ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Why Be Moral

I have recently noticed a Puritanical streak on these blogs. People are searching for morality as was portrayed in the '50s and '60 TV shows.

Why this longing for the trappings of morality when we do not do the things that God has commanded, like love thy neighbor?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Purity Bible Quiz
 ---Monk_Brendan on 12/6/13
     Helpful Blog Vote (2)

Post a New Blog



"Excursus" does not mean "subject," but is a scholarly word for "going on a tangent."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/20/13


Actually, it does not mean "going on a tangent". It is not a verb, it is a noun. An excursus an appendix or digression that contains further exposition of a point or topic. If you want to simplify that to mean "a tangent" that is one thing, but "going on a tangent" is completely incorrect as excursus is a noun, not a verb. Also, was your tangent related to the original topic? If not, it wasn't an excursus, it was just a distraction.
---Jed on 12/20/13


Jed:

Wishing upon someone that he gets exactly what he deserves may be a curse, but it is a curse that is perfectly well deserved - we each deserve exactly what we deserve! (BTW, I generally agree with you in this particular reply, someething I can sadly not say all that often).

On the other hand, when you call someone "God-hating", can you offer specific evidence? You would do well to spend more words on dealing, in a calm manner, with blog subjects, rather than hurling insults and vilification at others.

If you hate your brother whom you have seen, how can you love God whom you have not seen? (1 John 4:20). So beware becoming what you accuse others of.
---StrongAxe on 12/20/13


\\Excuse me, Cluny, but read the question at the top of the page.\\

"Excursus" does not mean "subject," but is a scholarly word for "going on a tangent."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/20/13


Cluny said: The conversion of you or me is not the subject of this excursus, but whether certain of the Founding Fathers would be considered "Christian" by the people on this blog.

Excuse me, Cluny, but read the question at the top of the page. While others have wondered far afield, I would think that a scholarly person like yourself would have realized that the excursus of this blog is why people want the appearance of morality when they can't or won't act moral themselves.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/20/13


Jed, I'm one of the most conservative people I know.

Well, that has sure been obvious with your support of wealth redistribution and condemnation of those who promote morality!

May you get everything you deserve when you stand in front of Him on judgement day. ---Monk_Brendan on 12/19/13

Wow. Well, that was a very hateful remark! I wouldn't want to be the one standing before God having spoken that kind of cursing on another person! I would never wish that upon my worste enemy. My prayer for you is that you DO NOT get what you deserve on judgement day, but that you will become convicted and saved while you have the chance and be spared of all that you deserve on judgement day!
---Jed on 12/20/13




\\But anyway, giving doubt, tell us WHEN he wrote these things.\\

In a letter to John Adams in Januarh 1814.

\\I also said a lot of ungodly things about the Lord before I trusted Him. How about you Cluny or were you always perfect?\\

The conversion of you or me is not the subject of this excursus, but whether certain of the Founding Fathers would be considered "Christian" by the people on this blog.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/20/13


Many of the founders of the United States were Christian. Others were not but were Deists or like Jefferson thought JESUS was a great man.

People love the trappings of religion. It makes them feel saved and that they can live their lives in the way they want.

Being a Christian requires becoming a disciple which means we cannot just say we love others we must actually do it. First John is a short book on practical Christianity. Everyone should read it.
---Samuelbb7 on 12/20/13


\\Another fine example of history revision by a God-hating liberal\\

Why does this sound like Koko the Gorilla's favorite insult, "dirty rotten toilet stink," or 5-year olds calling each other "pappy head"?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/20/13


If there has been one tradition that can define Christianity from the first century it's the tradition of doctrinal war. One group quotes a few verses and the other quotes their own interpretation. Then 2 Peter 1:20 is used to destroy any thought about any passage which isn't accepted truth.

Then comes name calling like ignorant, heretic, and cult. After these "debates" one side says the other isn't saved. After which they both agree to a common understanding of 2 Cor 6:14-15 Sad
---michael_e on 12/20/13


Shira, you left something out. There was such a wide diversity of beliefs in the founding fathers. Yes, there were Episcopalians and Presbyterians, but there were also Catholics, Lutherans and Dutch Reformed. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton and Washington were none of these, but supported theistic rationalism. Both Jefferson and Franklin were anti-clerical. Many others were deists.

I can just imaging what Jed would call them if they were on CN today..
---NurseRobert on 12/20/13




"\do you believe in sprinkling of infants? \\"
Yea, sure, it makes them grow. You also hav'ta use good fertilizer.
Really I wonder what good the ritual does? Does it make the parent think they did something good for their child?

"It was an excerpt from a letter he wrote to John Adams."

I have a 10-volume set of Letters by the Presidents. Starting with Washington.
Nowhere have I seen this.
But anyway, giving doubt, tell us WHEN he wrote these things.
I also said a lot of ungodly things about the Lord before I trusted Him. How about you Cluny or were you always perfect?
---Elder on 12/20/13


\\do you believe in sprinkling of infants? \\

I've repeatedly said that Orthodox baptize by three-fold immersion and emersion.

And yes, infants are so baptized.

Has this not sunk into you yet, shira? If not, why not?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/20/13


Jed said: ... Another fine example of history revision by a God-hating liberal. ...

Jed, I'm one of the most conservative people I know. Slightly to the right of John Birch. As for me hating God, well, May He bless you, and keep you, and may you get everything you deserve when you stand in front of Him on judgement day.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/19/13


\\"Here is what that great Christian Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, said about the Gospel of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Yea, he also said he wanted his face on a quarter and not a nickel....
(Same source)\\

Wrong again.

It was an excerpt from a letter he wrote to John Adams.

Jefferson also ridiculed the Virgin Birth of our Savior, calling it as absurd as the birth of Minerve (sic) from the head of Jupiter.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/19/13


well cluny, Ive been a Baptist all my life and we all know it takes being born again for anyone to get to heaven. do you believe in sprinkling of infants? I believe it means nothing so why do it? it surely don't send anyone to heaven like some believe.
---shira4368 on 12/19/13



But Methodists and Presbyterians were not considered Christians when I was a Baptist because they "sprinkled" infants.

That's what I was taught.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

---Cluny on 12/19/13


You seem to be attracted to churches with some strange teachings. Like the one your in now. You seem to like "my way or the high way" type churches who claim only their church is saved.
---Jed on 12/19/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Marketing


\\most of the founding fathers were Methodist and Presbyterian. \\

But Methodists and Presbyterians were not considered Christians when I was a Baptist because they "sprinkled" infants.

That's what I was taught.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/19/13


monk, maybe you should read the history of America. most of the founding fathers were Methodist and Presbyterian. the documents are online for everyone to see. at least some of them are.
---shira4368 on 12/19/13


We've been around this block before. No matter what evidence you give to prove the founders were Christians, the liberals on this site will try to discredit it by claiming they were not TRUE Christians. Cluny will never accept that they were Christians (even though the founders themselves said they were Christians) because they were not Orthodox. And Cluny will never admit that anyone who isn't Orthodox can be a true Christian.
---Jed on 12/19/13


\\Again, why does each state have a preamble that includes reference to God??
---Elder on 12/18/13\\

That means nothing, and does not make them Christian.

Most world religions believe in SOMETHING they call "god," but it's not the real one.

The God of Christianity is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--something that Unitarians (which includes many of the Founding Fathers) deny.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/18/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Life Insurance



You have obviously been reading the wrong books. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. They did not believe in a personal God. Very few of them had a "personal relationship" with Jesus. Go into a real bookstore and get books on the founding fathers and you will see.

---Monk_Brendan on 12/18/13


What a complete and utter lie! Another fine example of history revision by a God-hating liberal. You simply can't argue with liars like this who will deny proven facts. May the LORD rebuke Brendan for his lies, and for worshiping the father of lies.
---Jed on 12/18/13


Samuel Adams-Father of the American Revolution, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "I . . . recommend my Soul to that Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."
Daniel St. Thomas Jenifer-Signer of the Constitution-"In the name of God, Amen. I, Daniel of Saint Thomas Jenifer . . . of dispossing mind and memory, commend my soul to my blessed Redeemer. . ."
Charles Carroll-Signer of the Declaration of Independence-"On the mercy of my Redeemer I rely for salvation and on His merits, not on the works I have done in obedience to His precepts."
And the list goes on...
Someone may want to check their sources.
---micha9344 on 12/18/13


"Here is what that great Christian Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, said about the Gospel of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ:"

Yea, he also said he wanted his face on a quarter and not a nickel....
(Same source)

Again, why does each state have a preamble that includes reference to God??
---Elder on 12/18/13


Shira said: cluny, our founding fathers worshiped the only true and living God. our country was not founded on false gods such as alah, budda or any of the rest of what the world worships...

You have obviously been reading the wrong books. Most of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. They did not believe in a personal God. Very few of them had a "personal relationship" with Jesus. Go into a real bookstore and get books on the founding fathers and you will see.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/18/13


Send a Free Romance Ecard


\\cluny, our founding fathers worshiped the only true and living God\\

Wrong again.

Here is what that great Christian Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, said about the Gospel of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ:

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence ... that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds."

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/18/13


cluny, our founding fathers worshiped the only true and living God. our country was not founded on false gods such as alah, budda or any of the rest of what the world worships. so cluny, how can you even ask a question like you asked? see cluny, almost all people who migrate to the U.S. have tried to change how our country was founded. why don't you go to the middle east and carry your bible? you would be imprisoned.
---shira4368 on 12/17/13


Jed, how would you feel about Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan, or mahometan prayers before a football game?

Please answer this question. ---Cluny on 12/16/13


What do you mean "would"? These people ARE allowed to freely practice their religion! Only Christians are constantly stifled. I am happy that their freedoms of speech and religion is not being violated. However, I am frustrated by the double-standard. Not that they are allowed to, but that Christians aren't. I may not agree with what other people's beliefs, but I will defend to the death their right to express them.
---Jed on 12/17/13


Strongaxe, You said that I said You said: I would like to point out that social conservatives generally are the biggest givers to private charity, even over and above what they pay in taxes. Most who tout socialism and "helping the poor" actually give very little, both in private charities and in taxes.

That was Jed that said that, not me.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/16/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Make Money



That is a breakdown based on idealogical lines, but I'm curious how it correlates with demographics. I think it's no accident that the rich are more likely to be conservatives (so they can keep what they have), while the poor are more likely to be social liberals (so they can be taken care of). But the poor are less likely to have surplus income that they can afford to give to charity, skewing the liberal average down.

---StrongAxe on 12/14/13


Never heard such truth from a liberal! I agree 100%! You have just exposed the hypocrisy of liberals who claim compassion for the poor. Like you pointed out, Wealth is transferred mostly from Conservatives to Liberals, making Conservatives the compassionate ones.
---Jed on 12/15/13


\\Monk_Brendan:

You said: I would like to point out that social conservatives generally ....\\

This was said by Jed, though it's easy to lose track of who said what.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/15/13


Strongaxe said: " But the poor are less likely to have surplus income that they can afford to give to charity, skewing the liberal average down."

But there are so many more poor than there are rich, so demographically, that should skew the average up!
---Monk_Brendan on 12/15/13


Monk_Brendan:

You said: I would like to point out that social conservatives generally are the biggest givers to private charity, even over and above what they pay in taxes. Most who tout socialism and "helping the poor" actually give very little, both in private charities and in taxes.

That is a breakdown based on idealogical lines, but I'm curious how it correlates with demographics. I think it's no accident that the rich are more likely to be conservatives (so they can keep what they have), while the poor are more likely to be social liberals (so they can be taken care of). But the poor are less likely to have surplus income that they can afford to give to charity, skewing the liberal average down.
---StrongAxe on 12/14/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Rehab Treatments


Jed said: "...The true test is one question: could you find a way to survive if you suddenly had all welfare taken away? ..."

Jed, I am too old and infirm to work for a living anymore. It was only with the permission of my bishop that I was allowed to enter Monastic life.

My SS from when I was working is less than $1000 a month. I get $11.00 a month in food stamps. The computer I am using is from a donation. I still need to buy food and clothing--and the garb of Holy Poverty is expensive! One cassock costs $225.00 plus shipping from Russia. I had to buy a klobuk, $125.00, a cassock, a riasa $250.00 and a mandias that alone cost more than I make in a month.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/13/13


Of course, everyone thinks they are the ones who truly deserve welfare or disability.

The true test is one question: could you find a way to survive if you suddenly had all welfare taken away? If the answer is yes, you shouldnt be on welfare. Its supposed to be a lifeline, not a means of income equality or wealth redistribution.
---Jed on 12/13/13


\\Your comment right here is proof that you are in fact talking about those who oppose welfare for the lazy! \\

There is a general opinion in the extreme right that the poor and needy and ill are actually lazy. You are one who seems to hold this position, Jed.

I hope you have a Happy Humbug.

Merry Christmas (whenever you observe it) to the Christians here.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/13/13


Jed said: "I never for one second opposed helping the poor and needy! I only opposed giving to the lazy! Your comment right here is proof that you are in fact talking about those who oppose welfare for the lazy!"

It is, however, your contention that over 90% of the people that are receiving government assistance are lazy and cheats. That is what I am taking exception to. You judge too harshly, and you have no facts to back up that 90% claim.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/13/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks



No, Jed, I am speaking about people on this blog, such as you.

---Monk_Brendan on 12/12/13


I knew it! Haha. I never for one second opposed helping the poor and needy! I only opposed giving to the lazy! Your comment right here is proof that you are in fact talking about those who oppose welfare for the lazy! You said "those who show little concern for the poor and needy" before I even commented on this thread!
---Jed on 12/12/13


\\That made me think you meant those who oppose socialism.\\

Jed, why did YOU (and you alone) drag socialism into the conversation?

Was it as a smokescreen to cloud and confuse this discussion? Or a simple knee-jerk reaction?

Please clarify.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/12/13


Jed said: "I wish that could be the case..."

Jed, I would like to know to whom or what you are listening, because facts (you remember them, don't you) are not on your side.

BTW, as a monk I have no income from the church. I get a small amount from SocSec because I did work for >30 years, and I did pay taxes. Plus I tithed, and gave other donations to charity.

I also spent a year as a missionary in Alaska, working at a radio station, where I had no income at all, except what I raised myself.

I also spent several years working for my father, with no income, but that is another story.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/12/13


Jed, You said, "Oh Okay. Because you said the people on these blogs who show "lack of concern for the poor and needy". That made me think you meant those who oppose socialism.

I would like to point out that social conservatives generally are the biggest givers to private charity, even over and above what they pay in taxes. Most who tout socialism and "helping the poor" actually give very little, both in private charities and in taxes.

No, Jed, I am speaking about people on this blog, such as you.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/12/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes



We should begin by assuming that people who need help need help for a genuine need, and only assume they are tricksters if we have a good reason, or at least a good reason for a suspicion, not to be always suspicious of anyone who we hear is poor.
---Peter on 12/11/13


I wish that could be the case. But when >90% of welfare and disability recipients are capable of working or are living more lavish lifestyles than the workers who are paying taxes to fund those programs, it would only be foolish to assume that any given recipient is in the <10% minority group of welfare recipients that is truly needy. That would be like assuming that any given prison inmate is innocent. Sure there are some in prison who truly are innocent.
---Jed on 12/11/13


The New Covenant has nothing to do with a country or ethnicity,.....
Why are we so caught up in humanitarian efforts for unbelievers, yet ignore our brothers, fellow believers?
---James_L on 12/10/13

Post is not entirely accurate by ethnic / ethnos scriptural witnesses.

Mat_10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Mat_15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Heb_8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

We do ignore our own.
---Trav on 12/12/13


yes, the church is suppose to help the poor but seeing the people who are taking drugs (not all) but most poor is out of church again (not all). my church is dedicated to preach the truth and sinners get saved. since America has practically turned her back on God, we can't be expecting God to be as generous while we make laws to prevent crosses, children can no longer pray. a 1 person campaign took prayer out of school in the 70's. madylyn O'Hare. we've opened our borders to muslims who want to come here and change what God has blessed us with.
---shira4368 on 12/12/13


Jed on 12/11/13: 'funding the lazy and those who pose as poor and needy'

We generally do not wish to fund those who do not wish to work, no.

But we should begin by assuming that people who need help need help for a genuine need, and only assume they are tricksters if we have a good reason, or at least a good reason for a suspicion, not to be always suspicious of anyone who we hear is poor.

Remember Matt 19:21 'sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven' - give to the poor. He was not told to first interrogate the poor to check they were REALLY poor, was he?
---Peter on 12/11/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression



No Jed, I am referring to certain posters on these blogs who totally lack any sort of charity (love) for anyone else... These people are quick to judge and condemn, and anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint is instantly on the way to hell.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/11/13


Oh Okay. Because you said the people on these blogs who show "lack of concern for the poor and needy". That made me think you meant those who oppose socialism.

I would like to point out that social conservatives generally are the biggest givers to private charity, even over and above what they pay in taxes. Most who tout socialism and "helping the poor" actually give very little, both in private charities and in taxes.
---Jed on 12/11/13


Actually, concern for the poor and destitute IS part of Christian morality.

According to the Bible, oppressing the poor is a sin crying out to heaven for vengeance.

This includes oppressing them in thought and word, as well as deed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/11/13


Once upon a time, a man shook the minister's hand, saying, "That was a great sermon you preached today, Pastor. Everything in it refers to someone or another I know."

He who has ears to hear ( or eyes to read)...

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/11/13


Jed said: "...However, there are many who are opposed to funding the lazy and those who pose as poor and needy. Perhaps those are the people you are referring to, Brendan."

No Jed, I am referring to certain posters on these blogs who totally lack any sort of charity (love) for anyone else. Some of the posts are cutting and remorseless. Poison and acid drip from the posts, and there is no room for mercy at all.

These people are quick to judge and condemn, and anyone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint is instantly on the way to hell.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/11/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study



No, Jed, I was talking about those people who want everybody to think they are moral, while all the time they are being very un-Christlike in their questions and comments on these blogs, such as their lack of concern for the poor and needy

---Monk_Brendan on 12/10/13


I am unaware of anyone on these blogs that is against helping the poor and needy. However, there are many who are opposed to funding the lazy and those who pose as poor and needy. Perhaps those are the people you are referring to, Brendan.

BTW, I think you may have a incorrect impression of what love is. Love in no way, shape, or form involves compromising morality. Actually quite the opposite.
---Jed on 12/11/13


Jed said: "... He criticized people who "are searching for morality as was portrayed in the '50s and '60s TV shows", and people with a "Puritanical streak". ... he is criticizing people for promoting morality and desiring a more moral society..."

No, Jed, I was talking about those people who want everybody to think they are moral, while all the time they are being very un-Christlike in their questions and comments on these blogs, such as their lack of concern for the poor and needy
---Monk_Brendan on 12/10/13


Jed:

you said: That sounds to me like he is criticizing people for promoting morality and desiring a more moral society,

Re-read the blog topic carefully. He cricitizes people who want to promote morality WHILE AT THE SAME TIME igonring much more important things like "love thy neighbor". This is like the Pharisees who choked on gnats while simultaneously swallowing camels.

It's not that there's anything wrong with morality itself. It's just that people who put it first, before other concerns, are putting the cart before the horse.
---StrongAxe on 12/10/13


Moral rules can be used as a trap. Cultic Bible claiming groups can come up with things others do not promote, then say we're the only ones who have this and so you have to join us.

But there are Biblical morals which help to keep us from going away from God's love and how He has us relating with people.

By the way, our Father "is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe," we have in 1 Timothy 4:10. So, if we are "imitators of God as dear children" (Ephesians 5:1), we with God will be good to "all men", how He pleases for us to do His loving good to each one.
---willie_c: on 12/10/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


Cluny, your rule is a good rule. (Gen. 3:15) gives us the clue. God did not mentioned three families are four, but two. After cursing the physical Serpent, God turned to the spiritual serpent, the lying seducer, Satan. and curse him.
"He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel" It is the first gospel promise of the struggle between "your seed" the Devils children (John 8:44) and "her Seed, Christ," a descendant of Eve, and those in Him.
Those who are not in Him (Christ) are children of Satan.
---Mark_V. on 12/10/13


\\The OT categorized people in three ways - neighbor, stranger, enemy
The NT uses neighbor only in direct quotations from the OT\\
---James L


\\First of all, we live in the grace of the New Covenant.\\
---Monk Brendan


That's my point. So why are you pushing an OT mandate onto NT believers?

In OT usage, a neighbor was a fellow countryman, whether he was a believer or not. God commanded ALL Israelites to love everyone in the covenant.

The New Covenant has nothing to do with a country or ethnicity, it is a covenant of FAITH - and everyone in this covenant IS a believer.

Why are we so caught up in humanitarian efforts for unbelievers, yet ignore our brothers, fellow believers?
---James_L on 12/10/13



Often a frontal attack (which I think is what Monk_Brendan is talking about) can do more damage than help in moral matters

---Peter on 12/9/13


It doesn't sound like that's what he's talking about to me. Perhaps I am reading it wrong. He criticized people who "are searching for morality as was portrayed in the '50s and '60s TV shows", and people with a "Puritanical streak". That sounds to me like he is criticizing people for promoting morality and desiring a more moral society, not just the use of the "full frontal attack".
---Jed on 12/9/13


---Jed on 12/9/13: ' Claiming to love God and neighbor while living immorally or condoning immorality is just as ridiculous!'

The word I object to here is 'condone'. Of course not 'condone'. But one may meet someone who does something immoral, dislike it, but work to help the other person get away from immorality in a way that both helps the other person and keeps a friendship.

Often a frontal attack (which I think is what Monk_Brendan is talking about) can do more damage than help in moral matters
---Peter on 12/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis



Why this longing for the apparel of morality without the love of God and/or neighbor in one's heart? ---Monk_Brendan on 12/8/13


I don't think anyone longs for morality only and not to have the love of God in their hearts. Both are important. Claiming to love God and neighbor while living immorally or condoning immorality is just as ridiculous! A person should desire both. You're relationship with God is severely lacking without either component. But you sound as if you are actually condemning the desire for morality? So let me ask you this question: Why claim that you have love for your neighbor in your heart while you condone their immorality that will destroy their lives and homes?
---Jed on 12/9/13


I think a good example of what trappings of morality would be the Pharisees who thank God that they aren't like the sinners. They probably very moral in their own eyes and the eyes of the sinners. But they were trapped in the superficial side of being seen or perceived as moral and were missing a bigger picture...to love thy neighbor...not to elevate oneself but actually to consider oneself the lowest.
---aka on 12/9/13


\\The OT categorized people in three ways - neighbor, stranger, enemy\\

But we live under the NT.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/9/13

A New Testament which has the same categories. Same world, different day.
Some categories are totally avoided. Sheep for instance. Notable in that it is a mark....found in more ways than one.
Joh_10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

---Trav on 12/9/13


First of all, we live in the grace of the New Covenant. As such, there is no separation between family, neighbors, stranger, etc.

Secondly, the Good Samaritan was not a neighbor, but a stranger, yet Jesus parable asks which of the three people that saw the victim acted like his neighbor--i.e. he put him on his donkey, cleaned his wounds, and paid the innkeeper to care for him.

---Monk_Brendan


Amen.
1Jo 3:17-18

But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?
My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth.
---Samuelbb7 on 12/9/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


\\The OT categorized people in three ways - neighbor, stranger, enemy\\

But we live under the NT.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/9/13


James L. said: "The OT categorized people in three ways - neighbor, stranger, enemy

Neighbor meant someone else in the covenant

The NT (after Christ died) not even one time refers to believers as neighbors, only brothers

The NT uses neighbor only in direct quotations from the OT"

First of all, we live in the grace of the New Covenant. As such, there is no separation between family, neighbors, stranger, etc.

Secondly, the Good Samaritan was not a neighbor, but a stranger, yet Jesus parable asks which of the three people that saw the victim acted like his neighbor--i.e. he put him on his donkey, cleaned his wounds, and paid the innkeeper to care for him.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/9/13


\\ 1 John makes it plain that one cannot love God if that person has hatred in his heart for anyone \\
---Cluny on 12/7/13


It does not say for anyone, "if he has hate for his brother." \\
---Mark_V. on 12/8/13


I agree with Mark V

The OT categorized people in three ways - neighbor, stranger, enemy

Neighbor meant someone else in the covenant

The NT (after Christ died) not even one time refers to believers as neighbors, only brothers

The NT uses neighbor only in direct quotations from the OT
---James_L on 12/9/13


Jed and others have asked how morality traps people.

The word "trappings" means clothing, or costume, or apparel. So the question becomes, why this longing for the apparel of morality without the love of God and/or neighbor in one's heart?

If you remember "Ozzie and Harriet" you will get an idea of what I mean. The family was so loving on the screen, but Ozzie Nelson beat his kids mercilessly off screen. That is what I mean by the trappings of morality.

St. Paul says, "having the form of Godliness..." 2 Tim 3-5
---Monk_Brendan on 12/8/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


\\Only two families exist from God's perspective.\\

BCV, please. That's your rule, after all.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/8/13


Cluny, I believe your read the passages wrong, you say,
"But christan, 1 John makes it plain that one cannot love God if that person has hatred in his heart for anyone." It does not say for anyone, "if he has hate for his brother." Only two families exist from God's perspective. Children of God and children of Satan. John reminds the readers in these verses that as a Christian they have been forgiven and come to know God as their heavenly Father, as result they are part of God's family. They must not love Satan's family or give their allegiance to the world controlled by him (v. 1 john 2:15).
---Mark_V. on 12/8/13


But christan, 1 John makes it plain that one cannot love God if that person has hatred in his heart for anyone.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/7/13


Christan asked: "Monk Brendan, you're looking at "love" from only the fallen man's perspective. What did Christ say before He concluded "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"?

One only has 75 words to use is a question. If I had used the whole verse, I would not have room for my question.

Besides, I would never question anyone's love of God on these Christian blogs.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/7/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


Monk Brendan: I'm not completely sure what you meant by "trappings of morality" as trappings is not a word I don't normally hear or see used normally. Could you mean appearance of morality?

I have hesitated to answer because of my confusion. Seeing that others are confused makes me wonder.

Cluny: I'm a highly educated, well read woman, and I didn't understand what Monk Brendan meant. Don't be so insulting.
---Grandma on 12/7/13



Why do you think he meant that morality traps people, Jed?

Do other people now see what I mean by saying that Jed can't understand English prose?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

---Cluny on 12/6/13


Apparently YOU don't understand English, or you can't read. What do you think "trappings of morality" is supposed to mean?
---Jed on 12/7/13


Monk Brendan, you're looking at "love" from only the fallen man's perspective. What did Christ say before He concluded "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"?

This is what He declared, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

Which came first? When one lies against the Word of God, is that loving God? And you're wondering why there's a "war of words" in here?
---christan on 12/6/13


\\ I would like to know how you feel living morally traps people? \\

Why do you think he meant that morality traps people, Jed?

Do other people now see what I mean by saying that Jed can't understand English prose?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/6/13


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


Why this longing for the trappings of morality? ---Monk_Brendan on 12/6/13

What trappings of morality, Brendan? I would like to know how you feel living morally traps people? God directs us not to be enticed by the trappings of this world (immorality).
---Jed on 12/6/13


Christan said: " Romans 3:10-18

Until you're convicted by the Spirit that this is our resume before God, you can search all you want."

Oh I know I am a sinner, I would not have entered into the Monastic Life if I was not certain that I was a miserable wretch of a sinner.

But read the question again. Wy this longing for the trappings of morality when we don't love our neighbor?

You must admit the the scathing entries on these blogs are a good example of not loving thy neighbor.
---Monk_Brendan on 12/6/13


"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they have used deceit, the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood: Destruction and misery are in their ways: And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Romans 3:10-18

Until you're convicted by the Spirit that this is our resume before God, you can search all you want.
---christan on 12/6/13


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.