When you have no scriptural support for your position, it is a good tactic to side step the issue and attack the other person. It doesn't deal with the topic, but it is a good tactic.

I am not saying that Mathew deserved to die... I am simply saying that Mathew's sinful lifestyle and the resulting poor choices that he made are mostly responsible for his death.

[Replying to a hypothetical scenario of an abusive wife]Once again, I'm the head of the family, therefore am in a better position to deal with this problem than a woman would be from my Biblical perspective. I would have her stop. If she would not, then I'd have her arrested.

the problem with your rancor is that you see homosexuality such as not giving to the church or speeding in a car, and most Christians would see it as serious as murder

It should be pointed out that if Matthew Shephard had not 'hit' on his soon to be killer, he might still be alive today. So to say that no one else is to blame for his murder is, in my opinion, wrong. His action led to a reaction, thus both 'parties' are to blame.

Would you please site the passage that states a woman is to leave her husband based on physical abuse. There is one for sexual immorality, but not for abuse... try reading how God instructed the Israelites to treat their slaves. There was a limitation on the amount of abuse, but there was quite a bit of abuse allowed.

those who think they are defending poor homosexuals from mean ole Christians are condoning and affirming and accepting it as a good lifestyle or worst. if you have that position you may want to ask the moderator if you should even be posting here. you do not do any homosexual any favor by placing their exceedingly sinful lifestyle as any less then the abomination it is.

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.

I'm just wondering if there is something wrong if one is not willing to trust in God. I wondering if we might be missing something if we think that our safety is the most important thing. I don't find the instruction to leave if abused in the Bible. I find the instruction to leave over adultry, not over physical abuse. How much of this is our societal values working its way into out belief system?

There is one person, in my eyes, mainly responsible for Mathew's death and that is himself. He led a reckless lifestyle and in the end he got caught... If Mathew would have conducted his life in a more responsible manner maybe he could have lived long enough for someone to reach out and wittness to him and yes, maybe he could have accepted Christ into his heart. That is the real tragedy as I see it.

I'm sorry that you have a problem with this part of scripture. Do you have the same reaction to Jesus' statement that when one is struck one should simply turn the other cheek(to be struck again)?

I will agree, Shepherd was a sodomite whore, simple as that. Too many people here, in the name of love, are more concerned with what our politically correct society says than what God says... Those of you here who want to buddy up to the sodomite crowd with the thought that you will win them over are sorely deceived.

What do you think Jesus meant by turn the other cheek? It seems rather clear to me that it so that the person can strike you again. In other words, so that the physical abuse can continue... God will take care of us. If that means by death, as in Stephen's case, so be it.

[Replying to 'a woman is to stay with an abusive husband and just take it?']  That is pretty much what the Bible says.

'Sodomite' and 'Whore' are biblical words and are accurate discription of this person. Why do you want to make sin sound ok, by using the nice words for perversion. Thnks Dr. Bob for your courage.

Jesus said that if someone physically abuses you, you are to turn the other cheek so that the abuse may continue. What are your thoughts?

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.

also concerning shepard, this young sodomite was possibly given mercy even though an evil act of murder took him, in respect to future judgment and added wrath for his on going homosexuality would of added much more wrath as time went on. so in short it was mercy in a spiritual sense that he didn't live a long life.

What constitutes [spousal] abuse? By what standard do you make this judgment [that it's grounds for divorce]? Does that change I Cor. 11:3 and Ephesians 5? If so, how? And, book, chapter and verse, please. Your argument is without biblical foundation. There is no divine inspired evidence to support your assertion.

She is knowingly having him thrown in jail and out of the house. This is usurping authority.

Your view is very materialistic. Do you have a problem with God's command that a man who rapes a woman is to be punished by having to marry her?

If that same 'just' person is murdered because they placed themselves in a comprimising situation and I'm sorry if we disagree here but I believe that Mathew did, then they are, in part, to blame. You seem to be saying that Mathew had the right to conduct his lifestyle as recklessly as he wanted and should be absolved of all responsibility for the actions that ensued.

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

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.

... 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.

The closest thing that I can get for that is a combination of the turn the other cheek idea and Paul's statement that the man is the head of the family. If the wife has the husband arrested [for abuse], then the wife is usurping authority over her husband.

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...

Mathew Shepherd was no hero. He was a victim of a violent crime but his lifestyle was the predominant contributor to his demise.

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...

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

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 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...

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...

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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...

good point. should i move?

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.

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

[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?