As a Christian, is it better to be gay or to be intolerant?

[Bourne20]

I'm more looking for a Christian perspective on this, but everyone is welcome to answer.

Assuming a person HAD to do one of the following options, which would be worse:
1. Being gay, as in, regularly participating in homosexual activity
or
2. Discriminating against gay people regularly (defined below)

Which is a greater sin? Which is more moral or ethical? What do you think Jesus would say?


To define #2 a little more, by "discriminate against gays" I mean one of four severity levels:
1. Calling them by derogatory names and mocking them (in front them and/or their family)
2. Telling them they are committing a sin and/or are going to hell unless they change (not as a mockery, but serious)
3. Taking (non-violent) action against them, such as firing them based on sexuality
4. Taking violent action against them, or encouraging others to do so

Your can answer can take one or more (preferably all) discrimination levels into consideration.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone!

[Choir Loft]

[quote="Darias"]

Not everyone has the willpower or the desire to remain celibate for the rest of their lives. I want to find a woman, fall in love, and have a family -- without someone else telling me I don't have the right to marry or that I am not human because I love a woman.

In the EXACT same way, most gays desire the same thing, except with the same sex rather than the opposite.

It is cruel to say no, you can't ever see or think or touch the one you love because some god said something in some ancient book. Your proposition is not that of liberty, but slavery.


Liberty is opposite to slavery. In this case the Bible talks about slavery to the flesh - being tossed here and there by one's appetites. The ONLY way to de-rail the process is to stop it completely.

Celibacy is not cruel. It's liberating and for all the reasons I've stated earlier.

Willpower is another matter altogether. It rests firmly upon the determination of the individual and its performance depends upon how badly that person wants to be free and to obey God.

An alcoholic, for example, is said to be born with an innate disability. Such a person cannot consume alcohol in a socially acceptable manner. In fact, the sufferer can ruin his life, the lives of his relatives and co-workes and ultimately his own. Alcoholism is destructive and must be cut off at the root. Those who realize they've got a problem and want to be rid of it have only one real alternative - total abstinence. It is not easy and it is not something that can be done in a day. It is forever - or at least as long as the alcoholic lives. Drinking must stop. Period.

The same is true for the homosexual. The life style, the desires and the act must be halted permanently. The urges remain to some extent and never leave, but must be constantly and continually repressed and resisted. Modern society only recognizes half the issue - that it is a birth defect. Society does not recognize the treatment - abstinence.

The failure of society to recognize and insist upon the treatment for the gay life style is because society itself has become riddled with its own wickedness; gambling, perversions of (hetero) sex, political debauchery, violence of all sorts and so on. NO ONE is willing to punish the wrong - any wrong - and so any sexual disfunction becomes acceptable.

Finally, it must be said that nothing has ever been written in God's Word forbidding love between people. The SEX ACT is forbidden. Unfortunately as we all know, petting and too much meditation about the loved one can result in sin. One thing leads to another as they say - and the act is done. One must control one's thoughts too, for the seed bed of the mind is where the harvest of sin begins to take root.

The bottom line is God. If one wishes to know God and to enjoy His blessings both here and hereafter, then one must make certain sacrifices. All men give up something dear to them. Gays are not being separated as having some issue that sets them apart from everyone else. If being gay is one's cross, then one is expected to bear it. All Christians have one to carry through life. The big deal is that the knowledge and love of God is worth it......and then some.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Bourne20]

@Darias: Thank you for your responses. Good dialogue with very thought-provoking points.

@RichardP: Thanks for your participation. While I don't agree with many of your views, you are certainly fervent in your beliefs.

You wrote,

"The failure of society to recognize and insist upon the treatment for the gay life style is because society itself has become riddled with its own wickedness; gambling, perversions of (hetero) sex, political debauchery, violence of all sorts and so on. NO ONE is willing to punish the wrong - any wrong - and so any sexual disfunction becomes acceptable."

Are you suggesting society should try to treat gays? Forbid them from such acts? How do you react to this verse:

"They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?� They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?�

“No one, sir,� she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,� Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.�" -John 8:4-11 (NIV)

Would you have us condemn a person for homosexuality? In the old testament (the Law), the penalty for adultery was death. Homosexuality was similarly "sexually immoral" and also punishable by death. Jesus said that divorce (Matthew 19:9) as well as lusting after a woman was the same as adultery (Matthew 5:28). Should we prohibit these acts to?

Of course society needs to prohibit acts of stealing and violence (duh). Outside of that, I would suggest leaving the judgement to God.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." -Matthew 7:1-5

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;" -Luke 6:37

Please consider the following verse:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" - Matthew 25:31-40 (NIV)

In this verse, Jesus appears to describe God's judgement of the people. Tell me, in this verse did he say,

"I was gay, and you made me straight."

or even "I had sinned, and you told me I was wrong,"

No, Jesus did not say this. But why? If Jesus wanted us to condemn people for being gay, he would have told us. If Jesus wanted us to CHANGE people who were gay, he would have told us.

What Jesus described in this verse is LOVE. Feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick, housing the homeless, this is how Jesus describes love. Jesus did not say that condemning people or slamming people is love. John wrote:

"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

...

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. 17 This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. 18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

19 We love because he first loved us. 20 Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. 21 And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister." -1 John 4 (NIV)

[Nickman]

I'm more looking for a Christian perspective on this, but everyone is welcome to answer.

Assuming a person HAD to do one of the following options, which would be worse:
1. Being gay, as in, regularly participating in homosexual activity
or
2. Discriminating against gay people regularly (defined below)

Which is a greater sin? Which is more moral or ethical? What do you think Jesus would say?


To define #2 a little more, by "discriminate against gays" I mean one of four severity levels:
1. Calling them by derogatory names and mocking them (in front them and/or their family)
2. Telling them they are committing a sin and/or are going to hell unless they change (not as a mockery, but serious)
3. Taking (non-violent) action against them, such as firing them based on sexuality
4. Taking violent action against them, or encouraging others to do so

Your can answer can take one or more (preferably all) discrimination levels into consideration.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone!

Since I am not homosexual (don't see anything wrong with it), I think it would be worse for me personally to have homosexual intercourse, because that would not be who I am. The other option would be bad as well because I am not the type of person who does such derogatory things. As an atheist (this is for christians I know) both would be horrible to me.

[Choir Loft]

@Darias: Thank you for your responses. Good dialogue with very thought-provoking points.

@RichardP: Thanks for your participation. While I don't agree with many of your views, you are certainly fervent in your beliefs.

You wrote,

"The failure of society to recognize and insist upon the treatment for the gay life style is because society itself has become riddled with its own wickedness; gambling, perversions of (hetero) sex, political debauchery, violence of all sorts and so on. NO ONE is willing to punish the wrong - any wrong - and so any sexual disfunction becomes acceptable."

Are you suggesting society should try to treat gays? Forbid them from such acts? How do you react to this verse:

"They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?� They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?�

“No one, sir,� she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,� Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.�" -John 8:4-11 (NIV)

The passage you quoted is often employed by those who wish to justify their sin.
They really don't care a twit about God's opinion or how justification really works, they simply want an out.

But those who truly want to know the mind of God consider the entire passage, including the last line above which states "go and leave your life of sin" or "go and sin no more" as in other translations.

The principle of judgment is mingled with mercy, something that mankind has yet to understand. We can split the atom, fly to the moon and scour the surface of Mars for souvenirs, but as a society we still do not understand the heart and purpose of God. It's plainly written in the adultery story you quoted.

God is a righteous god and has revealed to us those actions which are sinful; adultery, robbery, lying, homosexuality, etc. God has also revealed to us His willingness to be the ultimate arbiter of forgiveness. If God forgives us a sin then man cannot condemn.

The caveat here is that the individual is cautioned to cease and desist from ANY FURTHER SINS be they acts of sin, encouraging others to sin or even thinking about sin. It must entirely stop for mercy to be dispensed.

"Therefore, son of man, say to your countrymen, 'The righteousness of the righteous man will not save him when he disobeys, and the wickedness of the wicked man will not cause him to fall when he turns from it. The righteous man, if he sins, will not be allowed to live because of his former righteousness.'
Ezekiel 33:12

The bottom line here is that all manner of sins can be forgiven, but he who is forgiven is REQUIRED to STOP IT! On the day he returns to his sin, all the forgiveness and all his good deeds will be forgotten. It will be worse for him afterwards than it was before.

Forgiveness is never a license to sin.

You also wrote the question
Would you have us condemn a person for homosexuality?

What do you mean by condemn? Social ostracism? Legal penalty? Spiritual damnation?

Those who seek to follow God's revealed law are required to DO the first two; ostracism and legal penalty. No man has authority for the last item - spiritual damnation for that is a matter for He who holds the keys to eternity to decide. And He always decides well.


“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;"
-Luke 6:37

The above is the favorite verse of those who wish to justify their own debauchery by means of the Bible. They do themselves a disservice for that is not the intent of the verse.

Forgiveness removes the taint of sin, but before and after the fact a man must sincerely desire to STOP SINNING. Otherwise the forgiveness is inoperative, the blood of Christ does not cover those who crucify Christ a second time by their acts of wickedness.

You also asked;
If Jesus wanted us to CHANGE people who were gay, he would have told us.
No man can 'change' the heart of another. A man's heart is what it is. Jesus alone can change a man's heart. The process is discussed in great detail in the Pauline letters, but when Jesus was asked about this His one line reply was simply "a man must be born again."

The man Nicodemus, who asked the question, continued by stating that no man could do that to which Jesus replied that all things were possible for Our Father in Heaven.

You ended your post by saying, "What Jesus described in this verse is LOVE."

If a man truly wishes to understand the heart and mind of God, He must understand that above all else God loves righteousness. For if He did not spare His own son from the cross for the sake of sin, neither will He spare any man.

The insistence upon love as the sole arbiter of divine forgiveness and the only criteria for a just society is erroneous. Love alone means nothing. The love is God is much. God's love does not and never shall be construed as a license for sin. Quite the contrary, it is the bedrock for righteousness.

LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW.

If a man loves Jesus, he will naturally do as the law commands.
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. It is an abomination."
- Leviticus 18:22

Again, the love of God within a man will cause him to naturally obey that law and remain spotless in the eyes of the judge of us all. It is the fulfillment of the law, not an exception to it.

God's primary concern is for righteousness, NOT that at the end of the day a good time will have been had by all. The way of selfish desire is the way of destruction and death.

Today when you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.
- Psalm 95:7

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft....

[Nickman]

@Darias: Thank you for your responses. Good dialogue with very thought-provoking points.

@RichardP: Thanks for your participation. While I don't agree with many of your views, you are certainly fervent in your beliefs.

You wrote,

"The failure of society to recognize and insist upon the treatment for the gay life style is because society itself has become riddled with its own wickedness; gambling, perversions of (hetero) sex, political debauchery, violence of all sorts and so on. NO ONE is willing to punish the wrong - any wrong - and so any sexual disfunction becomes acceptable."

Are you suggesting society should try to treat gays? Forbid them from such acts? How do you react to this verse:

"They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?� They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.� Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?�

“No one, sir,� she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,� Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.�" -John 8:4-11 (NIV)

The passage you quoted is often employed by those who wish to justify their sin.
They really don't care a twit about God's opinion or how justification really works, they simply want an out.

The problem with this passage in John is that it is not in our earliest manuscripts P66 and P75 as well as codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This throws doubt on the idea that these words were even part of Jesus' sayings. We don't see the story of the adulterous woman until a mention by Eusebius who is a known forgerer. So how can anyone justify sin by a verse that isn't even authentic? If this is not a par t of the original message, then what does it matter?

[Bourne20]

@Nickman: Thanks for the input. Interesting, can you verify your claim about the story in John 8? That would change things.

@RichardP: Thanks again for your reply.

You wrote:

The passage you quoted is often employed by those who wish to justify their sin.
They really don't care a twit about God's opinion or how justification really works, they simply want an out.

But those who truly want to know the mind of God consider the entire passage, including the last line above which states "go and leave your life of sin" or "go and sin no more" as in other translations.

If I hadn't considered the last verse I wouldn't have included it in the quote. It is no secret that adultery (also homosexuality) is considered a sin in the bible. Jesus stuck with most the classification of old testament sins. The truth is, Jesus denied the pharisees to punish the adulteress on earth. Would you have us punish/prohibit homosexuals on earth?

Only the person without sin should punish them. The same does NOT go for abuse, stealing, and killing. These actions directly hurt others.

You wrote:

You also wrote the question
Would you have us condemn a person for homosexuality?

What do you mean by condemn? Social ostracism? Legal penalty? Spiritual damnation?

Those who seek to follow God's revealed law are required to DO the first two; ostracism and legal penalty. No man has authority for the last item - spiritual damnation for that is a matter for He who holds the keys to eternity to decide. And He always decides well.

So wait, are you saying to be good Christians, we MUST socially ostracize and legally penalize gays while on earth? Jesus sent away the pharisees for trying to do JUST THAT. Yes, homosexual activity may be a sin, but it is none of society's business to stop them. It is between them and God.

Please, tell me where in the bible we are told to socially ostracize those who sin. Prove that this is a philosophy of Christ.

You wrote:

“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;"
-Luke 6:37

The above is the favorite verse of those who wish to justify their own debauchery by means of the Bible. They do themselves a disservice for that is not the intent of the verse.

Forgiveness removes the taint of sin, but before and after the fact a man must sincerely desire to STOP SINNING. Otherwise the forgiveness is inoperative, the blood of Christ does not cover those who crucify Christ a second time by their acts of wickedness.

The above is the favorite explanation of those Christians who wish to justify their own prejudice and lack of Christ-like love. Tell me where in the bible does it says that those who would crucify Jesus twice would not be available to be forgiven? Jesus said on the cross, "Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing" (Luke 23:34). Jesus asked God to forgive them BEFORE they repented. Should we not do the same?

"And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." -Mark 11:25

"For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins." -Matthew 6:14-15

So, if a Christian does not forgive the sins of others, God will not forgive his sins. Mark writes that Jesus says if you hold ANYTHING against ANYONE, forgive him. Homosexual activity counts as ANYTHING, and a gay person counts as ANYONE.



You make the statement, "LOVE IS THE FULFILLMENT OF THE LAW."

I assume you get this thought from verses such as this:

He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." -John 14:21 (NKJ)

There are about 10 verses like it, mostly written by John. Each has the same basic idea, to love God you must keep the laws. However, these verses do not talk about how to love each other.

We've all heard these verses:

"35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?�

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[c] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[d] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.� -Matthew 22:35-40 (NIV)

So, to love God we must follow the Law. Jesus said the most important commandments of the law are firstly to love God (to the maximum) and secondly to love each other (Jesus says this is like the first commandment.)

So what is the law Jesus is talking about here? What are the commandments? Are they able to be summed up? Here is what Jesus said,

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." -Matthew 7:12

Hillel the elder, an ancient Jewish scholar, confirms this summary. The Chapter of Galatians also confirms this:

"The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." -Galatians 5:14

also Jesus said:
"This is my command: Love each other." - John 15:17

Jesus and many others say that THE LAW MEANS FOR US TO LOVE EACH OTHER. The Ten Commandments and the smaller commands (homosexuality, etc) just explain how to go about this love.

So to love God, we must follow the commandments. Which are the most important? To love God and to love others (according to Jesus).

Jesus said the rest hang on these 2 commands, therefore if these 2 aren't fulfilled, the rest don't matter. (If you disagree with this, find a verse to prove Jesus thought otherwise.)

So to love God we must love others. This is exemplified in many verses (I will post them upon request). But mainly, Jesus said the main idea of the law is to love others and the 2nd great commandment is to love others as yourself.

So how do we love others? Loving God is obeying his commands but what is loving others?

I believe that Jesus describes how we should love each other in Matthew 25:31-40. Jesus says, "truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’" Jesus doesn't leave much room for interpretation in this. He gives SPECIFIC examples of how to love, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison (comfort the law-breakers?), and helping the sick.

Jesus does not ever say that prohibiting people from private sexual sin is love. Jesus does not EVER say that slamming people for what they believe is love. Love (Greek agape) is to sacrifice oneself to help another, for their benefit not yours.

Jesus said,
"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends." -John 15:13

This is love.

I challenge you to post a verse, biblical evidence, that states that to love each other (Biblically) we must tell people they are more evil than everyone else (in need of social ostrization). Find a verse that states that to love each others we must prohibit homosexual activity. Don't find verses that talk about these things, find verses that support that these actions (prohibiting homosexual activity, etc) are of love for others.

I have provided you with many verses supporting my claims. Would you do the same?

[Choir Loft]

I challenge you to post a verse, biblical evidence, that states that to love each other (Biblically) we must tell people they are more evil than everyone else (in need of social ostrization). Find a verse that states that to love each others we must prohibit homosexual activity. Don't find verses that talk about these things, find verses that support that these actions (prohibiting homosexual activity, etc) are of love for others.

I have provided you with many verses supporting my claims. Would you do the same?

I see no purpose in using additional Bible verses as a tennis ball in a match game without a point!

You appear to be a learned person and have the ability to search previous posts to determine a Biblically based standard for my remarks. I've already done that and am convinced of no need for it. Instead I intend to reiterate what I've already written.

The issue, the real issue here isn't a theological one. It's the desire to corrupt the revealed will of God - that being to refrain from sin. In modern times the manipulation is to create a foundation for a license to sin. There is no scripture in the Bible to justify such an attitude or action before God.

The adultery case was an illustration made by Jesus Himself as to what God's attitude is and what His solution is - how He intends to deal with the issue.

Jesus didn't back off one dot from the issue of sin. What He demonstrated was that the punishment of death wasn't necessary - provided repentance, a sincere desire to turn away from sin, was demonstrated. The future for the accused was life - provided she continued to refrain from sin.

GOD'S LOVE IS NEVER UNQUALIFIED and IT IS NEVER LICENSE TO SIN.

There is always a caveat. The restriction is sin. Accept the truth that God hates sin, be truly sorry for behavior opposed to God's wishes and honestly sincerely approach God for forgiveness and it will be granted.

This is a hard thing to swallow because man tends to love to sin. It makes no difference what a man's private lust is for; gambling, alcoholism, sexual relations outside of marriage, worship of demons & the practice of black arts, the love of murder and violence (men in the pentagon are particularly guilty of this one) and the desire of a man to have something that doesn't belong to him are all examples we are familiar with. The sinner is perfectly fine with tasting the forbidden fruit. God is not - never has been.

Love is not a panacea for the problems of society. It is not a valid license for sin in anybody's book.

Assume if you will an adulterous situation between gay persons. Is love alone sufficient to salve the pain and personal devastation that results?
It is not.
Somewhere somehow the offending person must express true sorrow for his misdeed - and turn away from it. If not, the relationship will be destroyed.
Somewhere the one offended must find it in their heart to lose the pain it's caused them. If not, the relationship will be destroyed.

Sin is that which destroys the relationship between man and god. It is an offense and a sorrow that can never be healed by expressions of love or tolerance. Never.

God's view of sin is so violent and so firm that the only way He could 'loose it' was to punish Jesus upon the cross for sins He did not commit. Jesus died in our stead. His blood is shed so that the relationship with God may be restored. In religious theological terms its called redemption. Same thing, really.

The cross is the only way to forgiveness and we must bear our part - to turn away from sin. Love is always a two way street. Every single loving relationship is based upon that principle.

It is dangerous to fall into the hands of an angry God.

It is not Christians that the sinner needs to worry about. The wise man will make peace with God while he is able. He who sits upon the throne of judgment has made His standards clear. He will not be corrupted by clever reinterpretations of the Bible or by human standards of right and wrong or by empty expressions of and calls for love and tolerance. The only tolerance God demonstrates is for repentance and a true desire to live His way. God does not desire that anyone be punished or tormented, but neither will He stand by and wink at sin.

As a final thought, it should be noted that America has rejected all the above including the name and references to God and His standards of behavior between men and between nations. Judgment has begun and we see it in terrible natural disasters and human tragedy. Having rejected God, we no longer find Him present to grant us peace and safety.

This is the season for repentance and forgiveness granted in love - if only men will have it. Alas I fear it will not happen.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Nickman]

@Bourne

Here is a good highly sourced site

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Also P66, P75, and the codex translations I gave are also evidence that early manuscripts do not contain John 8.

[Choir Loft]

@Bourne

Here is a good highly sourced site

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Also P66, P75, and the codex translations I gave are also evidence that early manuscripts do not contain John 8.

Thank you for sharing this link.

Unfortunately the entire text of the link is a discussion on the validity of the canonical passage of the adultery scene in the gospel. While it provides an interesting perspective on the confusion of the authors of the critique, it contributes nothing to answering Mr. Bourne's question or to add or detract from my answer.

In fact, the link is a fair representative of the type of thing I wrestled with in seminary. Such discourse provides nothing in the way of interpretation or studied questioning. When someone asks what the passage means, the answer ISN'T "well I don't know if its really there". It's like the old joke about a traveler asking the directions to his destination and being told 'you can't get there from here.'

I suspect that the authors of your link shared a suite in the Hotel California.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

[Nickman]

@Bourne

Here is a good highly sourced site

http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Also P66, P75, and the codex translations I gave are also evidence that early manuscripts do not contain John 8.

Thank you for sharing this link.

Unfortunately the entire text of the link is a discussion on the validity of the canonical passage of the adultery scene in the gospel. While it provides an interesting perspective on the confusion of the authors of the critique, it contributes nothing to answering Mr. Bourne's question or to add or detract from my answer.

In fact, the link is a fair representative of the type of thing I wrestled with in seminary. Such discourse provides nothing in the way of interpretation or studied questioning. When someone asks what the passage means, the answer ISN'T "well I don't know if its really there". It's like the old joke about a traveler asking the directions to his destination and being told 'you can't get there from here.'

I suspect that the authors of your link shared a suite in the Hotel California.

but that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...

He didn't ask what the passage means and you seem to be the same person. Anyway, he asked for sources that the text was not found in the earliest manuscripts which would change everything. I provided such, whats the problem?