Labeling harmless actions/things/activities as immoral.

[Robert65]

It's not all that subjective, really. Christianity does have an objective moral standard--life is inherently valuable, hypocrisy is undesirable, and so forth and so on. If a Christian interprets, "Love your neighbor as yourself" as "hate your neighbor," there is a serious problem. That's not really up for debate, even if what is entailed by loving your neighbor is, at least to a certain extent.

When it comes to applying these objective standards to the actual world, you'll see some variation, since different people stress different aspects of that moral standard. And fear and misunderstanding come into play as well--people of the Puritanical persuasion may (incorrectly) associate DnD with demon worship or wandering around without a bra with licentiousness. The underlying concerns there are common moral concerns for all Christians, to one extent or another, but most people are probably going to think they're being applied incorrectly here.

There's also an idea that pops up in the Pauline Epistles by which something that can be harmless to one person might trip up another. So if a Christian thinks that playing DnD is spiritually dangerous, they should abstain from playing it. That doesn't mean it's dangerous for everyone.

Fair enough. What I have a problem with is when Christians tell me that I am going to hell because I play D&D. If a Christian thinks that playing D&D will lead them astray thus they do not play the game, that is fine. It is when Christians judge me for not living up to their subjectively applied rules that I take issue.

Christians do not have a unified message. This is a major problem for the Christian claim of universal morality. Many believe that their morality is in line with an objective morality, then they argue with other moral universalist who have a different interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Robert65]

God made men and women, maybe hair length is an extra distinction between us? It could also have uses such as a man's mainly outside/working role. The way I see it though is, I believe in God and that he created the universe. So what he says to do I'm very much inclined to do.

I'm not sure why many Bible characters are depicted with long hair but many (if not all) of these depictions are from centuries and centuries after Christ. Also I use the KJV which says Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? Rather than it is a dishonour to him. Maybe it's the same but I think it's slightly different

The question marks tell me that you do not know why God wants men to have short hair. If men having short hair is something that you espouse, then is that not something that you should understand as to why God commands it?

 

[Robert65]

I think your on the right path in post #8.

Christians can be in error of interpreting God's word. Some twist the words just enough to enable themselves enough peace of mind that they are not going against it. I call that creating your own God. Some even write their own versions of God's word.
I believe this causes allot of confusion can seem like many Christians don't really know what they believe in.

Well said. I think all who believe in God either create God in their own image or blindly acquiesce to another’s interpretation of God. Even if there is a God, without the ability to remove interpretation and bias from the equation there is no objective way to tell what is literally the word of God vs what is human subjective interpretation of the word of God.

 

[Robert65]

Those particular examples seem more like cultural preferences/prejudices, though such cultural preferences can be commonplace in a region or nation. Now, that doesn't mean there are never any instances of those that are truly wrong. Obviously 'heavy metal' can have an enormous variety in it, and some of the songs can be genuinely a bad influence, while others are good, a good influence.

Some good, some bad, and some just neutral.

But wholesale rejecting all 'heavy metal' without any sub categories/distinctions is more a cultural prejudice I think.

I agree.

The question of dress is a more complex, in that in a given culture we are not supposed to knowingly trip others into sin by dressing in a way that is sexually suggestive or overly enticing

To me that places the onus upon the woman when it should be upon the man to strictly adhere to their convictions. Is not religion supposed to raise one above their baser nature? Also not all women are Christian and not all Christian women believe that going braless is immoral.

The boundary condition is that we not be led nor lead others into breaking this rule from Christ (in this particular wording):

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the law..."

The Golden Rule has a shortcoming in that it assumes that we all want to be treated the same, which could not be further from the truth. Have you ever helped someone and we’re scorned for the attempt? I have and I see that as an object example of the limited usefulness of the Golden Rule. I use the negative of the Golden Rule which states that if I would not like something done to me then I should not do that thing to others. Both rules have their limitations but I find avoidance of action to be better than assuming that all want to be treated as I do. The Golden Rule = action while the negative of the Golden Rule = avoidance of action.

Notice He said 'in everything'. That's important. Example: even if my wearing some certain clothing or skin revealing of some kind may be ok here where I'm at, if I visit someplace it causes someone there at that place to trip into adultery lust, then I'd be breaking the rule above, in that I'd be mistreating the spouse of that person, by tempting their mate, while I'd not want someone to tempt my mate.

Again that places the onus of another’s sin upon you. I say that I am solely responsible for my action and if I were ever thoughtless enough to betray the trust of my wife by cheating on her I would certainly not blame the other woman for wearing a sexy outfit. Those who profess to be servants of God should act so. What use is religion if it is ineffective at curbing the baser desire of men?

I am here for a Christian perspective and you have added to that for which I thank you.

 

[Robert65]

it could be referring to many things such as the inclination for most men to have short hair, the more physical and natural (nature) role of men, meaning work, requiring shorter hair in general or it could be something else. I'm not a Pastor but I believe the Bible instructs men not to have long hair. I wasn't in the military but a high percentage of militaries require men to have short hair for solid reasons.

This might be worth a read: BIBLE VERSES ABOUT LONG HAIR

Here is an interesting test. Go to the “Most wanted criminals” website for your local area. Next look at the pics of the men wanted by the police and count how many have long hair and how many have short hair. Last time I did this I was in Boise Idaho where out of 24 wanted persons 22 were men and only 2 had long hair. Based upon that I would say that men having short hair does nothing to mitigate immorally.

 

[Samaritan Woman]

So women have to cover up because some men are weak? Thought religion was supposed to give men strength to resist such temptation? Labeling a woman going braless as immoral would be a label misplaced. The label belongs on the Christian men who lack the strength to keep to their religious convictions.

Fair enough but still think it is weird to place the impetus on the woman.

While you make good points, none of my immoral behaviors has ever been the product of listening to music. I do agree that pop does tend to glorify behaviors that may lead some down an egocentric path and that Metal can be brutal.

As the word of God is wide open to interpretation, what God says is relative to each individual thus subjective. I do agree however that morals should not be based upon social norms.

A Christian woman should cover up in public because if she dresses provocatively then this tempts unbelieving men to lust and can be a potential stumbling block to Christian men as well. Believe it or not, not every Christian has fully arrived in spiritual maturity as it's a process, and both sexes can be tempted sexually; we are called to deal with it before God and not act on those inclinations. Jesus called out men's proclivity to lust which is tied to the eyes in His sermon on the mount found in Matthew 5:27-28, thus holding them accountable regarding this. He instructed men on a higher, tougher standard by teaching that maintaining outward self-control is not enough but that their imagination and motivations must be pure as well.

Death metal played an important role and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' massacre at Columbine; Kip Kinkel, who in 1998 shot and killed his parents (his mother in the back I believe) and shot up his high school in Oregon, was extremely influenced by Nine Inch Nails and similar music that glorified violence. The problem with Metal (and secular pop/rock music in general), is that it induces emotions, motivations, and thoughts within the listener. I know that a lot of research has been done on this controversial topic...

The Bible actually is not “wide open to interpretation” if the reader takes into account the literary and historical context along with original language; most division within the church regarding doctrine is based on people not adhering to these standards unfortunately. Granted, there are some passages in scripture that are somewhat ambiguous but that is not the case for the majority of the Bible.

To say that God's word is relative and subjective means that God Himself embodies these traits as well which puts Him on the level of humanity or eastern pagan religious beliefs. God embodies truth which cannot nor does not waiver; to say otherwise denies the very definition of truth.

 

[Halbhh]

I agree.



To me that places the onus upon the woman when it should be upon the man to strictly adhere to their convictions. Is not religion supposed to raise one above their baser nature? Also not all women are Christian and not all Christian women believe that going braless is immoral.



The Golden Rule has a shortcoming in that it assumes that we all want to be treated the same, which could not be further from the truth. Have you ever helped someone and we’re scorned for the attempt? I have and I see that as an object example of the limited usefulness of the Golden Rule. I use the negative of the Golden Rule which states that if I would not like something done to me then I should not do that thing to others. Both rules have their limitations but I find avoidance of action to be better than assuming that all want to be treated as I do. The Golden Rule = action while the negative of the Golden Rule = avoidance of action.



Again that places the onus of another’s sin upon you. I say that I am solely responsible for my action and if I were ever thoughtless enough to betray the trust of my wife by cheating on her I would certainly not blame the other woman for wearing a sexy outfit. Those who profess to be servants of God should act so. What use is religion if it is ineffective at curbing the baser desire of men?

I am here for a Christian perspective and you have added to that for which I thank you.

Often it's men breaking the rules alone it seems. We quite agree on it's not mostly on women! Men lusting after women not their wives are breaking the rule from Christ on adultery for instance. These things do sometimes involve 2 people for a sin to happen, and sometimes not. So, it's not all on women nor is it always all on men. But very often a woman hasn't done any wrong here, and it's the man alone doing wrong in this.

That people each uniquely and differently practice the golden rule as Christ stated it (in the proactive form, and 'in everything', that is always, everywhere, all situations) is actually a strength and beauty of it! See, we are only responsible for what we understand and have in our conscience (Romans chapters 2:6-16, 4:15, 5:13). Each person is only responsible for what they are able to do and understand and feel is best.

It's not a rigid and uncomfortable rule, but fits the individual individually and perfectly! It fits like perfect clothing.

This reminds of how Christ said to us: "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light"

 

[Silmarien]

One could easily make the case that organized religion...Christian and non-Christian alike...does fail to play that role far more often than it plays it. Organized religion is owned and operated by the very same types of human beings it presumes to teach. That is a classic manifestation of the 'Blind leading the Blind'.

The word which describes those people who call others out for going wrong while not being constantly right themselves is hypocrisy. Hypocrites never achieve success without their hypocrisy dragging them back.

I think you have a very one-sided impression of organized religion. There's plenty of hypocrisy, sure, but that need not be the case. A priest or minister could draw upon their own failings and struggles to illustrate an ethical problem instead of sitting in judgment upon a congregation. There are very constructive ways to approach these issues--I don't think I'd have anything to do with a priest who pretended to be morally perfect.

About a third of the world's population claim to be Christian. It is the worlds largest organized religion by about 800,000 people. And yet its impact on the world's population is nearly zero.

Why is that? It is because it spends its time calling out the moral failures of others while ignoring the teachings of Jesus which call for His followers to raise their own spiritual levels by 'doing to others as you would have them do to you'. His call is to become a conduit which allows Divine Love to flow through His followers and into the world. This is accomplished by loving others as one loves oneself.

I have never been in a Christian church which ignored the teachings of Jesus. But in a world where self-interest rules the day, there's plenty that can be said even about the notion of loving others as one loves oneself.

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. You seem to simultaneously be saying that the teachings are too easy to require any sort of assistance along the way, and yet too hard for anyone to be able to say anything about it at all.

How is it that if one out of every three people on the planet are Christian, there is no evidence that Divine Love is operating here? That is the failure of the organized religion. And no amount of 'calling out' others will make it better.

You can comment personally on the spiritual state of a full third of the earth's population? That is extremely impressive.

 

[zephcom]

The Golden Rule has a shortcoming in that it assumes that we all want to be treated the same, which could not be further from the truth. Have you ever helped someone and we’re scorned for the attempt? I have and I see that as an object example of the limited usefulness of the Golden Rule. I use the negative of the Golden Rule which states that if I would not like something done to me then I should not do that thing to others. Both rules have their limitations but I find avoidance of action to be better than assuming that all want to be treated as I do. The Golden Rule = action while the negative of the Golden Rule = avoidance of action.

I, too, have noted the possibility that there may well be people out there who simply don't want nice things to happen to them which, for them, makes the Golden Rule a bit of a dicey thing thing to burden them with.

But overall I would suggest that the world as a whole would be a much more pleasant place to live if people -did- live their lives by the Golden Rule. It certainly does provide a measuring stick which is always with us as we make our journey through life.

 

[Halbhh]

I, too, have noted the possibility that there may well be people out there who simply don't want nice things to happen to them which, for them, makes the Golden Rule a bit of a dicey thing thing to burden them with.

But overall I would suggest that the world as a whole would be a much more pleasant place to live if people -did- live their lives by the Golden Rule. It certainly does provide a measuring stick which is always with us as we make our journey through life.

It helps us figure out what to do in complex situations. Also, it helps us possibly realize whether or not we are acting in love, or are lost or even dead instead. But the main purpose is that helping us know what to do, helping us realize the true spirit of the law, the 'in spirit and in truth' way.

 

[Silmarien]

Fair enough. What I have a problem with is when Christians tell me that I am going to hell because I play D&D. If a Christian thinks that playing D&D will lead them astray thus they do not play the game, that is fine. It is when Christians judge me for not living up to their subjectively applied rules that I take issue.

I play DnD too, hence my comments about LE clerics.

I'm sorry if you run across this a lot. It is pretty stupid.

Christians do not have a unified message. This is a major problem for the Christian claim of universal morality. Many believe that their morality is in line with an objective morality, then they argue with other moral universalist who have a different interpretation of Scripture.

You would need to specify what you mean by "morality." Christianity is not a legalistic religion, so insofar as people are making up lists of rules that must be followed, they've gone wrong. That doesn't mean it doesn't make universal claims about what the standard of good is, though.

Obviously there is room for disagreement, but I don't think you'll find many Christians, at least of the theologically literate variety, who have wildly differing understandings of what the ideal is.

 

[zephcom]

I think you have a very one-sided impression of organized religion. There's plenty of hypocrisy, sure, but that need not be the case. A priest or minister could draw upon their own failings and struggles to illustrate an ethical problem instead of sitting in judgment upon a congregation. There are very constructive ways to approach these issues--I don't think I'd have anything to do with a priest who pretended to be morally perfect.



I have never been in a Christian church which ignored the teachings of Jesus. But in a world where self-interest rules the day, there's plenty that can be said even about the notion of loving others as one loves oneself.

I really can't figure out what you're trying to say. You seem to simultaneously be saying that the teachings are too easy to require any sort of assistance along the way, and yet too hard for anyone to be able to say anything about it at all.



You can comment personally on the spiritual state of a full third of the earth's population? That is extremely impressive.

I'm willing to accept that my impression of Christianity is one sided. Clearly there are few people who are willing to side with me. But one sided or not, I would suggest that it is an accurate depiction.

Fifty years ago I studied for the ministry. I didn't complete the study because I walked away once I looked at the Bible as a study document and compared it with what was happening around me in the school.

I've spent the last twenty years discussing Christianity on forums. I will say that I have learned a lot during that time. Some of the learning was from others and some from the study necessary to continue the discussion.

In the end, I've concluded that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible provides one of, if not the best, teachings for people to model their lives on. But when one actually studies Jesus' teachings without the guidance of the religion, one sees major issues between the religion and the teachings. And far too often people will begin to see the religion as sacred and not the way of life taught by the One the religion worships.

As to the actual teachings of Jesus, they ARE very easy to understand. The unfortunate thing is that they are generally counter to the natural human desire. And therein lies the problem.

People want to succeed in life. And they accept the common understanding of succeed as the measure they should use. Jesus used a spiritual measure for success. His measure is not money, rather it is self-sacrificing love.

Because the religion is firmly anchored in the physical realm, it can't escape the need to measure success with earthly wealth rather than Divine Love. The religion has to pay bills, find meeting halls, provide transportation and all the other things beings trapped in the physical realm need to do to survive.

The spiritual body needs none of those things. It lives on Love as its measure of success.

To keep this from turning into a book, I see the teachings of Jesus as showing the way to understand that we are spiritual beings first and forever and only here temporarily to learn and grow. What is important is not that we become perfect, but that we learn and grow into a higher level of spirituality than we used to have under the Old Testament Laws.

 

[zephcom]

It helps us figure out what to do in complex situations. Also, it helps us possibly realize whether or not we are acting in love, or are lost or even dead instead. But the main purpose is that helping us know what to do, helping us realize the true spirit of the law, the 'in spirit and in truth' way.

I see the teachings of Jesus just as you say, "...helping us know what to do...". I really think that very thing is what makes the religion irrelevant. The purpose of a religion is to tell people what to do. The person who follows the teachings of Jesus is\ self-equipped to operate for the extended periods of time...even an entire lifetime...without the need of any religion.

They recharge with the Divine Love which flows through them and into the world.

 

[Halbhh]

Fair enough. What I have a problem with is when Christians tell me that I am going to hell because I play D&D. If a Christian thinks that playing D&D will lead them astray thus they do not play the game, that is fine. It is when Christians judge me for not living up to their subjectively applied rules that I take issue.

Christians do not have a unified message. This is a major problem for the Christian claim of universal morality. Many believe that their morality is in line with an objective morality, then they argue with other moral universalist who have a different interpretation of Scripture.

That's right, Christians don't have a unified moral message.

But Christ does. And those truly following Him can if they rely on His message.

(And btw, like Simalrien says, sorry about the silly response to D&D of some!)

 

[Halbhh]

I see the teachings of Jesus just as you say, "...helping us know what to do...". I really think that very thing is what makes the religion irrelevant. The purpose of a religion is to tell people what to do. The person who follows the teachings of Jesus is\ self-equipped to operate for the extended periods of time...even an entire lifetime...without the need of any religion.

They recharge with the Divine Love which flows through them and into the world.

Sure if you define 'religion' that way, then you are correct in your conclusion about it also.
(James even already nearly 2,000 years ago wrote to tell people how to distinguish between good religion and that which was not. The good stuff is that which will manifest in helping out the needy and having that wonderful integrity of spirit.)

 

[Silmarien]

I'm willing to accept that my impression of Christianity is one sided. Clearly there are few people who are willing to side with me. But one sided or not, I would suggest that it is an accurate depiction.

Fifty years ago I studied for the ministry. I didn't complete the study because I walked away once I looked at the Bible as a study document and compared it with what was happening around me in the school.

I've spent the last twenty years discussing Christianity on forums. I will say that I have learned a lot during that time. Some of the learning was from others and some from the study necessary to continue the discussion.

In the end, I've concluded that the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible provides one of, if not the best, teachings for people to model their lives on. But when one actually studies Jesus' teachings without the guidance of the religion, one sees major issues between the religion and the teachings. And far too often people will begin to see the religion as sacred and not the way of life taught by the One the religion worships.

As to the actual teachings of Jesus, they ARE very easy to understand. The unfortunate thing is that they are generally counter to the natural human desire. And therein lies the problem.

People want to succeed in life. And they accept the common understanding of succeed as the measure they should use. Jesus used a spiritual measure for success. His measure is not money, rather it is self-sacrificing love.

Because the religion is firmly anchored in the physical realm, it can't escape the need to measure success with earthly wealth rather than Divine Love. The religion has to pay bills, find meeting halls, provide transportation and all the other things beings trapped in the physical realm need to do to survive.

The spiritual body needs none of those things. It lives on Love as its measure of success.

To keep this from turning into a book, I see the teachings of Jesus as showing the way to understand that we are spiritual beings first and forever and only here temporarily to learn and grow. What is important is not that we become perfect, but that we learn and grow into a higher level of spirituality than we used to have under the Old Testament Laws.

Well, I come from the secular world, so attacking Christianity and then talking about Divine Love doesn't really make much sense to me at all. It just looks like silly anthropomorphism except in the Christian context, where it might actually be revelation. We are material beings, the Unmoved Mover is unknown and unknowable, and the Old Testament is a collection of ancient mythology. Welcome to the Absurd.

Organized Christianity has been good to me. Left to my own devices, I almost ended up at nihilism, so saying it has zero impact in people's lives just strikes me as silly.

I don't disagree with you that Christianity as an institution is a 2000 year old trainwreck, but I also see it pushing history forward, shaping society in the image of the Gospel almost despite itself. There's a lot of ugliness out there, but you're discounting figures like Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. when you decide that as an organized religion, it's ineffective. It's accomplished a lot, but we don't notice until afterwards.

I'm also not sure why you are so against telling people when they're doing something wrong. If a Christian is measuring success with material goods instead of self-sacrificing love, shouldn't someone sit them down and discuss it with them? Should we be solipsistically ignoring one another's blind spots because it's hypocritical to say anything?

 

[Robert65]

A Christian woman should cover up in public because if she dresses provocatively then this tempts unbelieving men to lust and can be a potential stumbling block to Christian men as well. Believe it or not, not every Christian has fully arrived in spiritual maturity as it's a process, and both sexes can be tempted sexually; we are called to deal with it before God and not act on those inclinations. Jesus called out men's proclivity to lust which is tied to the eyes in His sermon on the mount found in Matthew 5:27-28, thus holding them accountable regarding this. He instructed men on a higher, tougher standard by teaching that maintaining outward self-control is not enough but that their imagination and motivations must be pure as well.

Thank you for your perspective on this.

Death metal played an important role and Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris' massacre at Columbine; Kip Kinkel, who in 1998 shot and killed his parents (his mother in the back I believe) and shot up his high school in Oregon, was extremely influenced by Nine Inch Nails and similar music that glorified violence. The problem with Metal (and secular pop/rock music in general), is that it induces emotions, motivations, and thoughts within the listener. I know that a lot of research has been done on this controversial topic...

The fact that countless millions love Metal (including me) yet only the tiniest fraction of Metal lovers then comit murder tells me that the music is not the problem. Most people in our prisons are Christian. So did Christian Hyms drive them to commit their crime? My point is that correlation does not imply “played an important role”. Violent people listen to many different genres of music.

The Bible actually is not “wide open to interpretation”

I have yet to meet a Christian who has said otherwise yet I cannot ignore the fact that there is no universal agreement within Christianity as to what the Bible says. In this very thread we have Christians giving many different perspectives based upon each individual’s “interpretation” of the Scripture.

if the reader takes into account the literary and historical context along with original language; most division within the church regarding doctrine is based on people not adhering to these standards unfortunately. Granted, there are some passages in scripture that are somewhat ambiguous but that is not the case for the majority of the Bible.

So if all do the above then all will agree. In a perfect world perhaps. In reality words are open to interpretation. Google a bunch of words and look up the definitions in multiple dictionaries and you will see what I mean. Even worse is most people do not go by dictionary definitions, they go by whatever definition is in their head which is not always in line with any of the actual dictionary definitions. Simply getting the worlds 2.2 billion Christians to agree on the meaning of all words is impossible. If you all do not go by the same dictionary definitions then universal agreement on what the Scripture says is impossible.

To say that God's word is relative and subjective means that God Himself embodies these traits as well which puts Him on the level of humanity or eastern pagan religious beliefs. God embodies truth which cannot nor does not waiver; to say otherwise denies the very definition of truth.

So the best case scenario is that morality is objective and adjudicated by God and that any errant misinterpretation is the fault of us mortals. If this is the case why would God command us to follow his rules knowing that we are incapable of accuracy understanding the rules and can't reach a universal agreement?

As for the worst case scenario, God does not exist thus the Bible is a book of moralistic stories. Which is true? As an agnostic I say that I do not know.

 

[Robert65]

I, too, have noted the possibility that there may well be people out there who simply don't want nice things to happen to them which, for them, makes the Golden Rule a bit of a dicey thing thing to burden them with.

But overall I would suggest that the world as a whole would be a much more pleasant place to live if people -did- live their lives by the Golden Rule. It certainly does provide a measuring stick which is always with us as we make our journey through life.

Do you see humanity as one dimensional? If not then why use such a one dimensional rule? We are not all the same thus we do not all want to be treated the same.

 

[Robert65]

I play DnD too, hence my comments about LE clerics.

When I started playing in 1982 I played as a Neutral character. Since 1987 I have consistently played Chaotic Good characters. Suits my real life characteristic quite we’ll.

You would need to specify what you mean by "morality."

In this case the Christian definition, and therein lies the problem, that being that morality is not universally agreed upon by all Christians. Is there one Christian dictionary that all Christians agree upon? Obviously not thus how the word morality is defined and applied will be subjective.

That doesn't mean it doesn't make universal claims about what the standard of good is, though.

Universal claims not universally agreed upon is a huge problem as it highlights the subjectivity of how Christians interpret the Bible. Many claim to have the correct interpretation then argue with others who say the same yet have come to different conclusions as to what the Scripture says.

Obviously there is room for disagreement, but I don't think you'll find many Christians, at least of the theologically literate variety, who have wildly differing understandings of what the ideal is.

Perhaps you are right in terms of theologians and theological academics, yet the overwhelming majority of Christians do not fall into that category.

 

[Robert65]

That's right, Christians don't have a unified moral message.

It is good that we agree upon that.

But Christ does. And those truly following Him can if they rely on His message.

And how does one tell if they are one of those that truly follow Him? It is a rhetorical question as the answer to it all depends upon who you ask. I have actually observed Christians arguing angrily over this very question. Even worse is that some come to the answer through a solitary self appraisal, which is no suprise to me as it is human nature to overevaluate ourselves. This is why so many claim to truly follow God and then argue with others who claim the same yet come to different conclusions as to what Scripture says.

(And btw, like Simalrien says, sorry about the silly response to D&D of some!)

I appreciate that.