Mennonite Pastor Convicted of Helping Ex-Lesbian Flee Country With Daughter Reports to Prison

MillerBURLINGTON, Vt. — A Mennonite pastor convicted of aiding an ex-lesbian turned professing Christian who fled the country with her daughter seven years ago to avoid a situation she found harmful to her child has reported to prison to serve a 27-month sentence behind bars.

As previously reported, Kenneth Miller of Stuarts Draft, Virginia was convicted in August 2012 for helping Lisa Miller (no relation) and her young daughter Isabella travel to Buffalo, New York, where they crossed the border into Canada and then escaped to Nicaragua.

The situation began in 2000, when Lisa Miller, then a homosexual, joined in a civil union with lesbian Janet Jenkins in the state of Vermont. Following an artificial insemination procedure, Miller gave birth to baby Isabella in 2002.

In 2003, Miller and Jenkins split, and Miller moved to Virginia. She renounced homosexuality and reportedly turned to Jesus Christ for salvation. When the civil union was officially dissolved, the court gave custody to Miller, while also granting visitation rights to Jenkins.

While Miller did allow Isabella to spend time with Jenkins for a while, she reportedly became very concerned at the information that her daughter was providing to her following the visitations.

Later, Miller testified to the court that the visits were causing great trauma to Isabella. She claimed that at six years old, the girl was forced to take baths together with Jenkins, and that the girl was openly touching herself inappropriately. She also stated that Isabella was withdrawn and talked about suicide at times.

“Isabella came home and said, ‘Mommy, will you please tell Janet that I don’t have to take a bath anymore at her house,’” Miller told reporters in 2008. “I asked her what happened. She said, ‘Janet took a bath with me.’ I asked her if she had a bathing suit on. ‘No, Mommy.’ She had no clothes on and it totally scared Isabella. She had never seen this woman except once in 2 ½ years and she takes a bath with her.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“Last year, Isabella put a comb up to her neck and said she wanted to kill herself after one of the visits,” she outlined. “She took a comb and pressed it into her neck and said, ‘I want to kill myself.’ I don’t know where she got that. It was immediately after a visit. Other people have seen huge changes.”

Miller then filed for exclusive custody of Isabella, and the court agreed. However, Jenkins fought the ruling all the way up to the Virginia Supreme Court, which in 2008, ruled in favor of granting Miller’s former lesbian partner visitation rights. Miller refused.

Miller and Isabella
Miller and Isabella

The following year, family court judge Richard Cohen warned Miller that she must allow Isabella to visit Jenkins and threatened that if she did not do so, he would transfer full custody to Jenkins. In November 2009, Cohen followed through with his threats and ordered Miller to hand the child over to Jenkins.

However, Miller had fled the country with Isabella before he issued the transfer order, and for some time, none knew the whereabouts of the two. Information later turned up that Miller and Isabella had taken refuge in Nicaragua. It was also alleged that Pastor Kenneth Miller had a part helping Miller flee the country.

“It was in very painful circumstances that Lisa came to the Anabaptists in Virginia for help, which as a follower of Jesus, Ken could not ignore,” Miller’s website, MillerCase.org explains. “Ken supported Lisa’s desire to remove herself and Isabella from former relationships which were not in accord with Jesus’ standard. However, he felt only love and compassion for Lisa’s former partner and others involved.”

In 2013, months after Miller had been convicted of aiding in international kidnapping in federal court, Judge William Sessions gave Miller the maximum sentence of 27 months behind bars as requested by prosecutor Christina Nolan, plus one year of supervised federal probation.

Miller had already been incarcerated for a month for refusing to testify in the case of another man who is also facing charges for his participation in the matter.

However, because a “substantial question” existed over whether the case should have been heard in Miller’s home state of Virginia rather than in Vermont, Sessions stayed the sentence until an appeal is heard over the issue. He then set Miller free.

In January, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Sessions’ ruling, and last month, Sessions ordered Miller to report to prison on March 22nd to begin serving his sentence. The date had initially been set for March 1, but was moved at Miller’s request.

“I’m going to prison today because a woman’s faith and modern society collided,” he wrote on a blog post on Tuesday prior to reporting to prison. “About 12 years ago Lisa Miller discovered that Jesus of Nazareth was powerful enough to take away her sins. He transformed her life and her lifestyle. In the long, winding journey since then, Lisa has sought to remain true to her Savior and to her conscience.”

“Lisa was about to lose custody of her own biological daughter,” Miller stated. “She saw two choices; capitulate to the New Social Order, or stay true to the Moral Order established by God. She chose the latter. … Lisa left the United States and fled to Nicaragua in search of religious freedom; the freedom to raise her daughter under God’s order as her faith and conscience compelled her to do. She remains in hiding to this day.”

He pointed to Scripture in reminding others that the battle is not physical, but rather spiritual, and that “[o]ur weapons are the cross of Christ, joyful suffering and loving our enemies.”

“I am greatly privileged to stand with Lisa in her quest for truth and freedom,” Miller said. “Some things can never be locked up inside prison walls. Truth. Conscience. Moral righteousness. And the saving Gospel of Jesus.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Amos Moses

    Praying for his safety in the belly of the beast……………………..

  • Paul Emery

    Praying for you Pastor Miller. May the LORD comfort you as you suffer as a result of your faith in Jesus Christ. I stand with you.

    • gizmo23

      Kidnapping for Christ.

    • Paige Turner

      Then you should pray for all kidnappers.

    • acontraryview

      “as a result of your faith in Jesus Christ.”

      It is not “as a result of” his faith in Jesus Christ. It is because he broke the law.

    • [email protected]

      he is not suffering as a result of his faith, rather he is rightly facing a punishment for playing a role in facilitating a case of international parental kidnapping. they didn’t get what they wanted in the custody battle and so they decides to engage in kidnapping and that is what he is being rightly punished for, not his faith.

      • IzTheBiz

        so says a reprobate sinner who has no fear of God!

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    No such thing as an “ex-lesbian.”

    • John_33

      Sure there are. Your comment exposes the double standard within the LGBT community that one can never be heterosexual if they ever identified as a lesbian. According to them, if one comes out as lesbian, then they were ‘repressed’ and were always a lesbian. But if they come out as a heterosexual, then they must still be a lesbian. The double standard is painfully obvious.

      • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

        That and, if any homosexual or lesbian turns heterosexual, they weren’t really gay to begin with. They were bi.

        Every last one of them. No ifs, ands, or buts. Don’t matter if the accuser has never met them a minute in their life. They automatically, 100% know that that person — and every similar person — was bi…the entire time.

        Such is the hypocrisy of homosexual activism.

        • John_33

          But apparently transgender individuals can choose whether they are male, female, or something in between by the hour! It’s amazing how they don’t see or don’t care about the contradiction.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Yes, indeed!

            And Amos Moses drew, in my opinion, a great parallel in stating that, when women wear makeup and dresses and such, it’s oppressive patriarchy according to feminism. But when a “transgendered woman” (a man) puts on makeup and high heels, “she” needs those things in order to express “herself” as a woman.

          • Paige Turner

            No, not really

        • Paige Turner

          No, just a convenient thought bubble on your part.

          Saying that you are not something doesn’t make it true.

          • Guest

            Yeah, like you calling yourself an intellectual. Just sayin’.

        • Seabeacon

          Women’s sexuality is more fluid than men’s are. That’s why more bisexuals are women than men.

      • Paige Turner

        By all means, call yourself what ever you want. It does not however make it a fact.

        • John_33

          Ironically, your post only furthers the double standard. Why is it that ex-lesbians can’t be ex-lesbians? Liberal identity is falling apart.

          • Paige Turner

            Calling oneself an ex lesbian does not make one an ex lesbian.

          • John_33

            That didn’t answer my question.

          • Paige Turner

            Its because your argument is post hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • Guest

            Oh my! 🙂 Someone needs to stay off those bogus logic sites. I’ll give you a tip, PT: those sites are about as reliable concerning logic as Babbel is for a legit translation. :):):)

          • Paige Turner

            Its Latin and you don’t know what it means do you?

          • Guest

            No kidding, PT. It’s Latin, but it’s a logic term that you misused. It reminds me of the time when a blowhard named “Mensa Member” misused a French term. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Good try with the bait and switch but its still a fail.

            You have no idea what it means.

            You are also still trying to defend the notion of “ex -gay” when the worlds largest ex gay organisation Exodus shut its doors recently and apologised to all the people they hurt. The President of exodus personally admitted that they converted no one. JONAH has also been shut down and ex gay therapy banned in many states due to the harm it does.

            I wouldn’t want to be associated with this sort of thing if I were you.

          • Guest

            Actually, it appears out of the two of us, I’m the only one who truly knows what it means, and I’m exposing you for misusing it. 🙂

            I know people who formerly identified as homosexuals, and who no longer do. They are thankful they got out of that lifestyle.

          • Paige Turner

            Nonsense. Ex gay therapy is banned and Exodus closed. Business is dying because it’s a scam.

            If ex gay was real then it would work and these businesses would be thriving rather than closing up shop.

            The worlds largest ex gay organisation has closed and admitted that it didn’t work. Proof positive of a scam by the scammers themselves.

            Ex gay is a grifters paradise. Snake oil for the 21st century.

          • Guest

            I’m not discussing groups that are psychologically based. Do try to stay on topic. I am talking about sinners who practiced the sin of homosexuality who are now set free from it in Christ. They are no different than former drug addicts set free from the bondage of addiction, or former liars set free from their sin, etc. etc.

          • Paige Turner

            These people are not drug addicts or liars. You are projecting your own shame onto them. Homosexuality is a natural and normal. Bigotry and intolerance and wanting them to change to suit your own narrative is disgraceful. They do you no harm . Leave them alone and stop calling them “sinners” or aligning them with drug addicts. Shame on you.

          • Guest

            I haven’t discussed shame, so I have no idea why you’re bringing that up. Perhaps you are the one projecting, Paige?

          • Paige Turner

            These people do you no harm and yet you harm them with your bigotry and intolerance. Aligning them with drug addicts and “sinners” is shameful.

          • Guest

            I haven’t harmed anyone, nor have I expressed bigotry or intolerance. I have called myself a sinner. Guess what? You are one, too. We all are. That’s why Jesus Christ came to save us.

          • Paige Turner

            Jesus did not come to save me. Thanks but No.

          • John_33

            He came to save all of us.

          • Paige Turner

            No he didn’t. We have freedom of and freedom from religion in the constitution for this very reason.
            Not everyone believes in Jesus.

          • John_33

            Jesus came to save all of us. It’s a good thing He did. If He didn’t, then we would have no hope and would be destined for Hell. It’s up to us to choose whether we will accept it or not.

          • Paige Turner

            Only if you are a Christian. This is not a theocracy. Believe what ever you want but it does not apply to everyone. This is why there is freedom from religion.
            Freedom is great.

          • Guest

            Actually, He came because He loved the whole world and was not willing that any should perish. That includes you whether you want it or not. That’s why it’s such a great sin to neglect such great grace.

          • Paige Turner

            I dont remember asking for any of this which is why we have freedom from and freedom of religion. I am free of religion so as much as you would like to impose this upon me, you cant.

            Happy Easter!

          • Guest

            I was making a comment. You don’t have to ask me something prior to me making a comment. That’s how freedom of speech works, Paige.

          • Paige Turner

            Freedom from religion

          • Guest

            Indeed, except the problem is that you can’t really escape God. One day and one way or another, you will face Him. Then what will you do?

          • Paige Turner

            You have to want eternal life for this to be relevant.

            And if you don’t want eternal life? Well it just doesn’t stick does it?

          • Guest

            Then it’s eternal death – not nothingness, but death, which involves torment. Either way, you can’t get away from God.

          • Paige Turner

            Really? How do you know this? And if you do, prove it.

          • Guest

            I know it because it’s in the Bible. I know that the Bible is true because Jesus Christ is an historical figure and witnesses affirm He is who He said He was.

          • Paige Turner

            So no proof?

          • Guest

            You don’t know how history works, do you?

          • Paige Turner

            I asked you for proof and you have quoted a work of fiction. That is not proof. Its like saying that Superman exists because there was a comic book and a movie about him.

          • Guest

            Are you unaware that the Bible is an accepted historical tome in secular historical data bases? Also, I did not quote from the Bible. I referenced it. Do you not know how sourcing works? (Strictly from a secular, historical standpoint specifically?)

          • Paige Turner

            That is a gross misrepresentation. The Bible is a work of fiction and is widely viewed and treated as such.

          • Guest

            You can look at historical data bases yourself. Surely you can’t be this uneducated and naive.

          • Paige Turner

            Another baseless claim. Im not doing your work for you.

          • Guest

            I can’t link here, but just Google it. Go to just about any reputable college or university. They all have the Bible as history classes. This is basic knowledge. I’m surprised you even have to Google it.

          • Paige Turner

            So I need to do all the work to prove a point that you are making against me? Not going to happen. Thats not how this works.

            The only Universities that have the Bible as history are religious based University like Liberty which isn’t really a university anyway.

            Its clear that you have no proof of your claim.

          • Guest

            a.) It’s not “work”, Paige, and if you went to university or college and actually studied, you’d know this stuff. ALL universities and colleges have this stuff, not just religious ones.

          • Paige Turner

            Until you can provide me with some evidence then this is simply not worth discussing. Im sure that Liberty class the Bible as history however normal secular institutions treat the text as “religion”. Very different.

            Expecting me to do your research for a statement that you made would earn you a C- in my class.

          • Guest

            I already gave you the proof, but you didn’t like it. You didn’t want to face the truth. Every secular institution of learning – at least in North America – use the Bible as a history book. Every single one. I have no idea what “class” you’re insinuating you teach because were you educated enough, you would know that EVERY SINGLE secular institution of learning regards the Bible as a historical tome. Every single one.

          • Paige Turner

            Nonsense and still no proof. Ad hominem shows that you’ve lost the argument.

          • Guest

            LOL You clearly aren’t a logician. (Ad hominem is a logic term and you’ve misused it sorely). 🙂

            Do you want me to “prove” that history courses are taught at universities? How about the fact that historians regard Jesus Christ as an historical figure? How about the fact that the world tells time by the birth and death of Jesus Christ? Or that nations were renamed because of Him? It’s indisputable that He lived. You may as well as for “proof” that Julius Caesar lived, although there is more proof for Jesus Christ’s life than Caesar’s. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            There is no proof that he is the son of God or was born of a virgin.

            You’ve also gone way off course. The bible is not the text book that you are portraying it to be. Maybe at Liberty University but nowhere else unless they are “religious studies”

            The rest of your rant is irrelevant.

          • Guest

            The Bible has already been accepted as a historical tome. It says He is the Son of God and was born of a virgin. So now you’re questioning historical tomes? By the way, the Bible is accepted as an historical tome at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. I’ve already told you that I’m talking about SECULAR universities. What part of that did you not understand?

          • Paige Turner

            Its not a text book

          • Guest

            LOL You clearly are not an academic, Paige. 🙂 Are the pages you’re turning Harlequin Romances? Comic books perhaps? 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Your big old book is not a text book and is not used to cite historical fact. If that was the case then historians would be telling the impossible story of a 900 year old Man building a boat for 2 of every kinds of animal. This is simply not a fact and has been scientifically disproven.

            History books have facts in them not fairy tales.

          • Guest

            Of course it is. There are historical data bases for historians all over the world that use the Bible as a reference tool.

          • Paige Turner

            No its is not. Nonsense.
            And no proof as usual.

          • Guest

            You’re asking for proof that historians use historical texts. 🙂 You keep saying the same thing, and it’s meaningless. I feel sorry for you.

          • Paige Turner

            No facts to back up your assertion as usual.

            As Ive asked repeatedly, please explain how a 900 year old Man builds a boat for 2 of every kind of animal.

          • Guest

            People lived longer than because the air was less polluted and the earth was closer to the way God had originally believed it. The Bible says only 2 of each KIND was taken aboard the boat. You don’t need many dogs, for example, for all the variations we have today to come about – only 2. You don’t need to necessarily take adult animals aboard – just 2 that can eventually reproduce. People have figured out the ark’s scale and found it works. You should check out Ken Ham’s stuff, ICR’s stuff, and read Dr. Damadian’s book. Or look up some of the NASA scientist’s and astronaut’s stuff – many of them are young earth creationists.

          • Paige Turner

            I cant stop laughing that you believe that people would live to 900 years old and be capable of building a boat big enough.

            Again, I have to do all of your research for you because “you say”. Isnt going to happen.

            You are no doubt aware that the amount of water required to flood the earth is scientifically impossible as are all the other aspects of the story. Its a Child’s fairly tale.

          • Guest

            I can’t stop laughing (and feeling sorry for you) that you don’t know these things. What “research” are you talking about, Paige? I can’t link here, and I already gave you the information, as well as sources for that information, including scientists and others who can explain this to you in more detail if you’d like. Pretending otherwise is dishonest. Is that your game?

          • Paige Turner

            You’re a laughing person who believes in 900 year old ship builders and other fairy tales and will not accept that these things are impossible. In other words, you believe in magic and fairy tales like a child would.

          • Guest

            You think history is a fairy tale, so it’s kind of hard to have a discussion with you. 🙂

            Do you know who Michael Faraday is? Newton? Pasteur? Pupin? Many of the NASA scientists? Dr. Tsin? Dr. Damadian? They all are Bible believers as well.

          • Paige Turner

            They all have something in common. They didn’t make it to their 900th birthday.

            Just because they believe in something doesn’t make it true. Smart people used to believe that the earth was flat.

            Yet again “They say” is your proof. Not very scientific.

          • Guest

            Smart people never believed the earth was flat. There is no scientific proof – or Biblical proof – of a flat earth. The Qur’an, however, mentions a flat earth.

          • Paige Turner

            There was no proof to the contrary so thats what was believed.

            Jesus was also in the Qur’an. The Abrahamic religions share many commonalities which is wildly inconvenient for you.

          • Guest

            You obviously haven’t read the Bible, which states that the earth is round. The Qur’an maintains it is flat. And of course Jesus Christ is mentioned in the Qur’an – He’s an historical figure! 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Now the Bible is an atlas too. It also makes a good door stop.

            Jesus is a prophet in the Qur’an just like a special guest on a sit com or a cameo role in a movie and about as believable and true.

          • Guest

            So not only have you not gone to university or college, and not read the Bible, but you’ve not read the Qur’an either. You sure do talk a lot of things you know nothing about.

          • Paige Turner

            The Abrahamic religions have more in common than is convenient for your world view.

          • Guest

            There was only one Abrahamic religion. Abraham believed in Jehovah, not allah.

          • Paige Turner

            The Abrahamic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

            And you call yourself a Biblical scholar. Charlatan is more appropriate.

          • Guest

            Uh, no. That’s what some refer to them as, but that’s not accurate since Abraham followed one faith, and it wasn’t islam. He was called even prior to being a Jew. Read some history – you know, from the historical tome, the Bible. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            You’re not the biblical scholar that you claim to be are you?

            Its a well established fact that the 3 Abrahamic religions are; Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

            You really don’t like facts do you?

          • Guest

            a.) I was correct in what I said Biblically. If you read the Bible you would know that.

            b.) I claim I am a secular scholar. I have a large amount of secular education.

            c.) Facts are your friends, Paige. Don’t run from them. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            So you have no problem with a religious leader kidnapping a child?

          • Guest

            So you have a problem with slaves being brought to freedom?

          • Paige Turner

            You are very clever at not answering questions. Politics may be a good career path for you.
            I will ask again;

            Do you have a problem with a religious leader kidnapping a child?

            A simple Yes/No please.

          • Guest

            This wasn’t kidnapping, Paige, so why are you going on a tangent claiming it is?

          • Paige Turner

            This is completely relevant as the pastor kidnapped a child and took it off shore. It is also international child trafficking. This is the third time I will ask this same simple question which you wont answer.

            Do you have a problem with a religious leader kidnapping a child?

            A simple Yes/No please.

          • Guest

            Of course I don’t support kidnapping. I do support anyone – religious or not -protecting a child from abuse, which is what the pastor and the child’s mother were doing. So answer this: Do you support child abusers?

          • Paige Turner

            The pastor kidnapped the child.
            You don’t support kidnapping.

            Got it.

            He also committed international child trafficking.

          • Guest

            Canadians who smuggled slaves across the border were also accused of kidnapping. So you support slavery? Good to know we’re dealing with a bigot here.

          • Paige Turner

            Try and stay on topic please.

            The pastor committed a very serious crime of kidnapping and international child trafficking. This has nothing to do with slavery. Slaves had no rights. Children do.

          • Guest

            You’d know it did if you ever took a history course, just like you’d know the Bible is used as a historical source in secular history. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Kidnapping children is a very serious crime as is international child trafficking.

            Studying towards a law degree would be of immense value as a way to help develop understanding of the law and the connotations of breaking it.

            Highly recommended.

          • Guest

            Yes, kidnapping children them is a serious offense, and that’s why protecting them from abusers is so important. Kudos to Pastor Miller for doing the right thing.

            Re. a law degree – LOL. Take your own advice. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            The below are quotes from your last post.

            “Yes, kidnapping children them is a serious offense (sic)”
            “Of course I don’t support kidnapping”
            “Kudos to Pastor Miller for doing the right thing.”

            Perhaps you should make up your mind.

          • Guest

            There are no inconsistencies in my post, and “offense” is spelled correctly. 🙂 In addition to studying history and law, you should take a basic English course. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Your inconsistencies have been clearly exposed

            Resorting to ad hominem and emoticons shows that you have no cogent or relevant responses.

          • Guest

            All that’s been exposed is the fact that you don’t have an education. 🙂 Please get one.

          • Paige Turner

            As I said, you have no cogent or relevant response to the discussion and have resorted to the lowest form of discussion being ad hominem and emoticons.

          • Guest

            You’ve misused words – again. 🙂 Hurry to nearest learning institute! 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Its very clear that you have nothing.

          • Guest

            Oh, the irony! 🙂 Have a great day fighting those windmills, Paige. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Im surprised that you know that word. You have used it out of context but at least you gave it a try and 2 emoticons. You must be getting desperate now.

          • Guest

            I feel very, very sorry for you. I’m sorry if I hurtfully made fun of your lack of education, but you really should get some, Paige. I’m sorry for laughing at you.

          • Paige Turner

            An historical tome is not a text book or a factual representation of history.

          • Guest

            You just keep repeating that, not even realizing what you’re saying. 🙂 The Bible is used as an historical source in historical studies at secular universities.

          • Paige Turner

            Which universities?
            Please show me with some facts.

          • Guest

            I already did – Harvard, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford, Yale – they all have courses with the Bible as a source – HISTORY courses, not religious studies courses.

          • Paige Turner

            You clearly did not go to these schools. If you did you would be able to cite references proving your point. “I already did” is not proof.

            Any courses with the Bible are religious courses not history courses.

          • Guest

            I didn’t go to all of them. I did go to some of them. The fact that you call for “references” prove you have nothing. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            I cant imagine that anyone who believes that the Bible is a factual text book used at Ivy league colleges to teach non religious history would have any advanced qualifications. 🙂

          • Guest

            Then you don’t know many history or philosophy professors. Or doctors. Or scientists. Like the guy who invented the MRI. He’s a young earth Creationist. Dr. Damadian is his name.

          • Paige Turner

            So now we have a 900 year old ship builder and the Earth is 6000 years old even though there is scientific proof to the contrary.

            You will believe anything. 🙂

          • Guest

            There is no scientific proof to the contrary. Secularists used to believe in a flat earth, not Christians, and secularists are the ones who mock Noah, yet there is proof.

          • Paige Turner

            There is no proof that Noah built and Ark. There is significant proof of the earth being more than 6000 year old. Australian Aborigines have been on the planet for 30,000 years and are the oldest indigenous culture in the world.

          • Guest

            You have no education and the wild claims you’re throwing around prove it. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            I dont believe in this nonsense. If it make you feel good to do so, good for you.

            The original discussion was about the Mennonite pastor kidnapping a child and vilifying gay people.

            Perhaps you can tell him these fairy stories to make him feel better when he is sitting in jail for 25 years

          • Guest

            You’re sniffling because you’ve been proven wrong time and again. 🙂 You’ll be proven wrong about this, too, when the pastor is exonerated for protecting a child against a non-parental abuser. He’s a hero.

          • Paige Turner

            Hes a criminal in a black suit and a white collar. Plain and simple. the law doesn’t discriminate. You do.
            Maybe the fairy tales will sway the judge? I don’t think so. He wouldn’t have attended the Bible History classes.

          • Guest

            Yeah, because defending a child against abuse is a criminal act. /eyeroll

          • Paige Turner

            You are defending international child trafficking.

          • Guest

            No, I’m defending parental rights and fighting against child abuse. Funny how all the pervs are coming out in support of this godly man being jailed.

          • Paige Turner

            The pastor kidnapped a child and took the child off shore.

            Thats international child trafficking which you are supporting.

          • Guest

            People helped slaves escaped from their abusive masters. Same thing.

          • Paige Turner

            The slaves had no rights and were not legally protected.

            The child has both of those things.

            You have, as usual provided a false equivalency.

          • Guest

            Slaves most certainly had rights under the Constitution but they were denied those rights. Then the Supreme Court tried to pull a fast one and deny those rights by declaring black men sub-human (Dred Scott). That’s when Christians disobeyed the law of the land – like Pastor Miller – and did the right thing. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, unjust laws must be broken.

          • Paige Turner

            Conflating slavery with kidnapping a child as you have is nonsensical. Again, you are twisting these issues to suit your narrative and have conveniently dismissed SCOTUS because it doesn’t fit your argument.

            Please go right ahead and disobey the law and suffer the consequences.

          • Guest

            You are completely unaware that slaves, who were abused or threatened with abuse (as was Miller’s child) were labeled as kidnapping victims, and those who helped them escape were charged with kidnapping.

          • Paige Turner

            The onus of proof is the one making the claim 🙂

          • Guest

            It’s been proven, Paige, just like it’s been proven that you have no education. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            “I said”

          • Paige Turner

            Still no proof just ad hominem.

          • Guest

            You don’t even know what ad hominem means or else you wouldn’t misuse it. 🙂 History is your friend, Paige.

          • Paige Turner

            You offer no proof just “I said”.

          • Guest

            Uh, that’s nothing to do with “ad hominem”, and the FACT that the Bible is regarded as an HISTORICAL TOME at SECULAR universities is not an “I said” incident. It is a FACT.

          • Paige Turner

            Its not a text book.

          • Guest

            Sure it’s used as a text book. While it’s so much more than that, it is also regarded as historical record.

          • Paige Turner

            Its not a work of fact and its not a text book.

          • Guest

            Of course it is. It is even used in some secular history classes as a text book.

          • Paige Turner

            It is used in religious studies. It is not science. It is not fact.

            The stories have been proven to be not only improbable but impossible such as Noah’s ark.

            No academic could seriously teach the story of Noah’s ark as fact.

          • Guest

            It most definitely is used in subjects other than religious studies, Paige. It’s used in history class – secular history class. By the way, lots of academics, scientists, etc., believe the Noah’s ark account to be fact.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats laughable. How you can believe this is staggering.

            “Lots of” is not proof or fact.

          • Guest

            Look it up. It’s easily verifiable. I can’t link here but I’ve given you enough to search yourself.

          • Paige Turner

            Im not doing your research for you. The fact that you can perform such cognitive dissonance between faith and proof is alarming.

          • Guest

            You keep repeating that as though it makes it true. The fact that you can pretend you haven’t been given proof is alarming – and sad.

          • Paige Turner

            The same can be said for your protestations that the Bible is a factual historical text book used at Ive league colleges which you cannot prove.

          • Guest

            Uh, you mean like when you take a History and the Bible course at Harvard as part of a History degree? 🙂 How about this description from Southampton?:

            “The Bible and History

            What is the Bible and how important has it been throughout history? ‘The
            Bible and History’ explores the role, significance and impact of the
            Bible in different historical contexts over time. This module begins by
            introducing you to the Bible itself including its nature as a religious,
            literary and historical document. We then examine key, often
            controversial, themes arising from the biblical texts that have impacted
            on society in the West and the development of history in the ancient,
            medieval, early modern and modern periods. This includes topics such as
            creationism, adultery, witchcraft, monarchy, women’s rights,
            antisemitism, war and slavery. The module introduces you to the use and
            reception of the Bible in different historical contexts, and invites you
            to assess and debate the relevance of the Bible throughout history and
            for today’s society.”

          • Paige Turner

            The key word being “context” which is used at least twice there. “Relevance” is also used.

            The opening sentence is a question, not a statement of fact.

            “What is the Bible and how important has it been throughout history?”

            You are saying that the Bible is a factual, historically accurate text book.

            The quote you use is about studying the book and the impact and relevance of the book and does not discuss the validity or accuracy of the contents of the book. This is a course about the Bible’s impact and context not about its accuracy or factual (or lack of) base. It does not pose that the book is true or not rather its impact on society.

            You have made my point for me.

          • Guest

            Those questions prove the topic will be studied. 🙂 Have you take the course? Of course not. Thus, you have no idea what it concludes. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Context and relevance.

            The book is not a text book or historical fact. It is being studied for its relevance.

            Those are the operative words in that paragraph.

            Context and relevance.

          • Guest

            Uh, no. You haven’t taken the course. In fact, you didn’t even know it existed. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Context and relevance.

          • Guest

            That doesn’t even make sense. 🙂 Are you just cutting and pasting odd posts or something? 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Perhaps this would make sense?

            “Once upon a time…..”

          • Paige Turner

            *taken

          • Paige Turner

            Thats laughable. No scholar (except biblical) sees the Bible as a text book or a book of fact. The events described cannot be verified.

            If what you say is true, please explain how a 900 year old Man built a boat for 2 of every kind of animal to avoid a flood.

          • Guest

            Of course it can be verified. Check the data bases used by historians – secular data bases. Check the courses at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cambridge, Oxford. I only have a secular education – lots of it – and that’s how I got my first Bible and exposed to the Word of God. That’s how I came to believe – from studying in secular school and classes.

          • Paige Turner

            Im not doing your work for you.
            As an historical book the bible exists. It is not a text book for historians in as much as it is a work of fiction and is not viewed as a factual account of events.

          • Guest

            You’re just trolling. Without being able to link, I already gave you all the necessary information. You’ve just proven you don’t have much of an academic career if any. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            No, you’re just lazy and don’t like being called out on your nonsense. Your accustomed to just pushing your theocratic world view onto others and them accepting it. Those days are over.:)

          • Guest

            Uh, you don’t recognize the quotes I’ve given you? Here’s a tip: They fall between these “”. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            The last quote you put between parenthesis was “ad hominem”.

            You are still claiming that the bible is a historical text book used at Ivy League colleges and you’re expecting me to prove it. The onus of proof is on the person making the claim.

            Studying the Bible is not being debated. The purpose of that study is religion not history.

          • Guest

            Back with proving you don’t know what “ad hominem” means. 🙂 Why don’t you get an education? I gave you part of the syllabus of The Bible and history. It’s a history course. Here’s its course number:

            HIST3187. I’m not being snarky when I ask if you know what a syllabus is, or what a course number denotes, because you’re making yourself look really bad here.

          • Paige Turner

            Yes, you are being snarky.

          • Paige Turner

            You literally put the words “ad hominem” in parenthesis as they were the last words used by you in parenthesis which was your claim that I didn’t recognise quotes that you had given me.

            Here is your snarky response.

            “Uh, you don’t recognize the quotes I’ve given you? Here’s a tip: They fall between these “”. :)”

            Scroll up the page and have a look and you will see the quote that you made. Its there on the page and cannot be debated as it is a fact. It is a fact because it be shown and proven unlike the assertions that you have been making.

            You have a long distance relationship with facts.

          • Guest

            I quoted you. 🙂 You should use a dictionary before using words you don’t know. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Facts are hard aren’t they? Best to just deny them when they don’t suit your narrative.

          • Guest

            You mean like pretending there are no The Bible as History courses at ivy league universities? 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Thats not pretending. Its one of those pesky facts that you deny.

          • Guest

            You just saw the syllabus for one. 🙂 You’re not a very good troll. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Neither are you.

          • Paige Turner

            You are the only one that believes that.

          • Guest

            Uh, no. Secular professors, scholars, and academics regard it as such, too.

          • Paige Turner

            Nowhere except Liberty University. Religious studies and theology perhaps but not in any other form.

            It is not a text book for anything beyond that.

          • Guest

            You keep saying that, but you are wrong. Princeton, Yale, Harvard, etc. – they all use the Bible as a history book. Oxford, Cambridge – it’s there.

          • Paige Turner

            Its not history sweetie. Its religious studies.

          • Guest

            You obviously are not an historian. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            You are clearly picking and choosing without cited references.

            The Bible is not a text book for historical study. It is used for religious studies.

          • Guest

            I already gave you references but am unable to link and you’re too lazy to search for yourself. You also prove you are uneducated because this is something no true academic denies.

          • Paige Turner

            As I said, Im not doing your work for you. Cut and paste or whatever you want but “I said” isn’t proof.

          • Guest

            You haven’t done any work. 🙂 In fact, you haven’t bothered to read posts thoroughly or work your brain a bit. Education is a good thing. You should get some.

          • Paige Turner

            Education is indeed valuable.

            Fables and fairy tales about 900 year old shipbuilders and Virgin births however are for young children who believe in magic.

          • Guest

            So now that you’ve been proven false about the Bible as history thing you’re going to attack Noah? 🙂 So when Harvard teaches the Bible as history someone should attack the professor? 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            I am yet to be proven false. The Bible is a work of Fiction. If a Harvard Professor teaches the Bible as history then he should be fired.

            As I have discussed endlessly with you, the book is not a text book. It is studied in context not as fact.

          • Guest

            Thanks for proving you have no education. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Thank you for proving that you don’t understand the word “context” or the difference between history and religion.

          • Guest

            You don’t even believe your own posts. 🙂 You’re just wildly swinging now after being proven false time and again. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Youre simply projecting now and trolling.

          • Guest

            That’s “you’re”, Pagie. You’d know that – and be able to come up with your own posts instead of copying mine – if you were educated. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Ad hominem

          • Guest

            Oh dear. I hope someone buys you a dictionary. And that you learn how to use it. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Surely the Bible has some spelling lessons in it? It seems to contain everything else. Its like a swiss army knife.
            Its an atlas, a “tome”, a door stop and a moral compass. Does it come with a free set of steak knives?

          • Guest

            You really should get an education. Don’t fear it. You don’t have to go to an ivy league school, just any one will do.

          • Paige Turner

            A real education does not need fairy tales and fiction.

          • Guest

            No kidding, Paige. Try to drop your fantasies.

          • Paige Turner

            In the context of religion, not historical fact.

          • Guest

            Actually quite the opposite. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            As usual, no proof or references. Just the usual “I said” 🙂

          • Guest

            Uh, you do know that when something appears in quotation marks, it’s quoted, right? You should have learned that by Grade 3. 🙂 This, for example, is a quote:

            “The aims of this module are to:

            • Introduce the Bible as an historical source
            • Examine the origins, transmission and reception of the Bible in a range of historical contexts
            • Evaluate the Bible as a medium through which wider political, social and cultural issues can be investigated

            Examine the impact of the Bible through key case studies, which may be
            drawn from the ancient, medieval, early modern and contemporary world
            • Investigate the role of the Bible in the historical development of ethical issues
            • Understand the historical factors that have affected the interpretation and influence of the Bible in the West”

          • John_33

            No, that wasn’t my argument at all…

          • Guest

            Paige is having trouble with basic logic, as well as staying on topic. I applaud your patience.

          • Paige Turner

            You call yourself a Christian yet you have these appalling attitudes to minorities.

          • John_33

            What appalling attitude to minorities is that?

          • Paige Turner

            Your attitude towards gay people and that there is something wrong with them and that they need to be cured is reprehensible.

            Ex gay groups have shut down. Exodus being the biggest. JONAH a close second. Ex gay therapy is quackery and dangerous and is banned in many states.

            Its about time you woke up and realised the damage that you do by making inflammatory statements about a minority that you have no knowledge of. The usual “I know people” is nonsense and a sample of 1at best and proves nothing.

            You should be preaching love and tolerance for a minority that is regularly discriminated against legally and who do you now harm

            The story about is about a Mennonite pastor going to jail for kidnapping. He should be ashamed of himself.

          • John_33

            Where did I say that gay people need to be cured? I believe that they can repent and be freed through the power of God just like anyone else. Did you mistake me for someone else?

          • Paige Turner

            Repent? For what?
            In order to repent one needs to have done something wrong.

          • John_33

            Of course. We’ve all done wrong and sinned against God. In this case, homosexual practice is condemned in the Bible.

          • Paige Turner

            So is touching the skin of a dead pig (football), eating shell fish, working on the Sabbath and taking the lords name in vain. We don’t punish people for these things any more and make them repent for this. If we did, Red lobster would be bankrupt and there would be no NFL and shops would be closed on the sabbath.

            You cant pick and choose the bits that you want to bash minorities with. Its all or nothing.

          • John_33

            Sure. Touching a dead pig, eating shellfish, and working on the Sabbath were all commanded for the children of Israel only. Other commandments are universal. The Bible always tells us which commandments are for the children of Israel and which were meant for everyone to follow. In the Bible, homosexual practice was universally condemned for everyone.

          • Paige Turner

            Ok so its a pick and choose list. A little from column A and a little from column B.

            That seems like a double standard. Surely what is good for the “children of Israel” should apply to everyone? Where does it say that these things only apply to certain people? Where does it say “This bit applies to you and not to others”?

            Homosexual practice is not condemned in the bible. It is merely the interpretation that you are twisting much like the “children of Israel” bit. You are taking some bits literally and interpreting others. Its all or nothing baby. Take your pick.

          • John_33

            Sure. Here’s an example where a commandment is only for the children of Israel. Dietary laws below:

            ”And the Lord spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.” Leviticus 11:1-8

            Israel was chosen by God to represent spiritual truths through physical means. That’s why Israel had a structured law, society, system of government, and priesthood. The Gentiles, however, were not commanded to do these things, but the children of Israel were because these commandments demonstrated certain truths that applied to all.

            As for homosexual practice, it is condemned in the Bible for everyone. Even through Jesus’ words it is condemned since He upheld the Mosaic Law and since He excluded it from righteous living. That doesn’t mean that we should somehow vaunt ourselves over members of the LGBT community. We are all sinners doomed to eternal hellfire without Christ. They can repent and be saved just as anyone else since God is able to save all who come to Him.

          • Paige Turner

            Jesus made no mention of Homosexuals, their behaviour or Same sex marriage so therefore there is no need for repentance to someone for something that he either had no problem with it or was not interested in.

            As far as the pick and choose – Why would an omnipotent deity use such mental gymnastics to get around his own teachings? Why would an omnipotent deity want “special and different” status for some and not everyone.

            Its all just too convenient.

          • John_33

            God is able to have a specific purpose for one set of people and another purpose for another set, and that’s what He did. The children of Israel are God’s own special chosen people. He chose them to receive the Law to teach the world right from wrong and to tell us of the coming Messiah.

            As for homosexuals or homosexuality, when Jesus was on earth, He endorsed the Mosaic Law that condemns homosexuality in Matthew 5:17-20. He also excluded homosexuality from righteous living by defining marriage as solely between men and women in Matthew 19:3-6 and condemned fornication and lust in Matthew 15:18-19 and Matthew 5:28 respectively. By using Jesus’ words, we know that people can’t marry the same sex since God defined marriage as between men and women. They can’t have relations since that would count as fornication. They also can’t lust after each other since that’s condemned too. It’s wholly outside of the Bible.

          • Paige Turner

            So you now speak on behalf of God and Jesus? Why cant God and Jesus speak on their own behalf and why did they choose you?

            You’re missing the point here. Call this whatever you want, its very simple. You are hiding your bigotry and hatred behind religion and the bible and using a “pick and choose” method for the bits that you think apply to gay people. These people do you no harm and wish you no ill will, however you do the opposite.

            “Then they reminded Jesus that adultery was punishable by stoning under Mosaic law and challenged him to judge the woman so that they might then accuse him of disobeying the law. Jesus thought for a moment and then replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

            Jesus endorsed this?

          • John_33

            I don’t wish anyone ill. I want everyone to know of God and to repent and be saved. I am telling you what Jesus and the Bible already said.

            Yes, Jesus endorsed John 8. The same thing essentially happened in the Old Testament. God can turn around the death sentence because Jesus already paid the punishment in full by dying on the cross. This is open for all who choose to repent and believe on Him and follow Him.

          • Paige Turner

            Mental gymnastics to hide your hatred and bigotry. Truly shameful

          • John_33

            There’s no hatred or bigotry in what I said. If there is, what did I say that was wrong?

          • Paige Turner

            Hiding behind the bible does not diminish the fact that what you say is hatred and bigotry. Step back and think if you would like these things said about you.

          • John_33

            If it was about the salvation of my soul, then I would want someone to lovingly tell me the truth rather than hide it and watch me fall into eternal damnation.

          • Paige Turner

            You would have to prove the existence of a soul. Love is not telling someone that they are wrong or they are sinners. That is hate.

          • John_33

            It’s not love to tell someone that they are wrong and in mortal danger when they are? I beg to differ.

          • Paige Turner

            Telling people that you think that they are wrong in your opinion without any proof or substance is abusive, arrogant and imperious. To be so pious to think that you, another human being should be telling people these things is beyond the pale.

            My suggestion is that you keep you bigoted opinions to yourself and leave others who don’t share your view well and truly alone.

          • John_33

            I agree that it would be wrong for me to say these things without proof. That’s why we need God to show us whether it’s right or not, and He has.

          • Paige Turner

            You are the one saying it, not God. Using a 3rd party as an excuse for this sort of behaviour is reprehensible. You are a self appointed judge, jury and executioner. God has made no such representation.

            Why did God choose you to speak on his behalf? Who are you to speak on the behalf of on omnipotent deity? Its a bit arrogant to claim that you speak on behalf of God.

          • John_33

            God told His followers to preach the gospel and to teach the nations of everything that God commanded. Every Christian is to spread the gospel.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats evangelising which is a very different thing which is why the constitution states clearly that there is freedom of (and therefore freedom from) religion.

            Imposing your will on others is not preaching. Its abuse. Not everyone shares your beliefs and not everyone is Christian. You can interpret the gospel however you choose which is dangerous.

          • John_33

            The Constitution does not state “freedom from” in the way that atheists are interpreting it today, but that’s a side issue.

            The real issue is that spreading the gospel is what Christians are told to do. I am not imposing my will on anyone. I’m simply saying what the Bible says and leaving the rest up to God.

          • Paige Turner

            Freedom of religion also gives freedom from religion. This is the reason why there is no state religion and no prayer in schools.

            Its always the same response. Your’e doing as your told by someone else. Perhaps you should think for yourself and ask if the things that you are saying are hurtful or not instead of hiding behind the bible. People are also under no obligation to listen to you or do as you say however the awful things that you say about them does leave scars. Truly shameful behaviour.

          • John_33

            Sorry, but I have said nothing hurtful or hateful. If I did, then you would have posted it for everyone to see. Instead, I have showed you what’s in the Bible and shared the gospel with you. If that’s considered hateful, then that’s fine as I disagree. I will continue to share it with everyone in love.

          • Paige Turner

            God said a lot of things. He said not to cut your hair, touch the skin of a dead pig, work on the sabbath, eat shellfish etc. Do you do all those things too or do you just pick and choose?

          • John_33

            We’ve been through that before, remember? The prohibition on shellfish is for the children of Israel only, I showed you that. It’s the same for the hair and skin of dead pigs, and Sabbath too.

          • Paige Turner

            Picking and choosing is wildly convenient. You need to adopt all of it if this is going to be the position.

          • John_33

            I’m actually the one being consistent by following the commandments that were directed towards me and not following the ones not directed towards me.

          • Paige Turner

            Thats some serious mental gymnastics. Your’re saying that the rules apply differently to different people. How very hypocritical.

          • John_33

            God commanded different rules to different people, but that’s not mental gymnastics. That’s in the text.

          • Paige Turner

            And you pick and choose depending on what suits your narrative.

          • John_33

            Far from it. Show me according to the Bible how I picked and chose. You can’t. In fact, let me ask you a question, did the Apostles pick and choose which commandments to follow? Did Jesus?

          • Paige Turner

            “God commanded different rules to different people”.

            Pick and choose who you are so that you can pick and choose the rules.

          • Paige Turner

            So why would an Omnipotent being create 2 seperate people and make them different? Why would some people be chosen and not others? This doesn’t seem like the behaviour of a loving God.

          • John_33

            He decided to have different purposes for different people. They are still equal, but they just have different purposes.

          • Paige Turner

            Again, speaking on behalf of God and using post hoc ergo propter hoc to explain away the inconvenient.

          • John_33

            Not at all. Again, I’m explaining what the Bible says. It says that there is no difference between the two.

          • Paige Turner

            You are speaking on behalf of God. If he is indeed omnipotent then he shouldn’t have to play games or choose you to to his/her bidding. You’re a self appointed judge and jury.

          • John_33

            If I told you that I feel it’s wrong simply because I think so, then you could accuse me of being self-appointed, but I’m not doing that. I’m telling you what the Bible already said.

          • Paige Turner

            And the Bible is a work of fiction.

          • John_33

            I already addressed it. He made them different because they had different missions. God chose the nation of Israel to show the Law to teach the nations right and wrong and to show spiritual truths to us.

            Also, God did define marriage. It’s in the Old Testament and in the New Testament where I cited it. As for the other things, while I’m willing to discuss them, they are off topic.

          • Paige Turner

            You cited no such thing. You also conveniently ignore the history of marriage as I pointed out.

            Please show me the specific place in the bible where it states that same sex couples cannot get married and also address the discussion around polyamory and marrying your rape victim.

            The things that you say about gay people are truly awful and very damaging to them and you hide this behind “becuase God said”. That is a coward in anyone’s book.

          • John_33

            If same-sex relations merit the death penalty, then why would it need to say that they can’t get married? That’s odd. To be honest, your position doesn’t make sense. The Bible starts by defining marriage as between men and women only and then proceeds with that definition throughout the entire book.

            As for polygamy, God tolerated it for a time. And as for marrying the rape victim, that’s a mistranslation in some English versions. The original Hebrew does not say that, and most English translations get it right.

            I have only faithfully said what the Bible says. I have no hid behind anything. It’s important that Christians get this right since it’s a heaven-or-hell issue. You may call that bigotry, but if it’s a sin, I don’t care what people call me. It’s important that they are warned before they are judged for their sins and find out that they made an error that will have eternal repercussions. I do not want that to happen, so I will gladly take the insults if I can warn others.

          • Paige Turner

            As usual “The Bible says – Im just the messenger”. How convenient.

            Perhaps put the bible down for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of a Gay person and feel the hate and damage that you do when you speak on behalf of your omnipotent deity. If indeed he is all love and grace, Im sure he/she wont have the issues with gay people that you do.

          • John_33

            It’s not hate to tell that person that they are in sin and that Jesus died to save them from it. That’s love.

          • Paige Turner

            It is hate to project all of your piousness onto others and expect them to take it.

          • John_33

            Is it? Or is it love if these things are true? Wouldn’t you want to be warned of the danger if someone knew you were in trouble?

          • Paige Turner

            No, its hate. The danger and trouble is all in your mind and its none of your business anyway. People’s sexuality is their own business and your disapproval of anything that deviates from your heteronormative view is something that you should keep to yourself or inform yourself about.

            If you don’t understand it perhaps seeking to understand rather than condemn would be a good place to start.

          • John_33

            Well, no. I wholeheartedly agree with seeking to understand others, but I disagree with the rest. That’s your understanding of the world. I choose to follow God’s understanding. God said to teach all nations everything we were commanded by God. This includes the gospel and salvation from our sins.

          • Paige Turner

            God didn’t appoint you to do it. He also didn’t say “everyone is OK except gay people and we need to make them straight”. Thats abuse.

          • John_33

            I never said God said that.

          • Paige Turner

            Yes you did. You have appointed yourself God’s agent.
            Its a bit arrogant to claim that you speak on behalf of God.

          • John_33

            That’s fine.

          • Paige Turner

            Its far from fine. Its dangerous.

          • Paige Turner

            God said a lot of things.
            Do you follow all of them or just the ones that you like?

          • John_33

            I follow all of His words that apply to me. (In case you are wondering what that means, God told Lot and his family to not look back at Sodom when they fled, but He didn’t command this to Abraham or to me. The same is true for other commandments.)

          • Paige Turner

            So you only follow the bits that you choose and discard the rest. How convenient when it comes to the lives and welfare of gay people.

            By your reasoning gay people should be able to choose the bits that they like and discard the bits they don’t like.

          • Paige Turner

            You just make stuff up dont you?

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • John_33

            No, I don’t, but if I did, then show me where I said something that is made up and not in the Bible.

          • Paige Turner

            The Bible is made up.

          • John_33

            Even if that was true, which it is not, that would logically contradict your previous argument that I was making stuff up. It’s clear that I’m simply supporting what the Bible says.

          • Paige Turner

            I think its pretty clear that you use the Bible to pick and choose the bits that you like to use to vilify the minorities that you don’t like. In this case its gay people. You then claim “Oh, Its not me, its in the Bible so it must be true” which assumes that the book is a text book rather than a work of fiction and you can absolve yourself of personal responsibility.

            Perhaps just owning your own opinion and biases and being honest about that rather than hiding behind 3rd parties would be a way of life with more integrity.

          • John_33

            I am staying true to the Bible as Christians are called to do so. You may disagree with that, but I’m going to choose God over the world.

          • Paige Turner

            Staying true to the Bible is up to you. Imposing that on others is not on especially when you use that to demonise and shame them for things that are not within their control to change to make you comfortable.

          • John_33

            I’m not demonizing anyone. I’m simply expressing what the Bible says. They are also able to be freed from any sin, including homosexual practices, by the power of God. There are many who already have been freed.

          • Paige Turner

            Its always the same excuse. “Its not me, its the Bible”. What nonsense.

            No one has been “freed”. The worlds largest ex-gay group Exodus closed its doors last year and they apologised to all those who were hurt over the last 30 years by their “therapy”. The president of that organisation admitted that there was no such thing as ex-gay and no one had been changed. JONAH has also been closed down and ex gay therapy is banned in many states because it is harmful.

            To say that you speak on behalf of God is arrogant and then to claim the there is something wrong with Gay people is appalling. Perhaps you should put down your Bible and ask yourself if the awful things that you are saying about Gay people is really a loving gesture or abusive. It makes you feel better but harms others.

            Jesus never spoke of Homosexuality or same sex marriage. Perhaps this would be your best guide in these circumstances.

          • John_33

            Many have been freed and left the LGBT life. I also asked in this discussion why there’s a double standard with LGBT activists claiming that everyone is still gay whether they left heterosexuality or homosexuality. Nobody on your side bothered to answer.

            Also, you are repeated yourself now. I already gave you verses from the Bible how Jesus condemned homosexuality two days ago. I can repost if you would wish, but it’s in this discussion. If you have nothing else to say, then I think we can end it here.

          • Paige Turner

            Please show me these “many” people. Where are they? Where is the proof? The evidence?

            People cannot change their sexuality just like they cannot change their eye color.

            They have not been freed. At best they are chaste or celibate.

            Jesus didn’t condemn gay people and mentioned nothing about marriage equality.

          • John_33

            How do you know whether they are chaste or celibate? I’m sorry, but you know nothing about them, and it’s very arrogant on your part to speak for them. As for Jesus, I already gave you the verses.

          • Paige Turner

            As I said, please show me these many ex-gay people?
            Why have all the ex-gay groups shut down?
            Why has JONAH been proven to be a scam?
            Why has conversion therapy been banned?

          • John_33

            They are out there. John Paulk’s wife is still committed to Christianity while rejecting homosexuality. There are many others online testifying of the miracle that God worked in their lives. God does this with everyone He saves. No sin is beyond the power of God.

            As for the therapy, it was banned because its opponents claimed it was unscientific. The problem is that the ban went too far. Doctors are prohibited from helping adults or young people who come to them seeking help with unwanted attractions. This is putting politics ahead of medicine. It’s one thing to ban something unscientific. It’s another to ban help for a specific condition.

          • Paige Turner

            John Paulk was the “ex gay” poster boy who came out as gay only a year or so ago. Thats not a good example for you and proves my point exactly. He admitted that ex-gay was quackery.

            You have a sample of 1 Lesbian Woman and her Gay husband “but they are out there”.
            No proof.

            The therapy is banned because it is harmful and drives gay people to depression and suicide. If you are supporting this therapy then you have blood on your hands.

          • John_33

            I didn’t use John Paulk, I used his wife, but my point is not in naming 100+ people. My point is that there are ex-gays, and God saved them.

          • Paige Turner

            You have a sample size of 1 lesbian married to a gay Man as proof and “I said” as the rest of your argument.

            There are no ex gays.

          • John_33

            It doesn’t work that way. Sample of one is only for statistics where you are trying to get an aggregate of opinions or views, but in terms of evidence, I only need one to disprove your argument that there is none.

          • Paige Turner

            Statistics are facts. Your 1 Lesbian is no proof of anything except your bigotry. “I said” is not a cogent or relevant argument.

            There are no ex-gays and you cannot name one or prove it. JONAH and Exoudus are long gone and the therapy is banned. Game over.

          • John_33

            Your rejection of her, sadly, is an example of discrimination and rejection against those who don’t follow the stereotypes. Many are happy with family and children. There’s nothing to prove.

          • Paige Turner

            I look forward to the day where you can show me all of these happy ex-gay people with families and children.

            Meanwhile, they are as realistic as Unicorns. They are a figment of your imagination.

            As I have repeatedly said, if ex-gay was real why have all the ex-gay organisations been shut down and the therapy banned?

          • John_33

            I already told you, and you keep ignoring me. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            “I said” is not proof. Just because you say it, write it or believe it does not make it true.

            Let me know when they all show up. 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            I request proof and you keep dodging and weaving and expecting me to do all the research for you. That’s not how this works.

            I have provided you with proof that ex-gay is quackery and you have provided a Lesbian married to a gay Man.

            JONAH and Exodus closed. Reparative therapy banned due to the harm it does.

            If you support the ex gay movement then you are supporting torture and misery that leads to depression and suicide and have the blood of those who’s lives have been cut short on your hands

          • Paige Turner

            The bible says a lot of things however you are only expressing the bits that you like and in this instance its about gay people whom you clearly don’t like.

            There is no evidence for gay people being able to be made straight. Its also illegal therapy in many states, its dangerous and harmful to people.

          • John_33

            Who’s talking therapy? I’m talking about God’s power, which is completely different.

          • Paige Turner

            God’s power does not make gay people straight. God’s power is misused by grifters who claim that they can make gay people straight through prayer and reparative therapy which is now illegal and also dangerous. It is proven that these therapies and trying to change people’s sexuality is dangerous and harmful. Shame on you for suggesting such abusive practices.

            That is not a use for God’s power

          • Paige Turner

            Good luck with that.

    • pud

      The ex-lesbians do not agree with you.

      Get out of your bubble, go meet some decent respectable people.

      • Paige Turner

        There is no such thing as an ex lesbian

    • scottrose

      Wrong.

  • Guest

    God bless you, Pastor Miller.

    • Paige Turner

      He is a criminal and broke the law.

      Do you always pray for kidnappers?

      • Guest

        I know you’re a troll, but for the benefit of others reading:

        “One has a moral responsibility to break unjust laws”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        • Paige Turner

          Im sure you would feel differently if your child was kidnapped. You would want the full force of the law used against the kidnapper.

          Its shameful to marginalise a minority because of your own beliefs.

          • Guest

            Yeah, whatever, troll.

          • Paige Turner

            Facts are hard aren’t they? Always best to resort to name calling when you’re challenged.

          • Guest

            Oh, the irony! 🙂

          • Paige Turner

            Just the way God wants it

          • Guest

            God is very plain. He makes His Word and His way so plain that even a child can’t err in it. You have to be intentionally obtuse to miss what He commands. That is why there is no excuse for sin.

          • Paige Turner

            What nonsense.

            This thread is about a kidnapper that you are supporting in breaking the law. Shame on you.

          • Guest

            It’s about Christianity. Christians often have to break unjust laws, just like professing Christian Martin Luther King, Jr. did, and like countless Christians who aided slaves have done. I’m not surprised you support something immoral like slavery.

          • Paige Turner

            Good luck with that.
            Religious beliefs don’t trump the law as this Mennonite guy is learning quickly.

          • Guest

            Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr., or abolitionists.

          • Paige Turner

            They are dead. I cant speak to dead people.

          • Guest

            So you think their work is valueless? How telling!

          • Paige Turner

            You told me to talk to dead people. I cant talk to dead people.

          • Guest

            Oh come now. You’re not even good at this.

          • Paige Turner

            You’re asking me to do impossible things. Isn’t going to happen.

          • Guest

            Okay, troll. Have a good night.

          • Paige Turner

            OK “Guest”. Will do 🙂

          • Reason0verhate

            Go away, little troll.

          • Paige Turner

            Hypocritical much?

        • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

          And unfortunately, this site is rather soft-handed (i.e. weak in the backbone) when it comes to moderating.

    • [email protected]

      so you support international parental kidnapping then? think that kidnapping is a good thing and that those who enable it deserve a blessing?

      • Guest

        At one time, the law said that hiding a slave or helping him/her escape to freedom was illegal. Christians did it anyway. Sometimes the law, if unjust, has to be broken, bill.

        • [email protected]

          So now international kidnapping is the same thing as helping a slave escape to freedom? The slave had no recognized rights and no protections and deserved to be helped becasue there was no legal path to turn to. Lisa Miller on the other hand did have legally recognized rights and protections. she had the full legal system to turn to in this custody fight its just that she did not get the ruling that she wanted. to then turn to kidnapping is clearly not at all justified.

          • Guest

            You do know that Christians who helped slaves escape to other countries (like Canada) were also accused of kidnapping, don’t you?

          • [email protected]

            but for the reasons I explained above the two are not comparable. the slaves did not have a legal system they could turn to in order to gain their freedom legally. on the other hand Lisa miller did have a legal system that she could turn to in order to fight for sole custody. so needing to break the law becasue there is no legal recourse to fight for something and breaking the law becasue you did not like the outcome of the legal process are two very different things.

          • John_33

            Slaves tried to use the legal system to obtain freedom in the courts and lost. See Dred Scott v. Sandford. Runaway slaves didn’t break the law simply because they didn’t like the outcome of the legal process; they broke it because the laws were unjust. Same with Lisa Miller.

          • [email protected]

            But even there you have the denial of a legal option to an entire class of people. A comparable situation would be if the courts said: “Christians can no longer be parents” and then this pastor helped parents flee the country with their kids. in that case Christians as a class would have been denied any legal recourse to keep custody of their kids and so helping them flee would be the only option for them.

            this is not at all comparable to that, it was a custody fight that one parent lost and they felt justified to break the law becasue they approve of one parent while disapproving of the other. comparisons between this and slavery are far off the mark.

          • John_33

            Sorry, but that’s not how it works. Conceptualizing morality based on class doesn’t make it any different. According to your logic, if Dred Scott was the only one denied freedom, then it would be immoral to help him escape. That’s not logical. The pastor helped this woman escape because the law was unjust in her circumstance.

          • [email protected]

            well but if only one person was denied freedom then there would be no grounds for the ruling unless it was based on some individualized reasons so it is a hypothetical case that does not work and thus is hard to compare anything to.

            but beyond that your argument assumes that there is an injustice going on in this case so the question is what is it? joint custody for both parties after a split is common. Lisa Miller alleged that the visitations were causing harm but those claims never stood up as validated in court and joint custody was still ordered. Lisa Miller then denied visitation rights and continued to defy the court until custody was taken away from here. the injustice here is for the girl who has been forced to live under the care of a fugitive on the run from the law.

          • John_33

            If Lisa Miller’s claims are true, then she has an obligation to flee and the pastor has an obligation to help.

          • [email protected]

            but see here again is where once we get down to an individual case we find that rather then there being some systematic injustice at place there is a justifiable reason for the action being taken which is then being defied by the party in violation of the law. Lisa Miller and her legal team had every motivation in the world to make false accusations against her partner, they did not want joint custody and so of course they were going to claim that the visits were bad for the daughter. but those claims were never found to be valid during the long course of the case.

            so when you actually dig into the meat of what happened the case that they were struggling against a moral injustice falls apart as does the case that there was no legal and proper way to combat injustice if it was there becasue if there was indeed harm caused by the visitation that could have been proved during the court battle.

          • John_33

            And so your logic is now reduced to “Lisa is wrong because the court ruled against her.” The same could have been said about slaves who sought their freedom through legal means and were rejected. The courts are not right just because they ruled against her. Lisa obviously felt that there was a strong enough reason to flee the country rather than let her daughter visit her ex-partner. Again, if Lisa is correct, then she has a moral obligation to flee, and the pastor has a moral obligation to help her.

          • [email protected]

            no the logic is that there was a right and proper means of determining the outcome of the custody battle and strong protections are built into that system to look out for the welfare of the child. This is not the courts saying “no you have no legal recourse for your rights becasue of who you are” but rather “you have full protections but you were not able to make your case.”

            so the question then becomes given that Lisa Miller had a motive to make false accusations against her partner and given that those accusations were found to be unsubstantiated after a long legal fight why assume that those claims are all 100% true? if the partner had been a man would the pastor has still helped her and would you still be cheering them on?

          • John_33

            No kidding I would cheer the pastor on if the partner was a man. Look at the article. Taking a bath with the child? Come on. The problem is that you are arguing in abstract terms rather than dealing with the facts of this case. Lisa felt that there were serious issues in letting her daughter visit her ex-partner – so much so that she defied the courts over it. When the courts ruled against her despite her concerns, she fled. This is about the safety of the child.

          • [email protected]

            The problem is you are assuming that all the negative allegations made my Lisa Miller are 100% true. If all the allegations were true then why could they not be proved in court? why did the involved social services not find the claims to be substantiated? why did Lisa miller refuse to even comply with mandated supervised visitation? this was about a denial of the the parenting status of her ex-parent and refusal to do anything that would validate that. you can chose to believe that it was all about protecting the child but the evidence does not back that narrative up at all. you must ask what is more believable. that even after a protected legal battle the system completely failed and completely missed any and all signs of potential harm or that Lisa miller and her legal team pushed the narrative that would be most favorable to their cases even if it was not true?

          • John_33

            You are assuming that the court perfectly examined the case. The court didn’t do its duty. Instead, the judge threatened to take the child away from its mother. There were no grounds to do that, so she chose the only thing left she could do, which was flee.

          • [email protected]

            there was indeed grounds for the judge to take the child away from the mother becasue the mother was refusing to follow the court order mandating visitation rights. in a custody dispute if the judge rules in favor of the visitation rights you must allow the visitation. if one parent then refuses to honor those visitation rights then the court has no option but to remove the child from that parents custody so that the other parent can have their legally mandated visitation rights. the ONLY reason why Lisa miller lost custody is becasue she refused to follow the court order for allowing visitation rights after that had been fully adjudicated and ordered. the court did do its duty and it gave Lisa Miller many opportunities to retain custody as long as the visitation rights were honored. you cant just be a parent with someone and then cut them off from the child unless the court finds that there is reason to do so which it did not find.

          • John_33

            You see Bill, you are mistaken. There are many times where the courts make mistakes. Sometimes the judges misheard the facts. Sometimes they don’t always make the best decisions. They aren’t perfect – even in custody cases. In this case, Lisa felt that the risks were greater than letting the child visit her ex-partner. She asked for help from a pastor who believed her and risked his own freedom in doing so. For that, he should be applauded. The courts failed her. He didn’t.

          • [email protected]

            so the pastor should be applauded for taking the law into his own hands even after the case had been thoroughly adjudicated and found to not be in Lisa Millers favor. this means you assume, without justification and against the evidence, that Lisa Miller was right and that everyone else was wrong. If you want to make that assumption then go ahead, but it is not a good one to make at all. these cases are contentious and we have a legal system to resolve them for a reason, disregarding that is not just or moral and in this case the claims of protecting the daughter were clearly just a facade for the political motivation at play.

          • John_33

            No Bill, it means sometimes contrary to the evidence the courts get it wrong. And in those cases, society relies on citizens of moral backbone to stand up and do what’s right – even if they will be punished for it. This goes back to those who helped runaway slaves flee. We had a legal system for slaves too. It failed as well. The assumption on your part that Lisa is wrong is what’s blatantly apparent here, and it’s appalling. You are not standing up for justice by blindly siding with the courts. I question whether your biases are tinging your judgement.

          • [email protected]

            No Society relies on the neutral third party that is the court system to deal with the contentious issues in a custody dispute. let me ask you a question…..If Janet Jenkins alleged that Lisa Miller was being abusive to the daughter and fled the country with the daughter would you be standing up for Janet Jenkins?

            You suggest that i am letting my biases trigger my judgment yet I am the one going of the findings of the neutral third party while you are going off the word of an interested party in the contentious dispute. so the question is what causes you to completely discount the actors that are supposed to resolve these conflicts? is it becasue you have evidence that they acted incorrectly or is it becasue you don’t like the conclusion they came to?

          • John_33

            Jenkins is not a biological parent, so it would be a different case, but I would stand up for the protection of the abused child regardless of who did the abusing. Would you?

          • [email protected]

            on the first bit why should it be a different case? do only biological parents get to look out for the welfare of their kids?

            on the second bit yes I would however I would not blindly take the word of someone who has a clear motive for alleging abuse without those reports being independently verified. I would recognize that given the nature of the custody dispute Lisa had a clear need and motive to paint the other parent in as negative a light as possible and so I would want those claims to be verified before assuming that they must true. In the exact same way if a student misses a final exam or paper deadline and then says they were very sick or injured and thus not able to be there the teacher is going to want to see some proof or documentation of this claim before accepting it as justification for that late work or request for more time becasue there is a clear motive for that story to be told.

          • John_33

            We are not talking about a student who misses an exam. We are talking about a little girl whose life is at stake. If you are so concerned and want proof, then why aren’t you looking for proof that the courts got it right? You obviously have an agenda.

          • [email protected]

            how do you know the girls life was at stake? you have a woman who wants to deny her ex-partner any access to their child and thus says terrible things about her in hopes to persuade the courts to deny visitation rights. Given the clear motive for making these claims the prudent thing to do is to look for outside validation of those claims before acting on them. without that outside validation I run the risk of denying someone who is actually innocent of those allegations the visitation rights they deserve.

            put simply what I am proposing here offers safeguards to both parties and a fair system while your side offers no protections at all to Janet Jenkins. the moment Lisa miller makes the claims you assume that they are the truth and if in fact they are not the truth you have no way of recognizing that and not denying Janet Jenkins her rights. so think about what that does to custody fights? all the parent needs to do is claim that the other parent is abusive and suddenly they have your blessing to flee with their kid if the court does not grant them sole custody.

          • John_33

            I’m talking about her life meaning her future. We’ve been through this before. You are assuming Lisa is guilty without ever hearing her claims. Why couldn’t she be right and the courts ruled incorrectly? You have not given a valid answer to this possibility.

          • [email protected]

            Is it hypothetically possible that the courts were wrong and she was right? yes, hypothetically that could be the case however given that we don’t know everything all we can do is work with the facts that we have and those facts are not favorable to Lisa Miller. But again there was a dispute over custody and I turned to the system that gave the maximum level of protections to both parties allowing both sides to make their case. how does your position do that? I don’t assume that either party in this case is telling the truth, rather I turn to the system to do its best to find the truth and rule accordingly.

            on the flip side you position starts with the assumption that Lisa is right and provides no mechanism by which her claims may be found to be false. So let me ask you, is there a way that you could have come to not side with Lisa and what would that be? If you don’t trust the courts to evaluate her claims then who do you trust? and by the way this was not one court acting on its own, there were multiple appeals in two states involving multiple courts at play here.

          • John_33

            OK, so based on the facts, you admit that Lisa could be right and you could be maligning her and the pastor. Why are you here?

            As for my position, I would expect to see evidence that contradicts Lisa’s claims. So far, her actions are consistent with a concerned mother.

          • [email protected]

            I admitted no such thing. the courts are not infallible so i am not going to say that it is impossible for them to make a mistake. However I have not at all said that the facts at all indicate that Lisa Miller could be right in this case and indeed all the facts indicate that she is not right. so no, that was not at all an accurate description. as to evidence that contradicts Lisa’s claims for one thing you have the fact that Janet Jenkins elected to be involved in this custody battle for years, something that would not be a likely action unless she had a real desire to be in the daughters life and maintain that relationship. also there is the fact that even with a prolonged court battle with plenty of outside involvement the negative claims made by Lisa miller were not found to be justified. you say her actions are consistent with a concerned mother but they could also very well be consistent with someone who is very hostile towards her ex-partner and determined to deny her any access to their daughter becasue of that hostility towards her + acting in conjunction with her legal team which refused to recognize the validity of their legal relationship due to their disapproval of homosexual unions.

          • John_33

            So Lisa could be right. Got it.

          • [email protected]

            but in this case there is no reason to believe that she is right, nor is there any reason to doubt the conclusion that the court came to, nor is there any reason to treat Lisa miller or any of her co-criminals as heroes. to do so is to irresponsibly assume that she is right in face of all the evidence and to do so is blatantly ideologically driven.

          • John_33

            If she could be right, then you admit that you don’t know enough to say, yet here you are opposing her and the pastor.

          • [email protected]

            okay to clarify no, in this case she could NOT be right. we know enough to say that she is not right and that the court was right to uphold the visitation rights. In general it is hypothetical possible for the court to make a mistake but the chances of getting to the right result are much higher then always taking the word of one of the parties with a vested interest and in this case all the evidence goes again the validity of Lisa Millers claim that the visitation was harmful to the daughter.

          • John_33

            You can’t walk this back. You already admitted that Lisa could be right. You don’t know.

          • [email protected]

            I was not there so no I do not know exactly what transpired. but there is no reason to believe that the court got it wrong and thus while it is hypothetically possible there is no reason to believe that to be the case and thus no reason to side with the criminal Lisa miller. your attempting to inject doubt into the equation yet you have provided no reason to believe that the court got it wrong nor any safeguards for if your assumption that Lisa miller is right turn out to be wrong. again this is exactly why we turn to the courts as opposed to just assuming that the interested party is right or wrong and then basing everything off of that assumption.

          • John_33

            If you don’t know if she is innocent or guilty, then why not withhold judgement? The pastor may have done a brave and noble thing.

          • [email protected]

            I do know that she is guilty becasue the court said that she is. the fact is that she refused to follow a court order which resulted in her losing custody and she then fled with a minor that she no longer had custody of which is kidnapping. those are the facts so it is indisputable that she committed a crime and the the pastor helped her commit a crime. furthermore the court found no justification to her claim that the visitation rights needed to be ended. you are proposing zero respect for the rule of law and you give Lisa an assumption that she is correct just becasue of who she is. I don’t believe for one second that if the lesbian had denied visitation rights to the christian and then fled the country with the child after losing custody that you would be siding with the lesbian. you have arbitrarily decided that Lisa must be right becasue she is the christian and Janet must be wrong becasue she is a Lesbian. there is no other reason for why we should just blindly assume that Lisa is right here.

          • John_33

            Come on Bill. You yourself admitted that “Christian” Lisa could be right and Jenkins could be wrong. You’re burying yourself the more you dig.

          • [email protected]

            I am not burying myself at all, rather you are by competently disregarding the legal system we have in place to resolve these disputes and instead blindly operating on the completely unfounded assumption that Lisa is right here. My judgment that Lisa is wrong on the other hand is backed up by a vast amount of legal action that backs Janet Jenkins here. Using your argument a pastor would also be morally justified in breaking violent sex offenders out of prison if they pled innocent becasue hypothetically they may have been wrongly accused and wrongly convicted.

          • John_33

            OK, Bill. I made my points and you made yours. I think it’s established that you don’t know if Lisa did wrong or not, but you believe that she and the pastor should be punished because the courts found them wrong. I believe that moral law supersedes that. I will leave it there.

          • [email protected]

            one last question if i may, so do you also believe that a pastor would be morally justified in breaking violent sex offenders out of prison if they pled innocent becasue hypothetically they may have been wrongly accused and wrongly convicted?

          • John_33

            No.

          • [email protected]

            and why not? why would you not accept the claim of innocence from the defendant and assume that the defendant is telling the truth and that the courts got is wrong?

          • John_33

            I’m not supporting vigilantism if people are innocent, but if Lisa is right, then her daughter was in danger. That’s why she fled.

          • [email protected]

            Okay so vigilantism is not okay if people are innocent but it is okay if it is claimed that vigilantism is necessary to protect someone from harm. Thanks for that clarification that is helpful actually and does narrow down the scope of things. In that case then one other question to consider if you wish….so let’s say that a man and his wife get a divorce and the woman gets custody but the man says the wife is being negligent with the child. He asks the court to change the custody arrangement but the court declines to do so…is the man now justified in taking the child and fleeing if he says the wife is being negligent?

          • John_33

            Bill, you said before that it was your last question. I can’t answer this one since each case is different. In the case with Lisa, it’s more than negligence.

          • [email protected]

            Just asking you to consider the implications of your positon. Before you positioned this as a universal position, that if the court could hypothetically have gotten it wrong that it is okay to side with one side of the case and assume that they are right. Hopefully with further reflection you can come to see how dangerous that is and how easily that can lead to supporting someone who actually is in the wrong.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Presuppositional opposition. 🙂

          • Charlotte Miller

            Have you read the transcripts of the reports from social services? There was enough there that if I would have been the mother of a child in a situation of probable cause , I would have done everything in my power to prevent joint custody.

          • Guest

            Of course they’re comparable, specifically on the basis of unjust laws that need to be broken. Besides, since when is a mother taking her child somewhere “kidnapping”?

          • [email protected]

            and what is the unjust law here? are you saying that joint custody after a couple splits up is an unjust law? This is a case of parental kidnapping becasue she is the biological mother but she lost custody after defying the court orders that mandated visitation rights. so someone who does not have custody of the child has fled and taken the child with them and is therefore denying access to the child for the adult that does have custody. that is kidnapping.

          • Guest

            Only one of those women is the biological parent of that little girl, and it isn’t the lesbian.

          • [email protected]

            and? one does not need to be the biological parent of the child to be a parent. let me ask you this, lets say that a man and a woman get married but the man is infertile so they get a sperm donor to donate and then they have a child and raise that child together for several years before the wife asks for a divorce. does the man then have no claim to joint visitation becasue he is not the biological father?

          • Guest

            Of course biological parents’ rights trump the rights of some stranger. This isn’t a sperm donor child. This is the child of the woman who has unjustly been punished for trying to protect her daughter from someone with no rightful ties to her.

          • [email protected]

            Yes it is a sperm donor child. Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller entered into a civil union and two years latter Lisa Miller carried the child to pregnancy following an artificial insemination. thus the situation is exactly like the one I detailed above, they were both legal parents of the child and the child was not conceived via natural birth but rather artificial insemination. so again given that the case I described above is identical to this one only with a man instead of another woman would that man have no right to joint visitation?

          • Guest

            Janet Jenkins is not a sperm donor. You compared Janet Jenkins to a sperm donor. That’s not accurate nor logical.

          • [email protected]

            You misunderstood what I am saying so let me go over it again and clarify. Lets say that a man and a woman get married but the man is infertile so they get a sperm donor (meaning another man not the husband) to donate and then they have a child and raise that child together for several years before the wife asks for a divorce. does the man (meaning the husband) then have no claim to joint visitation becasue he is not the biological father?

          • Guest

            I understood, but your argument is irrelevant since Janet Jenkins was not a sperm donor and has no biological claims to the child.

          • [email protected]

            Well to clarify again I as was not comparing Janet Jenkins to the sperm donor in the example I gave but rather to the husband. I am not saying that Janet Jenkins has a biological claim but rather a legal parent claim.

            So just to be clear in the situation I listed you would also say that the husband would have no right to joint visitation? that for any couple that uses artificial insemination with a sperm donor that only the mother has visitation rights and the father has none?

          • Guest

            Janet Jenkins is not a husband, so there goes that argument of yours.

          • [email protected]

            But she had the exact same legal standing as if she had been the husband. so again is it your argument that in a case of artificial insemination only the biological parent has custody? If this is your argument then it should apply equally if the partner was another woman or a man. if you draw a distinction then you are saying that, and not the lack of being the biological parent is the actual issue here.

          • Guest

            Janet Jenkins does not have the same legal standing as a sperm donor since she is not a sperm donor.

          • [email protected]

            once again i am NOT comparing her to a sperm donor. read over what I have said becasue you are completely missing the point. “But she had the exact same legal standing as if she had been the husband, both not being a biological parent but both having legal status as a parent of the child. So again is it your argument that in a case of artificial insemination only the biological parent has custody? If this is your argument then it should apply equally if the partner was another woman or a man. if you draw a distinction then you are saying that, and not the lack of being the biological parent is the actual issue here.” nothing in there is about the sperm donor, rather i am talking about the husband who is the legal father of the child even though he is not the biological father.

          • Guest

            I read what you said. You don’t get it. She is not a husband, and thus has no legal standing as a husband. She is not a biological parent or sperm donor and thus has no standing as either. The courts got it wrong. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, unjust laws need to be broken.

          • [email protected]

            Of course she is not the husband as she is a woman. however they were in a civil union which provided the same legal parenting status as marriage and had this happened a few years latter they would have been in a marriage as opposed to a civil union. So yes, she had the same legal standing of a parent in their same-sex union as a man would have had in a heterosexual union. Thus if you say that she had no legal rights becasue she was not the biological parent you would need to say that a parent in a heterosexual couple who was not a biological parent would have no rights as a parent. your acting like she was just some stranger when in fact she was the legal partner of the woman.

          • Guest

            Sorry, but a civil union does not trump a biological parent.

          • [email protected]

            Then neither does marriage becasue again it provided the same legal standing as a parent. So again using your argument here in the case of a husband and wife if the husband was infertile and they had to use a sperm donor the husband would have no legal standing as a parent if they ever divorced becasue he was not a biological parent. clearly this is not a good approach. Plus no one is saying that it trumped it, Lisa had primary custody and only lost custody becasue she continued to defy the court orders mandating visitation.

          • Guest

            The issue is biological children and biological parents’ rights. You keep going off topic, Bill.

          • [email protected]

            I am not going off topic at all. the point is that someone does not need to be the biological parent to have full rights as a parent. there are several different reasons why one parent might be the biological parent and the other not and that not even getting into cases where neither parent is the biological parent. the question is are you saying that the biological parent always gets to trump the non-biological parent?

            if the answer to that question is yes then is your answer still yes if we are talking about a heterosexual couple?

          • Guest

            You keep dealing in the what-if’s without dealing with the facts of the case. The facts are: biological mother leaves relationship, takes child with her, scorned ex-lover goes after the kid. What part are you missing?

          • John_33

            I think Bill is stuck on the scorned ex-lover.

          • [email protected]

            the part you are missing is that they were not just lovers, but rather they were in a legal relationship and thus the partner was also legally a parent and thus legally has a claim to visitation rights. when you are in a legal relationship with someone and you are both parents you don’t get to deny them aces to the child without legal cause. the what is to explore the principle you are proposing, namely that the non-biological parent has no legal parenting rights and no right to visitation after a breakup.

          • Guest

            Their relationship has nothing to do with the fact that one is the biological parent of the child and the other is not. Try to focus, bill.

          • [email protected]

            It has everything to do becasue being the biological parent is NOT the only way someone can have legal parenting rights. So again are you saying that if a couple, one the biological parent and the other a non-biological parent, split that the non biological parent has no rights?

            how about this, do you recognize that one does not need to be the biological parent to be a parent and to have rights as a parent?

          • Guest

            You keep talking around the case, but the fact is that biological parents’ rights supersede the right of ex-partners. The judge made an incorrect ruling and should be called out on it.

          • [email protected]

            this is simply not correct, biological parents do not automatically trump non-biological parents in a custody disputes. and in a case where the biological parent is refusing to honor visitation rights it would not at all be uncommon for that parent to lose custody. But the assertion that the biological parent automatically supersedes in the dispute is not correct nor should it be correct.

          • Guest

            You are wrong.

          • [email protected]

            No I am not at all wrong. non-biological parents still have rights and those are not automatically trumped by a biological parent. you are making up a legal standard that does not and should not exist. being the biological parent does not mean that it is automatically in the child’s best interest for them to have sole custody.

          • Guest

            You’re confusing what you wish to be true with reality. The reality is that the biological mother is the only one who has claims over this little girl, not some ex-lover. The courts got this wrong, just like they got Dred Scott wrong.

          • [email protected]

            You should take a look at the law on this issue. Custody disputes favor the biological parent but it is not an automatic trump card as you suggest. There can be other issues at play other then just who is the biological parent, for example if the biological parent is unfit to parent. secondly custody was not the issue in this case, the court was not saying that Lisa should not have custody only that she must allow visitation so custody was already in her favor. custody only became an issue when Lisa continued to defy the court order and deny visitation rights. this is important becasue again it is not as if the court was looking to remove custody from Lisa but rather that they ended up with that only becasue she was defying the court ordered visitation rights.

            so even in this case the courts did indeed favor the biological parent, its just that she defied the court orders to the point that the custody had to be called into question.

          • Guest

            None of those apply here. The ex-lover who was barely in the child’s life doesn’t trump the biological mother who wants the best for her child.

          • [email protected]

            Janet Jenkins and Lisa Miller agreed that as a couple they would have and raise a child. that only ended when Lisa Miller decided to end the relationship but at that point she was also ending Janet Jenkins relationship with the child. While Lisa Miller clearly had custody of the daughter becasue she was the biological parent Janet Jenkins clearly had a claim to visitation rights. Janet Jenkins then had visitation rights initialy and these only became an issue when Lisa Miller wanted to terminate those visitation rights. To terminate these visitation rights Lisa Miller would need to show to the court that the visitation was not in the best interests of the Daughter however this was not proven in court and so the court sided with continued visitation. at this point none of this has been a dispute of custody but rather a dispute over visitation rights. the continued defiance of the court then called the custody into question at which point the biological parent advantage starts to be undercut by the continued defiance of the court orders.

          • Guest

            Lots of “couples” decide to play house then break up. The biological parent always gets custody. Your bias – and the judge’s bias – are the problem here. Bias shouldn’t trump facts.

          • [email protected]

            The Biological parent did get custody, that’s the point. Lisa Miller had custody nor would that custody have been lost if Lisa Miller had complied with the visitation rights. Your trying to make this about a denial of the practice of giving custody to the biological parent but that’s not what was at issue here, Lisa miller had custody and should have had custody but the fact that she had custody rights does not mean that Janet Jenkins could arbitrarily be denied visitation

          • Guest

            Ex-lovers don’t get to tell biological parents where they can and cannot move.

          • [email protected]

            First of you are using intentionally minimizing language, they were not just ex-lovers but rather ex- legal spouses. Secondly Janet Jenkins did not tell Lisa Miller where she could or could not move, so that does not play into the conversation. Lisa miller had all the due deference she deserved as the biological mother. but defying the courts when it comes to visitation rights is a good way to set yourself up to lose custody.

          • Guest

            You clearly are not aware of all the facts in this case. Your bias has clouded reason.

          • [email protected]

            I have followed the case closely but if i have missed something then by all means let me know. at what point did Janet Jenkins attempt to dictate to Lisa miller where she could move?

          • Guest

            That doesn’t mean that Lisa Miller cannot move wherever she wants to move. That doesn’t mean that Janet Jenkins can call all the shots, etc. There is no legitimate reason why the judge should take custody away from a good, biological parent and give the child to an ex-lover. This was done merely because the judge has a bias.

          • [email protected]

            again what move is disputed here? Lisa miller had the freedom to move and indeed did move from Vermont to Virginia. Janet Jenkins was not calling all the shots, rather she was just trying to use the mutually agreed to and court validated visitation rights that she had. Lisa Miller created a legitimate reason for the Judge to take custody away from her when she defied the court ordered visitation rights for years. again defying a court order regarding visitation undercuts her right to custody and serves as a reason to remove custody. these are the facts you are ignoring here, you are completely ignoring the role that her disregard for court mandated visitation rights played in her eventual loss of custody.

          • Guest

            Ex-lovers typically don’t get custody of children. The judge had a bias. You do, too.

          • [email protected]

            your right the non-biological parent typically does not get custody. but then again the biological parent does not typically defy court ordered visitation rights for years.

            So the end result while not being typical in general was very typical for a case where the biological parent was defying court ordered action. you are ignoring the reason for the end result and then acting like it is a departure from the norm when in fact the end result is 100% understandable and predictable when you consider the facts of the case. defying court ordered visitation is going to have consequences.

          • Guest

            An ex-lover typically doesn’t get visitation rights. That’s the point.

          • [email protected]

            ex lover probably not, ex-spouse, absolutely it is on the table. Plus Lisa Miller agreed to the visitation rights as part of the dissolvement of the civil union. so the visitation rights were mutually agreed to and court validated and thus 100% valid. Lisa miller thus must honor those visitation rights unless they are removed by the courts which they were not. so the validity of the visitation rights was not in question.

          • Guest

            Please. Even husbands (and we all agree that Jenkins was not a husband) don’t get custody of their ex-wives biological children.

          • [email protected]

            If the Husband has visitation rights and the ex-wife deifies court orders to honor those visitation rights then yes, it is very likely that the husband will end up with custody. like in this case the biological mother is going to start with custody but if she enters into a pattern of defying court orders then she is very likely to lose that custody.

          • Guest

            The husband never gets visitation rights to a child he didn’t father.

          • [email protected]

            not true and especially not true if the husband and wife mutually agree to the visitation rights at the time of the divorce which is exactly what happened in this case when both women agreed that Lisa would have custody but Janet would have visitation rights.

          • Guest

            That’s not accurate. The judge had a pro-gay bias.

          • [email protected]

            It is 100% accurate. Lisa Miller agreed to the visitation rights at the time of the separation. that is a fact of the case and if you deny it then you show that you do not know the case or the law and have no idea what you are talking about here.

          • Guest

            That doesn’t mean those visitations should continue if the parent feels it’s not in the best interest of the child.

          • [email protected]

            the biological parent does not get to unilaterally decide to end legally agreed upon visitation rights. They can try to end those visitation rights as Lisa did but at the end of the day the court can decide that the case against the visitation rights is not a valid one and that the visitation rights must go on as previously agreed to. In this case it was decided that the visitation rights should continue and that the claims that they were harmful were unfounded. Lisa was then still legally bound to honor the visitation rights but she refused to, defying the law.

          • Guest

            If the ex-lover is not fit, sure they do. Parents have no legal obligations to ex-lovers.

          • [email protected]

            what part of mutually agreed upon and legally binding visitation rights do you not understand? Lisa 100% had the right to try to end the visitation rights but just becasue she wants them to end does not mean that they must end. they were mutually agreed upon and legally valid and thus unless a court ends the visitation rights they remain legally binding and Lisa miller has a legally binding obligation to honor those visitation rights. the court did not end the visitation rights thus Lisa miller did have a legal obligation. this is a fact.

          • Guest

            You have let your bias affect your reason.

          • [email protected]

            How? I am citing the facts of the case, facts that you are tying to completely ignore. so how does that magically turn into me letting bias affect my reason? you can’t contest the fact that the visitation rights were there and that they legally needed to be followed unless there were removed by the courts which they were not.

          • Guest

            I haven’t ignored any facts. You merely have gone on a tangent trying to cite Jenkins as a husband when Jenkins is not a husband and has no biological ties to the child.

          • [email protected]

            I don’t need to try to cite anything. Jenkins was the legal spouse of Lisa and there was a mutually agreed upon and legally binding agreement that gave Jenkins visitation rights after the relationship ended. those are the facts of the case. the fact that she was not the biological parent does not negate the fact that there were legally binding visitation rights in place, rights that Lisa agreed to at the time of the split.

          • Guest

            You’re like a stuck record, simply repeating propaganda without looking at facts.

          • [email protected]

            LOL i am citing the facts of the case. what part of what i said above is propaganda? if you are going to dispute what i am saying then do so but tossing around those labels just becasue you don’t like the facts changes nothing.

          • Guest

            Your husband analogy is off. You are forgetting that Jenkins did not biologically contribute to the child’s creation at all. Normally, she would have no rights, particularly compared to the biological parent.

          • [email protected]

            my husband analogy was to a husband who also did not biologically contribute to the child’s creation at all. literally the only thing that was different in the analogy was that it was a heterosexual couple as opposed to a homosexual couple, all other facts of the example were the same. I have also never said that Jenkins did biologically contribute to the child’s creation, rather i have noted that said fact in no way negates the fact that Jenkins had legal visitation rights to the daughter. She does have rights as a former spouse with visitation rights and you must completely ignore those visitation rights to claim that Jenkins had no rights. nor can you argue that the visitation rights were improperly given becasue Lisa miller agreed to those visitation rights.

          • Guest

            Your points are without merit.

          • [email protected]

            why? you have no argument against them other then just dismissing them out of hand.

          • Guest

            I’ve already explained them to you ad nauseum but your bias prevents you from absorbing them.

          • [email protected]

            simply not true, the facts of the case do not support you and i have demonstrated that again and again above. your argument depends on ignoring the facts and when i bring them up you switch to just claiming that they don’t matter. the truth is plainly there for anyone to see who reads over this and you know it to. you have never once dealt with the fact that the visitation agreement was valid and agreed to by Lisa miller. once that goes into the mix your argument falls apart.

          • Guest

            You haven’t demonstrated anything but your bias.

          • [email protected]

            and once again instead of responding to the facts of the case that i post you respond by attacking me becasue you know that the facts competently dismantle your argument. not exactly a winning argument.

          • Guest

            I already responded to you with facts. If you care to review the facts, merely read my past posts to you.

          • [email protected]

            simply not true, you have claimed over and over that Jenkins has no right to involvement in the life of the daughter and yet that ignores a legally valid and binding visitation rights argument that Lisa miller herself agreed to. the fact, and it is a fact, that said agreement exists completely and fully disproves your claim that Jenkins has no right to involvement in the life of the daughter.

          • Guest

            You should read posts before responding to them, bill.

          • [email protected]

            I do. you should take your own advice given that you tend to ignore most of what is said.

          • Guest

            Oh the irony, bill! 🙂 Have a nice day.

          • [email protected]

            I do hope you have a nice day and i also hope you have the courage to examine your position here and realize that there are facts that you had not taken into account that change the picture

          • Guest

            Please take your own advice, bill. 🙂

          • [email protected]

            I have taken all the facts of the case into consideration, yours is the position that depends on ignoring the facts of the case not mine and that is clearly illustrated above in the comments again and again.

          • http://www.moonbatdan.com/ Dan Trabue

            This must be one of the few sites that hasn’t banned you.
            Yet.

          • [email protected]

            and I should be banned why? for stating facts while engaging in a conversation?

          • gizmo23

            Sperm does not make one a legal parent

  • concerned

    Pastor Miller, You did the right thing, considering the behavior of Ms Jenkins. We need to listen to children. I’m glad this little girl is with her biological mother, and not being used as a pawn.I pray her mother, Ms Miller, will raise her in the way she should go., and I pray for you pastor, that you will have many opportunities to bring others to Christ.

    • Paige Turner

      He broke the law. Kidnapping is a very serious crime. Religious belief is no defence.

      There is no such thing as an “ex” lesbian. At best she is a Chaste/celibate Lesbian Woman.

      • concerned

        Yes, I realize the pastor broke the law .and he is now serving his time for helping Ms Miller. Judges sometimes err in their decisions and I think this may be one of them. It wouldn’t be the first time that a child was molested , because a judge did the “right ?” thing and allowed unsupervised visitation.Ms Jenkin’s behavior suggested she might be “grooming” the child for her personal satisfaction( evil). As for Ms Miller, only God knows if she really has changed her ways, but one could , at least say, as you did, “At best she is a chaste/ celibate lesbian”A question…what happened to the actress who was ellen degeneres partner ? i thought she married a man ?

        • Paige Turner

          What is this grooming and molestation that you are on about? That did not happen nor is their proof that there was.

          The “evil” exists in your head. There was no molestation either.

          The Preist broke the law and will go to jail.

          Bearing false witness is a grave sin.

          • hytre64

            A non-custodial parent being nude in the bathtub with a 6 year old, after which the child is touching herself inappropriately (esp for her age), has a dramatic change of disposition and talk about suicide?

            Those are clear signs of child sexual abuse.

          • Paige Turner

            No they are not. Thats a beat up. Children touch themselves at that age. Its normal.

            The rest of your post is just a rant against gay people whom you hate. Not very Christian especially at Easter. Shame on you.

          • hytre64

            If a Heterosexual dad was taking a nude bath with his 6 year old daughter, who then started touching herself inappropriately (as per the mom), has a dramatic change in disposition and talks about suicide, I doubt that there would be a judge in this country who would consider granting him joint custody, much less sole custody. Why is this case any different from that?

            As or your accusation – you do know that one of the 10 commandments is not to bear false witness?

          • Paige Turner

            You are taking this all out of context and blowing it all up trying to shame these 2 gay Women because they are Gay Women. These are baseless accusations as well. The Mennonite pastor had no right to intervene. Until these things are proven it is here-say and conjecture at best and an outright lie at worst.

          • hytre64

            Nothing taken out of context here. According to the article, the biological mom claims to have seen signs of sexual abuse from her ex-partner on her minor daughter. Daughter claims (A) that non-custodial parent who is attracted to members of daughter sex was taking nude baths with said daughter (B) daughters disposition changed radically for the worse after visit with non-custodial parent (C) daughter starts touching herself inappropriately for someone her age and (D) daughter starts talking about committing suicide. Regardless of the gender of the non-custodial parent, the custodial parent would be right to be concerned about signs of potential sexual abuse.

            My point in the previous post, was that special rights seem to have been given to the non-custodial woman, whereas a man in that situation would probably have been hauled off in handcuffs and denied any form of visitation.

          • gizmo23

            Claims is not fact or proof

          • gizmo23

            Live your last statement

        • gizmo23

          There is no evidence of abuse

      • hytre64

        Instead of “ex-Lesbian”, how about “Redeemed, former Lesbian”. God can (and does) help people to change and to overcome sinful desires.

        Yes, defying a court order is a serious crime, and the pastor (apparently) is willing to face the price for his civil disobedience. Paul went to jail in defense of the Gospel. Dr. Martin Luther King jr., went to jail in defiance of unjust laws. Sometimes jail is the price one pays to follow their conscience.

        • Paige Turner

          Homosexuality is not a sinful desire.

          • hytre64

            Either (A) you are not a Christian, in which case I won’t take your word on what is or is not a sin, or (B) you are being ignorant of Scripture.

            Lev 18:22, Lev 20:13, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:9-11, Jude 1:7, Rom 1:26-28 and Rev 21:8 ALL condemn homosexual practices. You are free to disagree, but scripture is abundantly clear on this.

          • Paige Turner

            I though that Christians had ditched the Old testament?

            If you’re going to play the Leviticus game then bring it on. Lets talk about working on the Sabbath. Touching the skin of a dead pig (football), eating shellfish which are all worthy of death. Theres also the bit about selling your daughter into slavery.

            You need to own all of it, not just the bits that you like to bash gay people with.

            Happy Easter.

          • hytre64

            Please note that roughly 1/2 of those scriptures are in the New Testament… Or do you not know the Bible?

          • Paige Turner

            So is the OT in or out?
            You are picking and choosing. I think that its only fair that you own all of it not just the bits that you like to bash minorities with.
            No Red lobster or Football. Could be a problem.

          • hytre64

            So, You are willing to ignore the New Testament scriptures that confirm the Old Testament scriptures that God calls homosexual conduct a sin, and try to throw in Red Herrings to distract from the point?

            Either (A) you are in serious denial and refuse to seriously discuss it or (B) you are a troll. I am leaning more towards (B), as apparently are some of the other commentators.

          • Paige Turner

            Its either in or its out. You cant have both.

          • hytre64

            TROLL… Done throwing down pearls for you.

          • Paige Turner

            Ad hominem. Thats not very nice.

            James 1:19,20 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:

            For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.

          • gizmo23

            He is spot on. The OT says to kill gay people as well as other sinners, if that no longer applies don’t use it

          • hytre64

            Hey gizmo – It’s been a couple of days. I noticed that you also didn’t respond that 5 of 7 scriptures mentioned are in the New Testament and confirm that God has declared homosexual conduct to be a sin. By referencing both the old and the new, it shows that God has consistently condemned this behavior.

          • gizmo23

            To you it may show God’s condemnation but to the un Bibled it just says gays should be killed. You don’t need to reach believers but people that aren’t.
            I do not like using those passages

          • gizmo23

            Please stop using the Lev passages unless you support killing gay people. That passage works against you

  • sammy13

    I reckon the pastor took the proper course of action.

    • [email protected]

      so you support international parental kidnapping? that if a custody case doesn’t go someones way that they have the right to just take the child and flee the country? hard to see how that could ever be sen as the proper course of action.

  • Kenneth

    Just because one “thinks” that
    ex-lesbians don’t exist doesn’t mean that they don’t. Just like one said
    earlier, if someone says that they were once attracted to people of the
    same sex(lesbian), and now they say they no longer are, doesn’t make
    that true. They are correct. They could be telling a bald face lie. OR
    they could be telling the absolute truth. And that is what they not
    willing to accept, that a homosexual can cease being a homosexual. Just
    because they REFUSE to believe that is possible, doesn’t mean that they’re
    right. It’s quite possible, because Jesus Christ has the power to
    change people from the inside out. Their lack of faith does not change
    the validity of that. I was once a serious drug addict, doing meth,
    smoking pot, drinking lots of alcohol. And I did that for at least 16
    years. All of that came to a screeching halt 26 years ago, and I never
    looked back. All because I put my faith in Jesus Christ. And He came
    into my life and set me free from all that bondage. Their refusal to
    believe doesn’t change anything. It still happened. I’m still free.

    • acontraryview

      “OR they could be telling the absolute truth.”

      If you have any examples of people who were physically, emotionally, and romantically attracted exclusively to people of the same gender, but who are now exclusively physically, emotionally, and romantically attracted exclusively to people of the opposite gender, please provide them.

      “I was once a serious drug addict, doing meth, smoking pot, drinking lots of alcohol.”

      That comparison is not apt.

      • Kenneth

        I have met many people that, like me, have been delivered from destructive lifestyles such as homosexuality, drug addiction, pornography, lying, stealing, hatred, etc. All through the power of Jesus Christ. In sharing my journey, my point was, just like the homosexual who chooses to follow Jesus Christ, and as a result, no longer desires to live in sin and practice homosexuality, I made the same choice 26 years ago, and I was set free from some VERY destructive ways of living and thinking. I no longer wanted to live and think the way I did, and after observing a close friend going from a serious meth and alcohol addict to someone who completely walked away and became a much different person who no longer desired to do those things, I became VERY interested in what happened to him. I made the same decision a few weeks later, and my life was never the same since then> i don’t expect you to believe me or understand what happened to me. Jesus Christ is VERY POWERFUL, once you make the choice to follow him completely. It requires total surrender of your will to God’s will. Whatever sin you are entangled by, including the sexual sin of homosexuality, Jesus Christ has the power to completely set you free and transform you into the person God wants you to be.

        Take care…

        • acontraryview

          So you can’t cite anyone who was physically, emotionally, and romantically attracted exclusively to people of the same gender, but who is now exclusively physically, emotionally, and romantically attracted exclusively to people of the opposite gender. Got it. Thanks.

          I’m very pleased that you have found your way out of drug addiction. Sexuality and drug addiction, however, are not comparable.

        • Paige Turner

          There are always “many people” but when we ask to see them or prove that they exist, they can never appear or prove their existence.

          Its so mysterious isn’t it?

          • Kenneth

            Even if i was to meet you personally and introduce you to people that have been set free from sinful lifestyles such as homosexuality, you would still call me a liar, and them as well, as you are doing now. People who hate God and hate Christians won’t accept anything God says or what His people say. You are blinded by your own hatred, pride, and sin. Until you come to know Jesus Christ personally, anything I say or do to convince you will be a waste of time. Your mind is made up, you don’t want to be confused with facts. I have no reason to deceive people or make things up. And it’s not wise on your part to call me a liar when you’ve never met me or walked in my shoes…

          • Paige Turner

            So no one?

          • Kenneth

            What’s the point Paige? You have no intention of taking me seriously. I’m a liar according to you, remember? Anybody I would mention here you wouldn’t recognize anyway. They’re people I know through my church group, people I’ve known for years.So how would you know who I was talking about? Remember you think Christians are liars? So, know one you would know. And I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t appreciate me mentioning them in this post. Not with people like you who have nothing but evil intentions…

          • Paige Turner

            The point?

            All I asked is for proof and you have none. People cannot change their sexuality becuase there is nothing wrong with being Gay. As much as you say that they have chnged, the evidence and proof is to the contrary to the point that the worlds largest ex-gay organisation has closed its doors and apologised. JONAH was closed and ex-gay therapy is banned.

            There is your proof of quackery.

            “These people” you talk of would be chaste/celibate at best. They are not “ex-gay”

          • Kenneth

            Bottom line, Paige, God calls homosexuality a perversion in His word. In the beginning God made male and female. No one exists on this planet except through the sexual union of a man and a woman. That is God’s original purpose. That is His plan. You may not believe God speaks with authority through the Bible. That’s your prerogative and your choice. It doesn’t matter what mankind “thinks”, If God calls it sin, it’s sin. In the 1st chapter of Romans in the new testament, homosexuality is called UNNATURAL. And it is not, because it’s not natural for a man to stick his penis in another mans butt hole. The butt hole is designed by God for DEFECATION, not sexual intercourse. Anal intercourse is PERVERSION. It’s also goes against nature for a woman to TRY and “have sex” with a woman. It’s not natural for a woman to strap on a FAKE PENIS and pretend she’s a man. UNNATURAL dude!. If you want to embrace a sick and perverted behavior, that is your choice, NOT mine. I’m not going to name names here to try and convince you that people exist that no longer desire to practice homosexuality. I’ve met them. I know them. I’ve known them for years. You want proof? Visit a Calvary Chapel in your area. You’ll find proof…

          • Paige Turner

            So still no proof of what you have proposed just a long winded rant.

            Got it.

            No ex gays. Thanks Kenneth,

          • Kenneth

            Like i said, you want proof, find yourself a good, solid bible teaching Calvary chapel in your area. You meet plenty of people that are no longer homosexuals, fornicators, liars, thiefs, adulterers, etc. Because they have come to their moral senses and realized that Jesus Christ is the ONLY one who can fulfill them and make them complete. Or you can continue to remain in the dark, oblivious to your hardened heart of hate towards God and His Son Jesus Christ.

            Signed Kenneth, ex-slave to sin, now by choice a servant of God, who sets the captives free, who forgives all our sins, who loved us enough to come into our world and die in our place, that we might spend eternity with Him

            Peace

          • Paige Turner

            Kenneth, there is no proof.

            The ex gay groups have closed and the therapy is illegal. There is nothing wrong with being Gay. You need to let it go now as you’ve become obsessed.

            Conflating gay people with criminals is reprehensible on you part. Shame on you.

  • acontraryview

    You do the crime….you do the time. What is so hard to understand about that?

    • Rachelthemillenial

      Mercy would be impossible to explain to an atheist. Christians are taught to be merciful because God is merciful. You couldn’t possibly grasp it.

      • acontraryview

        “Mercy would be impossible to explain to an atheist. ”

        Although I am not an atheist, your suggestion that an act of mercy would be impossible for an atheist to understand is false. Mercy comes in many forms. One of them, however, is not kidnapping.

  • Gary Metzger

    Thank God he broke this horrible law in order to no doubt save the life of this child. What kind of a country have we become when we show such utter disregard for the safety and welfare of children?

  • scottrose

    Strange, these people who say you are “born gay” or “born lesbian,” then they turn around and say you CAN change the sex you were born with. That kind of irrationality used to land you in a padded cell.

    • Paige Turner

      You don’t understand the difference between sex, gender and sexuality. If you did, you would realise what nonsense you have just written.

  • Slidellman4life

    Oh! I know about this! It’s all about a former lesbian who did not want her young daughter to be alone in the company of her former lover because she had reason to believe the ex-lover was abusing her daughter. So when a judge made it clear he cared more about political correctness instead of the child’s best interest, the mother left the country with the help of others.

    Those who are against this mother are too willing to turn a blind eye to abuse when the abuser is a member of the LGBTQW crowd. That’s absolutely despicable.

    When we fail to protect our children, we call for the judgement of God.

    • gizmo23

      I have reason to believe, without proof, that all Catholics are molesters so I should be able to kidnap all their kids?

      • Slidellman4life

        Non-sequitur.

        • gizmo23

          so dispute, don’t run and hide

          • Slidellman4life

            It is not relevant to anything. Do you have anything to say that is on topic?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            His point is that Miller had no “reason to believe” the girl was in any danger.

          • Slidellman4life

            1) I did not ask you.

            2) His comment does not in any way, shape, matter or form even remotely resemble what you say he said.

            3) How do you even know what he was thinking? Are you omniscient, or is Gizmo23 your sock puppet? If neither is the case, you have no business speaking for him. Sit down and shut up.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Flagged, for unnecessary, extreme hostility.

          • Slidellman4life

            So you flagged me because you don’t like it when people refuse to capitulate to your nonsense?

            Not playing your game isn’t being hostile.

            Grow up.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t expect you to “capitulate” to anything, or “play games.” What I do expect is a modicum of civility, which you continue to fail to show me.

          • Slidellman4life

            Really? I have been civil from the word GO. But I also have zero tolerance for other people’s horsehockey.

          • Reason0verhate

            Want some smelling salts, miss?

      • Paige Turner

        Agree. They shouldn’t be allowed to raise children.

  • Gott Mit Uns!

    No such thing as an “ex-lesbian.”

    • Slidellman4life

      You don’t know what you are talking about.

  • Peter Leh

    A tough one. In the end it looks like (unless something new comes out) he stole a mother’s child because of sexuality not sexual abuse or danger.

    which makes him a bad person.

  • Gena B

    Even though he broke the law to help this woman, God may use him to help others while he is in prison so he doesn’t sound too broken up about it. Mennonites are use to doing long missionary work in remote places. When this child grows up, maybe she will go and visit this other woman and tell about all the great things the Lord has done in her life.