Inductive Vs. Deductive Reasoning Explained.

Deductive: Think of a detective. He deduces (reduces). He sees the big picture — a crime was committed. He then takes the evidence and deducts the parts that don’t fit until he comes up with the core of the matter. Deductive deducts the false. Elementary my dear Watson…

Inductive takes small pieces of information in and puts them together into a big picture.

Inductive study takes various individual pieces of evidence and looks for patterns (For instance, individual Bible verses) and cements them together into the big picture — a cohesive whole — perhaps into a theological proposition.

Me
Don’t know if you were joking around last night, but debating politics is too much on the fringe of importance to risk bad emotions.

But I am interested to know, however: disregarding what the the skeptics say, and un-Christlike behavior of so-called Christians, why do you reject Jesus?

Conversant
I don’t reject Jesus. I believe that Jesus lived in a time of many men teaching different parables at that time. I believe that the Christian faith grew from that and used his teachings as a foundation to grow a religion in order to inspire or control (depending on your point of view if you follow this theory) the population at that time in history. What I do reject is the notion that if I don’t accept Jesus as my personal savior I (and all other persons on this earth who are non-believers or of another faith are damned to Hell).
As far as us debating politics and having ill feelings towards each other……I would hope that our friendship would trump that from ever happening. I enjoy our debates and find them a good exercise in voicing and reflecting on what I believe (something I rarely did when I was using and boozing). What I am learning to do is to respect all peoples faith and learn a little bit about them so that I may grow spiritually. What I feel inside is that life lived through the positivity of love and tolerance is an indescribable force and that when I operate in that manner I feel that I am on a good spiritual path.
Thanks for the question….and perhaps you would like to answer this. Does your belief in Jesus preclude any other faiths beliefs in your spiritual quiver.

Me
In short, yes. Because Jesus was not a mere man — he was God came down to Earth in human form.

A good man or teacher would not claim to be God unless it were true. Otherwise he was a maniac (how many people have been put in insane asylums claiming to be God – but Jesus was not – in fact time itself is divided by the (albeit miscalculated) date of his birth) or he was completely evil. There can be no middle ground.

I can find at least 5-10 places where He claimed to be God without even trying. That is why he was crucified.

Therefore, if God says the only way to heaven is through Him, He must know what he is talking about!

Admission to Heaven is not based upon being good. Otherwise Heaven would be completely devoid of humans.

Conversant
Well, I’m grateful we don’t live in another place or during another time period where we would feel compelled to kill each other.

Me
You didn’t get it, did you?
Sigh. Yeah, glad I don’t have to burn you at the stake…

Conversant
get what?

Me
Multiple choice…

Was Jesus:

• A. Lunatic
• B. Liar
• C. Lord

Conversant
You forgot
D. None of the above

Me
None of the above is not possible. He could not be an ordinary man and claim to be God unless he was a liar or a lunatic.

He claimed to be God, and every time He claimed it, the Jews wanted him dead.

Below are just a few.

——–

Jesus said unto them, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am”. At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds. John 8:58

Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly… Jesus answered them, “I told you, and ye believed not… I and my Father are one…
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. John 10:24-31

Jesus saith unto him… Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death. Matthew 26:64-66

——-

The apostle Paul confirms:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. Philippians 2:5-7

And the apostle John confirms:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made… The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:1-14

Conversant
I don’t think that in this instance that you can change my belief by stating yours. I respect your interpretation of scripture as one of absolute truth. I do not share this belief. Therefore; while D. None of the above is impossible for you to consider, it is the choice for me.
Consider the existence of the color red. Consider your perception of the color red. Can you say with certainty that what your human brain has processed and is replicating in your image-sensory world….. that it is the same as another persons perception of the color red. Could you prove it?

Me
It’s not a subjective issue. Just because someone thinks the world is flat does not make it true.

You don’t have to believe the Bible is infallible. There is tons of historical, archaeological, and forensic evidence to back it up.

Have no fear. You don’t have to change your life, become “good”, start going to chuch, or anything except believe to get to heaven.

Conversant
I thought that if you want to get to heaven……..you got to raise a little hell.

Obviously end of discussion.
I pray at least a seed was planted.
I stand on the statement that God’s word will not return to Him void.

The politically correct people in the US are being led to slaughter like the Eloi people in H. G. Wells’ The Time Machine.

“Killing is a great Divine gift.”

Ayatollah Khomeini: “Those who say Islam should not kill don’t understand [it]. Killing is a great [divine] gift that appears [to man]. A religion that does not include [provisions for] killing and massacre is incomplete. Those who claim that Jesus was averse to killing and war, harm his prophetic mission… Killing is the same as mercy.”

“Violence is the heart of Islam.”

Ayatollah Yazdi – Senior Advisor to Ahmadinejad and IRGC Leaders: “We must wipe away the shameful stain whereby some people imagine that violence has no place in Islam… we have decided and are determined to argue that violence is the heart of Islam.”

Jihad Watch

Tony got my names transposed. All three of my names can be first or last names, so after 51 years, I’m used to it.

Right-click here to Download

Exodus 20

Rabbi Simlai 3rd century AD says there are 613 laws in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

A bunch of rabbis over the centuries had put together an enormous library of
interpretations of these laws. There were laws telling you how far you could
walk on a Sabbath day, and how much weight you could carry without breaking the
Sabbath, and numerous others. These are the kinds of things that the Pharisees
went by that Jesus complained about.

Law is necessary for an eternal society

a luxurious French villa lay in the path of the oncoming armies. Although
deserted, it was shelled and left with great gaping holes in its stone sides. A
few swine, which had somehow escaped extermination, rooted their way into the
magnificently furnished drawing room. Over the rich, velvet carpet they tracked
their muddy feet, overturned the upholstered furniture, tore the expensive
draperies and chewed whatever gave any promise of satisfying their hunger. The
beauty, the elegance, the cultural characteristics of the place meant nothing to
the beast nature. They were not partakers of the intellectual or spiritual
qualities of the owner.

To the unregenerated millions of earth, the glories of Heaven would be like
the French villa was to the swine. They are not partakers of the Divine nature
and would have no capacity for enjoying the holy atmosphere of the Glory Land.

I’m sure the pigs were “good” as far as pigs go. But they did not belong in a
French villa.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the LORD.

“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your
ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

A lot of people try to entice people into the Kingdom: “Jesus loves you! He
will make your life better” Which is true, but not true from a fleshly
standpoint. Jesus promised tribulation (John 16:33). He did not promise a bed of
roses. People who are told, “Seek Jesus, he will make your life better” will be
disillusioned when life happens. “I thought you told me…!”

the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by
faith.

How should Christians deal with the law?

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. ……I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be
an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however,
regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
   pleasing odor for the Lord as written in Leviticus.1:9. The problem is my
   neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite
   them?


2. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
   clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
   myself, or should I ask the police to do it?


3. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
   abomination, Leviticus. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality?
   I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?


4. Leviticus. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
   a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
   vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?


5. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
   their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus. 19:27.
   How should they die?


6. I know from Leviticus. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
   me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?


7. My uncle has a farm. He violates Leviticus.19:19 by planting two different
   crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two
   different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and
   blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of
   getting the whole town together to stone them? Leviticus.24:10-16. Couldn’t we
   just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who
   sleep with their in-laws? (Leviticus. 20:14)

We’ll see if we can go back and answer these later.

Try saying that to a judge.

know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus
Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified
by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no
one will be justified.

Torah emphasizes immediate, concrete, physical rewards and punishments rather
than abstract future ones…

See how successful the Hebrews were

“For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is
guilty of all.”

Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the
law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Grace has superceded Law

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not
come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”

(except the ones that are future)

… visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and
fourth generation…

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on
edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes–his
own teeth will be set on edge.

Circumcision on the 8th day

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone
who believes.

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks
be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled
the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood
opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross.

Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with
regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These
are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in
Christ.

the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience
of the worshiper.

(Which were divided in two: Love the Lord thy God 1-4 and Love they neighbor
5-10)

The law won’t save you, but we are expected to act like the
King’s kids

Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the
Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”

(These things do not save us, they keep us from being unproductive.)

Answer the Leviticus questions.

Get on the Ark

Origins

The secular humanists believe that the entire universe and life are simply an
incredible coincidence. They believe that the universe created itself 4.5
billion years ago, and lucky for us, some combination of chemicals combined to
make a single-celled life form that mutated over billions of years into the
incredible array of life we see today on planet earth.

Identity

Meaning/ Purpose

Life can not possibly have any deep meaning to a pure secularist since life
is “just an accident”. When taken to extremes by those who don’t believe in God,
on one hand life can either be considered cheap (for instance Communist purges)
or if taken to the other extreme, all life is considered precious and humans are
no more value than other animals (Weider & Gutierrez, 2011, p. 57). In an
astonishing dichotomy, the same groups of people who vote for a candidate who
promotes abortion are also the most vocal environmentalists. And they obviously
cannot see any problem with this.

Morality

Destiny

The Secular Worldview vs. the Christian Worldview

Origins

In contrast to the Secularist’s view that everything was an accident, the
Christian believes that God created the universe and all life. The Christian
believes in “microevolution” or adaptation. This is where an animal will undergo
slight changes in order to adapt to changing conditions, but no new species is
formed. For instance the beaks of Darwin’s finches change with the environment,
but the finch will never evolve into, for instance, an eagle. There is no
scientific evidence that any life form has transitioned into another life form.
And God was careful to make note that this would not happen (Genesis 1:11-12,
21-25).

Identity

Meaning/ Purpose

Morality

Destiny

IHEU (2009). IHEU Bylaws. Retrieved July 31, 2011 from

http://www.iheu.org/bylaws

References

Weider, L., & Gutierrez, B. (2011). Consider. Virginia Beach,
VA: Academx Publishing Services, Inc.

When I was about two years old, my parents got a divorce. Dad got custody of my brother and me, and Mom soon moved back to Kansas never to contact us again. In later years, Dad would tell me that when I was a baby, a rich old Indian (Native American) man wanted to buy me from my parents because he had no heir; but Dad would not sell. After that, from time to time, the question would come up in my mind: what would I have grown up like if I had been raised by a rich old Indian?

Then when I was about 18 years old, my brother found my natural mother. By this time, she had two girls from subsequent marriages. She was a working mother and the girls, in stark contrast to my strict upbringing, had very little supervision – they were allowed to do just about whatever they felt like. Later, my brother moved down to Oklahoma to spend his last couple of years of High School with Mom and was essentially allowed to do whatever he pleased. This again sparked my interest in how I would have “turned out” under different circumstances.

My Thoughts on The Nature Vs. Nurture Argument

I don’t think that any thoughtful person could attribute 100% of our characteristics to either nature or nurture alone. “You need nature to be able to absorb nurture” (Ridley, 2003, p. 173). The extent that each affects us will probably be debated until Jesus returns. Which is a great segue into my next thought: There appears to be very little mention of spirituality and probably none about how the Holy Spirit and the “Renewing of the mind” in psychological circles. I can attribute much of my mental foibles to genetics as well as my environment. But since I was about age 20, the Holy Spirit has been renewing my mind into something that I could never have accomplished myself. Many emotional diseases could be attenuated or eradicated by the Holy Spirit if people would seek Him. I’ve worked with alcoholics and addicts for years, and have seen several be able to completely rid themselves of antidepressant medication after they stay sober for a while and let God do His work.

The History of the Nature Vs. Nurture Issue

The concept has been around even before Shakespeare’s time (Ridley, 2003, p. 71). Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), a half-cousin of Charles Darwin, was credited with coining the phrase: “Nature versus Nurture” (University of Indiana, 2007). Some people strongly affirm that genetics influence what people become, while the other side favors “nurture”. Ridley (2003, p. 69) says that “it was Galton’s fate to ignite the feud in 1864″. Since then, the discussions have often been very passionate. The feud has raged for over a century. And by all appearances, it will not be over in my lifetime.

What are The Most Essential Characteristics of This Issue?

Psychologists want to know to what extent our traits are genetically inherited from our parents, and what is the influence of our environment (i.e. upbringing) on who we become. Certainly some physical features are exclusively inherited (I have blue eyes because my ancestors had blue eyes.). Some, like a propensity to gain weight, are partially inherited, and partially influenced by our environment (Myers, 2010, p. 460). But since this is a psychology paper, I’ll be concentrating on the psychological aspects.

What do we inherit from our ancestors, and what role does our environment play?

Some traits are more inheritable than others are. For example, a person’s temperament is almost exclusively biological (inherited) (Myers, 2010).

Personality

David Myers (2010) says that personality is virtually 100% inherited: “The environment shared by a family’s children has no discernable impact on their personalities.” (p. 139). And I know this to be true. My brother and I are 21 months apart. We were raised almost as twins. We both got nearly identical clothes, and same treatment. We were grouped together as a unit. It was “Allen Lee and Dale” as though we weren’t even individuals. But we have always been as different as night and day in personality. My biological mother affirms that I was easy-going, and my brother was “wild” even from birth. And to this day, despite nearly identical upbringings, we are still very, very different.

Beliefs

There are a few things that are not so strongly tied to genetics. Among those are “attitudes, values, manners, faith, and politics” (Myers, 2010).

Nature in the formative years

Matt Ridley (2003) shows how complex the issue really is:

Nurture is reversible; nature is not. That is the reason responsible intellectuals have spent a century preferring [environment over genes]… But what if there was a planet where it was the other way around? … [A] world in which lived intelligent creatures whose nurture they could do nothing about, whereas their genes were exquisitely sensitive to the world in which they lived.

Search no more… You live on precisely such a planet. To the extent that people are products of nurture… they are largely the products of early and irreversible events. To the extent that they are the product of genes, they are expressing new effects right into adulthood, and often those effects are at the mercy of how they live. (p. 151)

If a person is exposed to certain environmental factors while in the womb, or during critical phases in childhood, there can be irreversible catastrophic consequences. A girl named Genie was raised chained to a potty chair or a crib most of her childhood. She was finally found and freed. But tragically, the only words she learned to speak were “stopit” and “nomore” (sic). She was deprived of appropriate verbal input at a critical age. (Ridley, 2003, pp. 169-170)

Jensenism: The heritability of intelligence.

Arthur R. Jensen (1923-) became the focus of a very emotional controversy when in 1969 he published an article saying that intelligence was a result of genetics, followed by biological environmental differences. He asserted that socioeconomic status (SES) had little or no influence on intelligence. This was published at a time when it was popularly believed that the 15 point IQ difference between blacks and whites was attributed to financial status. People were outraged that Jensen suggested Black people were genetically less intelligent. (Miele, 2002, p.18)

So, was Jensen right? Is intelligence inherited? Intelligence seems to be a product of genetics. But perhaps not as much as Jensen thought. David Myers (2010) says that the heritability of intelligence runs about 50 percent (p. 429) though he then goes on to explain (p. 434) that there is a “stubborn” ethnic gap in intelligence scores. But that has been narrowing since 1970.

Conclusion

“Mental similarities between adopted children and their adoptive families wane with age, until the correlation approaches zero by adulthood” (Myers, 2010, p. 428). I could expect my native intelligence and personality to be about the same after I grew to adulthood. What I would do with this mind would certainly be influenced by my environment. I could not imagine that if I had been whisked off to Libya or the Soviet Union as a child that my life would be much the same, for instance.

Like Bandura’s reciprocal determination (Myers, 2010, p.577), my genes most certainly affect what I am interested in. So discounting an environment of inadequate resources, I would still have been interested in paleontology as a child and not so interested in math. Genes ultimately control who we become, but our experiences add shades of hue to our genetic dispositions. “Our genes shape the experiences that shape us” (Myers, 2010, p 429).

So, all secular things considered, with similar advantages, I probably would still have grown up to be just about what I am today. And Jesus would have had to step in and mould me into someone He can work with. Because left to my own devices, I did not do very good!

Miele, F. (2002). Intelligence, race, and genetics: Conversations with Arthur R. Jensen. Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Myers, D. (2010). Psychology. New York: Worth Publishers.

Ridley, M. (2003) Nature via Nurture. New York: HarperCollins Publishers. Published again in 2004 under the title: The agile gene: How nature turns on nurture

University of Indiana (2007). Human intelligence: Francis Galton Retrieved June 16, 2011 from http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/galton.shtml

The central message:

As mentioned, above, clearly one central message of these verses and the surrounding context is Jesus’ Divinity.
If we include the verses before and after (Mk. 9:2-29), it is a panorama or
snapshot of Jesus’ history. The transfiguration shows Jesus in His glory before the world was (vv. 2-12); then He came down among men (vv. 9-13) to teach and to do for us what we could not do for ourselves (vv. 14-29). It spoke of His pending resurrection (v.9). And by casting out the demon that the disciples could not (vv.14-27), He displayed His dominion over demons and superiority to man.

It also shows that we are completely blind and powerless without Jesus:

a.) Peter is completely bewildered at the transfiguration.
b.) The apostles cannot grasp the concept of the coming resurrection.
c.) The other disciples are unable to cast out the demon, and
d.) There were possibly still questions in their minds concerning Jesus’ Messiah-ship as well. For instance, it had been prophesied that Elijah would precede the Messiah. So they may have been politely asking: “Ok, so if you are the Messiah, where is Elijah?” (v. 11)

The entire book of Galatians is Paul’s effort to correct the heresy of Judaizers who were trying to tell people that they had to be circumcised and follow Jewish law to be saved. Paul explains at length that we are not saved by law or ritual (i.e. Galatians 4:4-5). In Chapter 5, he is talking about circumcision: how if a person trusts in circumcision to save them, then Christ is of no value (5:2). Paul was furious! He even went so far to say that he wished the people who were trying to convince the Galatian believers to be circumcised (Judaizers) would emasculate themselves!

How Paul deals with the Judaizers

In Galatians 5:19-25, Paul helps distinguish what proceeds from the Spirit, and what proceeds from the flesh. He describes the evidences of living by the flesh (sexual immorality, drunkenness, etc.) and then he proceeds to describe the results (fruits) of walking in the Spirit (Love, Joy, Peace, etc.) and encourages us to continue to walk in the Spirit.

Judaizers were telling people that they had to follow Jewish law to be saved. If they had succeeded, Christianity would have become just another Jewish sect (Barclay, 1976). In the preceding verses, Paul is talking about how if a person trusts in circumcision to save them, then Christ is of no value (Gal 5:2). Paul was furious! He even went so far to say that he wished the Judaizers would emasculate themselves! In verse 13, he warns the church not to use our Christian freedoms to indulge the flesh. Verses 5:16-18 may have been seen by the 1st century church as a “how-to” guide for living in grace instead of under the law. Paul explains that if we live by the Spirit, we will not satisfy our fleshly nature. It’s not going to be easy! Our flesh and spirit are at war, and this conflict does not allow us to do what we want (cf. Romans 7:14-25). And that if we walk in the Spirit we are not under the law. The verses that follow (vv. 19-26) are indications of a life of walking in the flesh contrasted to those of walking in the Spirit. Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

How might the Galatian people perceive Paul’s letter?

The poor Galatian people had to be so confused! Judaizers were telling people that they had to follow Jewish law to be saved (Barclay, 1976). Paul was furious! (Gal 5:12) If they had succeeded, Christianity would have become just another Jewish sect (Barclay, 1976, p. 3). Paul devotes most of this letter to answering the judaizers. Chapter 5 is the peroration (summary) of his argument (Fausset, 1871). In the preceding verses, Paul tells us we are called to freedom but warns us not to use our Christian freedoms to indulge the flesh (v.13). The poor Galatian people might see vv. 5:16-18 as a “quick-start” guide for living under grace: Live by the Spirit, and we will not satisfy our fleshly nature. But it’s not going to be easy! Our flesh and spirit are at war; we are never free from this conflict (Gl 5:17b NLT). Verse 18 reminds us that if we walk in the Spirit, we are not under the law. The verses that follow (vv. 19-26) describe the fruits of a life of walking in the flesh vs. those of walking in the Spirit.

We could relate to the Galatian people!

We in the Western World could easily relate to the Galatian people. The Galatians, as a part of the Roman Empire, would have been bombarded on all sides by a myriad of religions competing for their attentions just as we are today. And I dare say the subtleties of law vs. grace would easily be lost on the average new believer in America. A new believer in America (and many “old” believers) would be easy prey for a slick-talking judaizer.

The Theology of Galatians 5:16-18

Gal 5:16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

Gal 5:17 For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want.

Gal 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

The theological principles of Galatians 5:16-18 are: 1.) How to live a clean life – to keep from following through with our carnal desires with the help of the Holy Spirit (v. 16); 2.) The ongoing war between our flesh and spirit (v. 17) and; 3.) Christian liberty – living by grace rather than under the law (v.18).

How can we apply God’s Grace to our lives?

1.) In the year 1531 AD, Martin Luther wrote: “When I was a monk I thought I was lost forever whenever I felt an evil emotion, carnal lust, wrath, hatred, or envy. I tried to quiet my conscience in many ways, but it did not work, because lust would always come back and give me no rest…” You don’t have to be a monk to feel this way. I also tend to be a “perfectionist” and have a very hard time dealing with any shortcomings. It is comforting to know that we are not under the law. And as I walk in the Spirit, though I feel unholy desires at times, when I walk with God, I need not carry them out.

Today I am free of the obsession to drink by the grace of God. When I first got sober, I tried everything I could think of to be at peace when not drinking – to no avail. Today, I am doing what is suggested in the 12-steps of Alcoholics Anonymous. The 12 steps are a “spiritual program” based on Christian principles. It is not about being “good”, it is about getting rid of the garbage in our mind that is blocking God, then improving our relationship with God and helping others. Today though once in a while, a drink sounds tempting, it is no longer a losing battle because I walk in the Spirit. I quit trying to cure myself long enough to let God in to do His work.

References

Barclay, W. (1976) The Letters to the Galatians and Ephesians Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Fausset, A.R. (1871) A. R. Fausset commentary on Galatians: The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians

Luther, M. (1531) Martin Luther’s Commentary on Galatians

Wikipedia (2011) Retrieved April 3, 2011 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galatia

This is the kind of thing that will beat Westboro’s evil: love. Perhaps if even one member is touched by a truly godly sermon, the word will spread and Westboro will be defanged.

Read the story here.

Make doughnuts not protest — Seattle pastor offers Westboro Baptist picketers sweet treats