Sean,

Your comments about my beliefs are far from anything that I have said, so you would've done well to be careful before God in what you are doing, if you are going to claim to be the one speaking the truth in this conversation, because God condemns all liars. I have spoken nothing falsely about the Bible. Addressing liars is a waste of my time, but I am going to defend myself and be done with the hatefest that you are embracing for your God. To lie about people is to hate people, and what awaits liars is wrath. I'll address your lies and your irrational statements one at a time, starting with your first letter.

1. You have no ability to distinguish the concept of a "principle" in Scripture. The principle that I am speaking of, is that the law of God under the new covenant, in its entirety, is love. Paul explained that all that defines love is the law of God, and we are accountable to each other for nothing more. Laws are subject to new covenant principles. This is verifiable several times over. This biblical fact renders your statements about me to be false. Nothing about what I am saying places all of Scripture in a state of being dismissible. I don't expect you to understand this, because your false statements are devoid of any spiritual understanding, reason, or discernment.

2. Based on your statements, unless you live by all laws stated by Paul, and speak out to defend all of his laws, you will be found to be the worst of all hypocrites, because of your severe judgments which are based on many false statements. You have not engaged in the debate here, you have merely launched an attack on me. If you have a shred of integrity, explain why it is no longer a disgrace in the church today, for women to attend church and pray without their heads covered, in obedience to the explicit teachings of Paul. Explain why this is no longer a teaching in the church. This is just one example of several, but I am keeping my time spent addressing you to a minimum.

3. For me to believe that God inspired and governed the writings of Scripture, and to believe that He allowed Paul and others to misunderstand what precisely was condemned by Him, in regards to same-sex relations, is not intellectually dishonest. It is not unreasonable to believe that His purpose was to nail down the predominance of heterosexuality for societies, and for "judgment" to fall along the lines of condemning the heart of rebellion only, which is explicitly laid out in the context of the statements. There are many compelling facts of how He purposely established His Word, which leads me to be convinced of this. This issue involves clear complexities, and God is a righteous Judge who looks upon the heart.

4. You are claiming that I have "nitpicked" Scripture. I assume you are referring to the many laws that have no place in Christianity today. Is this what you are going to say to God about these facts that I have brought up for discussion? "She nitpicked Lord; why should I be accountable for my judgments on her, and my dismissal of laws for us?" This is concerning what your judgments would suggest you believe to be God-breathed commandments for all time. If you do not believe they are, you are speaking hypocritically. If you do believe they are, no address of commandments of God, which have been wholly dismissed by the church, should be considered nitpicking.

5. ..."but when they were all addressed as being false you fall back on a position of saying that what God said isn't really what He meant." I don't believe you can show me one example where I was shown to have stated something that was false, much less "all." If you have a shred of integrity in you, show me where what I said was shown to be false.

Question: When God condemned a person to being stoned to death for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, did He mean what He said for all time? Is this His law today? Even without the death penalty, is this His commandment today, that not one stitch of work is to be done on the Sabbath (yes, the Sabbath), and that this is disobedience to His law and of the severest of violations? When He stated the consuming of certain foods to be an "abomination," did He mean what He said for all time? These things were explicitly stated in the New Testament to be a matter of one's own conscience and personal relationship with God, and not subject to man's judgment. Quite a contrast from the OT, especially considering the severity of what was stated there. You've placed yourself in the position of judge...I'll be waiting for your answer.

6. "If that is the case, then why choose to be religious? If your position is that of "interpretation", then there is no point in following anything in the Bible." So wisdom says, unless you embrace all of the laws of the Bible, why embrace the gospel of the one who died to save your soul? Great logic there. Truth: "Pure and undefiled religion" is to serve the vulnerable and those who are in need. It is not the commandment of Christ to live by the entirety of the Mosaic Law and the laws of Paul. As to "interpretation"...I'll be waiting for your answers to these questions concerning God's Word.

Second letter.

1. As to your first point, of course I condemn adultery. The law of God is love; adultery is a violation of love. You are saying that if you liberate anything in Scripture, something that Paul himself did, "you throw out all laws," including the laws of love. (I'm sure you will be found to be the one with the sound logic. You reflect no spiritual understanding in your statements, or honesty.)

2. "For Lynn, homosexuality is ok as well as pre-marital sex...but adultery is somehow out of bounds." Not only do you not see why I would understand adultery to be sin, as if you've read nothing that I have written, or can't think intelligently at all, you lie and slander boldly for your God. All liars will be condemned. I would suggest you repent of this before seeing Him.

3. "Changing the rules at any time for any reason"...You have no sense of reason, or any concept of this from Scripture, so I won't take the time to answer this.

..."there is no sense trying to make a point to someone if they have no intention of 1)being honest 2)entering a conversation about something with an open mind, which is needed if you are looking for the truth" Honesty? A conversation with an open mind? I'll be waiting for your answers to my questions.

4. Your next statements are an ignorant judgment of my heart, my intentions, and my relationship with God. You don't know me, and God will put you in your place before all. I look forward to it.

5. "She doesn't want to do the right thing, hence her continued faulty arguments which have been dispelled by each person who has responded to her" Unless you are going to run away whining...please detail for the readers where I have been shown to be presenting a patently false argument.

6. The statements that follow this, are statements to the effect that I am "looking for someone to agree with me." Another false and ignorant assessment, for which you will answer to God one day, where He will ask you for the foundation of your judgment. This is a study on the written Word of God. Truthfully, what I am doing is quite the opposite of what you are saying, which says a lot about where you are coming from. I'll be surprised if you spend some time and give an answer for your beliefs and your judgments. We'll see.