not difficult to discover.

    Sex without Commitment.

    To begin with, sex before marriage is sex without commitment. If we do not like our partners, we can change and find somebody else.

    Such casual relationships destroy the integrity of the person by reducing it to an object to be used for personal gratification.

    Some, who feel hurt and used after sexual encounters, may withdraw altogether from sexual activity for fear of being used again or may decide to use their bodies selfishly, without regard to the feeling of others.

    Either way, our sexuality is distorted because it destroys the possibility of using it to relate genuinely and intimately toward the one we love.

    Sex cannot be used as a means for fun with one partner at one time and as a way to express genuine love and commitment with another partner at another time.

    Those who become accustomed to a variety of sexual partners will find it difficult, if not impossible, to express through sex their total commitment and final intimacy to their marital partners.

    Engaged couples will probably deny that when they sleep together they are not expressing genuine commitment to one another.

    But if they were fully and finally committed to each other, they would be married.

    Engagement is the preparation for marriage, but it is not marriage. Until the wedding vows are taken, the possibility of breaking up a relationship exists.

    If a couple has had intercourse together, they have compromised their relationship.

    Any subsequent break up will leave permanent emotional scars. It is only when we are willing to become one, not only verbally but also legally by assuming responsibility for our partners, that we can seal our relationships through sexual intercourse.

    In this setting, sex fittingly expresses the ultimate commitment and the final intimacy.

    Marriage licenses and wedding ceremonies are not mere formalities but serve to formalize the marriage commitment.

    As Elizabeth Achtemeier explains: “Just the fact that such young people [living together] are hesitant legally to seal their union is evidence that their commitment to one another is not total.

    Marriage licenses and ceremonies are not only legal formalities; they are also symbols of responsibility. They say publicly, what is affirmed privately, without reservation, that I am responsible for my mate—responsible not only in all those lovely emotional and spiritual areas of married life, but responsible also in the down-to-earth areas that have to do with grubby things like money, health insurance, and property.

    For example, two people just living together have no obligation for each other when the tax form comes up for an audit, or the other is involved in a car accident and legal suit; but persons holding a marriage license do have such responsibility, and commitment to a marriage involves accepting that public responsibility too.

    It is a matter of accepting the full obligations that society imposes on its adult members in order to ensure the common good.”14


  43. “Richard Scott, a doctor for 28 years, is under investigation by the BRITISH* General Medical Council (GMC) and faces disciplinary action after he suggested to a 24-year-old man that he might find solace in Christianity…”

    Talk about on-the-ground reality? There is no doubt that the godly doctor exceeded his bounds.


  44. “You use loose* words like “MASSA”, “HYPOCRISY”, “MY PEOPLE””

    What is so loose about Massa? It is a corruption of the word Master in case you want to know. You don’t know the meaning of hypocrisy? There is nothing loose about that meaning either. It means talking one thing from the corner of your mouth and doing the opposite.

    Well I forgive you for not knowing who my people are. Surely you can’t know that.

    Here endeth the lesson.


  45. “Marriage licenses and ceremonies are not only legal formalities; they are also symbols of responsibility. They say publicly, what is affirmed privately, without reservation, that I am responsible for my mate…”

    Get real. With the amount of divorces going on and the shacking-up, those words represent, not an affirmation, but an intent. We know how circumstances change intent. The confusion which the church has thrown up about marriage, in reality it makes those vows only a matter of intent. There is no doubt that the church got it wrong and the evidence of divorce and shack-up rates is plain to see.


  46. “I applaud your MESSIANIC* zeal but it may be ill-placed and time-place distanced from the reality of everyday life on the ground…”

    I applaud yours too, only, the reality of everyday life is reflected in the fact that Christian marriages are becoming a thing of the past and even Christians are defying the church and shacking up. Yes, it is about the reality of everyday life that causes them to defy because the rules are at odds with the reality.


  47. ROK
    I now see y i does cannnnn find you sumtimes when i call you cell-fone. you does be in a closet hiding too. ya now sell out yaself. wait til i get my handz pun ya rast-clawt. ya dead ta me. ya two timin sun of a who-cut-ya hair. i kno de trute wooda cum out. ya ass is g-rass.

    BAF
    ROK is a perfeck fit. na alterations nes’ry. De ansa ta ev’ry woman’z dreamzzzz.


  48. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/opinion/22kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    Religion and Sex Quiz
    By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
    Faith is a huge force in American life, and it’s common to hear the Bible cited to bolster political and moral positions, especially against same-sex marriage and abortion. So here’s my 2011 religion quiz. Choose the best responses (some questions may have more than one correct answer):

    1. The Bible’s position on abortion is:

    a. Never mentioned.

    b. To forbid it along with all forms of artificial birth control.

    c. Condemnatory, except to save the life of the mother.

    2. The Bible suggests “marriage” is:

    a. The lifelong union of one man and one woman.

    b. The union of one man and up to 700 wives.

    c. Often undesirable, because it distracts from service to the Lord.

    3. The Bible says of homosexuality:

    a. Leviticus describes male sexual pairing as an abomination.

    b. A lesbian should be stoned at her father’s doorstep.

    c. There’s plenty of ambiguity and no indication of physical intimacy, but some readers point to Ruth and Naomi’s love as suspiciously close, or to King David declaring to Jonathan: “Your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” (II Samuel 1:23-26)

    4. In the Bible, erotic writing is:

    a. Forbidden by Deuteronomy as “adultery of the heart.”

    b. Exemplified by “Song of Songs,” which celebrates sex for its own sake.

    c. Unmentioned.

    5. Jesus says that divorce is permitted:

    a. Only after counseling and trial separation.

    b. Never.

    c. Only to men whose wives have been unfaithful.

    6. Among sexual behavior that is forbidden is:

    a. Adultery.

    b. Incest.

    c. Sex with angels.

    7. The people of Sodom were condemned principally for:

    a. Homosexuality.

    b. Blasphemy.

    c. Lack of compassion for the poor and needy.

    This quiz, and the answers below, draw from a new book, “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire.” It’s by Jennifer Wright Knust, a Bible scholar at Boston University who is also an ordained American Baptist pastor.

    Professor Knust’s point is that the Bible’s teachings about sexuality are murky and inconsistent and prone to being hijacked by ideologues (this quiz involves some cherry-picking of my own). There’s also lots we just don’t understand: What exactly is the offense of “arsenokoitai” or “man beds” that St. Paul proscribes? It is often translated as a reference to homosexuality, but it more plausibly relates to male prostitution or pimping. Ambiguity is everywhere, which is why some of you will surely harrumph at my quiz answers:

    1. A. Abortion is never mentioned as such.

    2. A, B and C. The Bible limits women to one husband, but other than that is all over the map. Mark 10 envisions a lifelong marriage of one man and one woman. But King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines (I Kings 11:3). And Matthew (Matthew 19:10-12) and St. Paul (I Corinthians 7) both seem to suggest that the ideal approach is to remain celibate and avoid marriage if possible, while focusing on serving God. Jesus (Matthew 19:12) even seems to suggest that men make themselves eunuchs, leading the early church to ban enthusiasts from self-castration.

    3. A and C. As for stoning on a father’s doorstep, that is the fate not of lesbians but of non-virgin brides (Deuteronomy 22:13).

    4. B. Read the “Song of Songs” and blush. It also serves as a metaphor for divine relations with Israel or with humans.

    5. B and C. Jesus in Mark 10:11-12 condemns divorce generally, but in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 suggests that a man can divorce his wife if she is guilty of sexual immorality.

    6. A, B and C. We forget that early commentators were very concerned about sex with angels (Genesis 6, interpreted in the Letter of Jude and other places) as an incorrect mixing of two kinds.

    7. C. “Sodomy” as a term for gay male sex began to be commonly used only in the 11th century and would have surprised early religious commentators. They attributed Sodom’s problems with God to many different causes, including idolatry, threats toward strangers and general lack of compassion for the downtrodden. Ezekiel 16:49 suggests that Sodomites “had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”

    Hmm. “Did not aid the poor and needy.” Who knew that that’s what the Bible condemns as sodomy? At a time of budget cuts that devastate the poor, isn’t that precisely the kind of disgusting immorality that we should all join together in the spirit of the Bible to repudiate?


  49. @ Bonny
    Well, we could get married. Only thing I want to try the pre-marital, sweets. I got to be careful cause I is a diabetic so it can’t be too sweet. Got to try it first.


  50. @ ROK
    “There is no doubt that the church got it wrong and the evidence of divorce and shack-up rates is plain to see…”

    Operative word -“CHURCH” as an institution…

    Could it be another example of mis-contextualization and possible mis-interpretation on the part of feeble minds?

    The Word of God remains crystal clear my dear brother!!!


  51. @ ROK
    ““Marriage licenses and ceremonies are not only legal formalities; they are also symbols of responsibility. They say publicly, what is affirmed privately, without reservation, that I am responsible for my mate…”

    IS THIS NOT THE “IDEAL”???

    No one denies the prevalence of “DIVORCE” at the staggering rates we are currently seeing… I had Dr. James Dobson deny my own researched stats on this issue – so again, NOTHING NEW THERE!!!

    Thankfully, the 50% of us who remain faithful to our vows recognize the importance of the covenant IDEALS* as set forth in Scripture!!!


  52. @ ROK
    “Well I forgive you for not knowing who my people are. Surely you can’t know that…”

    Unfortunately my dear BRUV* – I am not a MOSES* – neither do I choose to possess the same messianic fervor which propels you into the choices you make…

    For me, “ONE” man called the “SON OF MAN” paid the ultimate sacrifice for a bunch of ungrateful ingrates called “HUMANITY”* – so based on that, I am able to conclude that they are really HIS PEOPLE* – not mine, thank you very much!!!


    • @ROK and TB

      Ok we have reached the point where we always get to on these subjects trying to argue faith versus science. Coming out of the exchanges here is a long hanging observation by BU:

      Barbados is accepted to be a Christian society yet from time immemorial we have accepted common law relationships which by implication suggest an abundance of pre-marital sex at play. In fact common law is recognized under the law when dealing with the rights of man, woman and child in relationships. In response to Morris’ assertion whether you agree with him or not the question must be answered:

      Why the righteous indignation by our ‘Christian’ society when by the majority of our actions (for all to see) we engage in premarital sex as if it were a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon?


  53. ROK
    It in get na sweeta dhan de las time you had um n it din raise ya blood-suga den. diabetes did de las ting pun you mind den. or you did only foolin me when you did callin me ‘Sweet-P’?
    ya dang’rus.


  54. @ David…
    Why the righteous indignation by our ‘Christian’ society when by the majority of our actions (for all to see) we engage in premarital sex as if it were a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon?

    Easy answer……HYPOCRISY!!


  55. In the history of the world, nothing has been the catalyst of more grief, hatred, war, and crime than religion. Religion allows a person to hate, kill, torture, or steal, while allowing him to excuse himself of all blame. Religion causes people to break the laws of ethics and morality in the name of a god.

    Religion dulls the mind and weakens the senses. It makes “God did it” seem like a reasonable answer to anything at all, squelching questions of why, how, and when, and replacing these questions with repeated mantras and prayers to nobody.

    Religion is exquisitely profitable, with most adherents tithing a portion of their income. The churches, synagogues, and mosques, which do little to serve their community outside of “outreach programs” (marketing and recruiting), pay almost no taxes.

    Religion spreads like disease through societies, rarely coexisting with pre-existing mythologies, rather preferring to conquer or be conquered. Religion is anything but tolerant.

    American Atheists is not afraid to point out that which is true: religion is ridiculous. Mythology and religion are synonymous, and none is better than another. Religion is malicious, malevolent, and unworthy of respect.

    From American Athesist
    http://www.atheists.org/religion


  56. Kudos to Terrence Blackett for staying on point. Perhaps BU can attract a response from Rev. Morris on the prohibitions in the torah and the Sermon on the Mount. Deuteronomy 22:29 sex with the unmarried woman is variously translated as “dishonoring” her or “violating” her and the remedy provided is a permanent marital obligation. The permanent marital obligation is also reflected in the words of Jesus, Matthew 5:31 and 32. Legislatures and Courts have made divorce easy, not churches. But the tide may be turning, even no fault jurisdictions are now requiring marital counselling as a prefiling requirement in divorce matters.


  57. @ Set you free | May 23, 2011 at 8:23 PM |
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/opinion/22kristof.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
    Religion and Sex Quiz By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF…

    HERE IS THE FEMINIST* AGENDA BEHIND DR. JENNIFER WRIGHT KNUST AS CITED IN KRISTOFF’S RATHER SPECIOUS QUIZZICAL ATTEMPT AT UNDERMINING YET UNDERGIRDING THE REBEL ATTEMPT BY A SO-CALLED SCHOLAR WHO THINKS SHE HAS THE INSPIRATIONAL EXEGETICAL PATENT ON GOD’S WORD – THE BIBLE….

    Here is the agenda that lies behind her so-called “SCHOLARLY” attempt in her OP-ED in the Washington Post series & exemplified by the book to which she links, A Feminist Companion to the Bible, Volume 2 by Athalya Brenner and Carole R. Fontaine:

    “Admitting that we, too, want something, that we too have desires and longings, perhaps we can also admit that we never approach the Bible without some kind of agenda. We are not passive recipients of what the Bible says, but active interpreters who make decisions about what we will believe and what we will affirm. Since the Bible offers so little in the way of consistent advice about marriage, sexuality and desire, it is time to quit using it as a justification for our moral decrees. In conversation with the Bible, we might develop a more nuanced and informed perspective on what it has meant to be human, but we will not find easy solutions to the sharp debates that have been tearing apart communities and bodies for the last several decades. As my mother would say: stop it. Anyone who uses either God or the Bible to preach hate or to deny love and affection to others has failed as both a lover of the Bible and a person of faith.” [Emphasis added.]

    WHAT GROSS DECEPTION!!!

    “As the present day confusion and misunderstanding of the Scriptures among Christendom is proven by the multiplicity of sects, it is evident that the churches are in the Laodicean state: “Wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked.” And by denying the charge of this plain statement proves the words of the “True Witness” correct, “and knowest not.” While they think they are right, the “True Witness” declares: “Thou art all wrong.” What greater deception than this? (Read Rev. 3:14-18.) Since the Bible plainly says that it is the “truth” that shall make us “free,” we can not too closely examine ourselves and the things we believe, for if no two of this multi-sectarian Christianity believe alike, it is evident that most, if not all, are blind. And as the Bible is correct in the words: “If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch,” then it would be useless to dispute the truth — the world is headed for the “ditch.” Would not this indisputable statement arouse the professed people of God from their slumber and sleep? Past experiences prove that many will say, “It is not I.” Knowing that this deception would arise in the last days, God has devised this pictorial representation of the truth, by which He is able to enlighten His church and call out His people.”

    “While the enemy has succeeded in confusing the written Word, God lightens the earth with His glory by these symbolic revelations; and by which He discloses the entire truth and uncovers the traps of the devil! Thus through types and symbols He makes wise the simple and confounds the prudent by showing that where there is no type there is no truth.”

    In What Manner Were The Scriptures Given? The Way God Speaks To Us

    “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.” (Heb. 1:1.) God called Abraham by His voice. He also conversed with him through angels, dreams. (Gen. 12:1; 15:12, 13;17:1-6; 18:1-22.) Jacob had the same experience. (See Gen. 28:12; 32:1, 2.) The great I AM spoke to His servant Moses from the burning bush. (Ex. 3:1-10.) Israel heard the voice of God from the cloud on mount Sinai. (Ex. 20:18, 19.) The ten commandments were “written with the finger of God.” (Ex. 31:18.) Pharaoh king of Egypt and Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon were given dreams, but the Spirit of God, through Joseph and Daniel revealed the secrets. (Gen. 41:28-36; Dan. 2:19.) David and Solomon wrote the Psalms and Proverbs, not by visions, dreams or angels, but by the silent voice of the Spirit of God imprinted in the minds of His servants. God spoke to Esther and Ruth by experiences through divine providence. John received the “Revelation” by visions. God speaks to us also by types and anti-types — through the ceremonial law, by the patriarchs, and by the experiences of ancient Israel. (See Shepherd’s Rod, Vol. 1, pp. 223-235.)

    God used the dead and the living, the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fish of the sea, the land and water, sun, moon, and stars, to reveal His divine plan and to sustain His servants, etc. (See Gen. 16:7, 9; 1 Sam. 6:7-15; Num. 22:30; 1 Kings 17:4-6; Jonah 2:10; Matt. 17:27; Num. 16:32; Matt. 24:29.) God has a thousand ways whereby He can render help in a moment. Truly, what more could divine love do for fallen human beings?

    How Are The Scriptures Revealed, And Properly Interpreted?

    “Analysis of ancient and modern history, both sacred and secular, prove that sealed, or prophetic truth has never been revealed through the educational system of the world, or by the wisdom of man, but only by the power of God. If anything is true, it is this one thing. Said Jesus: “When He, the Spirit of Truth, is Come, He will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13.) Christ plainly declares, that we are led into truth, not by wisdom of man but by the Spirit of God. Not into some truth, but in all truth.”

    “When God reveals truth, He is able to lead His servants in all truth, and does not allow such instruments to mix His truth with error. Though they may not understand all, yet the message they bear is the truth and nothing but the truth. Therefore, such truths are originally revealed by inspiration only. When the time divinely appointed is fulfilled, then God calls servants of His own choice, and by the Spirit of Truth reveals a portion of His Word to them. Usually in the form of a message which they must first bear to the church.”

    “By the same power God moved upon His numerous servants, the prophets, each writing a portion of the Bible, and when compiled it made a complete book, dealing with one main subject — salvation in Christ. Though some of these writers lived hundreds of years apart, yet each portion of Scripture perfectly harmonizes, – one throwing light upon another. Thus it proves that God was the overseer of the Scriptures and skillfully led His servants in all truth.”

    Sin Against The Holy Ghost, What Is It?

    “As the Bible is free from error, even so its interpretation under the same Spirit of Inspiration must also be correct. Therefore, the interpretation of the Bible is true, only when it is revealed through a channel of inspiration. In no other way can God lead His people in all truth. Anything less than this cannot disclose Biblical truth, regardless of its simplicity. Said the Angel to Daniel. “But I will shew thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.” (Dan. 10:21.) One of the gifts for the church in the Christian dispensation, is “prophets.” “And he gave some, apostles; and some prophets.” (Eph. 4:11.)

    “Paul, again declares of the Scriptures in his time and afterwards: “Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit.” (Eph. 3:5.) When the truth of the Scriptures is presented by God’s servants, “the letter” can be understood by all who study it; but the same spirit is required to seal, change the heart, and direct the steps in newness of life. This transforming power is granted only as the receiver of the truth humbly repents from sin, renounces the world and accepts Christ. When such a message is presented, those who oppose the messenger and resist the truth, reject the Spirit, and sin against Him. The Spirit in a message is the only medium to awaken the conscience. When rebelled against, the sinner cuts himself off from the channel through which God communicates.”

    “Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.” (Matt. 12:31, 32.)

    “The antediluvian world sinned against the Holy Ghost, because they believed not in the message of truth sent to save them from the dreadful flood. Therefore, they perished under sin that shall never be forgiven them. The same is true when one revolts against the divine message in any generation. Men are not condemned because they have sinned, but they are condemned when they turn a deaf ear to the divine call that is to save them from their sin.”

    “As all prophetic truths are timely revealed, it is evident that there can be nothing disclosed by the wisdom of man, no matter how simple it may be. When God reveals a portion of His holy Word through one of His chosen instruments, analysis of history prove that they are never erring as far as the message they deliver is concerned. It is also true that those who erred in their supposed message of truth, have had no truth. So the great apostle says: “But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Cor. 2:10-14.) Therefore, when a message is proclaimed, it is either all truth or there is no truth in it, save the quotations of the prophets.”


  58. @ BMcDonald

    I appreciate your sentiments…

    It’s NOT* difficult to stay on MESSAGE*…. somebody has got to!!!

    Brother, I have a reverential FEAR* for GOD* for it is HIM* I have to answer to – not MAN!!!

    We have succeeded in taking God out of SCIENCE*; out of RELIGION*; out of the hallowed halls of learning; out of the sacred COVENANT* of marriage; out of our ECONOMICS* (yet we are bold enough to say -“IN GOD WE TRUST”, what a JOKE*); we have taken GOD* out of homes, families, pursuits, pleasures – need I go on???

    I don’t think I have to – it’s crystal clear!!!


  59. @ DAVID

    “In response to Morris’ assertion whether you agree with him or not the question must be answered: Why the righteous indignation by our ‘Christian’ society when by the majority of our actions (for all to see) we engage in premarital sex as if it were a stroll in the park on a Sunday afternoon?”

    SO BECAUSE A MAN IN A FROCK* HOLDS A SUPPOSED RELIGIOUS OPINION – DOES THAT MAKE IT CORRECT*** ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE BASIS OF THE INHERENT VIRTUE & NATURE OF THE SCRIPTURAL “TEXT” WHICH SAYS OTHERWISE?

    So-called good, well-meaning, DELUDED* Christians supported “SLAVERY” – did that make it “RIGHT”?

    Those “QUAKERS” who saw the “EVIL” in that malevolent institution could NOT* side with it regardless of how much “MIS-INTERPRETATION” of Scripture the justifiers brought…. They knew that the “PLAIN” testimony said it was wrong for no man ought to have been a slave to any man (though it existed since time immemorial and all nations, “RACES” (if you can keep up), groups and peoples have at one time or another been subjected to the “TYRANNY” of slavery…

    There are a lot of things the BIBLE* appears* “SILENT” on especially within our pastmodern world condition however, that “INNATE MORAL CODE” which ALL*** men possess knows beyond any shadow of a doubt, what is RIGHT* and what is “WRONG”….

    So it is for us to choose!!! In the end, our “CHOICES” will “JUDGE” us…

    There’s no GUN* at anybody’s head!!!


  60. Any man who claims to be a man of God should never be respected as a man of God! He has to first earn the respect as a man and not as a man of God! Too many don robes and symbols and call themselves God men then go around abusing people with their brand of hogwash called religion.


  61. There’s no GUN* at anybody’s head!!!

    You could have fooled me TB !!
    Then when are you and others of your ilk so rabid when dealing with those who doesnt share your views?

    Come again……


  62. islandgal
    I hear a reverend on CBC bout two Fridays ago saying dat God is responsible for everything dat happens. He allows evryting to happen. Dat is scary especially when i tink bout lil chil’ren who are sexually abused.Why would a loving God allow dis to happen? Dese christian teachings n beliefs could be real scary at times.


  63. Bonny when ignorant and irresponsible people who call themselves men of God utter nonsense like this it makes you wonder. If you listen to what they are saying most of the time they want you to believe in something that makes no sense at all and they call it faith. I can only go by the commonsense that I was born with. If it makes no sense to me in the simplest of language then it is nonsense. These people have given god a face and a sex like AC stated and have idolized a man. When I was growing up and discovering religion, I understood that God was the father. Then one day I heard that Jesus is God now. And this Jesus worship has become so nauseating that it makes me want to scream how stupid people have become. They are clutching at anything and anyone who some preacher tells them who God is. They read long scriptures that makes no sense sending most people to sleep and feel that they have done a fantastic job reading verses form the Bible, verses that say one thing and then in another contradicts it in another verse. All I can say you have to go with your conscience and deep down we know what is right and what is wrong.


  64. Bonny Peppa | May 25, 2011 at 3:27 PM |
    islandgal
    I hear a reverend on CBC bout two Fridays ago saying dat God is responsible for everything dat happens. He allows evryting to happen. Dat is scary especially when i tink bout lil chil’ren who are sexually abused.Why would a loving God allow dis to happen? Dese christian teachings n beliefs could be real scary at times.

    But Bonny if I am standing over you watching every move that you make,and is able to manipulate and control your actions, like a puppet on a string, then I am responsible for anything that you do.


  65. What still amazes me is how learned men (Zoe and TB for instance) seem to be but yet still can’t agree on the Sabbath.
    Learned men who are always berating others for not being able to think critically.
    There is one truth, one word but for centuries it has eluded them all. Every denomination claims it as theirs.
    How then can those who are looking on hoping for guidance, even know where to start.
    The average person now sees Christianity as a joke, where Christians are more lost and confused than the sinners they like to berate……but of course, they will try hard, never to let us see this, they will continue to wax lyrical and sound intelligent.
    I am not fooled!!


  66. @ Colonel Buggy…..

    But Bonny if I am standing over you watching every move that you make,and is able to manipulate and control your actions, like a puppet on a string, then I am responsible for anything that you do.

    Then where is the free will and choice that the Christians say we have as human beings?
    Why then, are they consequences like Hell and Brimstone etc?
    Shouldn’t the puppet master be blamed for ALL our actions?
    Looks like we are just following a script from beginning to end ……how boring this must be to the audience.


  67. @Techy: “Looks like we are just following a script from beginning to end ……how boring this must be to the audience.

    Calm yourself, superstar.

    Who do you think you are? (ROFLMAO…)


  68. Colonel buggy
    But i undastan dat de devil/satan got power too, so I mo incline ta tink dat he responsibl fa de ‘ills’ a dis worl. why would a lovin God allow innocent lil chil’ren ta suffa or a fella ta rob a po ol lady n bus she head wid a brick or bat n udda senseless killings? Sumting missin hay man. Dem tell me dat He is a loving God not a terroris. I gun hah fa ask de goodly Godly Rev Morris ta xplain sum a dese happenins fa me. I hope he doan tell me dat God responsibl fa evryting too. I would really be real confuse now fa tru.

    Technician
    I does wonda too, why create ‘bad n evil’ if ya did want me ta be ‘good’? Why mek me choose? Why should He create ‘bad’, den tell me dat i got a choice? Dah doan sound fair ta me man. Looka, I even mo confuse now.

    Rev. Morrissssssssss
    Helppppppppppp.


  69. Christopher Halsall | May 25, 2011 at 6:38 PM |

    @Techy: “Looks like we are just following a script from beginning to end ……how boring this must be to the audience.

    Calm yourself, superstar.

    Who do you think you are? (ROFLMAO…)

    Sometimes I have to wonder that also 😉


  70. @Bonny
    The books of Joshua and Judges are filled with massacres in the name of the Lord. In one instance, the supposedly order from on High, was to invade and kill the enemy soldiers, plus every man woman,child,sheep goat ox and ass.
    Today Joshua and all of those other cold blooded Generals have a right hand seat in Heaven, and not a fiery bench in Hell.


  71. Author Lori Jones Gibbs Joins President Obama In Supporting Strong Black Men, Positive Black Marriage and Fatherhood…

    Gibbs is the author of a highly acclaimed book entitled “Yes, I Would Marry Him Again: Wives Salute Their African American Husbands”…

    Washington, DC (May 26, 2011) – Answering the call from President Obama’s “Responsible Fathers and Strong Communities” initiative, author Lori Jones Gibbs, through her highly acclaimed book, Yes, I Would Marry Him Again: Wives Salute Their African American Husbands, has created a national conversation about the many “Do Right” black men in America today.

    “I wrote this book because I had never come across a book that served as a tribute to husbands, especially African-American husbands. I believe now is the time to recognize our strong black men. They are our fathers, brothers, sons, uncles and nephews. They are the foundation of the family, for it is from strong marriages that solid families are built,” Gibbs says.

    For these reasons, Mrs. Gibbs implemented the Author Gives Back Program where she donates up to 25% of the proceeds from book signings to non-profit organizations that work to encourage personal responsibility and strengthen our nation’s families by providing mentoring and support for men and families in vulnerable communities.

    About the Book

    Yes, I Would Marry Him Again is a compilation of moving tributes to strong black men who love their wives and take care of their families. Countering the many negative assumptions about black men as absentee husbands and fathers, these salutes highlight the constructive and essential roles Black men across the country play in the lives of their families and communities.

    In addition to the over 30 tributes from women including world-renown Gospel artist & Pastor Shirley Caesar, this book explores the “Keys to the Marriage Covenant” (“The Three C’s: Communication, Companionship and Compatibility”). There’s also a special section inviting women to add their own pictures and “Salutes” to recognize the special someone in their lives, transforming Yes, I Would Marry Him Again into the ultimate Father’s Day, Anniversary, Birthday or as a Just Because gift. This book demonstrates why love and marriage matter.

    Order online in celebration of Strong Black Men in your life at http://www.yesiwouldmarryhimagain.com or http://www.amazon.com

    Lori Jones Gibbs is a Vice President with a major financial services company. She is also a member of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. A Graduate of the University of Connecticut, Mrs. Jones Gibbs holds a Masters Degree from the University of Bridgeport. She is the co-author of YES, You’re Approved! The Real Deal About Getting A Mortgage and Buying a Home and the forthcoming book, YES, You Can Have More Money Than Month.

    Mrs. Jones Gibbs is a member of First Calvary Baptist Church located in Durham, NC. She is married and has three adult children.

    SEE MORE:

    http://www.yesiwouldmarryhimagain.com/ljg/


  72. @Bonny Peppa | May 16, 2011 at 9:05 PM |
    “… I wid you. Hummuch peeple would go in town n buy a pair a shoes widout firs trying dem on ta mek sure dem tru ta size?”?

    what a stupid comment. has anyone ever NOT married someone because they had sex with them and did not like it? stupesssssss


  73. my husband and i were together for 2 years before we got married, no sex involved and after all this time, still no regrets.. after being married for many years, u realize that sex is not the pivotal ingredient to keep a marriage together, therefore it should not be the pivotal ingredient for deciding marriage. no one has ever married because the sex is good, bad or indifferent. ask any mature adult and see what they say. 1:cor. 6: 16. says that he who sins sexually , sins against his own body and that we should keep our bodies as God’s temple. either you accept God’s word as it is, or leave it alone but don’t come to talk what you have practiced and try to make other’s believed it is gospel, it’s wrong


  74. @islandgal246 | May 24, 2011 at 4:50 PM |

    u are right. God never talked about religion, he spoke about building a relationship with him. people always try to say, if u are a christian, u must worship on a particular day, you cannot eat such and such, u must give 10% of ur savings, u must have ur head covered (women), women must be silent in the church of God. stupesss. and all Jesus said was love ur neighbour as yourself, God said call NOTHING that he has created unclean. God said “one man calls one day holy, another calls everyday holy. He said work out your own salvation. the word religion has been tarnished and abused. what we should be doing, is simply maintaining a relationship with someone we cannot see. just as we build relationships with our fathers, mothers, etc so we do with God. as ur relationship develops, so does ur ability to recognize when he’s speaking to u, simple. no fuss. i hate the word religion… i love the word ‘relationship’


  75. smooth chocolate
    you always oppose ta me. de goodly Godly Rev. Morris mek de comment bout de shoes befo me but you comin ta crucify me. What de fcuk I got fa you?
    And i kno persons dat phoop befo dem marrid n still togetha n i also kno persons dat phoop only afta dem marrid n still brek up. so what is your point?

    how many of you so called sanctimonious klowns a.k.a. ‘christians’ practise the teachings of the good book? How many of you honestly love your brotha as you love yourself? I was sick n you didn’t visit me, i was hungry n you didn’t feed me, I was naked n you didn’t clothe me, I was homeless n you didn’t give one ass.
    It is ok for you to rattle off chapter n verse from the “Book” but all of you are guilty as charged. Wunna doan even like ta speak ta people dat doan ga chu’ch wid wunna. Bunch a shoite-hounds like wunna. Gimma a break do.

    So address your comments to de goodly Godly Rev. Morris not me , sista.


  76. *smooth chocolate u must give 10% of ur savings”

    Actually you should give 10% of your EARNINGS, not of your savings.

    Big, big difference.

    HUGE difference.


  77. @smooth chocolate who wrote “after being married for many years” “and after all this time, still no regrets”

    and what is a saintly happily married woman doing blogging with us sinners and fornicators in thoughts (some) and deeds (others)?

Leave a comment, join the discussion.