Goey

Only a fool would plant more seeds than he could tend to.

On the other hand, it is naive to think that a loving married couple can naturally control their sexual desires. Most folks just simply aren't that "spiritual".

It may sound good in theory, but in practice it is unrealistic. Kinda like expecting and demanding clergy to be unmarried and celibate. It denies natural human desires.

The RCC needs to get in touch with reality on this stuff.

Well, there are born-again or evangelical athesits, as well as the garden vatrieties. The former is consciously and continually aware of his atheism, and many times wears it kinda like a TWI name tag. When the topic of God, the bible, or anything spiritual come up, even within or among a group of theists, he usually feels the need to inject some kind of anti-theism into the conversation.

The garden variety atheist probably doesn't gives his atheism much thought at all. This kind of atheist wouldn't even know he was an atheist, except for the theists around him. This kind of atheist, wouldn't be interested at all, in for example, a doctrinal discussion among Christians.

When born-again, evangelical atheists harangue and hassle theists for their beliefs, atheism becomes a "religion" of anti-theism. When they organize, congregate and proselytize, it becomes even more of a religion.

By Free2love

I'm sorry; I don't really get your question or your point. …or as you put it, "I fail to see your reasoning here". "Somewhat responsible? You're kidding, right? Of course I hold them responsible. They lied. What's your point?

Nope, wasn't kidding at all. I'll try to help you get it.

Your dad died ( you didn't say how) and you hold the RCC responsible for his death. If not "somewhat" responsible, then you imply total responsibility. Because they "lied"?

It might be helpful if you said how your father died and what the lie or lies were that directly caused his death.

Of course there was/is a hierarchy in the "RCC". There *should be* no hierarchy imposed but, unfortunately, in most churches this is what we have, hence this is how most of us were raised and/or all we can find. The only one that rejects such a structure that I have heard of is the Quaker church. Apparently, while they have a healthy respect for their elders, when they meet for worship they sit silently and wait for God to move someone to speak… (rather than a minister) and it can be anyone, young or old… anyone. If no one speaks, they go home and that's it. No man has the right to act as the "head". You can make some kind of theological argument out of this but do you really think there should be some person to lord over you other than the true Lord, Jesus Christ?

I agree with you in principle on the hierarchy issue. I disagree with any kind of clergy/laity division within the "church". I have been studying that for quite a few years and have my own take on that. But I never said the RCC did not have an hierachy. IMO they have one of strictest and potentially abusive hierarchys in Christendom. But that was not my point at all.

You hold them (RCC) responsible for his death, because as you said,

This implies that the church, in this case the RCC, must repsonsibile for teaching the word of God perfectly and inerrantly, and that if they did, your father would have not have been "ignorant and defensless", and therefore would not have died.

If an organized church is to be responsible for teaching the Word perfectly, they must know it perfectly (no one does) and must also have the authority to teach it. For the church to have the authority, there must be an hierachy of some kind. But you say there is and should be no hierarchy.

Even if a church did teach the word perfectly, there is no guarantee that any particular person would accept and follow it unless obedience to that hierarchal authoruity was demanded and somehow guaranteed.

You also said,

If this is the case, then it cannot not the responsibility of any church or organized religious group to teach people out of their ignorance, but instead the responsibility of the believer himself. Does this not also apply to your father? -- (and to mine who commited suicide ?)

Which is it? Is a church or it's leaders ultimately responsible for what a person believes, or is it the believer himself? In regards to you dad you seem to be putting 100 percent of the onus upon the church, and for everyone else upon the beleiver himself.

That's my point.

Sogwap,

The problem is with how the software works, not because someone is actually logging in under you name.

I have seen it where others have supposedly been loigged in, but when I entered chat they were not there. At other times folks that were actually in chat were not shown as being there.

Again, it's a probem with the software, not with somone using your name.

Dumb?

It was hypothetical....

Next dumb comment ? ..... <_<

I've got to ask ....

If the content was along religious lines other than Evangelical Christian, would

it have received the same rating?

What if it had a strong Catholic content? Or a strong Buddhist content?

Or a strong agnostic or atheist content ?

All have the capacity to "offend" someone or another.

I suspect the movie got its rating mostly because it was Evangelical

Christian based, which is pretty much out of favor these days with the

Hollywood crowd and quite afew other.)

Gotta protect the kids from those nasty evangelicals you know... If the kids

see this movie, they may end up getting saved, born-again, praisin Jeeeesus

and looking for miracles. Discusting! .... Hey, let have more gay sitcoms for the kids to

watch why don't we?

Actually, I suspect that the rating process is not very objective, clearly defined , or applied fairly

across the board in regards to religious content.

Try a Google search for "coconut oil arthritis".

1-4 tbs of coconut oil daily might help you.

It is also extremely good for the immune system, having

excellent anitviral, and antimicrobal properties..

According to the Forums ...

This website is not sponsored, or endorsed by The Way International. That means that neither the organization nor its staff or employees support this web site via funds, or labor to produce its content, artwork and activities. Is not endorsed because there is no review or edit process by any staff member or employees of the Way International. That includes staff who serve on the field as well as staff at the headquarters in Ohio. You will not see Way International staff names on the site.

All persons who work on this site, are volunteers, who hold no position with The Way International. We are volunteers and participants in the teachings, fellowships, events and activities of The Way International which makes the familytables staff and users uniquely qualified to share the benefits and blessings of this ministry from a follower's point of view.

i find that what a lot of people call the voice of God, is their natural intuitive inward voice.

others even consider the imagery of their dreams to be the voice of God

and then a bunch of other reasons

but not everyone who uses that phrase is talking about some super elite direct message to them from a seperate being either

not everyone who uses that phrase is on some high and mighty head trip

(though it seems a common habit in all these new kinds of fundamentalism that are going on)

Todd, I agree.

The mind is a powerful and beautiful thing. It can gather & collect information, sort it, catalog it, analyze it, make conclusions and much more. This is done at several levels, and is not necessarily by consicous effort. Sometimes things seem to come together rather suddenly. This might be considered inspiration or even "revleation" by some folks. And from this could come the "God told me" or "God taught me". It may be a matter of prospective, or a matter of ignorance (for lack of a better word) of how the mind is able to work. I see this as one possible scenario in regards to "God told me".

but in general...i think that without first taking the time to find out what one actually means by "God" and "voice" and such

(and there are wide varieties of specifics)

we may not know what they are talking about in the first place

and they may not know what we are talking about

In some cases this may be true. However, in others it seems pretty clear what they are talking about. For example, "God told me" coming from someone who professes to be a Christian, and also speaks of the gifts/ manifestations, prophecy, holy spirit, etc, -- would imply divine revelation to me. On the other hand, "God told" me coming from a Roscrucian might take on a slightly different meaning.

human language, as it is being used now, can be way more flexible than we often seem to allow

and as much as we might like to agree upon specific definitions (for our own sanity and collective reasoning)

we must also realize that there are a multitude of kinds of inward dictionaries in use in each of us

Language can indeed be flexible, but allowing that flexibility should not disable us from being able to effectively communicate with each other. Take "God told" for example. In general, I think this kind of language basically comes from or is borrowed from a Christian subculture where it is very common. It is learned. Kinda like what we call "Wayspeak". Regardless of whether or not God is actually told anyone anything, within that subulture "God told me" is acceptable if not expected. Yet when used outside of that subculture the term is foreign, unintelligible and seemingly esoteric to those hearing it.

I would think then that the person using the esoteric term outside of its culture would understand that and would attempt to communicate in terms that could be more easily understood. Or at least attempt to explain a bit. However, it is possible that this may be the only way that person knows how to (or is willing to) communicate outside of their subculture.

Roy,

Although you have used the "God told me" saying from time to time, I don't want you to think that this thread is specifically about you. Others here have used it as well. And not only here at GS, but in general. From my observation it is fairly common among certain groups of Christians. I hear it on TV from some preachers.

My question is, why do people feel it necessary to say "God told me?". -- What is the purpose in that?

Is it to show others that they are on talking terms with God - to exalt themselves in a small way? -- Is it to make what they say more authoritive -- more believable? -- Is it an ego thing? -- Is it a cultural thing, a conversational style used within certain groups?

Is it really God directly talking to them? -- Or is it thoughts and ideas coming together inwardly?

Honestly, when someone say "God told me" I am LESS likely to accept what they are saying than if they just said it.

Abigail posted:

I can't "prove" God did or didn't tell another person something, so I see no point in commenting on it for the most part.

Exactly.... And the person saying "God told me" knows that it can't really be proven or disproven.

But being the smarta$$ person that I am, I am many times tempted to say "Well thats odd, God told me something quite different." -- Or ask them just exactly how God "told" them. Was it out loud? Did you see Him when He spoke?... Or in the worst case scenario I want to tell them, "God told you no such thing."

But usually, I just hold my peace.

What I suspect in some cases is that the person saying "God told me" is in effect saying - Don't challenge me on this, my mind is made up and I don't really want to know what anyone else thinks about it.

It sure puts an end to a discussion when someone plays the "God told me" trump card. If you see things differently from them- you are arguing with or disobeying God.

Sometimes people use the term "God told me" in conversations.

Sometimes it is in reference to biblical interpretation. For example, "God told me the this verse means xyz." Maybe that is how you understand it, maybe it is not.

Sometimes it is in reference to a personal situation. "God told me that this was the truck to buy." Or "God told me that I need to quit my job".

How do you respond when folks say "God told me" ?? -- Is God really talking to these folks as they say? And if He is, did He also tell them to anounce that He told them?

Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and [by] our gathering together unto him,

One may want to note the it's our gathering together and not the gathering together.

There is no the gathering together.

But for each person there is a gathering together.

And only once or more then once for this individual?

Dancing,

It seems to me that you are splitting hairs with language, specifically articles in the English, to make whatever point it is you are trying to make.

The use of "our" in regards to something does not necessarily preclude the

use of "the" in regards to that same thing.

For example: You and I could host a party for everyone at GS on July 1. We could

bill it as a the party of the year - a big hoopla. We could call it "our" party since

you and I put it together. --- Other GSer's when speaking among themselves

might also refer to it as "our" party, since is it for them. But they could also

legitimately refer to it as "the" party.

Q: What party?

A: The party for Gsers that Dancing and Goey put together.

There is no rule of language would prevent someone from asking another, "Hey are you going to the party?"

Does it ?

As I'm sure you know, Hosea says that God's own "are destroyed for lack of knowledge". It was a real breakthrough for me the day I first read that. It's absolutely true.

See, I'm the firstborn son of a devout Irish Catholic father who died when I was only 12yrs old. We'd never missed Sunday mass and naturally us kids all got our daily dose of mass and catechism in Catholic school which is all to say we were fully instructed and faithful (brainwashed) to the church because we loved and followed our dad. At the funeral the monsignor (head-honcho priest) came up to me and, looked down at me, put his hand on my shoulder and said "Son, it was God's will". The bad thing, the really sad thing is that I believed him. I bought it, hook line and sinker and, because I did, my response was to walk out of that church and never go back and to hate God and anyone who tried to talk to me about God. I guess you could say that was my first experience being misled by a cult. It also showed me a pattern, at least in hindsight. When a cult misleads you the true desired end is to turn you away from and, if possible, against God. It may look like they're after money or sex or power but pay it no mind for they "know not what they do". The true intent of the spirit that controls them is to turn your heart away from God.

(Lots of hairy stuff came after that, sex, drugs, rock and roll, blah, blah, blah and then…) When I first joined twi, 18 daredevil years later, I read that verse, among many others, including the first chapter of Job, and the answer came clear. a) I found out that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all and found out who really causes death and destruction and b) I found the reason my Catholic father died at the age of 41 was ignorance of the word of God because his church left him ignorant and defenseless.

Sorry about your dad. I have heard the "it was God's will thing" before, but it was from Protestants rather than Catholics, and then from individuals and not necessarily representatives of the Church itself. I don't pay much attention to that kind of stuff and didn't before, even as a kid. But I can see how it could make someone feel when coming from a priest. I lost my Dad to suicide when I was 19, and he was 49. It wasn't said, but I know that certain of his friends and relatives believed he was going to hell for it. One even paid a priest for a special prayer for him to keep him from going to hell. But I doubt there was anything that could been said that would have eased the pain for me then.

Anyway, it seems you are holding the church somewhat accountable for your father's death ...("the Church left him ignorant and defenseless"). I fail to see your reasoning here. If as you say, that we are all the church and there is no hierarchy, then how can you hold the RCC accountable? By holding the RCC accountable, you are implying that the RCC had the power and responsibililty to not leave him ignorant, which then suggest an hierarchy. Maybe you could share your reasoning on that.

Since I left twi God has taught me many more things they kind of skipped over or didn't know. One of the biggest things is as follows: First, you have to realize the basis of all paganism is all about benefiting yourself. Likewise, in the OT when the spiritless Israelites followed our Father, God, it was all about faith in what God would do for them and faithfulness to obey Him. i.e.: Faith was the issue.

As Mark pointed out in his post, What TWI taught and still teaches is what is known as Word-faith theology. This is the name it and claim it kind of faith (believing) that is supposed to get you fire engine red drapes, and a good parking spot at the mall.

I would draw a sharp distinction between "faith" and "word-faith theology". Faith is necessary and still a huge part of becoming and being a Christian.

Now, since Pentecost, things are different and all these faith-teaching churches like the ones many of us grew up in, twi, Joyce Meyer and that scary kid, Joel Osteen are all barking up the wrong tree because faith is no longer the issue. The spirit-filled believer has "the mind of Christ" and all the faith anyone could ever need and we don't need anyone to tell us how to believe, what to believe, that we're not believing or that we're believing wrongly. Another thing that's really important is that it's not all about getting stuff for your self. The main issue is this: Love. God is love and only those born of His spirit are capable of love because He dwells in them and works in them to will and to do of His good pleasure. Twi gave us a lot of the parts and pieces but then they soured the whole thing (made God's word of none effect) by teaching and making the main point out to be the "law of believing". They are wrong and, at least IMO, this is the first and foremost issue wherein they have led us wrong.

Again, I wouldn't write "faith" off completely. Although love is the greatest commandment and will never pass away, faith is also still neccesary. However, I will wholeheartedy agree that "word-faith theology" as taught by TWI, Joyce Meyers, Kenneth Copeland and a slew of others is dead wrong. It is leaven that leavens the whole lump IMO.

But something else to consider: Yes, they did lead us wrong, but we followed them didn't we?. We put our trust in them and what they taught didn't we? Didn't we choose to believe what they taught us? Yet the Bible and the Holy Spirit were right there with us all the time.

Also, you are saying that we don't need anyone to tell us what to believe or that we are believing wrongly, yet isn't that kind of what you are doing in this post? -- telling TWI, Joyce Meyers, Joel Osteen, etc and those that subscribe to their teachings that they are wrong? Just an observation. Personally, I see no problem with pointing out certain errors. Neither Jesus, nor Paul nor the other apostles had a problem with it.

God is not about making people rich. God is about teaching His people to love. Remember the teaching on "renewed mind"? Well, they talked about it in the context of 'metamorphing' into a being of enormous faith… e.g.: "the athlete of the spirit". They taught that if you renewed your mind you would see all the 'abundant life' results they said were available. That's just scripture-twisting, that's all. In the first place we do not renew our own mind, God does it! …and the true metamorphosis that takes place is changing from the hard-hearted, dog-eat-dog, watchin' out for #1 babe to 'perfect', (mature) loving, soft-hearted, grown children, walking with our Father in love, carrying out the ministry of reconciliation.

Pretty much agreed.

It's amazing how wonderful the word of God becomes when you take off the rose-colored twi "God wants you rich – positive thinking" glasses and read it for what it really says. There is no guarantee of financial success. All those verses they pointed out that they said were promising us anything and everything were either talking about reimbursing the resources we gave out in our walk of love or the tremendous miracle results God will bring to bare when we are ministering to His people in His name. This might be in a prestige job with a six-figure income or flipping burgers, on skid row or in prison. God will send you where He sends you. It makes no difference. The true treasure we have in these earthen vessels is love. Another little point twi neglected to teach us, well, me at least, is that little clause Jesus taught; To pray for "Thy will be done…". No, twi taught us all about focusing our camera, etc., so we could get what WE want. What about God's plan? What about what He wants?

Yup, as a result of our acceptance of the erroneous "law of believing" and the God wants your rich stuff -- many of us went to God with the solutions and answers instead of the questions. Many times, we were less than humble.

Loving your neighbor as yourself or loving God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength have both been cited as the new and/or greatest commandment but in John 15, a tremendous chapter containing Jesus' last instructions to His apostles, most of which they wouldn't even understand until Pentecost, we find this, the true new and greatest commandment:

"9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. 17 These things I command you, that ye love one another."

One of my favorite sections of scripture.

People get freaked out when I say "God works in me" or "God told me". I get freaked out that they don't. As I said in another thread, there is no hierarchy in the body of Christ. There is one Lord and then you. No other Lord over you, no 'father in the word'. That goes for all of us. Nothing more or less special about any of us. That stuff went out with the OT when only the prophets had the spirit and had to tell people what God had to say because he/she was the only one that could hear God. Now, of course, He is in all of us so hierarchy is no longer needed. He can move in or speak to any of us who are indwelt by His spirit.

This is the lack of knowledge I was talking about. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

I don't get "freaked out" when people tell me "God told me". I just usually take it with a grain of salt. I seldom give any weight to something when someone says "God told me". It seems to be quite common these days, with all the wannabe prophets going around contradicting each other with all the "God told me" stuff.

Some folks seem to use the "God told me" line when they want to close the discussion or when they want ot refuse any input or feedback from others. Personally, I think it sabotages the conversation most of the time when someone says that. If God truly told them something, passing it on is enough. If it is truly from God, those that have ears will hear. His sheep hear his voice and don't need to be told whose voice it is.

Nice Post

1. Take a verse out of context and apply it to something completely different.

2. Appy a modern meaning to an archaic English word.

3. Take a verse literal if that fits your preconcieved interpretation, if not then say its figurative.

4. Pick the translation that best fits what you already believe.

4. If all else fails, simply claim that GOD told you the interpretation.

From T-Bones Post:

…God is truthful and desires to reveal truth, both in the creation and in the written Word. He does not trick or deceive…[see, for example, Psalm 119:160; Isaiah 45:19; John 8:31,32; 10:35; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18; 11:6; I John 5:6]. Our view of creation must take God's character into account. Whatever objects of His creation we subject to scientific analysis will reveal their true age – provided the analysis is theoretically valid, correctly applied, and accurately interpreted. For created things to show a deceptive appearance of age would seem a direct violation of God's own stated character and purpose."

I don't subscribe to any particular theory on creation days. It doesn't matter to me. If anything I lean towards an old Earth. However I have heard this argument before -- that if the Earth were young, then God is somehow being deceptive and lying to us...

I think this is a very weak (and unnecessary) to support an old Earth view.

There are lots of mysteries that were hidden in the OT. If we subscribe to the theory above then God was deceptive in hiding it in the OT and by not laying it all out clearly.

Things on Earth past about 50,000 years old cannot be accurately carbon dated. Things past that are dated upon theories and guesses related to geological layers. Young-earth theorists argue that the layering occured due to a global flood within the past 10,000 years. The presumed "deception" according to them is not God's doing, but rather that of faulty science.

What about Adam and Eve? A natural reading of Genesis shows that Eve was made as an adult, with the appearance of age. But no matter, at whatever point in life she was made/ created, she would have had the "appearance of age". Even a baby has the apearance of age. So does a seed if you think about it.

Like I said, I dont subcribe to a young earth view, but the argument about God being deceptive if the earth is young - is totally bogus IMO.

Sudo,

Lol ...... That one sounds kinda like a Martindale teaching.

Click Here

Rather than look at where the English exactly corresponds, I would look at the where the original languages might corresspond. The Hebrew word for gathering together in Gen 1:10 and the Greek word in 2 Thess 2:1 are not synonymous. Also, the Greek word in the Seputagint for "gathering together" in Gen 1:10 does not correlate with the one in 1 Thes 2:1.

Brenton translates Genesis 1:10 from the Septuagint as:

My point is that only through a particular English translation is there an exact match in "gathering together" between Gen 1:10 and 1 Thess 2:1. This is not likely to take you very far in further understanding of either Gen 1:10 or 2 Thes 2:1

If you want to make comparisions, I would suggest looking at verses that use the same word in the same original language, and not necessarily where the English may exactly match by translational coincidence.

In 2 Thes 2:1 the Greek for gathering together is from episunagô . This word is used in various forms in the following verses.

2Th 2:1 Hbr 10:25 Mat 23:37 Mat 24:31 Mar 1:33 Mar 13:27 Luk 12:1 Luk 13:34

In Gen 1:10 the Hebrew word for gathering together is "miqveh" and is used in the following OTverses, but is only translated "gathering together" in Gen 1:10.

Gen 1:10 Exd 7:19 Lev 11:36 1Ki 10:28 1Ch 29:15 2Ch 1:16 Jer 14:8 Jer 17:13 Jer 50:7

Hi Mark,

While I am certainly not a "fundamentalist" in the strict sense of the term, I do like to explore these kinds of things from time to time.

Below are some fairly good links that touch on this. The first three are fundamentalist - literal 6 days. The last one treats it figuratively (where day mean age or aeon).

The best I can tell, one of the main arguments for the six days being literal 24 hour periods, is the use of the term "and the evening and the morninng". One writer argues that if a day was meant to mean an aeon of time, then why would the term "evening and morning" be used?

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=42

http://www.the-highway.com/creation_Gentry.html

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTAR114.htm

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/OT/sixday.htm

As for me, this is one of those things that seems insignificant in the whole scope of things, since one way or the other, it does not really affect my faith.

Personally, I think the writer of Genesis was probably more concerned with showing God as the Creator and life-giver, than trying to establish the exact time frame in which the universe was created.

When we are looking at another thread we see that people are deciding that Dr.Wierwille is or is not a apostle, but my opinion is that if we look at the definition of lord and of apostle in the dictionary we shall find out which is tue.

Lord-

3. powerful man: a man who has considerable power, authority, or influence over others, e.g. a business tycoon

4. master: a master, ruler, or head of a household, or a woman's husband regarded as her master (archaic)

Now if we look at the 4th definition of Lord it shows us Master, when Dr.Wierwille was around he would have been the master of the teachings. Now let us look at the 3rd where it says the man has a influence over others.

Now I know and you should to that he had a pretty large following. So if he is not a apostle, which the meaning is

Apostle-

1.promoter of idea or cause: somebody who tries to persuade others to share an idea or cause

an apostle of free trade

2. prominent Christian missionary: a prominent Christian missionary, especially one who is responsible for first converting a people

So Dr.Wierwille's title should be Lord Dr.Wierwille an apostle. These two different definitions show that both of them apply to him.

CK

How silly.

The definition above for "Lord" could be applied to nearly anyone who was in a position of authority. Employers, coaches, cops, drug lords, etc. Problem here is that "Lord" is an archaic term and it pretty much limited to British aristocracy. It is not a title we use today with the exceptions of refering to God or Christ, or in regards to drug "lords". Catholics may use it, but I am not sure there.

In regards to apostle (#1). Mr. Wierewille was not a "prominent Christian missionary". He was not prominent in Christian circles nor with the general populace. His "prominence" was relegated to his own small following. Therefore only #2 could possibly apply.

"Apostle" (#2) from above could apply to anyone with an idea or cause that is being promoted. - like the latest illegal designer drug, or a new fangled weight loss program.

So what does this do for Mr. Wiereille?

In regards "lord" that puts him in the same category as any drug lord or mafia boss. In regards to apostle, in the same category, as any snake oil salesman.

CK, why not just call him God?

This is simple Yes Dr.Wierwille was a apostle

CK

Excellent response CK! You would make old Doc Vic proud.

I see you have really put your critical thinking skills to work once

again with that very well thought out response and explanation.

That's the thing Goey, to me it's not a deal breaker

Ok then, what is the deal maker? -- I mean what good evidence is there that is sufficient to suggest that Jesus was married and had kids?

Don't you think that if Jesus were married to Mary Magdelene or anyone else, that there would be at least a hint of it in the scriptures?

Why do you suppose that Jesus' wife and kids were not mentioned in Mark 6:3 but only his mother and siblings?

Don't you think that the early church fathers would have written at least something about it if Jesus had been married? Yet not a word along those lines.

What about church tradition? Nothing at all.

What we have is a few modern writers speculating on this, some gnostic writings that speak of Jesus realtionship with Mary Magdalene, and a couple of modern fiction novels. Yet no ancient writing, gnostic or otherwise says or claims that Jesus was married or had children. Nada. Nothing.

Yet some folks want to speculate that Jesus was married with children.

It seems to me that some folks just simply "want" Jesus to have been married and have kids, because it somehow makes him and more human.

NLL,

Not to worry. I think you just had a temporary lapse. Seems you identified it pretty quickly which is the main thing. However, I doubt leaving that church and running for the door is the solution, since that church does not seem to be the actual problem. Your description makes it seem like a pretty good church.

Waybrain? Could be ... But maybe it is just something within yourself that needs to be addressed. Spiritual highmindedness maybe? That is not unique to TWI, it happens to a lot of us Christians at times no matter where we attend church or felloswhips.

Remember, it is only through Christ and what he accomplished that any of us Christians stand worthy before God.

Why not go back to that church and speak to the pastor? Tell him/her what happend - what you were thinking. Why you left. See what kind of feedback you get. If it is a good church they will probably be able to help you. I bet they are concerned and wondering what happend to you.