• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Two men

passin thru

Well-known member
I posted this over in coffe shop and it was well recieved and some asked to post it here. I did not post it here at first, since it is not political. I checked this out before I posted it and since I posted it I find that Mr. Vincent is even more upstanding than I first found.

OUR PRESIDENT



Story by: Bruce Vincent

For those of us who sometimes find ourselves having doubts about our President, here is an excellent piece--- worth every minute it takes to read it. This is from a man, Bruce Vincent, from Montana who received an award from the President. He writes:

I've written the following narrative to chronicle the day of the award ceremony in DC. I'm still working on a press release but the White House press corps has yet to provide a photo to go with it. When the photo comes I'll ship it out. When you get done reading this you'll understand the dilemma I face in telling this story beyond my circle of close friends.

Stepping into the Oval Office, each of us was introduced to the President and Mrs. Bush. We shook hands and participated in small talk. When the President was told that we were from Libby, Montana, I reminded him that Marc Racicot is our native son and the President offered his warm thoughts about Governor Racicot. I have to tell you, I was blown away by two things upon entering the office.

First, the Oval Office sense of 'place' is unreal. The President later shared a story of Russian President Putin entering the room prepared to tackle the President in a tough negotiation and upon entering the atheist muttered his first words to the President and they were "Oh, my God."

I concurred. I could feel the history in my bones. Second, the man that inhabits the office engaged me with a firm handshake and a look that can only be described as penetrating. Warm, alive, fully engaged, disarmingly penetrating. I was admittedly concerned about meeting the man. I think all of us have an inner hope that the most powerful man in our country is worthy of the responsibility and authority that we bestow upon them through our vote.

I admit that part of me was afraid that I would be let down by the moment - that the person and the place could not meet the lofty expectations of my fantasy world. This says nothing about my esteem for President Bush but just my practical realization that reality may not match my 'dream.'

Once inside the office, President Bush got right down to business and, standing in front of his desk, handed out the awards one at a time while posing for photos with the winners and Mrs. Bush. With the mission accomplished, the President and Mrs. Bush relaxed and initiated a lengthy, informal conversation about a number of things with our entire small group.

He and the First Lady talked about such things as the rug in the office. It is traditionally designed by the First Lady to make a statement about the President, and Mrs. Bush chose a brilliant yellow sunburst pattern to reflect 'hope.' President Bush talked about the absolute need to believe that with hard work and faith in God there is every reason to start each day in the Oval Office with hope. He and the First Lady were asked about the impact of the Presidency on their marriage and, with an arm casually wrapped around Laura, he said that he thought the place may be hard on weak marriages but that it had the ability to make strong marriages even stronger and that he was blessed with a strong one.

After about 30 or 35 minutes, it was time to go. By then we were all relaxed and I felt as if I had just had an excellent visit with a friend. The President and First Lady made one more pass down the line of awardees, shaking hands and offering congratulations. When the President shook my hand I said, "thank you Mr. President and God bless you and your family." He was already in motion to the next person in line, but he stopped abruptly turned fully back to me, gave me a piercing look, renewed the vigor of his handshake and said, "Thank you - and God bless you and yours as well."

On our way out of the office we were to leave by the glass doors on the west side of the office. I was the last person in the exit line. As I shook his hand one final time, President Bush said, "I'll be sure to tell Marc hello and give him your regards."

I then did something that surprised even me. I said to him, "Mr. President, I know you are a busy man and your time is precious. I also know you to be a man of strong faith and have a favor to ask you."

As he shook my hand he looked me in the eye and said, "Just name it." I told him that my step-Mom was at that moment in a hospital in Kalispell, Montana, having a tumor removed from her skull and it would mean a great deal to me if he would consider adding her to his prayers that day. He grabbed me by the arm and took me back toward his desk as he said, "So that's it. I could tell that something is weighing heavy on your heart today. I could see it in your eyes. This explains it."

From the top drawer of his desk he retrieved a pen and a note card with his seal on it and asked, "How do you spell her name?" He then jotted a note to her while discussing the importance of family and the strength of prayer. When he handed me the card, he asked about the surgery and the prognosis. I told him we were hoping that it is not a recurrence of an earlier cancer and that if it is they can get it all with this surgery.

He said, "If it's okay with you, we'll take care of the prayer right now. Would you pray with me?" I told him yes and he turned to the staff that remained in the office and hand motioned the folks to step back or leave. He said, "Bruce and I would like some private time for a prayer."

As they left he turned back to me and took my hands in his. I was prepared to do a traditional prayer stance - standing with each other with heads bowed. Instead, he reached for my head with his right hand and pulling gently forward, he placed my head on his shoulder. With his left arm on my mid back, he pulled me to him in a prayerful embrace.

He started to pray softly. I started to cry. He continued his prayer for Loretta and for God's perfect will to be done. I cried some more. My body shook a bit as I cried and he just held tighter. He closed by asking God's blessing on Loretta and the family during the coming months. I stepped away from our embrace, wiped my eyes, swiped at the tears I'd left on his shoulder, and looked into the eyes of our president. I thanked him as best I could and told him that me and my family would continue praying for he and his.

As I write this account down and reflect upon what it means, I have to tell you that all I really know is that his simple act left me humbled and believing. I so hoped that the man I thought him to be was the man that he is. I know that our nation needs a man such as this in the Oval Office. George W. Bush is the real deal. I've read Internet stories about the President praying with troops in hospitals and other such uplifting
accounts. Each time I read them I hope them to be true and not an Internet perpetuated myth. This one, I know to be true. I was there. He is real. He has a pile of incredible stuff on his plate each day - and yet he is tuned in so well to the here and now that he 'sensed' something heavy on my heart.

He took time out of his life to care, to share, and to seek God's blessing for my family in a simple man-to-man, father-to-father, son-to-son, husband-to-husband, Christian-to-Christian prayerful embrace. He's not what
I had hoped he would be. He is, in fact, so very, very much more.

If you decide to forward this story...please do not add to it. Let his encounter stand as he wrote it.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
I got this in an email several days ago.

I just wish Bush would put some competent and ethical people in the regulatory agencies the executive branch is allowing big business to buy.

Jimmy Carter was/is a good Christian. It didn't make him the best president.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Jimmy Carter was/is a good Christian.
On what do you base this statement?

Red Robin, you do bring up a good point here. I don't believe any man has the ability to look into another man's soul. That is God's work. Politicians especially are adept at projecting the appearance of something they think will sell. Men can not tell what is in the heart of other men (Bush sizing up Putin is a perfect example) but rather we have to size up other people by their actions. It is really the only tool we have in deciphering what seems to be the the Will of God in other people.

To answer this question, I always try to look at the self interest vs. principle. Even this "test" has its flaws as others will be able to fool others by manipulating what is seen. It seems to me Karl Rove has done a good job at that. Carter's "Karl" was no good at it. The republicans seem to be better "salesmen" in this respect at the moment because they are not following the republican principles as stated. By the way, the stated principles of the republican platform are ones I believe in. I just wish the republicans did.

In the case of Jimmy Carter, or any other person, we are only able to determine if the man SEEMS to be following their religous convictions over their self interest. Only God knows the heart and only he can judge it.

When it comes to the major issues of the day, immigration, govt. overspending, enforcement of the laws, constitutional limits on power, self enrichment, etc., I see republicans as a group not able to resist the temptation of self interest over principle.

The prior lack of enforcement of immigration penalties on employers (Tyson Foods is a great example), giving tax breaks when govt. is borrowing money, overstepping constitutional limits of power,enforcement of all kinds of laws in the regulatory agencies, self enrichment through K street lobbyists and the subsequent earmarks all point to the opposite of principle over self interst. To do this, the current republicans woo the religious right and their agenda while the other hand of self interest grabs the cookies out of the cookie jar.

I don't see Carter doing that but just the opposite.

I do see Bush as leader of the republican party doing that.

You are right though, we, as humans, do not have 20/20 vision or anything close to it when judging another man's heart. We can only judge their actions and their "works" which is not God's standard of judgement.

I hope I am right that GW's administration is just incompetent and not corrupt. It is the better of the two.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
It's easy to tell if someone is being guided by Christian principals laid out in scripture. If they make decisions based on what scripture says . For example it is the responsibility of the government to protect the widows and orphans. While Jimmy Carter projected an image of being compassionate in this area, when taken along side of the Biblical principal of ..if they don't work, let them not eat.. Jimmy's liberal principals of welfare diverted alot of money from the needy (widows and orphans etc.) and gave it to a bunch of deadbeat , lazy , slobs that should be left to starve to death or learn to work. Kind of in that same vain, who is protecting the fatherless little babies that are being aborted? Excessive taxation is also warned against in scripture I think or at least it's portrayed in a negative light. In my mind , Jimmy Carter was not a good Christian leader even if he was a Christian.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
It's easy to tell if someone is being guided by Christian principals laid out in scripture. If they make decisions based on what scripture says . For example it is the responsibility of the government to protect the widows and orphans. While Jimmy Carter projected an image of being compassionate in this area, when taken along side of the Biblical principal of ..if they don't work, let them not eat.. Jimmy's liberal principals of welfare diverted alot of money from the needy (widows and orphans etc.) and gave it to a bunch of deadbeat , lazy , slobs that should be left to starve to death or learn to work. Kind of in that same vain, who is protecting the fatherless little babies that are being aborted? Excessive taxation is also warned against in scripture I think or at least it's portrayed in a negative light. In my mind , Jimmy Carter was not a good Christian leader even if he was a Christian.

While I see your point, I disagree with it slightly. I don't think Carter was a very good president and it might have been the circumstances he was handed. I don't think Jimmy handled some of these old democratic type give away programs very well. It may not have been totally his decision.

The best remedy for social program spending is a good economy. With the arabs mad over the Isreali wars, they were able to make the U.S. pay with huge oil shocks in price and volume(greater in real terms than we have today).

This and the Iranian hostage crisis tied his hands pretty tight as far as furthering a social agenda. He was more a reactionalry pres. against Nixon's abuses than a pres. with a huge vision (and ability to carry it out).

For reasons such as these, and many, many more we do and don't know about, I hesitate to judge carter on your criteria alone.

The success of a man in a worldly sense to me does not denote how good a Christian he is. Hitler was pretty successfull for example for a time period. To equate the two (success and Christianity) to me emphasizes man over God.

I agree with some of your reasoning to an extent. GW, by borrowing and having a continual deficit in the "good times" is doing just exactly what you critisized about Carter only he is putting the right to tax and pay the bill on our children. To me that encompasses the same critisms you give to Carter.

Both GW and Carter can be "good christians" and be bad presidents. I don't think party affiliation has anything to do with either. Our arguing about this subject doesn't either.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
I can at least name some ,and probably several ,decisions that George Bush made that would satisfy me as being the right thing from a Christian perspective. Can you do the same with Carter?
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
The next Prez will be the next " Carter" as he will have to clean up the mess from Bush.....just like Carter tried to clean up the crap from Nixon.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
I can at least name some ,and probably several ,decisions that George Bush made that would satisfy me as being the right thing from a Christian perspective. Can you do the same with Carter?

Although I have many disagreements with policy with both men, I would hesitate to use my limited (every human has the same) abilities to call either one a Christian.

It just simply is not our call.

I do not have that much hubris today (and I try to guard against it for any day).

Lets stick with policy.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
I can at least name some ,and probably several ,decisions that George Bush made that would satisfy me as being the right thing from a Christian perspective. Can you do the same with Carter?

Although I have many disagreements with policy with both men, I would hesitate to use my limited (every human has the same) abilities to call either one a Christian.

It just simply is not our call.

I do not have that much hubris today (and I try to guard against it for any day).

Lets stick with policy.
Truth is constant and definable. Pilate at Jesus's crucifixion asked the question, "what is truth" . If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things? I have no way to know whether someone is a Christian but I do have the ability to tell when a decision in line with the Bible. Pilate , having found no fault in Jesus, but unable to define truth, crucified the Christ. In government or our personal lives we have to have objective truth as our compass. Without it we are blown with the changing wind.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
The next Prez will be the next " Carter" as he will have to clean up the mess from Bush.....just like Carter tried to clean up the crap from Nixon.
What mess are you refering to in regards to Nixon ?
 

memanpa

Well-known member
hummmmmmmmm
being a politcal board i just witnessed the discussion between red robin and econ as being a sensible discussion and points being made in both directions until dis #2 jumped in with an off the wall comment in an attempt to disrupt!
SHAME but that is usually the way disenters operate!

carry on RR and ECON
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
I can at least name some ,and probably several ,decisions that George Bush made that would satisfy me as being the right thing from a Christian perspective. Can you do the same with Carter?

Although I have many disagreements with policy with both men, I would hesitate to use my limited (every human has the same) abilities to call either one a Christian.

It just simply is not our call.

I do not have that much hubris today (and I try to guard against it for any day).

Lets stick with policy.
Truth is constant and definable. Pilate at Jesus's crucifixion asked the question, "what is truth" . If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things? I have no way to know whether someone is a Christian but I do have the ability to tell when a decision in line with the Bible. Pilate , having found no fault in Jesus, but unable to define truth, crucified the Christ. In government or our personal lives we have to have objective truth as our compass. Without it we are blown with the changing wind.



I agree with truth as our compass.My issue is that perception is stronger than truth...It seems more decisions,as time moves forward,are based on perception rather than the truth...The truth gets trampled by rederic,propaganda and miss guide political agenda's....Through the hocopocus of good spin doctors,the truth is munipulated and at times totally disscarded...I think so many are trying to prove the otherside wrong,that they forget that in the end,its truth that is debated and that truth does not choose sides..

As far as Mr G.W.Bush and his act of caring .....I dont think anyone here is impling the MAN George bush is fake or not committed to his faith...The MAN that he is,should not be debated by those who do not know him.For an extention of kindness is,a very important ingreadinent,in the recipe of a gentleman...I think that the PRESIDENT George bush,can be,and should be debated...It is not always fair to judge a man by his postion,but rather what he does with that position ........I would tend to lean to the side of MR Bush being a very fair,caring and honest MAN.....His legacy,will prove,how he was as a PRESIDENT.....
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
I can at least name some ,and probably several ,decisions that George Bush made that would satisfy me as being the right thing from a Christian perspective. Can you do the same with Carter?

Although I have many disagreements with policy with both men, I would hesitate to use my limited (every human has the same) abilities to call either one a Christian.

It just simply is not our call.

I do not have that much hubris today (and I try to guard against it for any day).

Lets stick with policy.
Truth is constant and definable. Pilate at Jesus's crucifixion asked the question, "what is truth" . If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things? I have no way to know whether someone is a Christian but I do have the ability to tell when a decision in line with the Bible. Pilate , having found no fault in Jesus, but unable to define truth, crucified the Christ. In government or our personal lives we have to have objective truth as our compass. Without it we are blown with the changing wind.


Truth is constant and definable. If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things?

I think you are correct about. Jesus spent most of his life (at least the part handed down to us) teaching analogies that showed the truth. Most of the teachings of truth were in these analogies, not in the plain text. Yes, Jesus referred to the ten commandmants as the law, but he also came to fulfill the law and make it whole. The Jewish people put their faith into law more than in God and his truth revealed. I find it interesting that Jesus taught lessons in truth in analogies instead of in direct commandments. In fact, this was one of his lessons. That makes one to have to think more than follow some rote (memorized) law as had been the Jewish custom and the "way to salvation" for the Jews. The rote process and following the commandments was not the way to God, it was only a preparation for one to be able to have communion with God. If it did not engage one's intelligence and ones "heart" then it was useless actions. Jesus made that pretty clear. It was the life story of the apostle Paul.

Pilate's decision to allow the crucifiction of Christ was a political decsion. It was a decison of a man weighing his best options from a worldly view. He knew that Jesus was faultless but his own self interest allowed him to make the decision he did. He excused himself from the responsibility by giving it back to the Jews who knew the law but had lost the truth.

Jesus knew what the decision of the world on his message would be. He even knew the timing as evidenced by the "last supper". For salvation to come to the world, Jesus had to be sacrificed. The strongest love is the love for one's own child. That is what was given up. It defied the self interest that is prevelant in the world and the decision maximazation of the world.

I don't think we have to make decisions about a person's salvation and then make a decision about whether or not we believe in doing whatever they are suggesting. That would allow us to follow the misteps of Jews. Instead, I believe we are called to understand the law and come up with the decision that God lays on our conscience after hearing the facts. I beleive that a conscience is given to a man (or woman) to be able to discern these "truths" when their self interest is removed. That is why I believe in the jury system.

I believe only one man was faultless. Everyone else has faults, even great presidents. I am not catholic precisely for this reason. I don't believe in the intervention of any other man but Jesus to be able to be justified to God. It gives too much "power" to another mortal, even a president. We must always have checks and balances on our self interest. Mine comes largely in the form of my wife but also in communion with others. This of course, was the reason for the protestant revolution. The established church of catholicism fell into the same traps the jews fell into in the time of Jesus in believing in "the law" instead of the truth.

I had an English teacher in college that pointed this out to me and our class very directly. Words, she said, had baggage. The baggage often obscures the "truth". Words are man's invention and therefore would have this fault. It is the work of lawyers to obscure the truth for the self interest of their client with the manipulation of words. It is the the basis for Clinton's statement of the definition of "is".

The things in a man's heart can sometimes be seen in their actions.

I would like to stick to those actions without judging the man. I fail at this sometimes in my frustration as we all do. God sees the totality of a man's heart and actions and therefore can be an equitable judge. No one else has that ability, not even a man's closest companion, his wife (some of you were thinking I was going to say his dog or his horse, admit it).

On a man, judge not lest ye be judged.

His actions in the world are another story, and yes, we need to seek God to learn the "truth" or the part that is revealed to us.

Please do not confuse the two.

Only God knows the real answer--- and the man in question.
 

Frankk

Well-known member
Econ 101, when Bush was asked the question about your favorite politicial, philosopher, thinker and he answered Jesus Christ. What is your thoughts on this?
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Frankk said:
Econ 101, when Bush was asked the question about your favorite politicial, philosopher, thinker and he answered Jesus Christ. What is your thoughts on this?

I wish he understood him more.
 

Frankk

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Frankk said:
Econ 101, when Bush was asked the question about your favorite politicial, philosopher, thinker and he answered Jesus Christ. What is your thoughts on this?

I wish he understood him more.

Allen Keyes was asked why he didn't give this answer given his beliefs. I wish I could remember his answer but do remember thinking this man knows who Jesus is and what he is about but he didn't get very far.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
Red Robin said:
Econ101 said:
Although I have many disagreements with policy with both men, I would hesitate to use my limited (every human has the same) abilities to call either one a Christian.

It just simply is not our call.

I do not have that much hubris today (and I try to guard against it for any day).

Lets stick with policy.
Truth is constant and definable. Pilate at Jesus's crucifixion asked the question, "what is truth" . If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things? I have no way to know whether someone is a Christian but I do have the ability to tell when a decision in line with the Bible. Pilate , having found no fault in Jesus, but unable to define truth, crucified the Christ. In government or our personal lives we have to have objective truth as our compass. Without it we are blown with the changing wind.


Truth is constant and definable. If you don't know truth from nontruth, how can you make any intelligent decisions about the important things?

I think you are correct about. Jesus spent most of his life (at least the part handed down to us) teaching analogies that showed the truth. Most of the teachings of truth were in these analogies, not in the plain text. Yes, Jesus referred to the ten commandmants as the law, but he also came to fulfill the law and make it whole. The Jewish people put their faith into law more than in God and his truth revealed. I find it interesting that Jesus taught lessons in truth in analogies instead of in direct commandments. In fact, this was one of his lessons. That makes one to have to think more than follow some rote (memorized) law as had been the Jewish custom and the "way to salvation" for the Jews. The rote process and following the commandments was not the way to God, it was only a preparation for one to be able to have communion with God. If it did not engage one's intelligence and ones "heart" then it was useless actions. Jesus made that pretty clear. It was the life story of the apostle Paul.

Pilate's decision to allow the crucifiction of Christ was a political decsion. It was a decison of a man weighing his best options from a worldly view. He knew that Jesus was faultless but his own self interest allowed him to make the decision he did. He excused himself from the responsibility by giving it back to the Jews who knew the law but had lost the truth.

Jesus knew what the decision of the world on his message would be. He even knew the timing as evidenced by the "last supper". For salvation to come to the world, Jesus had to be sacrificed. The strongest love is the love for one's own child. That is what was given up. It defied the self interest that is prevelant in the world and the decision maximazation of the world.

I don't think we have to make decisions about a person's salvation and then make a decision about whether or not we believe in doing whatever they are suggesting. That would allow us to follow the misteps of Jews. Instead, I believe we are called to understand the law and come up with the decision that God lays on our conscience after hearing the facts. I beleive that a conscience is given to a man (or woman) to be able to discern these "truths" when their self interest is removed. That is why I believe in the jury system.

I believe only one man was faultless. Everyone else has faults, even great presidents. I am not catholic precisely for this reason. I don't believe in the intervention of any other man but Jesus to be able to be justified to God. It gives too much "power" to another mortal, even a president. We must always have checks and balances on our self interest. Mine comes largely in the form of my wife but also in communion with others. This of course, was the reason for the protestant revolution. The established church of catholicism fell into the same traps the jews fell into in the time of Jesus in believing in "the law" instead of the truth.

I had an English teacher in college that pointed this out to me and our class very directly. Words, she said, had baggage. The baggage often obscures the "truth". Words are man's invention and therefore would have this fault. It is the work of lawyers to obscure the truth for the self interest of their client with the manipulation of words. It is the the basis for Clinton's statement of the definition of "is".

The things in a man's heart can sometimes be seen in their actions.

I would like to stick to those actions without judging the man. I fail at this sometimes in my frustration as we all do. God sees the totality of a man's heart and actions and therefore can be an equitable judge. No one else has that ability, not even a man's closest companion, his wife (some of you were thinking I was going to say his dog or his horse, admit it).

On a man, judge not lest ye be judged.

His actions in the world are another story, and yes, we need to seek God to learn the "truth" or the part that is revealed to us.

Please do not confuse the two.

Only God knows the real answer--- and the man in question.
I may be wrong but in your post I read the thoughts of a man that doesn't believe in absolute truth. Am I correct? You say you agree but then go on to say one can't really know the truth because Jesus taught in parables and the Biblical acount is in written language which is vague. If this is what you're saying , I couldn't disagree more. The Bible is clear and precise. If you don't believe in absolute truth then how do you make laws defining right and wrong? If you do believe in absolute truth, give me an example of something absolutely true.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Frankk said:
Econ101 said:
Frankk said:
Econ 101, when Bush was asked the question about your favorite politicial, philosopher, thinker and he answered Jesus Christ. What is your thoughts on this?

I wish he understood him more.

Allen Keyes was asked why he didn't give this answer given his beliefs. I wish I could remember his answer but do remember thinking this man knows who Jesus is and what he is about but he didn't get very far.

That is the problem with linking whether a man is a Christian with his works on earth. The first might be true but the latter may be dismal by our standards. I don't think God judges by our standards. Why would He? They are so very, very, very low and incomplete.

That is why I would like to stick with the policy issues rather than guessing as to whether or not he is a Christian. I have also seen "christianity" used too many times. The catholic church used it for their own means. That is the problem with putting your complete trust in another man.

We all might be surprised who is and who isn't around us in heaven, if by the grace of God we are let in.

The biggest thing Jesus offers all of us is redemption.

Redemption can happen at any time.

In theology there is a term called sanctification. Sanctification has two parts. Positional sanctification and progressive sanctification. When you are saved, you have positional sanctification. It is the the thought that you are sanctified and able to have communion with God at that time. Progressive sanctification is the realization that as you live your life, you continually come closer to God by following his will. As your life progresses, you are in a continual process of becoming sanctified.

To me this is an important concept because it puts into perspective the dimension of time in our lives. For God there is no time. He is not limited by that dimension. As we live our lives, hopefully we are able to give up our self interest and work only in the interest of God.

Enough about this stuff.

I don't ever judge anyone as to their walk with God because it is between the two of them. Everyone is in some place of sanctification or not at all. Judging someone as to a single frame in time does not allow you to see the whole picture, but just the one frame. We wouldn't want to be judged by our worst moment, and our best moment is usually brief and somewhat uncharacteristic. This is what happens when you judge someone else. It isn't the whole picture. Never is.

Always condem the sin, not the sinner. They should not be linked. We just don't have the capicity to link them appropriately.

The Bible says that even an evil thought is a sin. Can another man judge another man based on a thought? No. We have to judge other men on their actions, not on their thoughts. It is the basis of our legal system. Can you get compensation if a man thinks about taking something from you but not acting on it? No, but God can. We are way too limited to do any of this sort of thing.

I wish we could all give the "perfect" answer to every question. Usually "perfect" answers are not mere words but are truths only represented by words. Words almost always get in the way of truth.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Red Robin:
I may be wrong but in your post I read the thoughts of a man that doesn't believe in absolute truth. Am I correct? You say you agree but then go on to say one can't really know the truth because Jesus taught in parables and the Biblical acount is in written language which is vague. If this is what you're saying , I couldn't disagree more. The Bible is clear and precise. If you don't believe in absolute truth then how do you make laws defining right and wrong? If you do believe in absolute truth, give me an example of something absolutely true.

Oh, I do believe in absolute truth. I didn't read your question before I posted my last post, but I think I answered it mostly in the last post.

Jesus illustrated the truth and the parables just showed that the truth was not encompassed in mere words, but in a deeper understanding of the parable itself.

The truth is not vague, we are.

You make laws defining right and wrong based on someone's actions. You describe the action that is illegal and then you have a penalty assigned to it. In capital cases and other types of cases the intent must also be shown. I say shown because proof in our terms is never absolute. It is a judgement in our eyes. Many times these judgements are just wrong and usually it is because of a lack of complete information.

While the truth of what happened is absolute, our interpretation of it is an approximation of that truth. Only God knows the whole truth.

How many innocent people have we put on deathrow because of a lack of complete information and the approximation of a jury to the truth turning out to be wrong?
 
Top