Romans 1: The Reprobate Mind

Please take a gander over at Right Michigan.

Apparently, there was that spirit of antichrist in their last church service:

On Sunday morning, amidst worshiping congregants and following unifying prayers that our President-elect be granted wisdom as he prepares to lead our nation through difficult global, social and economic challenges, the Michigan left declared open war on peaceful church goers.

They did it with banners, chants, blasphemy, by storming the pulpit, by vandalizing the church facility, by potentially defiling the building with lewd, public, sex acts and by intentionally forcing physical confrontations with worshipers.

---

Extremists Boast: Bash Back Lansing

Meanwhile, with the guards pre-occupied by the distraction, over a dozenqueers had put on their Sunday-best and infiltrated the church’scongregation.

A group stood up, declared themselves fags, and began screaming loudly.Upon hearing the loud interruption, other affinity groups went intoaction. A team that had been hiding under the pews in the closed-offbalcony dropped a banner and pulled back the curtains to reveal “IT’S OKAYTO BE GAY! BASH BACK!”.

---

In the words of an atheist blogger: 'Know them by their deeds.'

Morale over Morality

Sometimes I receive an email from Military.com in my inbox and don’t often take the time to read it, but today’s article stood out like a sore thumb.

The article: Soldiers Say Porn Ban May Hurt Morale

Ever since I served in the U.S. Army in 1993, in Vilseck, Germany, it seems there has been talk about banning the sales of certain magazines from the shelves of military stores. Assumingly, the talks are still around, though now it appears, “U.S. Rep. Paul Broun, R-Ga., has introduced legislation that would close a loophole in the current law that allows the sale of some sexually explicit material on military bases by lowering the threshold required to deem material "sexually explicit."”

Get this: “A Department of Defense committee that reviews materials sold on bases ruled last year that magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse are not pornographic.”

What exactly is the definition of pornographic? “Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.”

Could someone please tell me the “primary purpose” of Playboy and Penthouse then, if not to cause/aid persons to/in fulfill/ing the lust of the flesh. We are to flee youthful lusts, not indulge in fornication!

Like all sin, first comes justification of self, “We all read 'em” then the lie one tells themselves to justify their actions “It's not all about the pictures, although 80 percent of it is,” to which I say [1] one cannot use the word “all” for not all military persons indulge themselves in pornographic amusement, and [2] if we take the “80 percent” out would one still purchase and read Playboy and Penthouse? I imagine not, for surely similar articles could be found in other magazines and internet searches, which do not have lustful photographs.

Is morale helped by pornography? How so? “Broun, a Marine veteran, told Newsweek recently that the magazines sold in military exchanges are partly responsible for a rise in sexual assaults in the military and other problems.” What about promiscuity, cheating, covetness, adultery, separation, and divorce? Are these part of the morale booster program of pornography, or simply side effects of those who take their morale too far?

Following this same idea of “Morale over Morality”, while reading this article, I noticed another entitled “Profanity Good for Morale” from last year. Some wish to believe, “that regular swearing at work can help boost team spirit among staff, allowing them to express better their feelings and develop social relationships.” Really? [Uniform Code of Military Justice] What about reading Scripture and praying together, discussing things of God concerning repentance, confession of sin, and salvation? Would this not do the same, and on a more positive note?

Morale, maybe, but surely will be short lived.

I do say - What a silly thing to believe we have Good Morale without Good Morality!

Richard Dawkins’ “Scarlet Letter”

When I was growing up, we had to read and watch the story entitled, The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, published in 1850.

In this story, “The scarlet letter "A" represents the act of adultery that she has committed and it is to be a symbol of her sin for all to see.” “She will not reveal her lover’s identity, however, and the scarlet letter, along with her public shaming, is her punishment for her sin and her secrecy.” “Dimmesdale, leaving the church after his sermon, sees Hester and Pearl standing before the town scaffold. He impulsively mounts the scaffold with his lover and his daughter, and confesses publicly, exposing a scarlet letter A seared into the flesh of his chest.” “When Hester dies, she is buried in "a new grave near an old and sunken one, in that burial ground beside which King's Chapel has since been built. It was near that old and sunken grave, yet with a space between, as if the dust of the two sleepers had no right to mingle. Yet one tombstone served for both." Even though the tombstone was decorated with a letter "A", the text does not indicate whether Hester is buried next to Dimmesdale or Chillingworth.”

So my question is this. Why did Richard Dawkins choose this similar marking to be the mark of his "The OUT Campaign" for Atheists?

“The Scarlet Letter attained an immediate and lasting success because it addressed spiritual and moral issues from a uniquely American standpoint.”

Is this the point that Dawkins is trying to make? Is Atheism a “spiritual and moral” issue? I highly doubt it, since I have been told Atheists do not believe in spirits [the supernatural] or morals [relative with no absolutes]. I am not saying that Atheists cannot or do not act moral, as to what they consider to be right and wrong, but their idea of morals is somewhat different than Christians. *If I am wrong, please correct me.*

As for Christians, we do see this as a “spiritual and moral” condition, as we do also from the story of adultery in Hawthorne’s book. I realize Atheist starts with the letter ‘A’, but to also color it red and have it posted completely noticeable across the chest, I can’t help but ponder if there is more meaning behind the choice. Maybe the meaning has already come about; please share with me the story behind the mark. Note I am not comparing Atheism with Adultery, for it is not I who has chosen the scarlet letter ‘A’, which already carried the meaning.

So, why do I consider this a “spiritual and moral” issue?

1. A person that does not put their faith in Jesus Christ is spiritually dead. Meaning they are a lost person in need of the Savior.

2. A person that does not believe in God is immoral in this point, for God’s law has said that we are to love Him with all of our heart, soul, mind, and might.

The ‘A’ might as well stand for “that spirit of [A]ntichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.”

---

I am thinking about printing myself up some of these... Any orders?

or

Girls Return to Modesty

An article at msnbc.com, presents a topic of “A new 'modesty movement' aims to teach young women they don't have to be bad, or semiclad.”

“Consider the following style tips for girls: skirts and dresses should fall no more than four fingers above the knee. No tank tops without a sweater or jacket over them. Choose a bra that has a little padding to help disguise when you are cold.”

Apparently Pure Fashion has the idea that: “They cater to what writer Wendy Shalit claims is a growing movement of "girls gone mild"—teens and young women who are rejecting promiscuous "bad girl" roles embodied by Britney Spears, Bratz Dolls and the nameless, shirtless thousands in "Girls Gone Wild" videos.”

The article goes on to say that: “ModestApparelUSA.com, ModestByDesign.com and DressModestly.com all advocate a return to styles that leave almost everything to the imagination.”

To this I say – Praise God for girls that refuse to dress like the harlot and “Instead, these girls cover up, insist on enforced curfews on college campuses, bring their moms on their dates and pledge to stay virgins until married.”

Honestly, even if you disagree with this, you can’t find a single thing wrong about it, but the denial of you being able to fulfill your own lust at their expense, since they choose to dress appropriately.

Homosexual Indoctrination: The Three Fold Secret Ops

For more than 20 years, I and a few of my colleagues in the field of psychoanalysis have felt like an embattled minority, because we have continued to insist, against today's conventional wisdom, that gays aren't born that way. - Charles W. Socarides, M.D.

“These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.”

“They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were "just like everyone else." This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.”

“They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their own "bigotry."”

“Finally-this was the process they called conversion-Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, "if we can actually make them like us." They wrote, "Conversion aims at just this...conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media."”

“And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. An exaggeration? Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or 16 (as they tried to do in England in 1994)? In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, "We're here. We're queer. And we're coming after your children."”

“Now we are getting reports, even in such gay publications as The Journal of Homosexuality, that the gay-gene studies and the gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. (The author of one so-called "gay-gene theory" is under investigation by the National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud.)”

Romans 1 Is Out Of Order: Shut Your Mouth!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105

Iran: Corrupter(s) of the World Sentenced To Death

While here in America we promote (whether in secret or outwardly) the porn industry and its stars, apparently in Iran there is a whole different idea of what to do with those that promote and partake in perverted immoral fornication.

Take a gander at this CNN article:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's parliament on Wednesday voted in favor of a bill that could lead to the death penalty for persons convicted of working in the production of pornographic movies.

With a 148-5 vote in favor and four abstentions, lawmakers present at the Wednesday session of the 290-seat parliament approved that "producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corrupter of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corrupter of the world."

The term, "corrupter of the world" is taken from the Quran, the Muslims' holy book, and ranks among the highest on the scale of an individual's criminal offenses. Under Iran's Islamic Penal Code, it carries a death penalty.

The "main elements" referred to in the draft include producers, directors, cameramen and actors involved in making a pornographic video.

The bill also envisages convictions ranging from one year imprisonment to a death sentence for the main distributors of the movies and also producers of Web sites in which the pornographic works appear.

Pedophile Boast Website, Hoping for Tolerance

If you have children or know of one who does, please read this article by Fox News.

Apparently a 45 year old man, who has never been convicted of a sex crime, is walking a thin line of mental/physical pedophilia. He has had a website (which you can get the link at Fox News) that “has been around for a few years. The police know all about it, yet they say they can't shut it down because the site is legal.”

“McClellan says his purpose is to promote association, friendship and legal, consensual hugging and cuddling between men and pre-pubescent girls. He admitted to FOX News that his "age of attraction" is between 3 and 11 years old.”

His desire seems to be to take pictures of children (most likely without the parents’ consents), and post those to his site so other pedophiles (whether previously convicted of sex crimes or not) will be able to view them as “a way to get some relief”.

Apparently he would also like for people to give tolerance to pedophilia, because he said, “"I really think a lot of this pedophilia hysteria is overblown. I think there are a lot of people like me. They have the attraction but they're not going to do anything physical because of the laws. It just makes me happy to attend these events."”

He even goes so far as to say, “"I know it sounds kind of crazy, but there's kind of a code of ethics that these pedophiles have developed and what it is ... the contact has to be completely consensual, no coercion, if you're going to do it," McClellan said.”

---

This reminds me of the topic I have somewhat discussed concerning homosexuality. It is a known fact that homosexuality is considered morally wrong by society for a very long time with only recently a minority demanding that it be overturned to morally acceptable.

As in this case, we are shown people have morally wrong desires, yet there have been laws against the act. They are not convicted for the desires until the desires moved them to cross over the line. The problem is when the laws are removed for the sake of tolerance.

The claim is that it doesn’t harm anyone and that acceptance of it will build tolerance. So we are to be tolerant of that which is deemed morally wrong, which in turn will make it morally acceptable, therefore creating intolerance of all who then oppose it?

Then consider this pedophile which is creating a website of pictures of children to attract other pedophiles (whether convicted or not of sex crimes). Is taking the pictures personally physically hurting anyone? It seems as if most (if not all) have no idea they are taken until they are found on the site.

Are we to be tolerant of this type of behavior and accept pedophilia was morally acceptable as long as they do not engaged in an act that is against the law too – for the sake of tolerance?

---

I don't know about you but I have no desire to have pictures of my children used to promote, accommodate, or lend relief to a perverted mind that has a sexual desire for children.

Will this be the next "lifestyle" choice that is brought to court demanding equality and tolerance?

Contrary To Some, Religious Book Sales Up Again

An article by the National Secular Society which some blogs may be showing as proof that “a sharp decline in the sales of religious books has been accompanied by an increase in sales of atheist-oriented books” may be flawed. I have posted the corrected information on one blog only to have the post deleted and apparently I have now been banned. Because of the truth? Even an atheist should give credit to the facts; its just book sales.

Because of this reason I have decided to post the information here.

Association of American Publishers (6/8/2007):
Religious Books posted a small dip of 0.3 percent for the month with sales of $44.2 million; however sales were up by 4.8 percent for the year.

Christian Post:
Book Industry Trends 2007 was released this past Friday by the Book Industry Study Group, Inc. (BISG) – one of the U.S. publishing industry’s leading trade associations for policy, standards and research. It showed that religious books had grown strongly in 2006 with a net increase of 5.6 percent in net revenue compared to 2005.

The newly released stats are contrary to those presented in the sales report released recently by The Association of American Publishers (AAP), which compiled its data in cooperation with statistics received from the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association (ECPA). The AAP report claimed that religious books had a “difficult year” with a 10.2 percent drop in 2006.The difference may be due to a number of smaller publishers, who earned less than $50 million in revenue, included in the report by BISG. This was the second year that BISG included these minorities, allowing for a more complete picture to how religious books are faring.

Book Industry Study Group:
Sales of religious books continued to grow strongly in 2006. With an increase of 5.6 percent in net revenue, this segment showed the highest growth in dollar sales.

NY Times:
The strongest growth segment in publishing last year continued to be religious books, where 263.4 million were sold, up 3.1 percent from the previous year.

Moral Percentage

A new Gallup poll is out entitled: Americans Rate the Morality of 16 Social Issues

It appears in the article that the main topics are the death penalty and assisted suicide. The May 10-13 polls concluded that 66% verses 27% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty claiming it is “morally acceptable” whereas the moral issue of doctor-assisted suicide is closer divided by 49% “morally acceptable” to 44% “morally wrong”.

Also interesting is that in the case of the death penalty they found “Support for the death penalty is fairly uniform across different age groups, political parties, and between men and women” whereas in the case of doctor-assisted suicide they found “While a majority of whites, Democrats, and liberals consider doctor-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, a majority of nonwhites, Republicans, and conservatives call it morally wrong”.

Here is just some interesting points I found with the poll, take them how you will:

49% of Americans find doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable, yet 78% find that suicide is morally wrong. Why is it okay for suicide with a doctor and not without one?

65% of Americans find divorce morally acceptable, yet 91% find that having an affair is morally wrong. I wonder what the ratio of affair/non-affair causes of divorce is. Also does one move from the 91% to the 65% when they get a divorce on the basis of an affair?

59% of Americans say that sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, yet 90% find that a husband having more than one wife (polygamy) is morally wrong. If the unmarried man has more than one sex partner would that not be the same or “more” morally wrong due to the fact at least the polygamist does marry and support the women.

64% of Americans say that stem cell research from human embryos is morally acceptable, yet 51% find that abortion is moral wrong. So we are moving away from moral acceptance of abortion of fertilized eggs carried in a womb, but toward moral acceptance of the dismemberment of those which are without.

The poll at the end shows the difference between liberal, moderate, and conservative.

The poll “Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007”, so you will have to decide how you believe this shows the entirety of the America population.

What causes these moral ideas in Americans? Who can say which side (acceptable/wrong) is right? Can we judge one above the other or is it all relative? By what authority is acceptance or wrong of moral behavior judged?

Without acceptance of the moral laws of God can there be any moral absolutes?

Moral Behavior Encoded Into Humanity

Science may again be catching up with the Word of God.

Scriptures declares that everyman has a conscience.
John 1:9, That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

The conscience is: the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action.

Scriptures declares that this conscience can be corrupted into not working correctly.
1 Timothy 4:2, Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

In a recent article from the Washingtonpost.com, the claim is “If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural”.

“Grafman and others are using brain imaging and psychological experiments to study whether the brain has a built-in moral compass. The results -- many of them published just in recent months -- are showing, unexpectedly, that many aspects of morality appear to be hard-wired in the brain, most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species.”

Notice the “most likely the result of evolutionary processes that began in other species” is not proven by the study but simply an out to reframe from acknowledgment of a Creator and that it has come from the very Creator Himself as He created us.

The study also shows as any person can attest to that some questions are simply to answer yes or no whereas some take more thought. The examples they give are:

1] “Simple moral decisions -- is killing a child right or wrong?”

2] “Greene asked volunteers to imagine that they were hiding in a cellar of a village as enemy soldiers came looking to kill all the inhabitants. If a baby was crying in the cellar, Greene asked, was it right to smother the child to keep the soldiers from discovering the cellar and killing everyone?”

Just as some of the moral and spiritual dilemmas we have each day, we need that personal relationship with Christ to help guide us to the right actions in our lives. Through prayer, reading and studying the Bible, fasting, and knowing the things that affect us we can make better decisions than we can simply by relying on ourselves and how we perceive the current situation without any external knowledge.

Of course science falls short in acknowledging the depravity of fallen mankind in that there is always a search for a reason as to why people should not be punished for immoral acts simply because “they can’t help themselves”.

“While one implication of such findings is that people with certain kinds of brain damage may do bad things they cannot be held responsible for, the new research could also expand the boundaries of moral responsibility.”

So now when someone sins they can blame it on a “bad moral sensor” that evolution has given them. I can see that being the next line of defense in murder cases now.

Man has been given a conscience and man is a sinner. We choose to do right or do wrong, and are ultimately accountable to God, the Creator who has built that internal moral meter in each one of us.

Have you seared yours?

Girls Gone Wild In The Church

I don’t know if you have ever heard of Girls Gone Wild, but with the television ads and news reports concerning it you may have. If you haven't, it does not contain Christian behavior.

I was recently speaking with a pastor I know and he mentioned that there was a church he knew of (not sure if present or if where he had once been pastor) that a group of older women named themselves Chicks Gone Wild.

Granted I can see where these women may have thought it fun to use such a title, but, honestly, for the cause of Christ?

What are we Christians thinking when we use worldly titles and expressions and bring them into the church for spiritual awareness? Do we honestly think it pleases God to take a known thing (name, etc.) of sin and try to tweak it slightly and add a Christian connotation to it? Let’s face it – that just isn’t right.

Proverbs 14:9, Fools make a mock at sin

Is this what we are doing?

No wonder an unsaved person can feel comfortable at church and never have a desire to trust Christ as their Savior.

God help us!

Prayer In School

In the wake of the Virginia Tech incident and for years hearing the claim that by taking prayer out of school we have taken God out of school, I would like to ponder this topic today.

Has taken prayer out of school caused such incidents as that at Virginia Tech and the lack of morality we see across America today?

Honestly, I am not convinced of such. We have Christian schools and colleges that have prayer, preaching, Bible classes, teaching, and studying and ashamedly find that we have most things in common with public schools and colleges that do not have prayer and Bible in them.

For one, we should not expect the school system to be the ones to teach our children how to pray or to teach them the importance of prayer. According to scripture, this is the responsibility first to the parent [Deuteronomy 6:7; Deuteronomy 11:19], second to the church [Ephesians 4:11-12].

Although a person may be told that they cannot pray out loud where the entire school must pause for a moment of silence, they have not told the student they cannot pray at all. Does prayer actually have to be done out loud for God to hear it?

My point is not to be in favor of no prayer in school, but to point out that is not why there is a moral decline in America. Christian morality is digressing, not progressing and for this cause we are seeing a swing into an anti-God era. The more Christians preach to the lost to change while we show no change in ourselves, society will continue to decline – even if prayer were still aloud in all the schools.

Are you teaching your child how and why to pray? If not, then don’t be mad at the school system. If you are, then make sure they know that it doesn’t have to be out loud for all to see.

Remember God said it begins with His people [2 Chronicles 7:14], not the world. Do your job as a godly parent and don’t rely on the school system.

Hypocrite

hyp·o·crite - a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

I find it interesting that the definition noted above uses the words “pretends to have” then at the end adds “esp. a person whose actions belie (contradict) stated beliefs”.

Hypocrite seems to be an easy name to sling at someone when they fall short of another’s expectations. The non-religious may throw it at the religious and the religious has no problem throwing it at the religious also.

In my opinion I find it hard to consider falling short of one’s expectations to be the same as pretending.

To fall short means: to fail to reach a particular standard.

To pretend means: to appear falsely, as to deceive.

I ponder is there then any leeway or margin of error between outright pretending and simply falling short of expectation?

A Christian knows they are not perfect – well, at least should know that – since the Bible clearly teaches such. So, does one deserve to be called a hypocrite each and every time they fail to meet God’s standard of holiness and perfection?

Also then to the non-religious which also hold some type of morality, ideas, or thoughts of what they claim to be. Have they not also fallen short here and there, should they then be labeled the hypocrite?

I say then we are all hypocrites indeed.

Creationist, Atheist, and Morality

Morality – “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.”
Moral – “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong”

It has been noted in some atheist’s circles that they feel Christians promote themselves as “morally superior (maybe not perfect, but certainly better) to atheists” simply because they are a Christians.

For the moment I would like to discuss the idea of morality. Let it be noted that this particular argument will not be for/against any, but basically my thoughts of what I perceive of the issue. Feel free to share your thoughts, in good taste, and show where you agree or disagree with my view.

Two stipulations are that we are discussing morality in America and the Christian God in this context and not the other gods of cults, etc.

First, I would like to remove names and place people into three basic groups.
Group 1 = those that do not believe in God.
Group 2 = those that believe in a God, but do not serve him.
Group 3 = those that believe in a God, and do strive to serve him.

Second, please ask yourself into which group you fall so that we may proceed. There is no need to lie to yourself, for no one else will know, if you have a hard time choosing between Group 2 and Group 3. Either you do or you don’t strive to serve God. This is not a call to perfection. If you go through life doing what you like but not really wanting to hurt anyone else choose Group 2, if you go through life reading, studying, and trying to follow what is laid out in scripture choose Group 3. Group 1 is obvious.

Thirdly, please ask yourself most likely where did your thoughts of morality most likely arrive from. Did it come from your own reading or did it come from your friends, parents, family (grandparents, etc.), teachers (school or church), church (pastors, etc.), society programs (YMCA, etc.), etc.?

Most likely we have all been given the same (or mighty close) general rules when it comes to morality: don’t lie, cheat, or steal; don’t hurt or kill someone; don’t abuse children; don’t have sex with other people’s spouses. Sure there are some varied states such as sex before marriage, but more is in common than not.

The “golden rule” known as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” seems to appear in all three Groups above, which in most cases is how one judges morality, and how they perceive themselves as a “good person”. In the groups above we find that people compare themselves to other people to distinguish how they find themselves more or less moral than another; therefore the idea of morality becomes an individual one.

By this I mean one group cannot conclude that all in another group is totally immoral or that they personally are more moral than an entire group. Such blanket statements are not made by wisdom, but by pride.

Morality in a person can and does occur with or without a conversion to salvation. For one, God (although some deny) has said that he has given us all a conscience [John 1:9], which can be seared [1 Timothy 4:2]. When one does something against morality, they feel guilty, but over time the more one does against their conscience the less they feel guilty. This is not the same as being convicted by the Holy Spirit. This is a built in process we are born with. If not, mankind would have long ago killed each other off along with creation itself. [Genesis 6:5]

[Case 1] In the mindset of all groups, it seems obvious that Group 3 should be the MOST moral. By this I mean they claim there is a God, they claim they have trusted in Christ and that he has changed them. They claim they have the Book which gives instructions on how to live right and be moral. For this reason they are easy targets for Group 1 and 2, for it is almost as if they wait in the gap for every moment to yell, “Hypocrite” when one from Group 3 falls short of morality. It is sad, but the failures of Group 3 lead to Group 1 and 2 not wanting to come over to Group 3.

[Case 2] In like manner, Group 3 proudly explains how moral they are since they follow the Book and are saved, and claim that Group 2 is only partial moral and Group 1 is immoral to the core.

Is either case real?

In reality, yes Group 3 should be acting morally superior to Group 1 and 2. Not simply because they claim to be a Christian, but because they do have a God they love and should have a desire to follow what is in his Book. Contained in the Book is the understanding that morality lies within the individual concerning obedience to the law (God’s law which covers more and may vary from man’s law) both physically and mentally. One in Group 3 realizes that God judges both the act and the motive. Group 3 should also realize that others are not the standard, but Christ is. Group 3 should not be parading around as if they have obtained for they believe it is not them but Christ which is doing the good through them and that they are very capable of immoral acts for their flesh is still corrupt and in it dwells no good thing [Romans 7:18]. Group 3 should expect Group 1 and 2 to be less biblically moral, because Group 2, although believe there is a God, they do not take time to study the Book nor live over the morality set by society, and Group 1 denies such a God and therefore denies the authority of the rules in the Book. Group 3 should have a more moral lifestyle than Group 1 and 2 for the simply fact they are to obey the laws of society and the laws of God laid out in his Book.

In reality, Group 1 and 2 will most likely be less moral than Group 3 for the mere fact that although they may follow the laws of society, the concepts and teachings of Christ found in the Book are most likely not considered or looked at. An example is sex before marriage. All of Group 3, if honest, will have to say this is immoral according to God and the Book. Whereas individuals within Group 1 and 2 may say it is bad or it is okay based on individual preference or teaching and Group 2 may site the Book, but Group 1 would not.

I apologize. At the start I did not realize that this would linger on so long.

I will close with this thought.

Although we can look at Groups and say what we believe should be the norm, the issue of morality lies in the actions of each individual person. Evidence shows that individuals in Group 1, 2, and 3 can lie, cheat, still, adultery, abuse kids, etc., etc. etc. As I stated before, it should be that Group 3 is more moral than Group 1 and 2, and Group 1 and 2 should be able to see such without crying “Hypocrite”, but Group 3 should remember that it is Christ working in them and reframe from saying “all are immoral but me.” Let it be noted that there are those in Group 1 which are more moral than some which profess Group 2 and 3 at times.

One difference should be noted and it was taught well in a movie called Time Changers. Morality is a great thing and without it mankind could not survive. Where morality comes from is what separates one from another. If morality is simply of man, then it is based on what man sees as right and wrong and can vary from person to person. If morality is based on God and his Book then it is fixed upon what he has said regardless of whether man agrees or disagrees with it.

Group 1 – I ask you to remain as moral as you can for the sake of yourself and others. I would also ask that you consider acknowledging God and trusting in Christ, his son.

Group 2 – I ask you to live that which you profess. If you believe in God then obey his Book, trust in Christ if you have not, and live a life pleasing to God.

Group 3 – I ask you to live a life that Group 1 and 2 would see Christ in you and desire to know him. Don’t let your testimony be as one that pushes them away from God.

Morality: What is the standard and where do you see yourself?