Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:Indeed K.
Love manifests itself in differing ways.
Like with your example.
I have small children and older children.
With my youngsters I can dictate and apply 'sunscreen' as I wish.
Teenagers are different. Force becomes anti productive.
The lesson is being burnt.
That's life.
Despite our best intentions,
Sometimes they just have to work it out for themselves.
It may take one time for some kids, other kids they take being burnt multiple times before any message sinks in. It may take third degree burns, or a trip to the hospital.
It may take several third degree burns for some.
It may take scars.

What what you said here, and also Nessa followed up with...

The one thing I see is love manifested in different ways, perhaps more in accord with where each sees the importance. And in accord with our comfort levels, such that we don't feel awkward.

Take your sunscreen example. My Mum was the same. As a Dad now, and my wife, it's like "kids get your butts here or I'll give you a kick up your bum." Noone is going swimming, or the like, unless they have sunscreen on.
Your way of loving is to let them live and learn, our approach is different.

Take Nessa's example. Although she is always negative negative on herself, she was actually be quite loving just being with her friend. Maybe she felt a bit hypocritical because she new the truth of the matter, but sometimes you just need to be with a person. You know, stating the obvious isn't going to help matters, and as someone else had offered to help sometimes a person doesn't want help/can't be helped and so the best thing is to just be still with them. Nessa and the friend wanting to help clean were loving in their own ways. Both were perceived differently by the one receiving/not receiving love.

For me, ask anyone who knows me, truth is central. You don't have truth, then you have bs you'll sink into.
That said, I do actually have a sensitive bone, probably more than comes out here in discussions. You might think I'd criticise someone for their sins and the like, be quite forceful with my views on others. That's kind of silly though. Here where debating ones views is all the rage, is very different from out there.

Going back to uni days a very long time ago, in the project team there was a guy I had great respect for. Emotionally intuitive and perceptive and made a good project leader. Ironically, for someone meant to be the insensitive Christian with a hang up, it seemed one of my non-Christian friends was more hung up on his homosexuality than I was. Whispering to me, "did you know he's gay? You're Christian, what do you think of that?" I just said aloud, if he's gay what am I suppose to think? (I don't recall the exact discussion, but something like that). Then he looked at me eyes wide opened because he was right next to us, and was like "shhhh, he'll hear." Then I said, "why, it's true...?" in puzzled expression. In any case, I had great respect for the guy, and while I was aware, I probably liked him more than most other people I knew. He carried himself very well. He had very strong opinions, very compassionate and respectful. I'm quite confident we could have had a real discussion on such, and we would have walked away still friends with great respect for each other.

My cousin who lives in another state, came to my sisters wedding with her Dad (my uncle) and family. She brought her girlfriend with her. When greeting and the like, she accentuated the point that "this is my girlfriend" but then looking for like some kind of reaction. You know, growing up, our family on Mum's side was considered "Christian" and so a point of prodding here and there, snarky comments and the like. Especially with my uncles wife who was very anti-Christian, into Paganism and the like (not really understanding that Christianity is like a fulfillment of paganism as Chesterson would say ) My brother told me she did the same thing to him, "like I give a s#!t,' he said (he's not so Christian ). I quite like talking to my cousin, but she sees a chasm between us because of whatever has been said.

Sometimes you know, like in Nessa's example, people perceive those trying to help as evil meanies. But then, Nessa's kind of love can get through. You know, if I am telling the truth on a board such as this, then a gay person is just going to see red with a lot of the stuff I've said. Actually, on Facebook, I had exchanges with my cousin and one of her evidently gay friends really tried taking slices of skin off me. Saying there was a high suicide rate amongst gay people in Australia. When I looked at actual figures, you know what I found? While depression might be higher, suicide rates weren't actually that high at all. Rather, it seems in Australia that we had an abnormally high ratio of suicides amongst our indigenous population. Oh, strips were torn off me for pointing out these stats. And then attack, attack, attack Christianity this and that.

Well, I ended up sharing a gay Christian website which I would not endorse for anyone other than someone who seriously believes God made them gay and there's nothing wrong. Because I'd much prefer a person comes to Christ as they are, rather than feel scared thinking they're not the kind of person Christ would want. Once there with Christ, then it's up to the Holy Spirit to convict and work some "magic" in a person's life to transform them more and more like Christ.

You know, having people love in different ways, is really the best approach. Means Christians have greater reach. And I guess it shows we're just human too with our own personalities and unique perspectives too. The absolutely one thing I would not tolerate though, is your Westboro psuedo-Christians who hold up signs saying, "God hates [homosexuals]" and tells such how much they deserve hell and the like. Anyone who is "Christian" like this, is not loving or following after Christ. I wonder if Christ will actually say to such Westboro types in the end, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."

Post Note @Nessa, telling your friend the truth, just wouldn't have likely helped Nessa. Like you said others tried. As Melanie said, social services would have notified too. You're awkwardness of doing such, perhaps you were just picking up on she wouldn't listen anyway so you chose to love in your own way. Short of a slap across her face and shaking her to wake up, or being able to remove all her past abuse and pains, sometimes we can't help another person as sad as that is. We must realise our limits and just do our best to be there for that person.

Nessa wrote:

melanie wrote:That is actually really sad, clearly she had many issues.
I don't know how it works in NZ but my sister has been a child protection case worker for 20 years and a case manager for the last 5.
She has been to countless homes and removed over the years hundreds of children. She has told me before that a child is never removed because of the state of a house. It can be an indication of a break down in family structure, resulting in possible abuse. But when the court order for removal is taken to a magistrate, a really messy house isn't enough grounds. They would usually order for a clean up, several times before just taking away children. And then there would have to be other circumstances.
I'm quite sure your friend would have been warned by community services before removal, and there quite possibly were other factors involved.
Clearly a lady out of control in her life.

Even the friends who judged and criticised her, the ones who kept silent, the ones who offered to clean it up for her, made no difference in the end to her situation.
Sad story

Her sister reported her neglect. Aint family grand. She was being a cow. It was not out of love. I knew the sister and lets just say she was a cow to me too.

She had no food in her cupboards I think which added to the kids being taken. Apparently she hadnt unpacked groceries or still needed to shop. Cant remember.

The truth is that it doesnt matter if it would help or not. We cant control the outcome. Or people's choices. But she needed the truth. That is our part to play. The truth being said in love. Not judgement.

Neglect is a form of abuse. I'm guessing it must have been pretty bad for child protection to step in. They are very used to people making claims against each other for petty family and friendship rifts and do a pretty good job of working out when it's legit and when it's not.
When it comes to the neglect and abuse of children the loving thing to do is ensure the kids safety at all costs. Some mothers love their kids dearly they're just not fit to raise them.
If I thought for a second that a friend of mine was neglecting their kids I would say something, in love for everyone involved. I wouldn't mince my words either.
In a situation like that the safety of the kids is the biggest factor.

No one had told her in a loving way what the truth was. I could have/should have been
That person. Then the truth would be in her hands. She needed that. To be able to hear the truth in love regardless of what she did.

One lady had told her that she gets headaches at my friends house...real rude like.

Well, if you get headaches.. Dont go. I ignored the smell and disgusting mess and I guess I was a friend just being there. It didnt put me off enough I would stay away.

We are all houses, like what melanie said. Often what is going on externally can be a reflection of what is going on internally...

People dont like our 'stink'.... Our 'mess' do they? So we put on 'deorderant' hide the smell...sweep our mess under one huge rug and smile. I'm fine thanks.

Then when we dont put on our 'deorderant' and the 'mess' is too big too sweep under the carpet..others just cross the road.. Stay away. Or not involve themselves cos its not their mess right.

Any excuse. So they will just judge, like mel said. Dont speak the truth in love and we carry on in our misery.

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:Indeed K.
Love manifests itself in differing ways.
Like with your example.
I have small children and older children.
With my youngsters I can dictate and apply 'sunscreen' as I wish.
Teenagers are different. Force becomes anti productive.
The lesson is being burnt.
That's life.
Despite our best intentions,
Sometimes they just have to work it out for themselves.
It may take one time for some kids, other kids they take being burnt multiple times before any message sinks in. It may take third degree burns, or a trip to the hospital.
It may take several third degree burns for some.
It may take scars.

What what you said here, and also Nessa followed up with...

The one thing I see is love manifested in different ways, perhaps more in accord with where each sees the importance. And in accord with our comfort levels, such that we don't feel awkward.

Take your sunscreen example. My Mum was the same. As a Dad now, and my wife, it's like "kids get your butts here or I'll give you a kick up your bum." Noone is going swimming, or the like, unless they have sunscreen on.
Your way of loving is to let them live and learn, our approach is different.

Take Nessa's example. Although she is always negative negative on herself, she was actually be quite loving just being with her friend. Maybe she felt a bit hypocritical because she new the truth of the matter, but sometimes you just need to be with a person. You know, stating the obvious isn't going to help matters, and as someone else had offered to help sometimes a person doesn't want help/can't be helped and so the best thing is to just be still with them. Nessa and the friend wanting to help clean were loving in their own ways. Both were perceived differently by the one receiving/not receiving love.

For me, ask anyone who knows me, truth is central. You don't have truth, then you have bs you'll sink into.
That said, I do actually have a sensitive bone, probably more than comes out here in discussions. You might think I'd criticise someone for their sins and the like, be quite forceful with my views on others. That's kind of silly though. Here where debating ones views is all the rage, is very different from out there.

Going back to uni days a very long time ago, in the project team there was a guy I had great respect for. Emotionally intuitive and perceptive and made a good project leader. Ironically, for someone meant to be the insensitive Christian with a hang up, it seemed one of my non-Christian friends was more hung up on his homosexuality than I was. Whispering to me, "did you know he's gay? You're Christian, what do you think of that?" I just said aloud, if he's gay what am I suppose to think? (I don't recall the exact discussion, but something like that). Then he looked at me eyes wide opened because he was right next to us, and was like "shhhh, he'll hear." Then I said, "why, it's true...?" in puzzled expression. In any case, I had great respect for the guy, and while I was aware, I probably liked him more than most other people I knew. He carried himself very well. He had very strong opinions, very compassionate and respectful. I'm quite confident we could have had a real discussion on such, and we would have walked away still friends with great respect for each other.

My cousin who lives in another state, came to my sisters wedding with her Dad (my uncle) and family. She brought her girlfriend with her. When greeting and the like, she accentuated the point that "this is my girlfriend" but then looking for like some kind of reaction. You know, growing up, our family on Mum's side was considered "Christian" and so a point of prodding here and there, snarky comments and the like. Especially with my uncles wife who was very anti-Christian, into Paganism and the like (not really understanding that Christianity is like a fulfillment of paganism as Chesterson would say ) My brother told me she did the same thing to him, "like I give a s#!t,' he said (he's not so Christian ). I quite like talking to my cousin, but she sees a chasm between us because of whatever has been said.

Sometimes you know, like in Nessa's example, people perceive those trying to help as evil meanies. But then, Nessa's kind of love can get through. You know, if I am telling the truth on a board such as this, then a gay person is just going to see red with a lot of the stuff I've said. Actually, on Facebook, I had exchanges with my cousin and one of her evidently gay friends really tried taking slices of skin off me. Saying there was a high suicide rate amongst gay people in Australia. When I looked at actual figures, you know what I found? While depression might be higher, suicide rates weren't actually that high at all. Rather, it seems in Australia that we had an abnormally high ratio of suicides amongst our indigenous population. Oh, strips were torn off me for pointing out these stats. And then attack, attack, attack Christianity this and that.

Well, I ended up sharing a gay Christian website which I would not endorse for anyone other than someone who seriously believes God made them gay and there's nothing wrong. Because I'd much prefer a person comes to Christ as they are, rather than feel scared thinking they're not the kind of person Christ would want. Once there with Christ, then it's up to the Holy Spirit to convict and work some "magic" in a person's life to transform them more and more like Christ.

You know, having people love in different ways, is really the best approach. Means Christians have greater reach. And I guess it shows we're just human too with our own personalities and unique perspectives too. The absolutely one thing I would not tolerate though, is your Westboro psuedo-Christians who hold up signs saying, "God hates [homosexuals]" and tells such how much they deserve hell and the like. Anyone who is "Christian" like this, is not loving or following after Christ. I wonder if Christ will actually say to such Westboro types in the end, "Depart from me, for I never knew you."

K, I am a sunscreen nazi with my kids, so I am much the same in that respect but because I have a teenager and an almost teenager my ability to supervise it becomes more limited. That will continue as they get older. My son goes out with his mates and I pack sunscreen in his backpack but it's up to him to reapply. He has been burnt and learnt the lesson. But did it again.
My daughter was sleeping at her friends house and they went to the beach. She got badly burnt. My first response was to be angry at the parents but she had her own sunscreen and really let herself down. She blistered and was extremely uncomfortable. I brought up a page on her iPad about skin cancer and spoke to her about the importance of looking after her skin but we live on the coast, I see teenagers all the time sun baking, wanting a tan. I hope that as she gets older she is responsible but I can't manage it all the time. She has lessons to learn for herself, I juSt hope she remembers her naggy mum!

Don't get me started about the plight of Aboriginal youth and Aboriginal community. My passion for this issue pales in comparison for how strongly I feel for Aboriginals and their treatment in this country.
Soooo.... Moving right along

I would like to see the links to the stats you in regards to gay suicide because my research has led me to think otherwise. The US has done more comprehensive research with the figures than in Australia as suicide stats are not broken down into sexual orientation.

http://suicidepreventionaust.org/statem ... mmunities/

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/f ... ut-suicide

I also read an awesome article written by a guy in the US who established and ran two youth hostels for homeless teens. He wrote that he was alarmed at the rate of homelessness, depression, self harm amoung homeless gay teens. It was due to what he saw first hand within these hostels that led him to start support structures for gay youth.
I read it awhile ago, and don't have the link but I will try and find it. It was a great article and very sad written by a heterosexual guy on the front lines.

On a side note. You mentioned that depression is higher amoung homosexuals and the leading cause of suicide is depression. So without exact stats in Australia it is reasonable to assume by that alone that the suicide rates would be higher.

The truth is the loudest voices are usually the extremes and their is a much quieter majority in the middle. Although the westboro church, are not alone not by a long shot in their feelings towards gays. There are countless stories online of kids being kicked out of home and church for being gay.
Which brings up the question posed by Nessa in regards to those that take the other extreme and belong and/or endorse openly 'gay' friendly churches.
We have to ask ourselves the question 'did we push them to do so.'
If they are not welcome in mainstream churches but long to worship and belong within a Christian community what choice do they have but to create one for themselves.
It should be noted that within these 'gay' friendly churches there are many side B Christians who choose celibacy. It is also important to note that even though they are not engaging in sex, they still identify as gay. Much like a hetro person who is celibate. My mother for example has been celibate for 20 years but she is still heterosexual.
These Christians foremost, are worshipping and loving the Lord. With sincerity and faith.
What I find very intriguing is how amoung these people there are factions that have decided to refrain from sex but have partners. I can't imagine how difficult that must be. But they are trying so hard to maintain their faith and be faithful to God, but experience intimacy and closeness with others.
There is a whole array of people within the gay Christian community that most of us have never taken the time to find out about. They are trying sometimes poorly to struggle with their identity and their faith.

The guy who started The Gay Christian Network has been a Christian all of his life. Loved God and his faith has always been his main priority in life. When he came out as gay, he was shunned by his church. He went to reparative therapy but it didn't work. So he choose celibacy but still identified as a gay man and a Christian. He started the gay Christian network because he wanted a safe place to worship and share his love of God with others. He was a side B at that point, that has since changed but this perception that those that are involved in these ministries are doing so because they just want to flaunt their gayness in the face of God is not in my opinion correct.
They are trying to work out their faith and sexuality and had to create such ministries to safely do so. There is a huge tapestry of Christians within these communities with such different choices they have made in faith. Side B Christians are just as welcome and make up a large part of the ministry. They have in depth Christian discussion amongst themselves in regards to those choices with many choosing to make the huge sacrifice of what they have labeled side B. There are of course many that also make the choice of gay sexual monogamous relationships.

The thing is there are many Christians who are hetro and living together outside of marriage. Young and old. The same scriptures that denounce homosexuality also denounce sex outside of marriage and although we know it's not Gods plan for us, they are still welcome in the church, they are still considered Christian. They haven't been pushed out and had to make their own communities. We don't indentify their whole existence by their sexual misconduct like we do when we say the gay lifestyle. Like it sums up the root of their entire lives. We don't because a far too large number of us had sex before marriage even if we were Christian. Like myself. We don't point the finger to harshly because the sum of their failure is part of our own.

We have helped create the huge chasm between gay Christians and us. We have helped create a us verses them mentality. We have pushed them out and ostracised them. We do so by our silence in the face of those that stand on behind their pulpit and preach hate, and death to gay people. I have several YouTube links that are not westboro of pastors saying in sermons some truly disgusting, horrifying things about homosexuals. The literature I have read from the mouths of Christians in regards to this is also pretty horrifying. These voices, these attacks are being heard loud and clear in the gay Christian community not to mention their own personal stories of treatment within the church.
We helped create the division and its up to us to help close it.
First and foremost they are Christian. They are part of our family through faith. Do we have to agree with everything they say, no, I don't agree with everything people say on here. Do we have to agree with their choices, no. Can there be loving discussions where people can freely say what they believe without it turning destructive and destroying their faith.
These discussions are going on right now in the gay Christian community, scripture is being searched for understanding, with people on all sides of the theological debate. Christians who have chosen celibacy are communicating why they made those choices based on scripture and are debating, sometimes arguing with those that are in gay relationships about faith and sexuality.
But there is acceptance and love. There is no condemnation.
They openly disagree on whether they think gay sex is a sin and have rich theological debates but they accept each other as brothers and sisters in Christ.
Contrary to what many believe they don't want to be told they're right, just that they're accepted and loved.

I'm sorry about my long posts.
You guys should see how much I talk.
I know.... My poor husband

What I don`t get is why homosexuals are sometimes rejected by the church. I mean, I know homosexuality goes against natural law and that kind of thing. I concede it`s viewed as a sin but there are many, many more that we probably all commit.
Drunkeness is a sin, is it not? Yet, I am welcomed with open arms, offered support and help, told that Christ can set me free. Why is the same message not sent out to homosexuals?

I don`t know if I think people are born gay or if it is a choice (Suppose it could be either really) but either way, discrimination is rife. Why?

And, why, when this is so important are gays not welcomed into church? Surely, they are the very people who need it the most? Churches do so much good with the homeless, alcoholics, drug addicts etc yet if you`re gay? You get condemned.

Now, I know it isn`t like that everywhere and not all Christians are so judgemental but it breaks my heart to see it at all.

Instead of criticizing and condemning we should be reaching out.

Storyteller,

Just to be fair, I've seen some pretty bad instances of drug addicts being judged just as badly, or even worse than homosexuals. So I don't think homosexuality is alone in that respect.

And being in the south for the last 10 years, I've seen too much racism by Christians I know.

Isn't it just human nature that causes us to act this way?

Don`t get me started on racism! Really, don`t! I can rant about it for hours.
It`s probably the biggest issue I get on my soapbox with.

You`re right though.

There is an awful lot of prejudice and ignorance amongst people, not just Christians. It breaks my heart.

What happened to not casting the first stone? Loving your neighbour? Love, forgiveness and tolerance? Shouldn`t the church be the one place where you should find all these things? Shouldn`t we be reaching out to these lost souls rather than rejecting them unless they change?

It's all pretty sad ST.
Ricks right drug addicts have been treated pretty badly too and I have seen racism within the Christian community.
In regards to homosexuality we focus on thier sin. Constantly. We stand by this notion that to love them means we have to tell them that they are sinners. But regardless of which particular sins we are referring too they already know that. That is why they are Christian and have trusted in Jesus.
We talk a lot on here about grace and salvation.
That faith is what saves us.
Regardless of gay Christians sin or straight Christians sin, we place our trust and faith in Jesus.
That is the crux of salvation... Faith.
Gay homosexuals believe just as we do that Jesus is the son of God, by that God incarnate, who died on the cross and rose again for the forgiveness of our sins so that we may have eternal life in the Kingdom of heaven.
Their faith is the exactly the same as ours.
They trust Jesus is whom He claimed to be and He is the way, the truth and the life.
They are Christians.

That is where I believe the church has gone wrong.
We have placed a precursor on their Christianty.
We can't have loving, open and sometimes even difficult dialogue with them when we question their right to have faith in the first place. Anything we say seems like and actually is an attack against them no matter how lovingly we do so when we disable and tear apart what is central to them which is their faith. When we take away the significance of the faith they have placed in Jesus by focusing firstly on their sin and not what binds us as family which is the faith, trust and love they have placed in Jesus.
We have placed them outside of the body of Christ.
That is wrong.

That is why whatever we say, no matter how lovingly we do so is seen as an attack, and when people feel threatened they attack in return.
Which has led to what I see as a division within the Family of Christ.
Because we question their salvation. Their right to bear the name of Christ in the exact same manner we do. We see their sin first and not how we are the same in the most important way possible.
Our faith in Christ.
We mistakenly try to love them by focusing constantly on their sin because we don't want them to walk off a cliff and see it as our job to 'save' them but the thing is Jesus already has.
He saved them the moment they placed their trust in Him

I think Christians would be surprised how open many gay Christians are about discussing thier interpretations of scripture and homosexuality in the bible. That don't expect every Christian to agree with all their choices. From reading through articles and the chat section on The Gay Christian network I was really taken back by a few things, firstly how diverse thier beliefs are and how openly it's discussed, secondly how respectful they are of each other even when they are discussing such potentially divisive stuff like gay sex being a sin in Gods eyes and lastly how much they love God.

Gay Christians are our brothers and sisters. If we started treating them like family then we can lovingly inject our points of view but before then I'm not sure how much love is involved when we cannot not even trust in their salvation. When we question their right to be considered Christian at all. I know if I felt like my faith was being stripped away, I would take my treasured love for Christ away from the people trying to destroy it.

And being in the south for the last 10 years, I've seen too much racism by Christians I know.

I see just as much racism up North, people are just a little bit more creative in hiding it, that and it also manifests itself amongst and between European ethnic groups. I can tell you that prejudice is 1) common to humanity and 2) depending upon a person's spiritual or cultural outlooks, it will or won't be manifest. I've seen equal amounts of terrible racism in the south amongst both black and white people. My pastor regularly addresses the issue, pointing out the racism in 1st century Israel - remember those despised Samaritans?

Philip wrote:

And being in the south for the last 10 years, I've seen too much racism by Christians I know.

I see just as much racism up North, people are just a little bit more creative in hiding it, that and it also manifests itself amongst and between European ethnic groups. I can tell you that prejudice is 1) common to humanity and 2) depending upon a person's spiritual or cultural outlooks, it will or won't be manifest. I've seen equal amounts of terrible racism in the south amongst both black and white people. My pastor regularly addresses the issue, pointing out the racism in 1st century Israel - remember those despised Samaritans?

Yes Philip, I agree. I lived in the northeast most of my life, and there's racism there too. But the point I was addressing, was what Mel brought up. How homosexuals are shunned within the church. The point I was making was that the racism I've seen here in the south, among white Christians, frankly has shocked me. Up north, I didn't really see that same racism within the church. Of course, the area I grew up in, was probably 99% white. But even then, there was no anti-black racism engrained in the culture, like there is down here.

There are racists everywhere. It's part of our sin nature. But, to have believers who are so racist, probably because of their culture, was just shocking to me. And most of them are completely oblivious to the fact that they're racist. There was an older lady who I was friends with, who claimed on one hand that she wasn't racist. But on the other hand, she said things like she wishes it was the way it used to be, when blacks were slaves. And on more that one occasion, she has whispered something to me about a black person who was near us.

Another comment that shocked me, was when a man I was having a conversation with, said, "I have nothing against blacks, as long as they stay to themselves. Blacks and whites shouldn't marry."

And of course he prefaced that by saying that he's not a racist.

The whole thing just gets back to the fact that homosexuality may be the "favorite" sin among Christians, when it comes to judging. But racism, and drug use aren't far behind.

Philip wrote:

Huh? I'm not following you Philip.

Rick, it's because - and I was shocked back when I learned of it - but this passage of John 8:1-11 is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts. Virtually all study Bibles have a footnote that references this, warning to not make any doctrinal understandings based upon it. A similar and footnoted issue is with the ending of the Gospel of Mark - handling snakes, drinking poison, etc. - not in the originals. This is why textual criticism is so important, as it reveals not only what was (with the highest possible certainty), in the originals, but also helps weed out any possible additions to what was in the originals. The enormous number and wealth of ancient manuscript copies, from around the world, makes this possible.

Yes, this one is a shocker, as it just sounds so JESUS-like.

D.A. Carson writes:

Despite the best efforts of Zane Hodges to prove that this narrative was originally part of John's Gospel, the evidence is against him, and modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text (NIV) or to relegate it to a footnote (RSV). These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from John 7:52 to John 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it here (i.e. at 7:53-8:11), some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and other witnesses variously place it after John 7:44, John 7:36 or John 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the material is authentic, it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: there are numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John, but which are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular."[/color]

Bruce Metzger weighs in: http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb ... tzger.html

Sorry, back to the thread.

Careful, Philip.

You are certainly right that Carson and others reject this passage as authentic. But you would do well to actually read Hodges' article, which you can get for free here.

For whatever it is worth, while I don't draw any firm conclusions, I tend to think it is original! I actually think that the general picture that modern TC paints is absurd if you take a bird's eye view of things. They want us to believe that for two hundred years (precisely when debates were at their fiercest and Christianity most persecuted), that the NT texts were near perfectly preserved, and then, in the third century, just as Christianity was starting to be normalized, that the NT copying process suddenly became a free-for-all? That the "correct" text was suddenly and inexplicably displaced by one of major errors? That those who had come before didn't notice all those errors and that those errors became so pervasive that they became the accepted standard until, luck of all lucks, modern scholars suddenly "rediscovered" the truth almost two thousand years later?!?

Forgive me for being skeptical. It strikes me as much more likely that the reverse is true. During the first two hundred years, precisely when Christianity was most persecuted and people least familiar with the text, it was modified--sometimes on accident and sometimes on purpose. The Church was battling heresy from within, so some felt free to change its text at "appropriate" places to make a point. Does it not strike you as important that the so-called "early" manuscripts (still over two centuries AFTER the originals!) got almost no following, no traction? Doesn't it seem much more likely that the reason they were a minority is precisely because those earlier Christians actually had older texts to look at and therefore chose not to continue copying bad texts? But now we've taken those "old" texts (which would have really been newer corruptions) and normalized them!

Sorry, I don't buy it. I'm not a Majority Text purist by any stretch of the imagination, but I think the weight given to Alexandria is WAY WAY WAY out of balance here. Readjust the weight of the evidence, and I think our passage actually fairs much better in terms of authenticity.

Just my $.02

Jac, I don't have a dog in the scholarly debate over the Adulteri passage. Your SPECULATION has a reasonable premise. But, again, because there are reasonable doubts about it, and as it is unnecessary to use this passage to buttress a theological point - given the great wealth of many other passages not faced with such uncertainty - then it makes sense to me to not do so. I am not saying anything other than some very qualifed people have questioned it - CHRISTIAN scholars whom would otherwise absolutely LOVE to declare it to be authentic. I wish I knew the truth of the matter. But as it's unnecessary to utilize it, given the entirely reasonable concerns, then why do it?

As well, those who have spent years here with me well know that I hold a VERY high view of what is Scripture, that the original writings were precisely what God wanted them to be, that we can have an extremely high confidence in the Bible we have today. God also has proventially provided an immense number of copies across the world - many quite early - to study. Not to mention He has provided techniques and scholarly understandings to compare, study and further illuminate Scripture.

My speculation, eh? And what do you think Carson is doing? Speculating, of course. There's no difference (except that I think my position is more rational).

I'd never doubt that you hold a high view of Scripture or suggest that you don't trust the Bible we have today. I'm just curious if you trust the Bible we had 150 years ago, which is the same Bible that includes John 8:1-11 in it. Maybe we've only had a Bible we could trust for the past 150 years?

As far as why use it, and the answer is for the same reason as to use any other passage of Scripture. Because it is the inspired Word of God. Your own admission that it sounds so Jesus-like should say something of that. Are there other passages that tell us not to judge? Of course. But here we have Jesus showing us what that looks like, and so its contribution is invaluable. And we should make the most of it.

Jac, of COURSE the doubters of this passage are speculating. As well as those insistent it to be authentic. No one can say with 100% certainty. So, are you suggesting all of the many scholars should be ignored and all of the footnotes should be removed? Is that how we should treat reasonable Scriptural concerns? IGNORE them based upon what we SPECULATE to not be a problem? What about the ending of Mark, also long accepted for a very long time to be authentic - by vast millions - yet with some apparent contradictions, if a much later manuscript appearance. Are ACCEPTANCE and feeling the ultimate determinates? Also, one must wonder, as the Adulteri passage so resonates, SEEMS so authentic, WHY would it have ever been taken out? Is it credible to think it was lost?

I find it strange Jac would insist this Adulteri passage should be used as Scripture while also admitting he ALSO is speculating (however reasonably) it to be authentic. I do hope he is correct.

Anyway, this debate needs its own topic thread.