Oh well, I guess some of us ignoramuses will just have to go on believing the Lord instead of the apostate, hell-bound, infidel evolutionists.

I will have to agree with Dr. Bob on this one. Shepherd was a sodomite; he was seeking out partners. Gee, if the shoe fits, wear it. Part of the effect that the sodomite agenda is having is that it is causing Christians to shy away from calling sodomy a perverted sin.

if you believe this stuff you write, then you believe the Lord took on humanity which came from evolved animal like creatures... please stop using evolution as an alternative christian belief system

... there are references in the Bible that indicate that the earth, indeed, is round. It was declared flat by the apostate church at that time. Science, in coming to the conclusion that the world is round, simply caught up with God's word.

In Romans chapter one, Paul is talking about people who find it easier to worship the creature more than the Creator. This could very well apply to people who claim to be Christians and yet believe in evolution. These people hold to what they supposed the fossil evidence, made of of animal bones, shows them instead of what the Word of God plainly says.

Still feeling the repercussions of the Phelps team here in Casper to erect a monument 'celebrating' five years since the murder of [Matthew] Shepard and his 'entering into hell'. Everyone knows the general details. Shepard was a sodomite whore...

It was a movement of humanism, human self-worth, human as God. It was called Unitarianism (often called Universalism today). It's new Gospel was one of rights and dignity and good works - a social Gospel of 'do-gooders' to replace the blood of Christ. THAT group were the core of the rabid abolitionist movement sweeping some northern areas (like Massachusetts). Social programs, strong government laws, liberal liberal liberal agenda.

I have not disparaged the African race in any manner. I have been careful to say that if I myself were subjected to slavery it would be my duty to be submissive to my master. This discussion is not about race. It is about the fact that the word of God commands slaves - white, black, or otherwise - to be obedient to their masters.

There you go again [on segregation]! Because we were right back into the struggle over States' rights. You liberals really hate freedom as embodied in States' rights and freedom of association.

Hogwash John Ritter is no more saved then a pig is saved... John Ritter didn't have integrity so he played an immoral character on an immoral sitcom [Three's Company] that glorifed a man living together with two unmarried women for the glory of the devil and influenced many to follow his example. As I said John Ritter is in hell where he belongs...

You are playing around with words because you don't like the fact that John Ritter was not a brethren and is in hell just as Jesus promised...

Get a life and stop reading into me and my life. The topic is John Ritter not me! For the record those who are unrepentant and continue to commit sexual sins and associate with those who do, like John Ritter, go to hell, not heaven. So get off your high horse and open your eyes before God calls you a liar and a deceived one for defending a sinner and attacking a saint and you will join John Ritter...

And may I suggest that you drop the debate logic and put up scripture to back up your ideaology.

is it right for men to post in forums moderated by women? isn't this an example a of lady having authority over a man? how about in a christian forum? should a christian lady exercise authoiry over her brothers in this way?

from my current understanding of scripture, i think a woman is wrong to be a policeman, since obviously that involves exercising authority over men.

I also love it how you say we are commanded not to judge and yet have judged me a saint to be a sinner while Ritter who is a sinner to be a saint! You nothing but a false and deceived one who is probably on the way to hell for judging a brother in the Lord according to Matthew 5:22

The issue is twofold:  1. That, as long as slavery was legal, it was the duty of Christian slaves to be obedient to their masters, 'not only to the good and gentle but also to the froward.'  2. That the word of God never judges a man for the mere fact of owning another man. To the contrary, it commends several slave owners in highest terms. For example, Abraham, the Roman Centurion, and Philemon.  The abolitionist and other social movements of the the 19th and early 20th centuries - namely the feminist movement, the "temperance" movement, the youth movements, and the socialist movement - greatly affected the Baptist approach to the Scriptures. It was during that time that Baptists began to exalt human wisdom above the Scriptures. Now we are moving towards the 'gay rights movement.' Just as before, there will be those who resist, but in a matter of time acceptance of homosexuality among Baptist churches will be common place.

The Abolition Movement was the culmination of BAD THEOLOGY, centered around Unitarian/Universalist belief. It was a humanistic, knee-jerk reaction to perceived ills. Until that movement there was never a problem with Baptists and slavery... The Feminist Movement was the culmination of BAD THEOLOGY form liberal churches that did not accept the Biblical teaching or authority about the role of women. It was a humanistic, knee-jerk reaction to perceived ills. Until that movement, only the most liberal of Baptists would even consider ordaining a woman. And on with Blacks and Civil Rights And Gay rights Think you're on to something here, Mark. Good post.

The golden rule cannot be made to walk on all fours. Should a masochist say 'do to others what you would have them do to you,' then he might try to inflict bodily pain and suffering on others, since he enjoys pain and suffering. The golden rule must work within Biblical parameters. I would contend that Paul's instructions to [slave]masters illustrate the proper Biblical application of the golden rule and slavery.

[Replying to another, shocked poster]Do you believe the word of God commanded slaves to obey and respect their masters, whether those masters were believers or unbelievers?

i don't know, maybe there shouldn't be any female managers, along with all the other things you described. at this point i personally wouldn't take a job under the direct authority of a female manager.

good point. should i move?

If it [slavery] is NOT condemned in Scripture, then where to we find the moral basis to justify our moral outrage against it?... Just because you or I or some group finds something "morally offensive", if it doesn't have a base in the Bible, we are on thin ice.

Furthermore, if practicing slavery is wrong then Paul was wrong when he so highly commended Philemon, a slave owner, with the following words:... [<a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Philemon+1%3A1-7">Philemon 1:7</a>] That sure sounds to me that slave-owning Philemon possessed authentic Christianity.

What in the world is a woman doing on the pulpit search committee? Why is it not the men who are deciding. Since when did God give that kind of authority over to the women?

Regardless of the Bible[, you condemn slavery]? Do you then advocate making our 'moral sense' authoritative rather than the Bible?

So, you are saying that all those slaveholders that the apostle Paul called his brothers in Christ were not Christians. You think you are right and the apostle Paul(and the New Testament) are wrong. That's highly presumptuous on your part, I would say.

If a man lives like a pig and with the pigs then we know he is dirty? We know how John Ritter lived and the character he portrayed on three is company and we know he is in hell!

This is one of the best observations in all the threads about North/South, slavery, etc. In spite of who was right or wrong (or whether both may have had some right and wrong, or both were all wrong), this observation on God's providence ought to give us pause.

i do not believe that god willy nilly overrides the principle of female subjection and i wouldn't accept a lady's word for it without irrefutable supernatural confirmation...

I personally would not have held slaves. I would not have preached AGAINST it, though, and would have supported missionaries taking slaves with them to the field.

SO STOP BEING CHILDISH AND PICKING ON SAINTS AND DEFENDING IMMORAL ADULTEROUS SINNERS LIKE JOHN RITTER WHO IS IN HELL WHERE HE BELONGS

The only reason we think slavery is such a horrid evil is because we are so full of pride we don't like the idea of another man telling us what to do. Well tell me this, if God sees fit, in His providence, to make me subject to another man, who am I to complain of it? The anti-authority mentality that spawned the abolitionist movement is the same mentality that spawned the feminist movement, the 'children's rights' movement, and the 'sexual revolution' - aka hippy movement.

If you are saying that the simple fact of owning another man is unjust then you must also assert that Roman slavery was unjust, for they, too, practiced human bondage. As far as the mistreatment of slaves, I agree it is wrong, but it does not chang the obligation of the slave to obey the master.

I surely wouldn't be considered by most a feminist. If I had my way and had written in the Bible, I would have taught that no woman should ever be in a position of leadership. Alas, however, I did not write the Bible.

I have found with the evolutionary side is that they have an excuse for everything. There is NOTHING which they cannot accomodate one way or another. That makes any evidence presented by creation folk irrelevant, ignorant, too limited to count, etc.

But would they [even] be a homosexual if they were celibate. Aren't YOU implying that you can tell a homosexual person by how they look or act?

[Replying to 'I prefer strong and outspoken women']Then your preference is for women who are disobedient to Scripture.

[Replying to 'would you object to a celibate homosexual minister?']Absolutely I would! He would get a one way Greyhound bus ticket to the middle of nowhere!

Under these circumstances, the man would have fully repented of homosexuality and would wholly reject the label 'abstinate homosexual' but rather 'former homosexual'. In short, anyone who considered themselves a 'homosexual', abstinate or active, would not be fully repentant and therefore not qualifed to minister.

So for me, the jury is out on Jack Chick. At best, he is a guy who has done much to expose the ultimate evil in our world (the Vatican and the forces of Satan in our government).

Just don't send him to US Blackbird! No way would I EVER EVER EVER tolerate a homosexual minister! I'd leave that church so fast!

One cannot simultaneously be truly repentant and label themselves by a predisposition towards a particular sin. Contrary to popular indoctrination, 'homosexual' is defined by what some perverse people do, not by what they are.

I really can't blame you. It is an affect of sin that is the reason you can't understand the scriptures, that is until the day God finally reveals their truths to you.

Well the sources you provide [rebutting the errors in Chick tracts] appear to be Catholic... I'm considering the source there. I know without a doubt that Jack Chick and Dr. Rivera were telling the truth.

So just because some schlub who threw together a web site says Chick's not honest, I should just jump on *their* bandwagon? Anyway, I did my research on it a long time ago and I can say with confidence that Chick is not dishonest.

All gays recruit. And this is what is going on! You are not born gay...you are recruited.

Sherrie is right, gay people do recruit. When I was 18 I had a roommate that tried to recruit me. She got me very confused. God did help me thru it and would not let me stray.

Maybe I'm an exception; however, this earth doesn't look ancient to me... Oh yes, perhaps 10 thousand years old or so but billions of years seems totally idiotic.

You see, life isn't just chemicals. If it were, you could take a recently dead organism and get it to live again, simply by jump-starting the molecules somehow. But that doesn't work, does it? Instead, we know that life is something apart from the chemicals; something somehow imposed on them which uses them but is not them.