quote:

---

Doc: Hold on here buddy. Seems to me, Icon, that if you accept that people should "forsake [their] habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable," then you couldn’t even say that HUMANS do any evil.

---

quote:

---

. My discomfort with his stuff, and some of the interpretation of his stuff here on the board is directly related to my concern that Bon (perhaps unintentionally, since "Ethics" was an unfinished manuscript) implied that the very categories of good and evil were to be rejected.

---

quote:

---

Okay, now I'm worried. BBB is agreeing with me. I must have screwed up somewhere!

I didn't realize this was such a sticking point. I don't think I said
anything new here. Infact, as I recall, Icon himself has touched on this distinction before (though I don't think it was consistently applied in his view on natural evil).

---

Exaaaactly! I think this point really needed/needs to be clarified. So much so that that is why I "accused" you and others of being morally relative or hypocritical on page 3 of "Bon Chapter 3." And this seems to be the concern of Brett, Brandi, Brandon , and writerdad.

When I say that I believe that there are moral absolutes,moral norms, what I mean by this is that one can know right (good) and wrong (though not all wrongs are evil), good and evil. And it is precisely at the "point of conflict" or as Theilicke says, "borderline situation" where discernment needs to take place. By borderline situation, or point of conflict I mean, what Geisler would call the crossroads of "law and higher law" or where Theilicke and Packer would say that we have to "choose between the lesser of two evils." Modes might call it, "the suspension of the ethical" and you may call it, "outside the ethical." Meph Man would call it "breaking the law." But I never denied that we don't have these occasional happenings. I have said that we need to look at various factors, intent, action and situation, (Maguire says, we need to ask "reality revealing" questions, what, why [looking at intent], how, means [closely related to how], who, where, when, and possible effects, and other existent viable alternatives). These are all what Iconoclast would term feedback and assessment, though everyone is agreed here, that we just don't crack strangers over the head with our morality. Maybe we might confront a stranger, but that is very, very, seldom.

Digression: Greg, do you remember "Open Theist" who posted here two Christmas' ago and said he would not go down and stay with his sister in North Carolina because she was living with her boyfriend? Do you remember "confronting" him? A stranger? A Pharisee? End Digression

But it is because we have two conflicting absolutes (real conflicts or contradictions? Rakestraw would say no) that we need discernment i.e. preservation of life (not just principle of life, but actual life) and lying is wrong that we need to apply these questions above, to the situation at hand.

Now it bothered me on the Politics and Christians when Semeia's first
question was, "Who is the church?" and then she went on to say:

quote:

---

But we are not afraid, because in our top desk drawer we have a set of cards, with the church’s stance on the important issues:

Abortion: No.
Homosexuality: No. Do everything possible to be straight, or become
celibate.
Divorce: No, except in certain clear-cut cases of infidelity.
Premarital sex: No.
Prayer in the schools: Yes.
Tithing: Yes.
Be Poor: Yes, if church is more left wing.
Be Rich: Yes, if church is more right wing.
Infant Baptism: A must if you’re Catholic.
Adult Baptism: A must if you’re Church of Christ.
Headship of the Husband: Yes in fundamentalist churches.

---

I interpreted this as saying, "Then what she is saying is that, we, the body of Christ, whoever we are, because, "Who is the church?", can't say what is right and what is wrong. Some of these points above are clearly moral issues. Some of them are not. And with some of these points, the church has always maintained a "no" regarding. Meaning, that this is always wrong. However...

The question for me is, where do we get this knowledge that something is right and wrong, good and evil? I don't want to trust my instincts/intuitions, though at times, they may be right. As a matter of fact, the Bible warns us about calling good evil and evil good.

Digression:Because I come from a broken home? For the longest time when I first became a Christian, the morality of divorce never occured to me until I began looking at what Jesus said. My subconscious thinking and self talk was, "Hey, if it is a bad marriage, leave!!" But this is pretty much the way of the world. Now, while I can appreciate that Jesus allows for divorce and remarriage (though Greg's Semeia's, Icon's and mine interpretation is different on this question), my thinking is that of Leeuwen who says, "Counselor's and pastors ought to believe that marriages are more salvageable than they do." End Digression

But the first place I know to go to, though not the only place, is to the Bible. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that everything is unambiguous. It isn't. But some things are quite clear. And I think this has been the concern for some here, that even when we know that some-thing is wrong, people were hearing, "We can't know right and wrong. That is our knowledge of good and evil. We are not privy to that." Again, I am not a lone ranger. And so, I must use other resources as my authority, the church, or tradition, reason (as asked in the questions above), and experience to help in guiding me in these murky waters.

Now, when might we allow for something that is clearly wrong to happen or as Greg might say, "occassionally go outside the ethical?"

For example, say we have a gay couple who come into our church. We know from the Bible that homosexuality is wrong. Greg would say, "Well, we can step outside of the ethical or break the law because of something higher, and that is relationship, based on Mark 2:23-28. Law serves relationship not the other way around. Either way, two absolutes are in conflict here, breaking God's law by picking grains of wheat on the Sabbath, and "more weighter matters," the people themselves. But even here, in our example, Greg is not advocating that homosexuality is not wrong. He is not saying that we cannot know good and evil. If he was, how could he say anything like, "occasionally go outside the ethical?" or "Christ allowed for "continual adultery", the biblical definition of remarriage (according to Greg's, Semeia's, Icon's interpretation and God's plan B, not "plan A", "occassionally outside the ethical, something evil?) and so therefore, he could allow for occassionally going outside the ethical with regard to homosexuality. How could Modes say, "suspend the ethical?" So, the first thing we don't want to say is that homosexuality is not wrong. This, I don't think is what Greg is saying. However, when law stands in the way of the "weighter matters," that is, people, law must be put aside or we must "occassionally go outside of the ethical" or "suspend the ethical" or "break the law." In the end, Greg would allow for gay couples to live together. If possible, lovingly confront in small groups, but especially when you have earned your right to be heard which takes time.

Now, by lovingly confronting someone in this situation, there is a goal. Icon may say, "Impact." But I think the ultimate goal would be to see gay couples live "straight" lives. What I, Writerdad, and probably a few others would want is to see is gay couples live according to a "Judeo-Christian ethic," that is, God's design. I myself, tolerate gay people in church. As a matter of fact, one of my best friends (who struggles with his orientation)is gay. God know's his struggles and deepest longings. We stand next to each other in small groups and in big corporate gatherings. And when I say, tolerate, I mean "patience." Ok? Please don't misinterpret that. I think God longs to make gay people whole and he is ever so patient with them and their sin. God is patient with me and my sin, why should I not be patient with others?

Now, Greg, Semeia, Icon, etc, would probably say, "Well, who is the church? What is a Judeo-Christian ethic? Do you realize the struggles these people have? You may never (and probably won't)change the orientation of someone who is gay. That would be like asking you to change your "straightness!" Besides, many gay couples have healthy relationships while many straight couples have unhealthy ones that end up in divorce! Should these guys have to struggle with this, while you as a straight person can be free to live with your desires in a married heterosexual relationship?"

Hence, we arrive at the question, "What is the most loving thing to do?" And this is where I have to ask all the "reality revealing" questions, which I don't think a good job has been done at least on the two issues of homosexuality and bioethics, in my estimation (the post that I got Semeia's quote from was highly individualistic and egotisical). I don't mean this as a put down, but speaking as a-matter-of-factly. Egotism and individualism is some of the reason why I might have a problem with in regard to Modes' being led of God, whatever is not of faith is sin stuff. I still haven't looked at the models that I said I would reprint off.

In the end, what I don't want to say is, wrong is right, right is wrong, good is evil, evil is good. What I hope to do is say, "Go sin no more" and see whithered hands healed, blind eyes open, full stomachs on the Sabbath, wounded hearts mended and people made whole.

So, Greg, where would you have a problem with what I said?

Oh and by the way, seeeek. We're all average guys and gal's around here. Except Tom. He has Mad Cow Disease at times.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

Edited by - BBBCanada on 08/29/2002 1:00:10 PM

quote:

---

Digression:Because I come from a broken home? For the longest time when I first became a Christian, the morality of divorce never occured to me until I began looking at what Jesus said. My subconscious thinking and self talk was, "Hey, if it is a bad marriage, leave!!" But this is pretty much the way of the world. Now, while I can appreciate that Jesus allows for divorce and remarriage (though Greg's Semeia's, Icon's and mine interpretation is different on this question), my thinking is that of Leeuwen who says, "Counselor's and pastors ought to believe that marriages are more salvageable than they do." End Digression

But the first place I know to go to, though not the only place, is to the Bible. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't mean that everything is unambiguous. It isn't. But some things are quite clear. And I think this has been the concern for some here, that even when we know that some-thing is wrong, people were hearing, "We can't know right and wrong. That is our knowledge of good and evil. We are not privy to that." Again, I am not a lone ranger. And so, I must use other resources as my authority, the church, or tradition, reason (as asked in the questions above), and experience to help in guiding me in these murky waters.

---

Thank you. Your post made so much sense for me! Due to how prominent divorce is in our age I forget at times that it is even a moral issue. Perhaps I've become desensitized?



Doc

quote:

---

And in religious groups, one primary need is to feel righteous. So flesh religion – viz. Religion – is largely structured around defining as clear things that separate the in group from the out group.

---

Speaking from a personal level, I don't believe the need is to feel righteous as much as it is to walk in right relatedness with God. I NEED to know how it is that God wants me to live and to walk. I NEED a map (a guide) for living the Christian faith out. Without having a way to know good from evil, right from wrong we are all walking around with no compass nor map. How are we to discern God's "Plan A" and God's ways? I must be missing something or failing to read something that has been answered already. Please be patient, Doc, if you or Semeia or Iconoclast have already addressed this.

I THINK we agree that we are not to judge other people as being "good" or "bad" based on the sin they are struggling with. What I am not clear on is whether we agree that we can discern the sin that someone is struggling with? I have at times felt like Doc, Semeia, Iconoclast have tried to say that we cannot even judge if someone has a sin because we have too many sins of our own (log and speck). Is this correct?


Thanks,
~Brandi~









Edited by - brandi on 08/30/2002 06:31:57 AM

quote:

---

BBB: Greg, do you remember "Open Theist" who posted here two Christmas' ago and said he would not go down and stay with his sister in North Carolina because she was living with her boyfriend? Do you remember "confronting" him? A stranger? A Pharisee?
Doc: This wasn’t a person on a street corner. It was a) a person on a discussion board where we discuss such things; b) a person who asked for feedback; c) a person who is safely concealed behind a psuedonym/

---

I didn't have any problem at all with your confronting this person. And really, the three points above were something that didn't enter my mind. My thinking was:

a) There really wasn't much of a discussion on these boards with regard to this. When this person started spouting his thoughts, our thinking was, "Who is this arogant, pompous self-righteous pharisee? Buddy, we don't want to hear it. And if you don't cease and desist we'll boot ya 'cause these are MY boards!"
b) No problem there.
c) Because this guy is hiding behind a psuedonym? He's a stranger.

Either way, the guy needed to be told.

quote:

---

Doc: No problemos here amego. I have just been mega-impressed with how selective religious group-thinks can be on what they see as "clear" and "unclear" in the Bible. In the flesh, we operate to meet our own needs. And in religious groups, one primary need is to feel righteous. So flesh religion – viz. Religion – is largely structured around defining as clear things that separate the in group from the out group. And its wholly arbitrary. The universality of sin, combined with the universality of God’s grace, demonstrated on cross, pronounces the whole enterprise demonic.

---

Correct. But as you can see, it was the concern of some around here that what was being interpreted was, "I can't say this is right, and this is wrong." Thanks for clearing that up.

quote:

---

BBB: God is patient with me and my sin, why should I not be patient with others?
Doc: If we acknowledged how sinful we are, as judged by God’s character, and thus how patient God is with us, and if we extended THIS SAME patience to others, we would look a lot like Jesus. I think we’d have prostitutes and tax collectors wanted to hang around us, rather than avoid us. The reason we (the church) DON’T look like Jesus – the reason prostitutes and tax collectors avoid us as they did the Pharisees – is because we don’t typically extend the mercy we’ve received to others. Like Simon the Pharisee, we think we need to be forgiven less than the prostitute. Jesus, remarkably, praises the prostitute and indicts Simon! (Luke 7).

---

Hey! One of the coolest passages in the Bible is Matthew Chapter 1 where a prostitute is a part of genealogy of Jesus! Isn't that like God, eh? A "ho" (to use today's venacular for effect) is one of Christ's ancestors! Not to mention that God uses astrology to bring people to himself in the story of the wise men! Who does God think he is? He can't do that!

quote:

---

Doc: Can you tell someone to "go sin no more" when you yourself are a sinner? I’m asking. I’ve wondered if anyone other than Jesus could say this with authority. I can and have in appropriate contexts advised people to stop sinning in particular ways. But the cart blanc, "go and sin no more…" I can’t imagine a human being other than Jesus saying this to another person and not giggling – unless they are self-deluded.

---

Well, I guess I should EXPLAIN MYSELF!!

I went to a "meeting" last night. We all sat around a table and we introduced ourselves and stated our "problem." You know which meeting I'm talking about. Though I don't have this particular problem I still have some of the "thinking." Each person takes a turn talking about "where they are at" in life in this meeting. The one thing about this meeting is that everyone at the table is on the same level. By that, I don't mean that Johnny is not "healthier" than Bob. He is healthier. What I do mean, is that Johnny knows that he is just one breath away from going back into his problem whether it exerts itself in actual physical manifestations, i.e. habits, etc, or in his thinking.

Now the goal of the meetings is to eventually become "whole" where this problem is no longer an issue. That is, not to go back. Again, this doesn't mean that this person is not a heartbeat away from going back to old ways of doing things. These guys (old timers) realize where they came from. They know it wouldn't take much to "cross that line" and "fall" again. They see the newbies and they don't condemn. They provide feedback as to where some root problems may lie, i.e. regrets, anger, ego, etc.

We're all on the same level.

But it is the goal. To become whole. And it is in this way and in this mode that we should say, "Go and sin no more."

See what I'm saying?

By the way, thanks to Greg and Icon and the positive affirmation on such meetings that I have recently started to attend again. "Preciate that. See, you don't even know in what ways you are affecting others.

And Brandi? Thanks. I hope this post helps in responding to your question to Greg.

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War

quote:

---

This is NOT to say that there aren’t context where I would encourage someone to refrain from a PARTICULAR sin. E.G. There’s a young man I’ve been in relationship with that I encourage to not go on the internet, for various reasons. It is destroying his relationship with Christ, and thus destroying him. The fact that I overcame pornography in the past gives me credibility with this person. But I have not overcome sin in general, and so I can’t say, with any authority, to the person in general, "go and sin no more." It would be like an alcoholic telling a fellow AA member, "go and drink no more, and stop having lustful thoughts, and pray as much as you should, and stop telling white lies, and treat your wife like she was a princess, and don’t over eat, and don’t judge others, and make sure that you are obeying God in how much you give to the church, and… and… and….

Blessings
Doc


"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

---

quote:

---

I thought this thread was dead when I looked today, after what Brandi said. I know it's old to everyone here.

---

I am sorry if I gave anyone the impression that this subject is "dead" or "old." What I meant was that sometimes I feel like I get stuck on the same old thing and keep hashing it out therefore I was thinking that perhaps some might be getting sick and tired of me posting.... I have been TRYING (and try is the key word) to understand how it is that some can interpret the "knowledge of good and evil" as meaning that we are not to see the sin in others due to our own sinful behavior. For me it's impossible to walk around blinded to the sin I see around me. I can accept that we are all on a journey and are at different stages in recovering from "the lie," yet I know when sin is present in myself and in other people. I DON'T feel it my place to judge ANY person as being "good" or "bad" based on their decisions or their sin but I do know what the bible tells me is holiness and I am aware when myself, another, or our society is NOT walking or living in holiness. I feel that we are NOT to turn away and pretend it is not there yet I realize that we cannot and must not be confronting everyone about every sin but rather loving those who we come into contact with. I appreciated coming across the verse from Mother Theresa "If you judge other people, you have no time to love them."

Ugh! I feel all confused as I am writing this. My intention in writing this post was to say to you, Seeker35, that I did NOT intend to put an end to the discussion -- I am sorry if I temporarily did that. Seeker35, you will be such an addition to this site if you choose to continue to contribute. Each person has their own reasons for choosing to post or not to post and you need to assess what your reasons would be -- would it be a blessing or helpful for another person perhaps? Personally, for me, posting on this site gets down to wanting desperately to understand more about God (though sinful person that I presently am). I have this intense desire to become the person that God created me to become and I believe I can become this person SLOWLY -- VERY, VERY SLOWLY over time as I seek Him first. Therefore, I post when I feel led to or need to because my hearts desire is to TRY to seek Him first. My only hope is in figuring out this thing called Christianity and dialoguing on this web site is one way I can accomplish this. So, if you find that you have an interest in any particular topic then sharing your comments or questions may be of benefit to you.

Ah, I am sorry for babbling on and on... My main intention for writing this post was to say that I did not mean for the topic to be "dead" or "old."


Peace,
~Brandi~

quote:

---

And I wonder what you think about what I said: that if you don’t know if you can specifically help, don’t bother pointing it out.

---

I agree. What you said is a great guideline for discerning when to offer help or confront sin. If we CAN help (and if our confrontation would be of benefit in the long run for the person) then we might be led to point something out but of course this is as the Spirit leads. BUT, if offering a way out is NOT in our mindset then what's the point? Are we trying to get life from pointing out a shortcoming in another?

Then again, even if we think we can offer a way out, if we think we can help, we need to make sure that the person WANTS our feedback and help. I know many people who would become more defensive, and most likely increase in their sin, if I gave my feedback even if I thought my input might be helpful. I guess this is where the Spirit's leading is SO VITAL! The harvest must be ripe for the harvesting.

The reason I appreciated the quote from Mother Theresa so much is because it gets to the point. If we spend our time evaluating and judging the actions of other people we will have little time to do what we were called to do which is to SPREAD GOD'S LOVE! On the other hand, if we spend our time preoccupied in making sure we are NOT judging and in trying to blind our eyes to sin then we will have little impact on being a light for God. There definitely is an incongruence at times in living out the faith isn't there!

Here's something I've personally been struggling with that's a bit off this topic: I have discovered that I have an attitude about some people groups due to the sin they are living in (for instance homosexuals.) I am struggling with this revelation because I DON'T want to have this attitude about ANY person. For some reason sometimes I view a person who is homosexual as being "different" from the rest and I have a mindset that this ONE part of the person defines who they are when in reality I know this isn't true. When I interact with a person who is gay I am aware that they are not so different from me and that they too put their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest. In my personal interactions I have NO problem respecting a person who is gay just as I respect anyone so why do I blanket a people group?!?

My heart is to NOT stereotype a person based on one part of them nor to define them as "sinful" in a way that is separate from all the other sin we are ALL caught up in. But, here's my BIGGEST struggle, our society is becoming so desensitized to sin that I forget MANY times that unmarried heterosexuals living together or divorce (for the most part) is also sin. It has become so much the norm in our society that I forget, and many young people don't even know, that these things are sin. I sometimes fear that our society is SLOWLY becoming desensitized to having any standard or morality in which to live by (Satan is slowly rocking us all to sleep), therefore I get passionate about fighting against becoming accepting and looking the other way at the sin in myself or in others. People NEED Christians to show them the way, to be a light, and speak the truth BUT they also need to see Jesus through our extreme love.

What are we to do as a follower of Christ? Where's the balance between not judging verses allowing people to become more and more desensitized? "To be or not to be, that is the question." William Shakespear



~Brandi~

quote:

---

About this site. For me, it's very selfish. I gain MUCH more than I could ever contribute. Yes, I understand, I haven't "earned" my way in here yet. The problem is, I don't think I ever could.

---

Seeker,

Be encouraged! I haven't earned my way yet...and I've been here since the beginning.

In His Love,
selah


Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1

Edited by - Selah on 09/06/2002 05:51:11 AM

quote:

---

Doc: Two points. A) It's undeniable that there has been an erosion of sexual morals and basic decency the last three decades (I by chance watched a video by a band named KORN last night and was SHOCKED. It was the single most explicitly satanic anti-Christ thing I've ever seen or even dreamed of!). Still, I am not sure that AS A WHOLE we are less moral than two hundred years ago. And I am convinced we are not less moral than humans in general have been in the past. Sexually, we are still puritans compared to the Romans of Jesus' day. And over all, the barbaric torturing of "heretics," the enslavement and wholescale butchering of people groups, has mostly disappeared (with exceptions, of course, but we NOTE these AS EXCEPTIONS).

---

I think it's a moot point Greg. Personally I feel that society as a whole is worse than it was two hundred years ago. For me one of the indicators is the value we place on life both at the beginning end of the spectrum, at the end and everything in between.

Anyone ever hear of PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION???

Sure, back then they had slavery, but people generally worked within a pro-life ethic/philosophy and many were opposed to slavery even at that time. This, to me, is generally a symptom of a deeper problem which is a loss of what some theologians call "intangibles."

But the real reason I feel that it is moot is because, while we may not as of yet, be at the point of the barbarians, we are definitely moving in that direction. And THAT is the question. Sexually, people are not as loose in the sense that they are sleeping around with everybody, (with one guy/gal one night another another night), but they are sexually active with their boyfriend or girlfriend whom they may have just met, or plan to marry, but may not and therefore they are sexually active outside of a committed marital relationship. This is not healthy for society, because we can see the epidemic of abortion, VD's and babies having babies. Not to mention broken hearts. Also, this is a cause for concern on the financial resources of a country. Eventually, something's gotta give way.

quote:

---

B) I totally agree that as followers of Jesus we must be passionate about resisting the undercurrent cultural pull towards sin. But I'm not convinced that the culture needs us to show them the way forward on these issues. Certainly the NT doesn't give us any precedent for this. Until a person is surrendered to Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, what good have we done if we somehow convince them to clean up their act? What power do they have to clean up there act? What reason would they have to clean up their act? And what credible do we -- who have our own act to clean up -- have with them to tell them to clean up their act? In my view, our only job is to love them into the kingdom, at which point the Spirit, and the Word, will continue to help them AND US to "clean up our act."

Then again, I'm thinking that perhaps when you said "they need us to show them the way," you didn't mean "show them what sin is" but "show them the love of Jesus Christ."

---

Your reasoning stems from your anabaptist background and the separatism that it generates. I not only have a problem with this because of the contradicitions inherent in such a position, but also for very practical reasons. That is, we will leave a moral vacuum in our society as a result of this kind of separation. I think the Religious Right was on to something when they started up. Though they have gone to extremes in the past.

Greg is right though, the N.T. doesn't give us any precedent for speaking to the culture in this way. But that would be taking the N.T. out of it societal and historical context (one of persecution which the church was preoccupied with) in my opinion. There is no reason to believe that because the N.T. does or doesn't do it a certain way, we should/(n't) do it this way as well.

Also, I think Greg has a point about our ability to talk to society when we aren't morally pure. This can work both a corporate and individual level. MLK work to end racism but he couldn't keep his pants on. It is possible that this could not have made him effective both with speaking agianst sexual issues OR racism, but because of sympathy from the media and the cultural current at the time (the pro-life movement doesn't have either of these for various reasons), MLK was able to speak authoritatively.

But there are some individuals that can and do speak against the sexual mores of our times and I personally like the way McDowell and Colleen Mast have done it. That is, they use reason to persuade their audiences. They also strive to get more parental involvement in children's lives. In otherwords, this is not just a short-term evangelism thing. They realize this is a cultural war.

Lastly, in relation to this, I wonder how anybody who is not a Christian would "get their act together?" It happens all the time y'know?

Brandon
"Sharing a prison cell unites you much more powerfully than sharing a conference table."--Ecumenical Jihad: Ecumenism and the Culture War







Edited by - BBBCanada on 09/06/2002 10:54:15 AM

quote:

---

I totally agree that as followers of Jesus we must be passionate about resisting the undercurrent cultural pull towards sin. But I'm not convinced that the culture needs us to show them the way forward on these issues.

---

quote:

---

Doc: Until a person is surrendered to Christ and indwelt by the Holy Spirit, what good have we done if we somehow convince them to clean up their act? What power do they have to clean up there act? … In my view, our only job is to love them into the kingdom, at which point the Spirit, and the Word, will continue to help them AND US to "clean up our act."

Brandi, you also talked about this. Brandon… I’m not sure.

---

quote:

---

Society speaks out against drugs, drinking and driving, stealing, cheating, racism, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, child pornography, etc.

---

quote:

---

That is a very good point! WHO makes the decisions on what sins we will fight and speak out against in our society? WHO makes the decision when an issue is a private matter and when it is of societal concern? Maybe, in retrospect, we had no right to speak out against the activity of Adolph Hitler and his regime? Maybe we shouldn't ever dare speak against racism because who are we to judge the actions or beliefs of another when we ourselves have a log in our eyes? Why bother speaking out against drugs, alcoholism, child abuse ... since we are not sinless ourselves? How can we justify EVER speaking up about ANYTHING since we have our own sin list?


That was really good food for thought, Brandon!
~Brandi~

---