I really appreciate your historical knowledge, wagga. (Apologies for this digression, but, if I remember correctly, you are an archaeologist? Since I was 6, it has been my dream to be an archaeologist. ) Thank-you for your response. That's a really interesting point that you mentioned (about protection because it was dangerous to be a Christian then.)

I enjoyed reading your post above, TOM.

Finally they note that since Gen. 5:1-2 says that male and female were made in the image of God, then God's image is not complete among us unless both are present, and God's image is not honored among us unless both are honored. (But Judaism finds it stumbling-block hard to contemplate that God's image in Christ could be obedient to the point of being submissive, let among submissive unto death on a cross (Phil. 2:8).)

Wow, that's really something.

a lot of people believe that the Fall happened right away, not because they think that humans were just aching to sin and die, but because a delayed Fall would give Adam and Eve a long and blessed marriage of a type that we were never told about, can never have, and can never even take a good guess about; and that just irritates them.

I believe that the Fall (the beginning of degradation, physical death, and spiritual separation from God [though not separation in the sense that God turned "gave up on man." I think the Trinity had the plan for the Messiah to come. God apparently was pleased for with Abel who, I believe, was born under sin, and Adam and Eve seem to have some connection with God, or at least Eve, as some her of her words are recorded in Genesis]) While I think that the Fall itself happened at one definite point, I think that some of the effects were gradual. I agree with what you said - I think some people don't want to believe that Adam and Eve had a good marriage. I think that some people portray the Fall as happening a few days after Creation. If I'm not mistaken, it never says when the serpent and the tree happened. I must admit that I am a novice in studying these things; just thinking aloud, I suppose.

that verse about "women would nevertheless be saved by childbearing" (1 Tim 2:13), I have heard that this was a mistranslation, or if you prefer, a generalization. That is, consider how Psalms 1:1 says "Blessed be the man" in old translations but "Blessed are those" in some modern ones. The mental poem of a lone soul standing up for righteousness is modified in the new translation to sound like a crowd, like a church, and it's a lot safer/easier in a crowded church.

] I agree. That chapter itself (if I'm not mistaken?) has the "Woman was decieved, man wasn't" that confuses me , but I always read the "women would be saved by childbirth" as Mary. Do most translations say plural "women" or does it say "she"? I'm not sure. But I am pretty certain that refers to Mary, because why would Paul encourage celibacy?
And also I think the idea basing salvation and justification for women on having children is pretty heretical and contrary to everything about the Gospel.

Also, at some places in the Old Testament (Deut. 33:26, 29; Hosea 13:9), God calls Himself Israel's azer or Helper. Does this mean that Israel is the husband and God is the wife? Of course not. It means they're a team.

I don't see God as the wife and Israel the husband. More like the other way around, as it is frequently mentioned in the Bible that way. And yes, I agree that husbands and wives are supposed to be a team. The Church, after all, was supposed to be the Bride of Christ.

I really appreciate your historical knowledge, wagga. (Apologies for this digression, but, if I remember correctly, you are an archaeologist? Since I was 6, it has been my dream to be an archaeologist. ) Thank-you for your response. That's a really interesting point that you mentioned (about protection because it was dangerous to be a Christian then.)

Yes, it was dangerous to be a Christian in St Paul's days. Persecuting Christians is what he, himself, was doing when he converted to Christianity, when he "saw the light" on the road to Damascus. Both St Paul and St Peter were executed for their beliefs. St John the Apostle, was exiled to Patmos, whilst the first Christian Bishop, James the Elder, the brother of Jesus Christ, was also killed on the walls of Jerusalem.

It wasn't only the likes of Herod or Caiaphas (both of whose tombs have been found, by the way), but also at the hands of often corrupt Roman governors and their imperial bosses. Some Emperors deified their predecessors, whilst others expected to be deified in their own lifetimes. All Roman citizens and people living there were expected to worship Roman emperors as a civic duty, including Druids in England (who were killed by the Romans), Jews and Christians. The Jews mounted three national revolts, and came off the losers, expecially after the Bar Kochba revolt of 132 AD when Hadrian renamed Jerusalem Aelia Capitolinus and fobade Jewish people to live there. But even though Christians weren't involved in these insurrections, they suffered, too. Not only Nero but also Domitian and several other Emperors specifically persecuted Christians, and it wasn't until Constantine the Great that this persecution finally stopped. Also the rather silly idea of worshipping Emperors as gods.

And thank you, Aslan is the Best, but no, I am not an archaeologist. I live on the wrong continent and in the wrong hemisphere to have earned my living in such a manner, however interesting archaeology might be to read about. The really glamorous bits of archaeology are in the Middle East, sometimes in rather dangerous places. Or in Britain and Europe. Or Asia, northern Africa & the America's. However, through my working life as a librarian and my studying for that reason, I have retained a great deal of interest in the subject and in history generally. If you get an opportunity to become an archaeologist, then I'd think it would be lovely.

1) a lot of people think that the curses of Gen. 3:16 are "the natural order of things," although we are plainly told that the participants are being cursed!...Basically, I've heard that 1 Tim. 2:13 is the fulfillment of Gen. 3:15.

It does seem like that. The last four verses of Chapter 2 of Timothy (verses 12 to 15 are as follows:

12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.

15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

Yes, I'd like a bit of clarification of these verses, myself. I'm not at all convinced that Adam did not also sin, whatever St Paul said. If he wasn't deceived by the snake, why didn't he just say what Eve had already said to the snake? Why didn't he simply say no? Why did he knowingly go and eat fruit when he wasn't supposed to? Like a naughty boy, pinching a farmer's beans? Or was it simply plonked down in front of him, since it was Eve's job to find something to eat? And why, having failed to obey instructions, and being palpably guilty when God came around looking for him, did Adam start playing the blame game, making Eve take the rap?

I'm not saying St Paul was wrong to be celibate, or anyone else for that matter. But I think even St Paul was no harsher on women than his contemporaries who were married, often not by their wives' choices. Roman citizens tended to remain aloof from wives and children, which explains the dysfunctional way many of their emperors behaved. And yes, cursed or not, men do seek to dominate as the scriptures mention in Gen 3:16. Which is a pain in itself when it stops them recognising that women also have a right to an opinion of their own.

I have a (tangential) question about this from TOM. I understand you to be saying that in their unfallen condition Adam and Eve's relationship was not so authoritarian as it later became.

I agree with you they might have been blissfully happy before the fall, as they should have been. Probably they did have a relationship with a great deal of equality, since it had not been set who was to do what, or who was the boss. And it was before Adam, not admitting responsibility for his actions, played the blame game.

It is sometimes hard to realise how much family life has changed over the 20th century, which only finished thirteen years ago, from what some people might still consider "usual". We were watching a BBC series on TV called Turn Back Time in which three families lived for five days in five different time frames during the Twentieth Century.

In the first episode, set in Edwardian UK, prior to WW1, the father of the house was expected to be a disciplinarian who in wealthier families, in particular, tended to remain aloof from his family as well as the lower classes. Parents only ate with their older children, and women were not expected to participate either in housework, or the work force, and were debarred from many of the activities open to the adult men of the family. Only the working class family was at all egalitarian, out of necessity, to survive.

At the end of that episode, the middle-class family man, who had Jewish ancestry, by the way, remarked that the men of that era could have been more emotionally involved with their families, less stern and more approachable, as one would expect today. It cut him to pieces how his children cried whenever he spoke sternly to them as they did in previous eras. But by the second episode, set in the late 1920's at the time of the Wall Street Crash, we see a distinct difference in family attitudes to each other. The next episodes will show the impact of WW2, democracy and the civil rights movements. I guess it is hard for us to see St Paul as being something of a radical in his day and age, actually suggesting his contemporaries should go easier on their wives.

One of those middle-of-the-night thoughts, FWIW ...

Another reason that my guess is that Adam and Eve's marriage before the Fall was more equal than complimentarian is that complimentarianism requires the concept of roles.

Consider: what are the traditional (not necessarily stereotypical, but those also) roles for men and women? Men worked for pay; women worked without being paid. Men worked outside of the home; women worked inside it. Men advanced or regressed in their careers; women could do neither. Men took care of the home and family by paying bills; women took care of home and family by actual caregiving, including incurring bills.

Think about this for a moment. Adam had a job (gardener/steward) and a "boss." But Adam couldn't earn money, buy, sell, or barter. He would have a hard time switching careers. He had no friends, enemies, or competition. It looks like God was the one Who provided for Adam's family. Adam couldn't even do the traditional (or whatever) hobbies of men. He couldn't watch sports all weekend because he had no television and no people to play those sports. (Which means that, to paraphrase Roseanne Barr, Eve wouldn't have had complaints about his traditionally manly activities by whining, "Maybe I should sit on top of the television so you can watch me all day!")

Eve's job is even more nebulous. Caregiving? They had neither children nor elderly relatives who needed any caregiving.

That leaves Eve with other aspects of homemaking, if any. The late comedian George Carlin is famous for his profanity, but he also was famous for perceptiveness. His monologue "A place for my stuff" (reminder: includes cussing) explores the absurdity of materialism, noting that a house is just a pile of stuff in a really big box. We were born without stuff; we can't take stuff with us when we die; but in between these milestones we collect stuff, stuff, and more stuff.

Well, traditionally a woman's work was to maintain this pile of stuff. But Eve could not do the laundry; they were nude. (Or as nudists phrase it, "sky-clad.")

What about cooking? They ate from the seeds and the trees (Gen. 1:29, 2:16), so if they ate baked apples, baked potatoes, or the crust on the hypothetical peach pie, someone had to cook them. But with so many raw foods available to them, do we know for a certainty that they cooked anything? And if they did, do we know that Eve cooked? Maybe Adam grilled. (Grilled fruits, veggies, and breads are very tasty.) Or maybe Eve grilled and Adam cooked.

Who washed the dishes? If you pluck food straight from the tree, there are no dishes. If you cook/grill food on a wooden skewer, there are no dishes.

What about dusting and vacuuming? You need to have stuff before you can have stuff to clean.

We don't even know that they had a house. Why would they need one? For protection? They were safe. For warmth? Clothes that they invented themselves would have done that job, much as animals grow thick fur in the changing seasons. For a bed to sleep in? They could sleep in a treehouse on Monday, in a sweet-scented meadow on Tuesday, in a cave murmuring with falling water on Wednesday, on an island in a star-filled lake on Thursday, and so forth. For a place to put their stuff? There you go. But they would have to have stuff before they would need a place for their stuff.

Stuff isn't just materialism, though goodness knows it feeds that fever far too much. Stuff has meaning. Or, rather, we impose meaning upon it. Judith "Miss Manners" Martin observed that vacuum cleaners and diapers are not inherently sexist objects. They only become so when it is assumed that it is the woman's job to put them on the floor or on the baby. The stuff itself does not care.

{BTW, public service alert: guys, this is why your lady love gets so ticked off at you when you buy her a present that she has to plug in. An appliance or tool is a present for the house, not for her. A pair of matching rings with your names and the date inscribed inside the band says, "I love you so much that I remember the date!" A couples' ballroom dancing lesson subscription says, "I love you so much that I'm walking on air!" A vacuum cleaner says, "You're an above-average employee, but you could do better." It also says that if an asteroid -- like the one over Russia last spring, but with better aim -- plowed into your bride's brains and killed her, the new employee would get your vacuum cleaner upon hire -- as part of the house/work station -- leaving him still on the hook to purchase a real present.

Now, if your wife actually tells you, tells you, "I have my preferred sewing machine on five-dollar layaway at such-and-such a store, and I don't want jewelry, I just want you to redeem that ticket," then it's okay to give her a present that plugs in. Still, my advice would be to get it because she needs it, and then treat her to dinner for the anniversary/birthday/holiday present. No one ever said, "Oh, I ate as a child; I don't need any more."

Put it another way: how would you feel if you needed MS Excel on your computer at work to do your job, or you needed your forklift repaired, or you needed safety gear. What would be your impression of a boss who waits until your birthday to give it to you? You'd probably rather that the boss just give you the [blessed] Excel when you request it, and throw a box of Florida oranges onto your desk on your birthday. Otherwise you could muddle through your job for, say, 11 months until your birthday comes around again. Then when you do get the equipment you need to do your job, it doesn't leave when you do. The next employee gets it, and also gets a raise for "not sitting on the work like that last lazy-buns did." /end public-service alert.}

So you see, when we speculate on the nature of our parents' marriage, well, it doesn't seem to match anything we have seen before. In such an environment, I wonder if terms like complementarian or even equality/egalitarian lose much of their meaning. Such terms exist in a world where we have roles, or think we have roles, or other people think we have roles.

Best guess: they came up with an arrangement that they could live with.

Which, at its best, is what complementarian and/or equality/egalitarian ought to mean too. Even the patriarchial movement needs some buy-in from the women, at least in free countries. In countries where women lack basic human rights, their buy-in isn't required. But in free countries, women don't live under Dred Scott Laws. A woman who leaves a patriarchial population might be stalked or shamed, but the man cannot sue in court for the government to capture her and return her to her "owner." If she stays, it is because either she chooses to stay or has been conditioned to stay -- but the law isn't a factor in whether she must stay.

(For those who are unfamiliar with the case, Dred Scott was a Black slave who ran away from a future Confederate state to a future Union state. He reasoned that since slavery was illegal in the northern states, he should be considered free. To its shame, the Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was free to be a slave everywhere he went, so to speak. He was captured and returned to the southern states to the slaveowner. This is why the Underground Railroad expanded its network and shipped escapees into Canada.)

The topic of women's buy-in also was touched upon in a chilling novel called The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood. A slave recalls that in the days of freedom, her mistress was a famous preacher. The Matriarch preached a severe form of patriarchy. Now she cannot leave her house, because of laws that were passed which echo her preaching. The Hagar/Bilhah/Zilphah character wonders if the Matriarch ever thought that the new rules would apply to her also. Although there is less buy-in at the time of the tale, there was sufficient buy-in at the time of the new establishment. (Note: some have argued a similarity between the Matriarch and a political figure nicknamed The Aryan Gazelle Woman, which I think we can't discuss any further because she talks politics.)

As regarding how long Adam and Eve lived in Eden ... as mentioned, a lot of people seem to think they sinned and were exiled almost immediately. Others posit that Adam, at least, lived there for 33 years before he was exiled. (They base this on the fact that Jesus, the last Adam, was 33 when he died.) Judaism seems to settle for the middle, suggesting 7 years in Eden, because the number 7 appears frequently in Scripture during blessings and promises.)

As a kind of apology for my usual wall-o'-text posts, let me give you one that's actually fun.

(Note: I can use johobbit in this sketch because I've met her and her husband and family.)

The setting: in Augustine's day, people honestly believed that all women would be turned into men in Heaven, and that was why there was no sex or marriage in Heaven.

The scene: johobbit is in Heaven.

johobbit: "Duuuude ..."

(whoa, this is cool)

johobbit sees her husband, runs, embraces him: "Dude!"

johobbit's husband: "Dude ..."

(Brother, do I know you?)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(It's me, you silly-silly!)

johobbit's husband: "Duuude."

(I'm staggered. This was not in the brochure.)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(What are you talking about?)

johobbit's husband points to mirror.

(beat)

johobbit: "Dude!!!"

(I'm a dude!)

johobbit's husband: "Dude."

(shrugs; I tried to tell you.)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(I have a beard! Why do I have a beard!)

johobbit's husband: "Dude ..."

(How should I know? And what am I supposed to tell the boys when they ask why Mom looks like their favorite wizard?)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(You're not telling them anything, because they're not going to find out!)

johobbit's husband: "Dude."

(points; TOM is approaching.)

TOM: "Dude!"

(so glad you made it!)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(Dude, I'm a dude! Why am I a dude? And why don't you have a beard, dude?)

TOM: "Dude ..."

(Well, I read about this already and I figured that if I ever turned into a man, I wouldn't want a beard. I don't like hair in my food or food in my hair. I had problems enough with that in the shadow-lands.)

johobbit: "Dude!"

(Well, that ain't fair. You should have warned us or put up a post-it note, or something.)

TOM: "Dude."

(shrugs; sorry about that.)

Augustine approaches: "Dude!"

(You're all dudes! This wasn't supposed to happen!)

Augustine lookes behind him. All the saints of old are all: "Dudes!"

The Virgin Mary approaches. She is not a dude.

Augustine: "Dude?"

(What is going on here???)

BVM, gently: "Dude."

(You are having a dream from having eaten spicy foods too late at night.)

Augustine: "Dude!"

(whew! thank goodness...)

At which point all except the BVM turn into swans and start playing church basement bingo. Howard Cosell is calling the numbers. "G-fourteen ... "G-fourteen ..."

{End.}

Another reason that my guess is that Adam and Eve's marriage before the Fall was more equal than complimentarian is that complimentarianism requires the concept of roles.

Consider: what are the traditional (not necessarily stereotypical, but those also) roles for men and women? Men worked for pay; women worked without being paid. Men worked outside of the home; women worked inside it. Men advanced or regressed in their careers; women could do neither. Men took care of the home and family by paying bills; women took care of home and family by actual caregiving, including incurring bills.

I suspect that even these roles are less "traditional" than is supposed; a middle-class product more of the American and Industrial Revolutions than what generally went on in the rest of the world. Yes, women did work for money, frequently and quite respectably, either from the home, taking in neighbours' washing, for example, or as servants for wealthy people, not only as cleaners but also as governesses, housekeepers and nannies. Women worked in businesses, shops, factories and notoriously in mines, before legislation was passed in UK, therefore, Australia, to stop women being sent down mines. Women always worked as midwives to help other women, though this could be risky for the midwives, once men monopolised the medical professions, even in the days before Ignacz Semmelweisz, Lord Lister and Louis Pasteur made hospitals much safer places for women to have babies.

Most women who work for money have had no other option. It was the presence of children which made working from home more attractive, and the gruelling nature of domestic chores which kept them out of public notice. However, Mary Reiby, a convict lady transported for her UK crimes, was so successful in founding a business in our Old Sydney Town that her face now adorns our $20 Australian banknotes. My own convict ancestress was an assigned servant for her soon-to-be husband, minding his motherless children from his first marriage among other domestic duties. John MacArthur was famous for founding Australia's world class wool industry, but he was also infamous for taking the credit for this from his wife's efforts and success. And a whole range of surnames like Brewster, Baxter and even the term "Spinster", suggest that women worked hard at spinning, weaving, baking and brewing for centuries.

Ha-Joon Chang, a South Korean economist, in a book called 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism , points out that the invention of the washing machine and other domestic appliances has had more impact on the world than has the invention of the computer, because of how millions of women in Europe, UK and elsewhere were no longer required for such arduous domestic service. Their time was freed up and it was cheaper to buy a washing machine than hire help.

There is also a good reason why women did not dominate in the 1800's professions: They were actually debarred from universities, often from secondary education as well, and, until philanthropists like Dr Barnado and the Earl of Shaftesbury in UK took steps to prevent child labour and send such children to school, what girls' education was available was directed at middle class ladies who were educated to please prospective husbands. But Ha-Joon Chang forgets how many women in the 1950's got employed in factories to make such domestic appliances.

I'd agree that discriminatory legislation, unfair work practices and the lag in granting women's suffrage have operated to ensure that the work of women remained underpaid and undervalued for many centuries, though men's relative lack of involvement in child care has also played a huge part. Even in relatively idealistic hunter/gatherer societies, the men who collectively do the occasional hunting and just about all the waging of war, tend to expect better treatment than is given to their women, who otherwise find much of the food, including by fishing, along with supervising younger children and finding shelter for the tribe.

Hunter/gatherer societies were on the whole better exercised, with a more diverse diet, and with only about 20 hrs work per week per person than would be the case for people in sedentary communities who grow their own food. Odd, isn't it, that humankind's eventual domestication of plants and animals is the only thing which ever obliged men to actually work hard, to stay in the one place, his own bit of earth. Could the Fall be also interpreted as Adam having to work at all, as a proper gardener, rather than merely helping his woman gather food every now and then?

Yes I agree with you that the roles of men might be perceived as becoming more heavily involved with earning the wherewithall for family existence, or at least taking the credit for it. And that women, by default, were instrumental in the distribution of what income the men allowed them, whatever the class level. But, sorry, I have to insist both husband and wife were at all times both responsible for paying the bills.

I've noticed a habit that occurs every so often in here in which you (MLD) come in and announce you're engaging in an activity which either involves the occult or skirts it at the very least. Then you ask if it is ok to do, knowing full well what those of us here are going to say (which is generally well-intentioned Christian advice to steer clear of said activity). There may be a day or two of discussion on the topic, and then all goes silent again for a few weeks or months, and then you come back in and post the same type of question/announcement, typically the same kind of thing that will immediately draw attention from the regulars here and admonishments to stop what you're doing. So far I recall that you've:

- Messed with Ouija boards
- Prayed to multiple deities and/or angels
- Frolicked in graveyards
- Playfully attempted to summon spirits (which truthfully may have happened with the Ouija board stuff, I honestly can't remember at this point).

Look, you're a grown woman and should have an idea of the things you're messing around with. Or maybe you're not doing this stuff and merely coming here and getting a few folks riled up, but the point is that if you are involved in even half of the stuff you say you are, and you've no intention of following anyone's advice here, why do you keep posting that you're doing it anyway? If I didn't know better I'd kind of say you were baiting a few people in here, who are sincerely concerned that you may be involving yourself in very dangerous spiritual activities. The advice they give is very sound, and yet you continue to come in here later on reporting that you have undertaken some new spiritual or occult-like activity in which (egads!) things have taken a bad turn in your life. These are good people here. Don't abuse their well-intentioned advice to you, or ignore it.

/rant

This is a late reply and I actually agree. Most if not all those spiritual things are rip offs and scams. When Ouija boards come up with a result that seems some what legit, I believe that it is an unconscious drive from one of the players. I have never participated myself and never plan on doing so.This is coming from an a negative atheist/agnostic person By the way( I am always happy to answer any questions). I like being about to give an answer from a different view point from many people here.

I used to think it was all a scam until I experienced so many supernatural things that I couldn't ignore it. Around that time I became a Christian, when I began getting prophetic dreams.

And yet you still mess around with dangerous/occult things? Who's the idiot here?

I'm guided by God to do these things....and to enlighten my followers.

Not by the God of the Bible, you're not. And you have followers? Oh boy! You're either a troll or stupid or both. Goodbye!

w4j I believe we must gather exactly what moonlight is doing before coming to conclusions.

I used to think it was all a scam until I experienced so many supernatural things that I couldn't ignore it. Around that time I became a Christian, when I began getting prophetic dreams.

I have to admit that this worries me. The supernatural is real, yes. But Jesus once called His generation "adulterous" for seeking prophecies and signs.

1. And the Pharisees, together with the Sadducees, came, and tempting desired that he would show them a sign from heaven.

2. But he answering said to them, About the commencement of the evening you say, It will be fine weather; for the sky is red.

3. And in the morning, There will be a storm to-day; for the sky is red and lowring. Hypocrites, you can judge aright of the face of the sky; but can you not judge of the signs of the times?

4. A wicked and adulterous nation demands a sign, and no sign shall be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonah. And he left them, and departed.”

--Matthew 16:1-4.

Why would Christ call seekers (whether insincere or sincere) “evil and adulterous"? Well, the seekers were creating God in their own image, so to speak, and that constituted spiritual adultery (Isaiah 57; James 4:4). If what they worshipped was truly God and they were worshipping Him truly, they would have recognized the Sign, His Son, and they would have been satisfied with that. You recognize the Son, but you seem dissatisfied in some way.

Now, there were occasions in the Bible when seekers asked God for a sign and received it, without rebuke. But it is not to be tried on a regular basis. The more the emphasis on proof, the less the part played by faith. Also, God isn't in the entertainment business, and He isn't the one who has to account to us (rather the reverse). Ironically, the Pharisees and Sadducees were never satisfied with signs even when they received them. Feeding multitudes? Healing the sick? Raising the dead? They kept saying, "show us more." And they taunted Him to prophesy even as He was dying (Luke 22:64).

Jesus told them about a rich man in torment who begged for someone to send his family a supernatural sign, so that surely they would believe. Jesus replied that if someone doesn't believe, then signs and wonders may not have the desired effect (Luke 16:30-31). Even Jesus' own resurrection failed to convince the Pharisees, to whom He told that story.

I do believe in miracles and that God does wish us to hear Him. But I think that God has communicated a great deal with us already through the Bible and through His Son. Jesus told us to go back to the Book and read what we already have.

C.S. Lewis once wrote an essay called Fern Seed and Elephants, in which he talked about people claiming to see great significance of the smallest things while failing to see the elephants in front of them. Jesus is saying that the Pharisees are like that—unwilling to accept the clearest revelation from God, namely Himself in the form and person of Jesus Christ.

Granted, we have had a few prophets like Ezekiel and Hosea who were what we would call performance artists, but even they were trying to tell a message, not to get credit for the spectacle.

True prophecy has almost nothing to do with foretelling the future, and never with fascination with secret or exclusive knowledge. God sent prophets to stimulate people to righteous living. What does righteous living look like? It means in part that we should live as Jesus lived.

[Jesus Christ said]: If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. --John 8:31-32

Did Jesus Himself pursue Ouija boards? Did He teach people to try to contact angels or spirits? No, He told them to read the Scriptures, to pray, to repent and believe the Gospel, and to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

So we can only be set free by following what Jesus taught, not by following what He has not taught. I do have to ask, why do you think that the same God who is the Father of Jesus through Incarnation by the Holy Ghost would want you to promote things that Jesus clearly didn't. Someone or something indeed might want you to promote those things, but that doesn't mean it's from God. Just a thought.

Look, I remember the 1970s: the cultural fascination with Amityville Horror and Ouija and yoga and Eastern mysticism and Western Gnosticism ("secret knowledge") and "the Force" of Star Wars. Fortunately I was forbidden to go near them. (Well, except Jaws.) MLD, I have to admit that I haven't seen any of the teachings of Jesus in those hobbies that you've mentioned. They don't look as if they are pointing people to Christ, but as if they are pointing people to the hobbies. Or to put in another way, just because it seems supernatural doesn't mean it's from God. Until Jesus tells me it's okay to fool with that stuff, I don't wanna and ain't gonna.

Does that help?

Oh, and W4J, "followers" sometimes refers to subscribers to a Twitter account, sort of like their fans. I don't think MLD is leading a congregation in hir ("his/her") basement. (You're not, right?)

I think MLD is having some fun with you, W4J. At least in a sarcastic sense. Which of course strengthens my belief that she does this to get a rise out of you and a few others (and me once upon a time). Truthfully though God designed us to look for Him in all things and reasons for being, but only a select few are able to. It's why one can see the popularity of Eastern mysticism, UFO hunting, Ghost hunting, etc. We all want a brush with that supernatural element we can sense but can't see. The thing is a lot of us here know where it comes from and can filter out the nonsense from the real thing. Once one's blinders have been removed by God, the whole world comes vividly into focus and one can interpret things much more clearly.

Most if not all those spiritual things are rip offs and scams.

I have to agree with you, ILF, whether I am Christian or otherwise. These are my reasons.

1. Anyone predicting someone else's future, no matter the way it is done, is not going to tell the doom side of things if they can get out of it - what happens if it doesn't come true? What if it does? Would anyone take them to court for being wrong or for being right?

Would anyone, for example, have ever been game to have predicted that today we had earthquakes in three different areas of the world: the Iranian/Pakistani border (about 10 pm last night), Oklahoma, it would seem, and then Papua/Niugini about 10.00 am here, that is to say, within as few as 12 hours? Of course not! Not until afterwards. 20/20 hindsight is a marvellous thing.

2.If people are told they will lose their money, they probably will, due to some such charlatans ripping them off. And if people are told they will win the lottery, will they ever be also told that is merely a refund of what they spent on lottery tickets in order to win it?

3.The only way fortune-tellers have better than random results in predicting anything in the future, is either because such people either know a lot about the people who consult them, or else because someone else has been able to tell them a thing or two about the people who consult them. Even if neither is proved to be the case, fortune-tellers as a whole would still have an educated and experienced guess about the sorts of things most people are after - money and romance being the main two. Just my two cents' worth.

Also when the tellers try and connected to people from the "spiritual world" They try to put the words in your mouth. They usually pick common names and say things like it is " Joan" or john i can't quite hear.