Really? You don't write like someone 67.

From what Bible College and year did you graduate?


Age nor a lifetime of study does not equate omniscience. We all are still learning.

You are turning this discussion into a personal attack.
Let's stick to the Bible. It's a source that we all recognize.

Stuart Shepherd

Oh well, you're welcome to research it further if you wish, or simply dispell my posts as irrelevant.  If you're interested in why I understand and interpret what Jesus said concerning MDR differently than you do then you can check out the following thread:
http://www.gracecentered.com/christian_forums/index.php/topic,20182.0.html  
There is no need to get into a debate on either MDR or specifically Mt.19; or you're welcome to discount my posts as irrelevant.

Concerning celibacy as a viable lifestyle, Jesus said that some choose to remain celibate for the sake of the Kingdom.  He notes this along with those who are born eunuchs and those who became eunuchs.  So He connects the choice of celibacy with being a physical eunuch, not with divorce.  Not only that, but in that context polygamy was accepted, so though a man divorced his wife he could have already had another wife.  And Jesus specifically said that He did not come to change the Law, not one letter of it.  But then we understand the immediate literary context significanly different, so no need to get into all of that.

Anyhow, apart from that passage, I believe that Jesus too was celibate, without sin, and fulfilling every dynamic of the Law.  If procreation was a command, then Jesus did not fulfill that command.  But if procreation is a general principle, and not a "command", then Jesus did not sin.  Also, Paul was celibate and even encouraged celibacy.  " I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that." (1 Cor. 7:7).  And in that chapter he goes on to specifically encourage virgins, divorce's, widows, and widowers (basically all singles) to remain single, though he is careful to note that for singles to marry is not sinful.  

And btw, noting that another person's interpretation of a scripture is based on ignorance of the cultural context is neither superior or demeaning, it's simply an observation.  We are all ignorant on various subjects.  Ignorance can be cured by a little education; what keeps us in ignorance though is dismissing what others have to share as irrelevant without seriously considering it or researching it further.  

Where is the command to outbreed other religions?  What is the exact number of children we are supposed to produce?  If a woman is barren, is she in rebellion?  And Christians are made, not born, so a Christian couple having an x number of babies isn't going to guarantee those children will be Christian, as well.  This makes no sense, honestly.

love,

sopranette

I believe that God calls some to marry, some to remains single ( dont know many who dont want to marry though), and of those who marry some will have no kids some will have a small family and some a large family. All are OK as far as I am concerned. No one state is right or wrong as far as I can see. I have three adult children, my husband has two adult children. Neither of us wanted a large family and neither of us had a large enough house or enough money to have had more kids anyway. I am sure that God is happy with our smaller families and isnt expecting us to have had 12 kids and to have had to live in overcrowding and poverty becuase of it.

It was not a personal attack. It was a question to help me get a better grip on where you are coming from. Clearly, I cannot get that from your posts, as I would not have guessed you to be in your late 60's by your writing style/content. I cannot grasp how you come to the conclusions you do. I don't ask your denom, because that isn't a good POR, but a school can be a good POR.

As for the Bible being a source we all recognize, that is true, but obviously we all do not read it with the same understanding. We read it though our personal lens of educated experience. Hence, the question posed to you.

You can take it as an attack if you wish, but it was not intended that way.

LOL - Yes, she was out of line,  but not for being inquisititive.  For being blunt.  Saying you don't write like a 67 year old, is in no way one being inquisitive !

She knew his age, as he revealed it in his previous post.  She was not asking what his age was.  She was commenting on how for his age, he does not write like a 67 year old.

How does a 67 year old write ?