An object lesson

:ae:Reading another discussion you were in, about minds and brains, I learned a lot about begging the question. But it seems that some of this is going on here.The wider context of all of this, is, are we created beings, or evolved? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we are created, then a question of morality, right and wrong, good and evil, all harks back to the intent of the creator. If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we are evolved, we arrive at the point you seem to be making. It's all subjective. We are here where evolution has brought us, and our opinions are as good as it gets.Now, you note a bit of evidence, that people have stronger opinions about moral issues than they do about other stuff. This is used as you note to confirm that we are created. Not all that persuasive; either theory can account for it. Just as either theory can account for your object lesson results in general.So, I don't have, from the lesson, any change in my estimates of the plausibility of the two ideas, and see no support in the lesson for the idea that there are no moral absolutes. You have to assume that the creator idea is not true to be confirmed in this idea, that He hasn't set up moral absolutes, and made them more important to us. Now, is that begging the question?When I ask Jehovah about making moral judgements, He affirms that they have an essentially subjective basis, but that He is the only one who "ought" to be subjective about this, since He made everything. We "ought" (if we know what's good for us) accept His moral judgments in preference to our own. But, to do that, He has written that we have to walk with Him and deal with moral issues case by case, instead of having a policy that we get from Him. The only moral statement we can make is that we ought to talk to Him about everything. It is good to "pray without ceasing." Hence, that is the only moral absolute. Well, it's one. One that we have from the camp that thinks it likely we are created beings, not evolved.

:ae:Re being created or evolved, or both: The dichotomy stems from failure to acknowledge the creator's intent and credit His glory in dealing with His creation. We can imagine a creator starting a big bang, and then stepping back and letting the rest work itself out without any further involvement. But, the creation idea came from the Bible, in our culture at least, where the creator is a very involved Person in the working out of history (His Story!). But I like the term evolition for the idea that our creator, using artificial selection and genetic engineering, has produced every thing through a long developmental process, with His hand tweaking vigorously along the way. Then I reserve evolution for the idea that natural selection and random mutation produced diversity in life, at least. Best to create true dichotomies where confusion and ambiguity has produced a false dichotomy.You write, in reference to my claim that creators have the last say in right and wrong in their creations, Do you believe it is wrong to kill a breed of cattle, all of whom it turns out are likely to sooner or later get mad cow disease? My point is, if He is your creator, and made you to prosper and be happy with certain notions of right and wrong, then those judgments would be the "right" ones for you. You do have the freedom, of course, to choose otherwise, and it is good that you recognize that you may have to pay a prosperity price for asserting your wisdom of right and wrong over that of your creator. But, in our own ethical systems in dealing with what we have created, we believe "genocide" is right when those created things (the breed of cows) are selectively vulnerable to and contaminated by an enemy, whose powers to spread to all cows are enhanced by that breed's continued survival. You cannot know that until you have done what can be done to get an interview with your creator, in case He is really out there, and ask Him. But, according to the bible, a common basis for the creation idea, there is a means of determining the answers (or the lack of answers) to the questions. Ask Jehovah. Become one of Yeshua's sheep. Then He will never leave nor forsake you, and you will know His voice, and He is the Truth, so you can ask Him. That any of this is possible is debatable, of course. Never know till you try! Interesting words here: "leave" "might" "right" and I would add, "free." To me, to be the creator of something means that one has the right to decide what that something is for, which in turn determines what is right for that something. But, creating a person, somebody with free will, well, I agree that changes the "rights" somewhat. But God has been clear about this. "Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat, for on the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." In other words, He did give you sentience, but so you could know Him, not kill yourself by trying to be like Him in knowing good and evil. That that is a choice says something about love. You know, the "If you love someone, let them go, etc."As to might and right, well, what we have from God is a potter and clay analogy. It's His universe, He created it. He has the right to do with it what He will. And, He was smart enough not to make a matrix, a creation that could take Him down. He has and retains the might to do what is His right. All we can do is deal with it.But one bit of advice. The gut feeling that we ought to be gods, since we have this sentience, actually starts coming to fruition as soon as we take our eyes off of the goal. We humble ourselves, wanting to live, even as created beings, if that's what we must do to live. And then He comes along and raises us up. This works on such a micro-level, that it actually can be the basis of personal experiments, to see if one can get experience confirming that all of this is actually reality. The act with the most moral integrity is to give Jehovah a break! He says, repeatedly, "Can we talk?" He says that He is love, but then He does these severe things, but not lately. And, we are no strangers to severe things. Have you ever seen the film, "The Silent Scream"? At least, get to know His voice, and ask Him for understanding of these difficult matters. The Amalekite babies? The ones that escaped Molech? Who would have grown up to toss their own babies into fiery idols? Who, in their infancy might have escaped the corruption, the stumbling blocks, of their culture. Who might have had, in their childlikeness, a faith in a mysterious "Spirit-god" that had been poured out on all flesh? Who now rejoice in heaven, because they were never made to lose this faith?It still seems to me that arguments here that do not examine ideas that, if true, would color the evidence differently, are weak.

:ae:You ask, referring to Jehovah's putative intentions and glory in His creation, Actually, I am grateful to you for this insight. I now see that begging the question is an essential part of the hypothetico-deductive method, in getting from one's theory to one's predictions. But, as debate, it in no way enhances the plausibility of the theory. Not until the predictions are shown to be implausible and confirmed.The theory in question is that this Jehovah Person is out there. Cannot be said to exist, since He asserts that He is, and is out of nothing. Thus, ex- (out of) -ist (what is). He created us, and wrote this book, the Bible, to guide us to Him and to the truth about how to live prosperously. This book says that His intent in creating us was to properly manage the rest of His creation--we are formed to be sort of gardeners. He also enjoys praise and recognition for the gloriousness of what He made, so we are supposed to do that as part of our job. So, if this is true, what do we predict, that we can test, that is otherwise implausible? Especially implausible given that natural selection, random mutation type evolution is true. (Strong inference).Let's say we get some sort of happiness, guiltlessness, brain scan. Then, let's take some people, keeping close track of where they are coming from in terms of religious backgrounds, current philosophical positions, etc. We show them inspiring photos of eagles, redwoods, and so on, and ask them to say one of two praising remarks. One remark would give Jehovah all the glory, as the creator of what as said. A qualifying addition to the statement might make it palatable to unbelievers, such as "Jehovah, if You really are out there and made that eagle, that is one heck of a sight, and You deserve the highest praise for what you have done." Believers normally wouldn't mind saying, "That is a glorious sight!"The people say these things while their brains are being monitored, to see if they "feel blessed" of "feel good about myself." in measurable ways.We would pray before the experiment, that we wanted Jehovah to confirm that He wanted praise for what He had made, and would reward those who praise Him with greater joy and well-being. We would wait for someone who was prophetic to confirm that Jehovah had signed on to the experiment.Am I ready to write NIH?I actually agree with much of your next comments, about your freedom to disagree with Jehovah about morality. It all depends on what we see as "right." To me, if it kills me and results in my spending an eternity in Hell, it isn't what I would choose to call "right." But, I can see someone deciding that "right" is my exercising my freedom to determine what is moral, and I will do right whatever it costs me. Am I understanding your stand? This was refering to your attempts to get Jehovah to talk with you.
Naturally, as a scientist who tried and succeeded, I am interested in your materials and methods. If you are a scientist, you ought to be interested in mine. My first thoughts, when He first spoke to me and confirmed His reality to me, were "Oh, no! I don't want to have to deal with this Person!" And I told Him, "I don't like You, much less love You. But I want to live, so tell me what I have to do." That was then. After I got to know Him better, it got better. And now, the ways He has that I (still!) cannot abide, I have some hope will turn out to be better than they seem to me. He didn't mind any of this. Just said, "I understand. Just do this, and stay in touch." Actually, I do. Want all of the above. C'mon :ae:, outGod God. You can do it, and I hear Him saying He'd give you an attaboy for it. Or am I into the "Let's you and Him fight?" amusement? No, He really likes you, hopes you pull it off.But, what I asked was, don't unconditionally forgive, but do ask, "Please explain yourself, sir!" We're talking about Amalakite babies. I was just trying to give you an inkling about how complex the question of the justice of those babies being killed might be. Please, avoid P=1 for your opinions, and concede that there might be something you haven't thought of, that would change your mind. Something only an omniscient God could think of. Please remember that I am convinced that all Christian sects are the work of the devil, and that all their members are sons of Satan. Tares, goats, chaff! I have to pray to not rejoice at the thought of their burning up. And my prayer is not always answered. One good thing, it reminds me that I am not a nice person.God saves even, actually especially, the unborn. More childlike, able to enter the kingdom, often more prayed for. It's why I'm politically pro-choice. Grace is amazing. It really is.Stephen

grace2u,I hate evil, and was attracted by Yeshua's promise of a church that "the gates of hell will not stand against." A church that actually would shut down evil pouring into the lives of its members. So, I went looking for such a church, exploring one Christian sect after another, with dismal results. Finally, (duh) I asked Jehovah, and He said to write down what was written to describe or direct the church that was the body of Yeshua, triumphant over evil. Then I was to limit myself to groups that did those things and only those things. He confirmed this with 1 Corinth 4:6, which I had missed. I made the list, and made the discovery that all the Christian sects and denominations that I knew of kept less than 10% of these directives. Nor, when I brought this to their attention, was anyone interested.Well, I went back to God, and He explained that the many references to chaff, tares, goats, pharisees, all as "seeds of Satan" or his servants, described how the evil one had set out to get us: disguised as a believer. Jehovah's response was to bundle up these liars in distinquishable groups, what we call Christian Sects. He showed me the passage in 1 Corinth 1, about believer's naming themselves after various leaders, or even "of Christ" and how this caused divisions in the body of Christ. "of Christ", of course, means Christian, and although the disciples were called christians, they mostly referred to themselves as the church in such or so a place of Iasous.He went on to say that being a member of such a gathering usually was a sin unto death. The purpose of such congregations is to get the liars born of or working with Satan in one place, so they can be identified, avoided, and ultimately destroyed more easily, and do not interfere with the harvest of the wheat.In trying to get to the truth of any matter at all, therefore, His admonition to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees." meant to expect dis- or mis-information from Christian Sects. They claim to know the Lord, but they do not keep His commandments. As churches, they are the gates of Hell, and the church of Yeshua is responsible for keeping the Christian Sect's lies away from the His born-again children. In the creation debate, the role of "Christian" creationists (sons of Satan, remember) is to confuse discussion of the truth of the Bible, basically to make it look ridiculous to unbelievers. Unbelievers recognize that creationists usually are saying foolish stuff, but it doesn't seem to occur to them that it is the creationist, not the Bible, that is wrong.In practical terms, Sects with names that go beyond our Lord's name, that teach curricula other than the commanded "all things whatsoever I have commanded you" or that "think beyond what is written" are bundles of tares, herds of goats, chaff blowing in the wind. Members of the body of Iasous (Yeshua) live as disciples, learn commandments, know the Lord's voice, worship in homes, call themselves by the name of Yeshua or Iasous, or perhaps, Jesus. Their love for one another is to form joints, member with member, through which blood flows and neural input, the voice of the Lord.Anyone hoping to learn from others what the Bible actually says has to get help from such persons. The Bible is clear that the Sects will only deceive.At least, that's how Jehovah has been leading me so far. What are you hearing?Stephen

Holmes,You stated, I do not state that I am a Christian, I specically deny the title, and believe that to so accept that title and use it on oneself dooms one to some sort of fiery consequence. I am for love, especially as defined in Scripture, as keeping the commandments. Grace2u, and myself both know how wrong we could be, and agree that "if anyone thinks he knows something, he doesn't know anything yet as he ought to." Also, any error on either of our parts, we know by experience, is covered by Yeshua's sacrifice. We both know that they are forgiven and rendered harmless. So, we can boost one another without fear. Actually, I'm not all that nice. I have to pray a lot to not be happy that many people I have had dealings with are almost certainly going to Hell, or are actually getting their just deserts. And, the main reason I pray for this, to not be happy about their real or potential suffering, is that Jehovah says that if I do rejoice over that, He may change His mind and cut their punishment short. I was happy to learn that one of the things you have to do to get to heaven was to despise vile men, hate those who hate God. I've got that one down OK. So, discreet is better than nice.An to Xians not responding to me, that's exactly what I would predict given what I believe about them. That Grace2u responded surprized me, but I asked God and He told me that he/she was okay. Calvinists have a better chance than most.

Holmes,First, Grace2U's reply expresses my understanding of our love for one another. We will work out our differences, sooner or later, in the process both of us will have to repent, or change our minds about a lot of things. I like changing my mind. It feels good, and I almost define humanity by the normalness of changing one's mind. To be bored (not having experiences that require a mind change) is much worse than to humble yourself and say, "Whoops, oh well, there I go again."But, I know Jehovah. He talks to me, laughs with me, jokes around with me, takes me fun places, shows me neat stuff. I don't hate people who disagree, with Him or me. It's people who carelessly hurt those He and I were both hoping to see good things from. People who ought to know better.Example: I have raised a bunch of daughters, all of whom I deeply love. I have done this in a culture that is big time into pornography, where girls and women are, in order to get money, gotten to do things that, were I to see my own daughters doing these things, would really put me into a rage. But, those women are someone's daughter! And I find it easy to generate compassion for either the father who has to endure this pain, or for the daughter who lacks a father who cares. So, I consider those who put up the money that gets the whole business started, and keeps it going. Any Hell I can imagine is too good for them, actually. "How long, Oh, Lord?"Of course, if a pornography patron were to see what they are doing, and show appropriate grief and make appropriate amends, I would change my hopes for their eternal prospects. But, as they stand....We might continue here with a discussion of what love is. It's my highest priority, and I do H-D science because "love believes all things" and "love is keeping the commandments." H-D science requires both believing theories for the sake of testing, and being very diligent to play by the rules.As to loving people, it is written that the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. The ontological reality of Satan makes "the road to Hell" be "paved with good intentions." It's a part of Satan's effort to make you miserable to have you earnestly want to make someone happier, try to do so, then have your efforts cause them incomparable pain. "What have I done?" we anquish when that happens. I hate it when that happens to me, but I understand that there's a lot of that in Hell. Which is why I'm taking no chances of going there.Stephen

:ae:You comment, confirming that your god is not my God. Jehovah is real picky about this sort of thing. I agree, and a very important point. Remember, I am convinced that, if the ontology presented in the Bible is accurate, there are a lot of liars out there with the specific agenda of dis-information about the Bible. This is the basis, according to Satinover, for the existence of Bible Codes, to frustrate these liars. I trust my interpretation because it has worked miraculously for me, and, so far, I get few accusations of hypocrisy--observations that I am neglecting something in Scripture important to any interpretation I have. What if an omnipotent creator God says otherwise, as in Malachi 3:10? If you think that study was "very similar" to the one I suggested, we're not communicating. The study you mentioned was a good one, however, confirming my belief that Christians are generally evil people, up to no good. Buddhism, on the other hand, seems to be a very effective way to "prepare ye the way of the Lord." when no Bible is handy, or when Christians have done a good jod confusing what the Bible says. I expect more Buddhists in heaven than Christians, percentage-wise. Inconsistent? I don't agree. Jehovah throughout the Scriptures has been as hard on those He loves as those He hates. He is severe in His justice, and long term view. If He is an ontological reality, we have to deal with that is it is, to use the knowledge profitably. Of course, ad hoc gods are always possible. But H-D science says that unlikely confirmations of predictions press the plausibility of the hypothesis under test upward. So, when Jehovah "told" me that if I gave up my tenured security, the bird species that I was studying and believed was headed for extinction would be saved, and I "retired" to see what would happen. Then, that very year, the species stopped its population decline (previously consistent for 15 years, as long as records had been kept.) And hasn't declined since, over 20 years. Unlikly coincidence. I have had several others of a similar nature, confirming that the voice I was hearing was somebody with the powers attributed to Jehovah. Hmmmm. I agree, not promising. Is it okay if I ask Him to give you some prophetic dreams relevant to keeping the Golden Rule? One of my not-so-nice ways is to somehow see niceness as unmanly. So, not being nice is actually, to me, rather honorable. My beliefs however, actually require this curious mixture of hunger for glory, honor, and immortality, and awareness that, like Frodo at the end, I need help getting it done. Hence, my goal in studying the Bible Codes, after publishing my "Central Theory of Ecology" paper, was to imitate Newton. The idea is, perhaps he got such glory because of his faith, as manifested in his turning to Bible Code research after he had a good theory out there for science to chew on. I have little choice but to try to impact the history of science as he did, to go for the same glory. Recognizing, of course, that I have his example, his shoulders, to stand on. Christians, trying to mess with our understanding of the God of the Scriptures. But, the child's passage to heaven wouldn't be guarenteed, only their chances improved. The greater gift is to have the child, raise it and discipline it, pray for it, and let it have many opportunities to earn treasure in heaven. I know personally of one case of abortion, where the guilt of the abortion drove the parent to seek out God's grace and forgiveness, brought peace, and ultimately an assurance from Jehovah that the child awaited the parent in heaven, having "given" its life to help the parent find salvation. The parent went on to do a lot of good, motivated by a desire to make proper restitution, to earn treasure in heaven for the child that never got that chance. I know some. The rules are, if you hear something from Jehovah, recognize that you are only hearing in part, through a glass darkly, and the prophecy needs to be judged. Those who do not play by those rules are biblically judged as hearing from Satan, not Jehovah. You also are supposed to do a fruit check: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, self-control. If that fruit is present, take the prophet seriously and judge their prophecy, by asking Jehovah to confirm. You, of course, would have to prepare for this by learning to recognize His voice. My belief is that all knowledge of good and evil, as principle guiding action, is fatal. Government is good insofar as it gives freedom of choice. And freedom to educate about the consequences of choices. When I start advocating, I would always begin with getting people to receive the love of (know the rules of) getting the truth. All their actions, if they are mistakes, are covered by the blood of Yeshua, and this will matter to them if they develope an effective applied epistemology and use it to answer practical theological questions. (Refusing to receive the love of the truth is basically a denial of what it means to be human, a choice of "death" to one's humanness.) Jehovah honors that choice by keeping the blood from doing them much good. But, those who receive the love of the truth can be taught how to release all the healing and other good that is tied up in what happened at the cross. So, advocacy from me has to follow that agenda.Stephen

Holmes,I never said that engaging in sex was bad, but I expect that most (perhaps not all) fathers are deeply pained by the thought of their daughters putting their sexuality on display for money. I suppose this may be a purely natural instinct, based on the stress adaptational biologists place on reproductive fitness. That is, the chances of having a lot of reproductively successful grandchildren are increased by the presence of a loving, committed father for those grandchildren. Men who want to play that role in the lives of children are usually (again, not necessarily always--we are always talking about statistical probabilities here) reluctant to invest their lives in an unchaste female. The natural explanation is that lack of virginity, experience with a lot of sexual partners, etc, reflect uncertainty of parenthood. So, the father can't be sure he's investing in his own children, and so invests less. There's also a fairly strong correlation between many self-destructive behaviors and sexual promiscuity. I'd don't have many statistics comparing, say, the reproductive success of porn stars and women more committed to chastity, but I'd be surprised if the chaste women did not have larger families, and more grandchildren. Weren't in even evolutionary terms, more successful.But it's the creeps who buy the stuff that I despise, not the actors. The poor actors are mostly just trying to make a buck. If nobody paid them, hardly any of this would be happening.But, you and your girlfriend and her family appeared to have learned to walk through this peacefully. First such case I've ever heard of. Your example does not really change my own reaction, nor my empathy with other fathers who feel as I do. Do you have any daughters? My reactions to this began the day my first daughter was born.But, I suppose that a pornographer who could be trusted, who only sold pornography where the stars involved could show that their parents or families were happy with their profession, would have customers that I would be at peace with.But my main point throughout is that I am not an especially nice guy, nor do I feel that it would good if I were. Consistent with this thread, I am making the point that I have certain reactions and judgments, which others will differ with. But, they are mine and they make sense to me and if you or anyone thinks, from their reactions and judgments, I am vile and despises me, good on you. I have the freedom to try to protect those I love from what I see as terrible mistakes, and so do you. We have to deal with one another. I believe we also have to deal with God and His reactions, and to be honest, when I have considered pornography in His presence, I sense an rage even greater than mine, not for the sad women or men, but for those who pay them to invest their lives so unfruitfully.I asked Him to confirm that He felt this way, and He reminded me that He only mentions three women in the ancestry of Yeshua: two of the three were sexually compromised in some way. Rahab the harlot of Jericho is a good example. God saved her and her family, but killed everyone else in Jericho, presumably all those who paid her for her services.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, If God was, in reality, a female goat, I might wonder how the someone got the idea that hell was for everyone that said otherwise. Does this goat talk? What or earth can we do with female goats, except milk them? And, even if the someone brought goat's milk to the followers of this religion, I'd have to say that this is not a strong inference test of the two theories about which is the real god. The God Jehovah specifically promises goat's milk to His followers as well.Hell, in this case, would have to be limited to a default state. This, in fact, is the astro-physics notion, where everything with weight by default ends up in a black hole eventually. This includes dark matter, and plausibly the human soul. But saying the truth about a female goat isn't going to change that, based on everything I know about female goats. Now, if God's a loving father who will help any of His children who will ask and deal with His fathering, will help them out of the default condition of going to Hell, then I can see where saying something might make a difference. Of course, this God might have to hurry along the going to Hell of those who are stumbling others, others who might otherwise be saved from the default fate.

Holmes, I doubt it. I asked God about Grace2u, and got affirmation. I ask about this guy, and get a different response.Stephen

Holmes,You ask, Not between Xians, who for the most part in my experience, do not have nor believe in conversations with God. But, as a scientist trying to evaluate the plausibility of the creationist and evolutionist ideas, I am constrained to read the Bible on which the creationist ideas are based, and to consider sensibly the idea that that book is "the words of God." But the Bible places virtually all its emphasis on talking conversationally with God. You cannot, according to Scripture anyway, obey any of its commandments without "hearkening to His voice." His sheep "know His voice." "Faith comes from hearing the spoken (rhema) word of God." We live, "by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." and so on. So, a critical experiment (suggested by the Scriptures) is to "seek the Lord with all your heart, and you will find Him." And, obviously, hear His voice. That's testable, I did it, and began to "hear" voices, not audibly, but there really isn't any other way to describe the experience. "Had an idea" is really quite different, less of a sense of a person talking to you.And what the voice said, when I responded as if it really was this Jehovah person speaking, was pretty amazing. I saw several really dramatic "miracles" just doing what the voice said. And, got a great deal of courage, confidence, hope, faith, gumption, energy, power--all sorts of personal things promised from hearing His voice.But let me clear about Hitler, to both you and Grace2u. Hitler was a man with a gift, who chose to do evil, and did deeply evil things. This he was free to do, and the German people were free to support him in this choice. It's a choice we all have. That's what free will is all about. Good or evil.I can imagine a society where parents, say, were not free to abuse their children (and suffer whatever societal consequences this might bring on them.) Where the parents would be watched, say by a Big Brother eye, and numbed by an electrical shock whenever they started to do something evil. Or something the watcher thought was evil. But, I personally judge that loss of freedom more destructive culture wide than the parents who use the freedom to abuse their children, and hurt them. Abuse is bad, but loss of freedom is worse.But, in all this, the Jews were free to leave Germany, to avoid the consequences on them that was the result of Hitler and the Germans being free to abuse them. (Not usually the case with abused children!) The Jews freedom to leave, or their choice to stay, in no way validates the evil of what the Germans did, only their freedom to choose, good or evil.

Holmes,You note, Not to leave the wrong impression, I spent too much of my own life suspecting I was a creep, and then found out that I was right. This was about the same time that the Jesus Freaks were pressuring me to stop being ignorant of theological hypotheses, and they offered me the incentive to research the matter by observing that, if it was true, I could be "born again." This time, not a creep.It didn't feel good thinking I might be a creep, and it felt even worse when I became pretty sure that, indeed, I was congenitally inclined that way. So, the incentive worked, I discovered that God was really out there, made the application to be born again (partly as an experiment, at the time), and experienced a rather dramatic psychological "conversion." This was in the context of a lot of theraputic efforts, that accomplished little or nothing. The contrast was impressive.Note that NDE studies show similar results. Individuals that die temporarily on the operating tables, who have an out-of-body experience, are very likely to demonstrate post-experience, a dramatic change of personality. Paper is in Lancet, done in Scandinavia I think.Glad to see that your own experiences with pornography have not left a scar, though.Stephen

Holmes,Erotic art, that is inspiring, inspired, and persevering, is a good thing, healthy as far as I can see, truth preserving.Stephen

Holmes,I sense we agree about a lot. Hating evil, loving truth, delighting in pleasure. But you wonder, Yes. No. Me too. But, even more than violence, I hate hypocrisy. The immorality of the "moral majority" denying the plain cry of Jehovah in Scripture to be heard, speaking now, not as pale words written in some book.... I've been deeply in love, and know how betrayal of that love can be painful, hurtful. But this Jehovah Person is the deepest love there is, and so is vulnerable to deeper pain than I can imagine. And then those hypocrites go around saying that they "love" Him, but never hang around to listen to Him talk to them! And they stumble and confuse anyone else wondering what Jehovah really wants, misleading them completely.Felt safe with that rant. Thanks for responding so honestly.Stephen