Do you believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ?

Most Christians believe and most Christian denominations teach – “Can a person reject the Virgin Birth and still be a Christian? The answer is no. The Virgin Birth was never meant to stand alone. It is not a random truth plucked from thin air. God never says, "Pick and choose what you want to believe." The story of Jesus is a seamless garment woven by the Holy Spirit. Take out his miraculous birth and you have ripped the whole garment to shreds. (I guess that means if Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin then Jesus Christ cannot have divinity and to me that limits the power of God the Father.}

Christianity is not just a collection of random truths, any one of which could be dropped with little harm. It is true, and truth is a whole. Consequently, a diminution at any point inevitably affects the rest, given enough time. When we begin to drop this doctrine or that doctrine, even though we cannot see at the time how it will affect the rest, it nevertheless does affect the rest.

History teaches us that when men begin to doubt the Virgin Birth, they do not stop there. One doubt leads to another until the Jesus they believe in is not the Jesus of the Bible. In truth, the Virgin Birth is no more miraculous than the Resurrection. They stand or fall together. (I think God expects us to question, Thomas did!)

Do I understand it? No.

Do I believe it? Yes.

Why? Because the Bible teaches it and because it makes perfect sense. (Does it really make perfect sense if so then why do we Christians claim there are many things that we will not truly understand on earth?}

Can we still believe in the Virgin Birth? We can and we must.”

Joseph doubted Mary’s story about the birth of Christ. It is true that the Bible says he believed Mary after an angel appeared to him in a dream, but initially he doubted. Does doubt alone about the Virgin Birth make it impossible for you to be a Christian? I am sorry, but I do not think so!

Do I think it is enough to doubt the Virgin Birth because We have no eyewitness accounts, no doctor confirmations, no DNA samples. This may sound ridiculous, but many use this as an argument to not believe in the Virgin Birth.

The fact that Paul, the earliest New Testament author, never mentions the Virgin Birth gives credence to some for not believing. We do rely on Paul rely for much of Christian theology, it is a bit strange he did not mention it. Paul refers to Jesus’ birth twice (Rom 1:3; Gal 4:4) and never says he was born of a virgin or of different means than anyone else. You would think that would be important. Did Paul think that Jesus birth was natural and conventional?

Between 49 and 55 CE, Paul recorded the first known written reference to Jesus' birth. In Galatians 4:4, he writes: "But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law." If he knew that Jesus had been conceived by a virgin, the information would have been of importance. Paul would have undoubtedly replaced "woman" with "virgin", or made some other change to show that the birth was miraculous. This passage was written some 45 years before the gospels of Matthew and Luke were written, and 55 to 62 years after Jesus' birth.  Can you blame some Christians for having doubts about the Virgin Birth?

Again, In about 57 CE, Paul wrote his only other reference to Jesus' birth. In Romans 1:1-3 he writes: "I Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle and separated onto the gospel of God...concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."

The phrase "of the seed of David" strongly indicates that Paul believed Jesus to be the son of Joseph, because Matthew traces Jesus' genealogy from David to Joseph. The phrase "according to the flesh" seems to imply a natural, normal conception and birth.

Paul does not write anything about Jesus' family in any of his Epistles except for a single reference in Galatians 1 to James, the head of the Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem. Paul called James "the Lord's brother" -- an individual with whom he had many disagreements.  I know conservative scholars claim Christians called everyone brother/sisters then.

The virgin birth is also not in Mark, the earliest gospel, or in John, the only other gospel not based on Mark. Why is such an important story left out of all the early sources? This certainly causes some to doubt the Virgin Birth.

“Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

Some scholars say “virgin” was a mistranslation in the Septuagint (the Greek translation the gospel writers used), and should have been translated “young woman.” That means the story might have been based on a mistranslation! Again a cause for some to question the Virgin Birth.

Was the Virgin Birth story an honest mistake: Most liberal theologians and biblical historians believe that the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke copied the belief in a virgin conception from a Greek mistranslation in Isaiah 7:14 The Hebrew word "almah" (young woman) was translated in error to the Greek word for virgin? This is perhaps the most commonly accepted explanation among skeptics, secularists, and religious liberals.

It is true there were others that claim to be born of a virgin with divine fathers before Jesus. Jesus was not the first said to be born of a virgin. Mut-em-ua, the virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.

Ra, the Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin. So was Perseus, Romulus, Mithras, Genghis Khan, Krishna, Horus, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope.

In the ancient world, great men were born of divine fathers and human mothers. Alexander the Great and the Roman emperor Augustus were great men and said to have divine fathers. Jesus was also a great man, so he too must have a divine father.

The virgin birth may have been copied from a Roman fable: Livy, a famous Roman historian, had written a very popular book on the history of Rome that was widely circulated in the first decades of the 1st century CE.  In it, he explained that Mars, the Roman God of war, fathered twins Romulus and Remus, the original mythical founders of the city of Rome. Their mother was Silvia, a Vestal Virgin. Some Christian groups may have slightly modified this fable and adopted it as their own, in an attempt to show that Jesus was a person of very great importance -- an individual at least as important as the founders of Rome.

These stories may cause those that know history and legends to doubt the Virgin Birth.

The report of a Virgin Birth didn’t appear until over 50 years after it supposedly happened. Why? If ancient history is recorded by word of mouth and there was recorded history before the Virgin Birth appeared why did he take so long to record it?  How do you answer that to remove ones doubt about the Virgin Birth without adding your own personal opinion? There are no facts to stand on.

Would we believe a similar story if it happened in 2016?  Most of the people today would never, ever, believe it.

Imagine if a teenage girl in your neighborhood claimed that her pregnancy was due to God impregnating her and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying or mentally ill?

Why then are some Christians so judgmental, bias and claim without any doubt that if you do not believe in the Virgin Birth you cannot be a Christian and you are destine for Hell?

Most liberal theologians do not believe in the doctrine of the virgin birth.  Skepticism about the virgin birth is not a recent development, as evidenced by a 1823 quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." the membership of mainline and liberal denominations like the United Church of Christ, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church, USA, etc. tend to be significantly more conservative than their ministers and theologians. Belief in the virgin birth is much higher among the laity than the clergy in these denominations.  

The Virgin Birth may have been copied from another religion.  History records that various religions claimed virgin births: Buddha was born of the virgin Maya after the Holy Ghost descended upon her. The Egyptian God Horus was born of the virgin Isis; as an infant, he was visited by three kings. In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama. A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin. In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after his death. Greek deity Adonis was born of the virgin Myrrha, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. He was born "at Bethlehem, in the same sacred cave that Christians later claimed as the birthplace of Jesus." In Persia, the god Mithra was born of a virgin on DEC-25. An alternative myth is that he emerged from a rock. Also in Persia, Zoroaster was born of a virgin. In India, there are two main stories of the birth of Krishna, one of the incarnations of Vishnu, and the second person within the Hindu Trinity. In one story, Krishna was said to have been born to his mother Devaki while she was still a virgin. In the other, he had a normal conception and birth. Is it really fair for Christians to judge non-believers of the Virgin Birth as lunatics.

Why was the Virgin Birth story delayed in being told.  Some say no respectable Jew would have ever condescended to buy into a Greek/Babylonian mythological base for an account dealing with the birth of the Messiah." This may explain why the story of the virgin birth first appeared in the Gospel of Matthew. It was written circa 80 CE at a time when most Christians were converts from Paganism who had been taught about virgin births in their former religions.

The Virgin Birth story was inspired by the Hebrew Scriptures: Throughout the Old Testament, we hear of the very unusual births of Ishmael, Isaac, Samson and Samuel. Usually prior to the birth, an angel appears to the parent-to-be; the latter is afraid; the message of an upcoming birth is given; objections are raised; and a sign is given. Matthew and Luke could have replicated the essence of these stories, and added a Virgin Birth as proof that Jesus' birth was beyond simply unusual; it was a miracle. This would establish Jesus at a much higher status than the four famous figures from the Hebrew Scriptures. Without a miraculous birth, Jesus might have been considered to be only equal in stature to those heroes.

Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke contain references to the Virgin Birth.  In John 1:45 they refer to Jesus specifically as "the son of Joseph" and in 6:42 the townspeople ask, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?" If the author(s) of John believed in the miracle of the Virgin Birth, why would it not have been mentioned somewhere in the gospel of John, and why was Joseph allowed to stand as Jesus' father on two occasions and no attempt to clarify the statement was made.

Do I believe the Virgin Birth was possible – YES!  Do I believe you must believe it in order to be a Christian – NO!  Until I am shown in the Bible that you must believe in the Virgin Birth in order to have your sins forgiven, receive salvation or spend eternity with God I will continue to believe it is not necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth.

The Bible states - God will not put more on you than you can stand - NOT TRUE!

The Bible states, “God will not put more on you than you can stand” – NOT TRUE!

If you believe me wrong read 1 Corinthians 10:6-13 and Matthew 11:28-30 again it does not say what you may have thought it said or some sentimental Christian or religious leader told you it said.

People are surprised to find that at no time in the movie Casablanca does Rick ever say, “Play it again, Sam.”  It is also surprising to know that in over 79 Star Trek episodes and 6 movies, no one ever actually says, “Beam me up, Scotty.” But people all assume that those clichés and many others are from the films and movies they attribute them, too.

It works the same with the Bible.  There are all kinds of things that people assume the Bible says but it actually doesn’t.  At the top of that list is “The Lord helps those who help themselves” with something like 80% of Christians believing that quote is from the Bible. It’s actually from the Ancient Greeks by way of Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac.

But in a close second is the statement: “God never gives you more than you can bear.”  It is frequently “quoted” to people in times of distress with great certainty.  Everything will be alright—the suffering one is told—God wouldn’t have given you this trial if you couldn’t get through it. It is quite comforting to those suffering until they find out it is not true and then they begin to doubt God because of you ‘YOUR’ biblical untruth.

There is a quote like it; but there is nothing that says “God will never give you more than you can bear.”  The quote that is frequently used to back up the idea, from 1 Corinthians, doesn’t really say what people think it does. It actually says, “No temptation has seized you that isn’t common for people … God is faithful. He won’t allow you to be tempted beyond your abilities ...”

Paul is reminding his readers that God will not allow people to be tempted beyond their abilities.  That is, there is no temptation that you should feel you are powerless against, because God would not allow you to be tempted by something you couldn’t resist. If you’re being tempted, in Paul’s thinking, it’s something you are strong enough to resist. That is a far different thing from claiming that nothing bad will happen to you or that you will not have to bear a burden that you cannot bear alone, without God.

Paul even states they suffered burdens they could not bear in their own strength, “We were weighed down with a load of suffering that was so far beyond our strength that we were afraid we might not survive.” (2 Corinthians 1:8). We are also told in Psalm 38:8, “I’m worn out, completely crushed; I groan because of my miserable heart” and in Psalm 38:4, “My wrongdoings are stacked higher than my head; they are a weight that’s way too heavy for me.” Elijah was told by an angel:  “Get up and eat, for the journey is too much for you.” (1 Kings 19:7). Let us not forget Jesus, too, who died in agony on the cross, cried out “My God, My God, why have you left me?”

Not only is it not found in scripture our life experiences do not bear it out. There are all kinds of things that happen that we cannot bear. Sometimes our lives come crashing down around us.

Trite platitudes that are designed to make people feel better are harmful to Christianity. Can you imagine someone saying to an inmate at Auschwitz don’t worry - God never gives you more than you can bear or saying it to a woman whose children are killed by a long buried landmine while they were playing or a refugee who survived the massacre of her entire village or someone who has just been given a diagnosis of a terminal illness?

I am thankful that we Catholic’s have the crucifix and not just a cross for it reminds  us that our faith is driven by the hope and the promise of the Resurrection, but that we still live very much in a world defined by the Crucifixion – pain and suffering.

When you tell suffering people that God never gives them more than they can bear and they are being crushed at the time by problems you are causing them to question what is wrong with them?  What are they doing wrong?  Why isn’t God helping them? You are not bringing them to God you are pushing them away from God. If you do not have more comforting words than that to give them then keep your mouth shut and listen.

If you truly believe no problem comes your way that you cannot bear then you are making it about you and not God. Why do you need God if you alone can bear all your problems? Christ said, “Come to me, all you who are struggling hard and carrying heavy loads and I will give you rest. Put on my yoke, and learn from me. I’m gentle and humble. And you will find rest for yourselves. My yoke is easy to bear, and my burden is light.” Christ did not tell us to go it alone. Our faith is demonstrated by our recognition that we cannot bear the burdens ourselves and trust in the grace of God who bears them with us.

The church should be a place where you can come and say, “I have a burden that I cannot bear” and instead of being judged for having a weak faith, you are surrounded by a network of love and support that will bear that burden with you.  Just as Christ takes upon himself the burdens we cast upon him, unfortunately to many church going Christians and religious leaders have forgotten that.

The Gospel reminds us that our problems do not disappear because we have become followers of Christ, but we are promised that in those sufferings we are not alone. God does not make us suffer alone He is always with us. God will stand beside us in our times of trouble.

“Come to me, all you who are struggling hard and carrying heavy loads and I will give you rest.”

Do not beat yourself up when you fail and give in to temptations that you told God in prayer that you would not do again.  God is happy for all the days that the temptation came up and you did not give in and does not hold against you the days that you did. God will is patient!  Just pick yourself up and try again.  God is a God of more than one chance.

Donald Trump's Muslim proposal may help him and not hurt him.

Nearly every politician from both parties have been critical of Donald Trump for suggesting closing the U.S. to all Muslim immigrants until the officials can get a handle on the Islamic terror threat.  Sounds like a good suggestion to me. If the back room power bosses of the Republican Party, Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, Bernie Sanders and the other Liberals think they will hurt Trump by attacking him I think they may be wrong. Let’s get real Trump’s supporters are primarily white, conservative, Christians. I doubt if many Muslims, Blacks or Hispanic will be supporting Trump regardless of any statement he makes. Therefore Trump’s remarks may help him instead of hurt him in the primary elections, but the general election will be a different animal. No other Republican is standing up to Obama on the terrorist issue as Trump is.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Tuesday called Trump a “carnival barker” who should be disqualified from running for president, along with any GOP candidate who doesn’t denounce his remarks. I do not think Donald Trump or his supporters care what one of Obama’s paid hacks says. Josh Earnest says what Obama and his advisors tell him to say. He is not paid to think for himself. Josh Earnest remarks may help Trump in the polls.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said Trump’s remarks go against what the party stands for. I wish Paul Ryan would explain to us what the Republican Party stands for, because I no longer know. As far as I can tell the Democrats and Republican stand for the same thing. The Republican House and Senate have demonstrated they will not use the power of the purse to block or change Democrat (Obama) programs.

The National Republican Committee Chair said, “I don’t agree with Trump. We need to aggressively take on radical Islamic terrorism, but not at the expense of our American values.” It seems obvious to me Reince Priebus has lost touch with what American values are.  

A majority (56%) of Americans agree that the values of Islam are at odds with American values and the American way of life. It appears to me that American voters are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything that they think might make us safer. I think more conservative Americans at this time would agree more with Donald Trump than with Reince Priebus, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Linsey Graham and Dick Cheney are saying.  That is certainly what the polls reveal.

A new USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll released Tuesday revealed that even if the GOP establishment successfully ends Trump’s White House bid, 68 percent of his supporters would vote for him as an Independent, 28 percent said they wouldn’t and the rest were undecided. I tend to believe for the first time in my life I would support an Independent candidate. I would support an Independent Donald Trump because I do not think he would let the Republican and Democrat elected officials push him around and if they tried he would go public as Reagan did and they would not risk that.

Trump’s high poll numbers survived the attacks he received for making inappropriate statements on Mexican immigrants, questioning the heroism of Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war, and suggesting that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly was menstruating (I am not sure that is what he meant) when she asked him tough questions (I think unfair questions) at the first Republican primary debate. He could survive this last comment that has brought on a media storm as he has others.

If Donald Trump should continue to carry the support of the Republican voters and the Republican Party sabotaged his Presidential possibilities I think they would be guaranteeing a win for the Democrats and most likely Queen Hillary.

How fast the Democrats forget their past. Don’t they remember the Iranian hostage crisis? President Carter banned all Iranians from entering the U.S. unless they opposed the Shiite Islamist regime or had a medical emergency. Some argue that Trump’s plan is different because it bars members of a religious group. I believe the Shite Islamist regime in Iran was and is an Islamic Radical Muslim Religious regime ran by Imam’s.  Donald Trump’s proposal certainly seems similar to me.

 “The Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly,” Carter said in 1980. In addition, the Carter administration began a thorough campaign to deport Iranian students who had overstayed their visas.

The Carter move was aimed at protecting American lives and was not very controversial at the time. Donald Trump’s proposal is aimed at protecting American lives and would not be that controversial if not for the Democrat, Liberals, media and the Republican establishment in Washington D.C. that want to stop Donald Trump.  I think if Donald Trump’s plan was carried out sensibly and diplomatically it would not be controversial with most American.

One media outlet was concerned that CAIR had been offended because the Director of the MUSLIM organization, Ibrahim Hooper said, “We’re entering into the realm of the fascist now.  It should be disturbing to all Americans that the leading Republican presidential candidate would issue essentially a fascist statement.” I am not concerned with what CAIR thinks, since I do not view them as a moderate Islamic group. I am more concerned as to why some are more concerned about what CAIR thinks than what the majority of American thinks.

Journalists have stated that Less than 24 hours after Mr. Obama (in a speech from the Oval Office) urged Americans not to overreact to the terrorist massacre by Islamic extremists in San Bernardino by vilifying Islam and he praised the patriotism of millions of Americans Muslims Mr. Trump called for an entry bans and forced registration of Muslims which will set off a backlash from moderate Islamic Muslims. Perhaps if Obama did not try over and over again to make Americans look like the bad guys in the Radical Muslim Terrorist crisis Donald Trump would not have to propose what he did.

The media has begun to take a tougher stand against Republican front-runner Donald Trump after his campaign promise to keep Muslims out of the country as a means to stop the terrorist threat of ISIS. There have been other times when the press leaned harder on Trump when they thought he had made statements that would disqualify him only to find his statements helped him in the polls.

The Philadelphia Daily News put a photo of Trump with his arm raised in a “Sieg Heil” salute on its front page with the headline “The New Furor.” Michael Days, the editor-in-chief of the tabloid, said he decided to go with the image after receiving outraged texts throughout the day about Trump’s comments.

It was reported, “On the 74th anniversary of the surprise Pearl Harbor attack by Japanese warplanes that brought the United States into the Second World War that Mr. Trump’s anti-Muslim accusations stirred dark memories. Not since then, when tens of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry – including citizens – were rounded up and forced into internment camps has a major political figure in the United States called for imposing discriminatory treatment on the basis of religion or race.”

I believe Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, was President at the time of the Japanese interment and he personally called for it to be done. Then and now are two different times. I would have disagreed with Roosevelt’s decision because the U.S. was not threatened by Japanese Radical Terrorist living in the United States. 

One liberal article stated, “Some Republicans have been stoking the smoldering embers of anti-Muslim fervor in the United States since Mr. Obama launched his bid to replace former president George W. Bush. Mr. Obama, whose Kenyan father and Indonesian stepfather were both Muslims, spent some of his childhood in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, and has been openly accused of being a closet Muslim by some right-wing Republicans.” I believed Obama was a Christian and I do not recall his father or stepfather ever being on a ballot in the United States so the religious preference of his father or stepfather is of no importance to me. I think the majority of American’s accepted that Obama was a Christian. Lately, I have begun to wonder and I think others have to if we could have been wrong due to Obama’s constant attack on America, Americans and particularly American Christians.  The article even stated “Donald Trump hates Muslim.” I may be wrong, but I have never heard Donald Trump say he hated anyone. I did hear him say that a lot of Muslims around the world hated Americans.

Liberal articles have used Donald Trump’s statement claiming that many Muslims danced and celebrated on rooftops in New Jersey as New York’s World Trade Center’s twin towers burned and collapsed against him. Frankly, I believe Donald Trump was incorrect or exaggerating when he made the statement. I am sure there were Radical Islamic Muslims in every state that were pleased to see the terrorist win one against the United States.

If Donald Trump did lie when he made the statement it pales compared to Obama’s lies – if you like your doctor you can keep him, Bengasi was caused by an anti-Muslim video, the I.R.S. did not discriminate against conservative organizations and all the other lies he has told the American people. It is not right, but all politicians make statements that they think will win them votes when speaking to a particular group of people.

Gulf News, a Dubai-based English-language news outlet took the opportunity to seize on Donald Trump’s remarks and added to them by stating; “Trump’s solution would be to bomb the hell out of ISIS militants in Iraq and Syria.”  I really do not care what the Middle East Muslim media says. If Trump was elected and ordered more effective bombings it would be better than what Obama has done over the past seven years. It seems to me there are Muslim groups in the Middle East fear a Donald Trump administration. They certainly do not fear Obama or the Democrats.

I read, “If you’re a bigot, redneck or white supremacist voter in the US right now, you gotta love Donald Trump. But it you’re a Muslim, an immigrant, a Mexican or Black, then you had better be afraid — very afraid.” I am not a bigot, redneck or white supremacist and I might support Donald Trump. I certainly would fear Donald Trump less than I do Islamic Muslim Terrorist. I do not think any Muslim, Mexican or Muslim need fear Trump if they are here legally and obeying the laws.

Liberals have never been a supporter of Bill O'Reilly on FOX News Channel, until he slammed Trump’s commentary as a "racist diatribe," saying that even former Vice President Dick Cheney was “disgusted” with Trumps statement.  Cheney, speaking on a radio show said Trump’s plan to ban all Muslim immigration, “… goes against everything we stand for and believe in. Religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and where we came from.” When someone seems to agree with the Liberals they forget all the times they have said Bill O’Reilly did not know what he was talking about, but all of a sudden he has become an expert and they are quoting him as if he is a prophet.

Dar al-Ifta, Egypt’s official religious body, echoed Cheney’s statement on religious freedom in the U.S. The organization issued a statement saying Trump’s commentary was “… totally erroneous” and that “… such hostile attitudes towards Islam and Muslims will increase tensions within the American society of which Muslims represent around 8 million peaceful and loyal American citizens.” Many thought the San Bernardino Radical Islamic Terrorist and his family were peaceful and it does not appear they were.  I really did not expect a Muslim Middle East religious group to support Donald Trump or his latest comments.

They went on to say, “It is unfair to punish all Muslims because of a group of extremists whose criminal actions are repudiated by Islam,” I do not think all Muslim should be judged by a few radicals, but I do think those that are not radical should be taking the fight to the radicals and not expect non-Muslims to do it for them. I also do not think Egypt is doing such a great job controlling the Islamic Muslim Radicals in their own country so why are they trying to tell us how to deal with our problem.

Donald Trump’s words were more in your face, but are they that far off from what the other GOP candidates who are criticizing Trump have said about Syrian refugees, Muslims, and immigrants.

A short term ban on Muslim visa’s, since the present visa program is not working, sounds reasonable to me. We have got to do be better than what we're doing. Muslim or other people that travel to terrorist countries at the moment should be vetted more than any others and we should have a moratorium on anybody that has been in any terrorist country or anywhere where terrorists are based.

Once we get a workable immigration/visa program we could resume issuing visas to Muslims and I think that is exactly what Trump wants to do. Obama recently said if any Republican has a better idea on a deal with Iran then let them propose it. Donald Trump thinks he has a better idea on Muslim visa and he proposed it and Obama and his henchman did not consider it at all, instead they immediately attack Trump. 

Bill Clinton returned the Democrats to power with some radical ideas for a Democrat – he favored the death penalty and he wanted to drastically reform welfare. Clinton won the election because on every issue that the Republicans had hoped to dominate—balancing the budget, welfare, crime, immigration, and taxes—Clinton staked out a strong centrist position early on. Clinton knew what Americans wanted at that time and he won.

Could Donald Trump win the nomination by adopting some Democrat ideas, by not being as conservative as some in the Republican Party want him to be and by giving Americans what they want at this time?

I have said before I am confused when it comes to the 2016 election, In the back of my mind I cannot ignore that maybe Donald Trump does not want to be President; maybe Trump wants the Republicans to lose the election; maybe it would be more profitable for Trump if Hillary and Bill returned to the White House, instead of a Republican. Donald Trump is a businessman and profit is the world he understands. Trust of any politicians is difficult for me in 2016.

I do not think an Independent Donald Trump could win a National election, but I do believe it would guarantee a loss for the Republican Party. I do not think the Republicans have anything to gain by trying to sabotage Trump’s campaign.  The latest Bloomberg poll shows almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third said it makes them more likely to vote for him. An online Bloomberg poll showed 37 percent among all likely general-election voters support Trump’s controversial Muslim visa proposal.

The Supreme Court did not rule on how Christians must view homosexuality.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered an historic decision that same-sex couples have the right to marry in the United States.  Their decision reflects a shift in U.S. public opinion concerning same-sex relationships.  Prior to the Supreme Court decision, nearly two-thirds of Americans favored extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court interpreted the U.S. Constitution, not the Bible.  The Court did not try and discern God’s will, or what constitutes Christin ethical or moral behavior and Christians should not determine their morals from public opinion polls.

The Supreme Court ruling did not define how Christians should or must view same-sex marriage.  Churches are still permitted to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and to see the love of a same-sex couple as incompatible with Christian teaching.

I know that many if not the majority of Christians will disagree with me, but I will state my personal views anyway – I am not sure that CHRISTIANS should expect non-Christians to think and live like Christians. I think it is far better to let our lives do our preaching than to try and force others to accept our beliefs. As a Christian I do not expect the government to force my Christian values or morality on me. Of course, I would love for all people to think and act like Christians “SHOULD”. It would be a better world in which to live, but I know laws will not change a cold, hateful, bitter, selfish, bigoted heart only a work of God’s Spirit will.  I think Christians should work for just laws that are fair to all and protect the rights of the minority, bring dignity to people and work for the common good of the nation and world.

What is the will of God concerning same-sex marriage?  Franklin Graham made it clear he opposes same sex marriages in uncertain terms and made it clear in his opinion it is a sin. I do not claim to be as versed in the Bible as Franklin Graham after all he had a great mentor – Rev. Billy Graham, but I know the Bible is complicated and intelligent people who read it with an open mind will find things that they might question. Some things found in the Bible seem to me to reflect the culture of the authors more than the will of God.

Women in the Bible were often seen as second class citizens. Slavery was found to be morally acceptable in the Old Testament and slave-owning Christians in the early church were not asked by the apostles to set their slaves free.   Priests were commanded to burn their daughters alive if they became prostitutes, and rebellious children were to be stoned to death. Women who were raped were required to marry their rapist.  And when Israel went off to war she believed God called her to destroy every man, woman, and child among the nations she conquered.  The Apostle Paul teaches that women are to pray with their heads covered and to not wear their hair in braids.  Women were not permitted to teach a man, and Paul notes that it was “shameful” for a woman to even speak in church.

We are not always able to discern God’s will, simply by quoting a handful of verses from the Bible.  If it worked that way we would still embrace slavery, polygamy, and concubines.  Victims of rape would still be forced to wed their rapists. All denominations would still be like Catholics and not allow women to serve as pastors and would require women to remain silent when it comes to church doctrine.

I am not going to argue the point if God makes us gay or straight.  I do know sexual orientation is developed in most of us at a very early age if not from birth.  Could it be possible that God looked at His gay and lesbian children and said, “It is not good that this one should be alone; I will make them a helper as their companion”? That is what God said in Genesis regarding a man and woman.

Spousal relationships are more about sharing lives together as one another’s helpers and companions than sexual.  It is about holding hands, sharing dreams, helping one another when one or the other is struggling.  It is about shared memories, companionship, and a warm embrace. The Supreme Court has said that this kind of committed love should not be legally denied to same sex couples.

The Catholic Church even after the recent synod in the Vatican says that gay and lesbian couples cannot enter into this kind of covenant.  They cannot receive God’s blessings upon their love within our church and from our priest because, according to our doctrine, to share their lives together as companions (engaging in sex) is “incompatible with Christian teaching.” They claim this knowing that many of our priests are homosexuals.  We teach that God says gay and lesbian people should be alone.  I really wrestle with this doctrine.

Pope Francis has instructed our cardinals, bishops and priest to welcome and love gay and lesbian people.  Catholic Christians should certainly be able to do that and remain brothers and sisters in Christ in the same church.  Unlike Protestant churches we will never be able to leave it to each parish to make their own individual choice for this would require a new type of governance and that will never happen in the Catholic Church and I do not think it should.

The famous love chapter, 1 Corinthians 13, was Paul’s answer to divisions.  In verses 4-8 he taught the Corinthians what love looks like, “I will show you a still more excellent way:  Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrong doing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, and endures all things.  Love never ends.”

In Philippians Paul offers these words to end the division: “Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus.”

We must always remember that those with whom we disagree are human beings, children of God and it opens the door for us to see them not simply as adversaries, but as friends.  And this may lead us to work harder to find solutions to those issues that divide us.

The real issue for the church is not homosexuality, but the Bible. What kind of book is the Bible?  How has God spoken to us through the Bible and how does He continue to speak through it.  The answers determine how we read the handful of passages in the Bible that seem to speak to homosexuality. 

Rev. Adam Hamilton says:  some scriptures express God’s heart, character and timeless will for human beings and some express God’s will in a particular time, but are no longer binding and some never fully expressed the heart, character or will of God. I agree with him!

I certainly believe we are for all times to love God and love our neighbor and do unto others as we would have them do unto us.  I do not believe males must be circumcised or  that most of the other hundreds of passages found in the O.T. regarding the Law must be obeyed. I do not believe God ever spoke the words found in Leviticus 21:9 which requires  - if the daughter of a priest becomes a prostitute she must be burned to death or in Exodus 21:20-21, God permits slave-owners to beat their slaves with rods provided they don’t die within the first 48 hours after the beating “for the slave is his property,”  or God commanded the destruction of every man, woman, and child in 31 Canaanite cities and later killed 70,000 Israelites in punishment for David taking a census. These passages seem to me to be completely inconsistent with the God revealed in Jesus Christ who cared for prostitutes, commanded that we love our enemies, and gave his life to save sinners.

I question what category does same-sex intimacy fall into?  Consider Leviticus 20:13 in which God is said to command: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”  Anyone who has a child that is gay would rightly ask, “Did God ever really command that gay and lesbian children be put to death?”  They might also ask, “Does God really see my child, or the love they share for their partner, as an abomination?”

Do these passages we use to condemn homosexuals describe God’s heart and timeless will, or do they address specific forms of same-sex activity in ancient Israel and in the first century world, or perhaps they may not captured God’s heart and character at all?

How we answer the questions of what scripture is, how when and why it was written, and the way in which God influenced its human authors shapes how we make sense of issues like homosexuality.