Christian nationalist pastor McPherson: "Empathy is aligned with hell."

partinobodycular said:

Then perhaps you were right.



It would be hypocritical of me to judge you harshly while admonishing you to judge others less so. As much as I care for them, I care for you as well. Never let anything that I say, as thoughtlessly as I may say it, convince you otherwise. You matter.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps I judged you unfairly

MehGuy said:

Personally, while I am critical of empathy I do not hold the position that empathy is always bad. I suspect this is also the case for the vast majority of others who are also critical of empathy.

Click to expand...

This is about when empathy goes too far.

partinobodycular said:

I'm not exactly sure what you're hoping to argue here. Is it an appeal to authority? Is it an argumentum ad populum? Is it an appeal to dogma?

But whatever it is it doesn't clarify anything, it's just a claim that you have some special authority that renders your views correct and everyone else's wrong. That's a pretty handy trump card to have. But I'm an agnostic who isn't really impressed by claims of special authority. So having read the bible a time or two, and understanding that it's a very difficult text to interpret, what makes your interpretation of it correct and mine wrong, especially when your interpretation of it seems to fly in the face of Micah 6:8?

When asked what God requires of us Micah proffers three simple things, that we do justly, that we love mercy, and that we walk humbly with our God. Christ further clarifies the first two by admonishing us to love thy neighbor as thyself.

So the question is, are the members of LGBTQ+ your neighbors?

Is ostracizing them an act of love?

Are you afraid of the harm that the act of fulfilling Christ's commandment will have on His Church? That it'll make it more worldly? Have you that little faith? Do you truly believe that allowing them to kneel down and pray with you, will have a greater detrimental effect on you, than a redeeming effect on them?

"Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage. So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests."

Click to expand...

Yes, lgbt people are my neighbors. Lgbt people along with everyone else are encouraged to repent and follow Christ. To put aside their former selves and ways and become a new person in Christ. Christianity in comprised of former adulterers, drug dealers, thieves, murderers etc, who put that aside to pick up their cross and follow Christ.

ViaCrucis said:

Romans 14 is about not judging our brothers or sisters in the context of matters of liberty and conscience--what foods we eat, for example.

As a general principle, however, Paul is quite clear that the act of judgment is ecclesiastical, it is within the Church, rather than those outside (1 Corinthians 5:12); the point here is that we should hold our fellow Christians to a standard, the standard of God's Law. The context of 1 Corinthians 5:12 is the report of sexual perversion among the Corinthian Christians, specifically a man had sex with his own mother-in-law, and the Church was doing nothing to discipline him, and there was no remorse or repentance from him. Paul explains that a member of the Church who impenitently lives in such a way that it is causing harm is to be cut off, this is the basis for excommunication. In the same breath Paul is clear that this doesn't apply to those outside of the community of faith.

Click to expand...

Yes.

ViaCrucis said:

Jesus in Matthew 7 is talking about hypocrisy, being the sorts of people who judge others while ignoring that we ourselves do the same, or even worse things. Hence speaking of pointing out the speck in another's eye while there's a whole log stuck in our own. That's why we will be judged with the same kind of judgment we judged others--if we live our lives looking down on others and thinking we're so great, at the end of our days we will have a rude awakening--our sanctimonious self-righteous arrogance will come back to bite us.

These are the contexts and meanings behind these statements about judging.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

I think Matthew 7 also is within the community of faith. For those outside the faith we are supposed to encourage people to repent from rejecting God in favor of practicing sin. But we can't do that without judging them as practitioners of sin. To convey to them the error of their ways and why they need to repent (to change their mind and turn away from that and leave it behind them) and follow Christ and pursue purity.

When people who love and practice sin spout "judge ye not" they're telling you to keep your mouth shut and not encourage them to repent from being practitioners of sin. To see it as something they need to turn away from. To submit to the will of God. And unfortunately there are Christians who decide "yeah we do need to keep our mouths shut about that". So they take the route of placating and enabling instead.

ViaCrucis said:

If you were deprived of your Constitutional rights, then that was an illegal detainment. I'd call that an abduction. Your phrasing made it seem, however, that you were legally arrested and processed.

If you were treated this way, if you were deprived of your rights and illegally detained, then that only adds to the evidence of the problem of deep injustice and abuse in the American system of law-enforcement. Which is itself a topic of worthwhile conversation.

So where do you stand on this issue? Is it appropriate to call an illegal detainment, a depriving of Constitutionally protected rights, an abduction?

I'm calling it an abduction, because I think it should be taken seriously enough to call it an abduction.

If a group of thugs put cuffs on you and into a vehicle and hauled you off, we'd all recognize that as an abduction. If those same thugs are members of law enforcement, but are conducting the same illegal activity, it's still the same thing. It's still an abduction. It is only lawful for law enforcement to do things within the confines of the law, acting outside of the law is unlawful, there's no other way around that.

If a cop unlawfully kills someone, it's a murder. It doesn't matter that they have a badge, if they are acting outside of the confines of the law, it was murder.

If a federal agent breaks into your house and steals your TV, unlawfully, it's theft.

If someone detains you unlawfully, then it is an abduction.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

You're still using language that isn't in the article you presented. You're saying things that it didn't. It's as though you're making claims without really knowing the specifics of what all took place. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the ACLU or similar proclaimed that what happened to me was the act of thugs depriving me of my rights and abducting me without due process etc. There's a difference between hyperbolically condemning something and dealing with facts. Those who are anti deportation are going to make everything involved in the process look as bad as possible. They're not going to take a sober realistic approach to it. They're going to be melodramatic instead.

ozso said:

Yes, lgbt people are my neighbors. Lgbt people along with everyone else are encouraged to repent and follow Christ. To put aside their former selves and ways and become a new person in Christ. Christianity in comprised of former adulterers, drug dealers, thieves, murderers etc, who put that aside to pick up their cross and follow Christ.

Click to expand...

Years ago I used to spend a lot of time with homeless people, and various other less than virtuous individuals. So I developed quite an affinity for them. Frequently Christian couples would come along handing out bible tracts, and quite often, on the front of these bible tracts, in big letters it would say, "Jesus Loves You Just the Way You Are". Now forgive me for saying so, but you remind me of those people, and just how hypocritical those bible tracts were, and by association the so-called Christians that were handing them out.

Because you see, they really didn't accept those people just the way they were. They were fine with inviting them in, but inevitably they expected them to change. I on the other hand may have sincerely hoped that they'd change, but never was my acceptance of them dependent upon that change.

So you see, if I could have a church it wouldn't just be made up of 'former' adulterers, and 'former' drug dealers, and 'former' homosexuals... it would be made up of everybody who felt the need to come in and kneel down and pray. And if that wasn't sufficient to change them then let the blame lie with me. So while you may have a fancy church full of faultless parishioners with spotless souls, I'll gladly be kneeling outside with the sinners.

Hey, maybe someday you'll have compassion enough to come out and join us, but until then it's gonna continue to say 'Agnostic' over there in my profile.

partinobodycular said:

Years ago I used to spend a lot of time with homeless people, and various other less than virtuous individuals. So I developed quite an affinity for them. Frequently Christian couples would come along handing out bible tracts, and quite often, on the front of these bible tracts, in big letters it would say, "Jesus Loves You Just the Way You Are". Now forgive me for saying so, but you remind me of those people, and just how hypocritical those bible tracts were, and by association the so-called Christians that were handing them out.

Because you see, they really didn't accept those people just the way they were. They were fine with inviting them in, but inevitably they expected them to change. I on the other hand may have sincerely hoped that they'd change, but never was my acceptance of them dependent upon that change.

So you see, if I could have a church it wouldn't just be made up of 'former' adulterers, and 'former' drug dealers, and 'former' homosexuals... it would be made up of everybody who felt the need to come in and kneel down and pray. And if that wasn't sufficient to change them then let the blame lie with me. So while you may have a fancy church full of faultless parishioners with spotless souls, I'll gladly be kneeling outside with the sinners.

Hey, maybe someday you'll have compassion enough to come out and join us, but until then it's gonna continue to say 'Agnostic' over there in my profile.

Click to expand...

Jesus both loves us as we are and loves us enough not to leave us that way. When someone truly puts faith in Christ they receive the Holy Spirit who guides their sanctification.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

Church is God's house. It's where the body of Christ gather to worship Him. It's not that those who have joined the family of God are spotless. It's that they strive and yearn to become spotless out of their love for God. And God the Holy Spirit who dwells in them gives them the spiritual power to overcome.

Yes, I do empathize with all sorts of sinners. I'm a sinner as they are. We have all fallen short, and need God. I'm not a member of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" congregation. Sorry if that's a problem.

Today many researchers recognise that many animals are capable of various levels of empathy. In the past, empathy was seen as a key distinguishing feature of humans. How ironic that a trait that enables individuals to follow Christ's admonition to love one's neighbour should now be seen by some as undesirable.

Ophiolite said:

Today many researchers recognise that many animals are capable of various levels of empathy. In the past, empathy was seen as a key distinguishing feature of humans.

Click to expand...

I know from experience that dogs and horses are quite capable of empathy.

ozso said:

Yes.

I think Matthew 7 also is within the community of faith. For those outside the faith we are supposed to encourage people to repent from rejecting God in favor of practicing sin. But we can't do that without judging them as practitioners of sin. To convey to them the error of their ways and why they need to repent (to change their mind and turn away from that and leave it behind them) and follow Christ and pursue purity.

When people who love and practice sin spout "judge ye not" they're telling you to keep your mouth shut and not encourage them to repent from being practitioners of sin. To see it as something they need to turn away from. To submit to the will of God. And unfortunately there are Christians who decide "yeah we do need to keep our mouths shut about that". So they take the route of placating and enabling instead.

Click to expand...

And you desire to use the laws of a secular state to stop them from doing that?

BCP1928 said:

And you desire to use the laws of a secular state to stop them from doing that?

Click to expand...

No. That doesn't even exist.

ozso said:

Jesus both loves us as we are and loves us enough not to leave us that way. When someone truly puts faith in Christ they receive the Holy Spirit who guides their sanctification.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

Church is God's house. It's where the body of Christ gather to worship Him. It's not that those who have joined the family of God are spotless. It's that they strive and yearn to become spotless out of their love for God. And God the Holy Spirit who dwells in them gives them the spiritual power to overcome.

Click to expand...

Are you by any chance of the Christian "Holiness Movement"?

dlamberth said:

Are you by any chance of the Christian "Holiness Movement"?

Click to expand...

I've heard of it, but I don't know much about it.

The Barbarian said:

Yes, I do empathize with all sorts of sinners. I'm a sinner as they are. We have all fallen short, and need God. I'm not a member of the "my sin is nicer than your sin" congregation. Sorry if that's a problem.

Click to expand...

God doesn't want white-washed sepulchers. He wants real people, real disciples. And that means knowing that we are full of dead bones, knowing the inside of the cup is dirty, etc.

And pretending that our farts don't stink doesn't do anything but hurt us and others. I can't actually learn to love my neighbor unless I recognize that I don't love my neighbor, and that's a problem. I don't love God with my whole heart, my whole mind, and with all my strength; I don't love my neighbor as myself. I'm a sinner. Here, on my knees, before the Cross, here alone is where the Holy Spirit can begin the work to make me holy. The moment I try to be holy by my own way of doing things I only make myself a worse sinner than I was before.

-CryptoLutheran

ozso said:

Jesus both loves us as we are and loves us enough not to leave us that way. When someone truly puts faith in Christ they receive the Holy Spirit who guides their sanctification.

Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

Church is God's house. It's where the body of Christ gather to worship Him. It's not that those who have joined the family of God are spotless. It's that they strive and yearn to become spotless out of their love for God. And God the Holy Spirit who dwells in them gives them the spiritual power to overcome.

Click to expand...

Then the question becomes who decides what rules you have to follow to be considered spotless.

ozso said:

I've heard of it, but I don't know much about it.

Click to expand...

Hyper-Wesleyanism. More-or-less.

In contrast to the historic faith of the Reformation (both Lutheran and Reformed) that the Christian is simul iustus et peccator (both saint and sinner), John Wesley an Anglican priest who was influenced by his experience with Pietist Lutherans and Moravians adopted some elements of Radical Pietism--a more experiential form of Christian faith rooted in a devotion to holy living (this does not mean Orthodox Lutherans and the Reformed rejected a belief in the need to live holy lives, but Orthodox Lutheranism and even the Reformed subscribe to an intense Law-Gospel Dialectic). This led Wesley to teach the potential to attain a more pious or holy life, a doctrine sometimes called Total Sanctification. I am not knowledgeable enough about Wesley as to whether he taught anyone had reached a state of Total Sanctification, but my understanding is that he taught it was at least a potential.

American Methodism was forged out of the religious movement of John Wesley; in contrast British Methodism is largely credited to George Whitfield who held to a more rigorous Reformed theological persuasion.

In the 19th century the Wesleyan Tradition continued, even outside of Methodism. The Wesleyan Tradition was strongly Pietistic, emphasizing personal piety and holiness. The 19th century was, in the United States, also a profoundly important century for religious movements, a lot of religious movements were born in this century that have continued to shape not only American Protestantism broadly, but also on a global scale through American-based global missions. One of the most pivotal events of the 19th century is what is commonly called the Second Great Awakening, a period of intense religious renewal and spiritual renewal that was highly influenced by the Wesleyanism and Pietism. One key figure of the movement was a Presbyterian minister who came to reject classical and orthodox Presbyterian theology, Charles Grandison Finney; Finney was a key figure who believed in what he called "The New Measures"--in his revival meetings he believed in creating an emotionally charged environment that was conducive to getting people to have spiritual and conversion experiences. One practice he invented was what he called "The Anxious Bench" where people, filled with overwhelming emotion, would come forward to be prayed for and to have a personal conversion experience, this is the antecedent to the modern "Altar Call".

It is out of this Second Great Awakening, especially among those who believed strongly in Total Sanctification and a belief of attaining a growing holiness through personal piety the earliest Holiness and Pentecostal churches. What we know today as Pentecostalism wouldn't show up until the Azusa Street Revival of 1906, but before this there was a growing religious movement, inherited from the Wesleyan Tradition, in a "Second Blessing", often associated with the "Baptism with the Holy Spirit" mentioned by St. John the Baptist in the Synoptic Gospels and mentioned also in the Acts of the Apostles--a second reception of the Spirit which brought with this reception a greater sanctifying work of the Spirit. This was the basis for the Holiness Movement (and was instrumental to the later modern Pentecostal movement post-Azusa Street, where the Second Blessing became identified with speaking in tongues, and charismatic expressions).

Because of the Wesleyan-Holiness-Pietist tradition's emphasis on intense rigorous piety and personal holiness, and an intense commitment to its ideas about sanctification, there was also a strong Moralistic impulse expressed in lots of ways, by so-called separating oneself from worldliness. The Temperance Movement in the US was, in part, spear-headed by Wesleyan-Holiness types (John Wesley himself had advocated for at least some level of teetotalism for Christians). It was this Moralistic impulse that also invented and created various holiness codes; where church members were expected to abide by certain codes of conduct about what they did and wore. Over the course of the 20th century the influence of this can be seen in the opposition to women wearing trousers or jewelry. In opposition to games (card games, board games, sporting events). With the advent of cinema, opposition to the cinema; with the advent of television, opposition to television.

While Fundamentalism which originated in the early 1900s as a (primarily from the Reformed tradition) theological and academic opposition to German Liberalism and Modernity (chiefly opposition against the Tübingen School). Fundamentalism would eventually become more underground and lose its academic steam. In response to this fall of Fundamentalism in the early-middle 20th century there arose the Neo-Evangelical Movement, which was supported by a great deal of the traditions that emerged in the Second Great Awakening. While Neo-Evangelicalism wasn't associated with the Holiness Movement, the rather looseness of the movement meant various influences on different parts of the movement. The Neo-Evangelical Movement was chiefly interested in active engagement with broader society, with engaging local communities with evangelistic missions, which is a big reason for Billy Graham (arguably the most important figure of the early Neo-Evangelical Movement) and his evangelistic crusades. Dropping the "Neo", this is what we, today, just call Evangelicalism. Though in the mid-late 20th century Evangelicalism would blend, to greater and lesser extent, with some elements of Holiness and Pentecostal, and especially Second Wave Charistmaticism; along with trying itself more strongly to the emerging political structures and ideological convictions of former Dixiecrats and Conservative Republicans of the 70's and 80's under Ronald Reagan. The Pietistic impulse of the Holiness Tradition has left a mark in, at least some parts, of the borader Evangelicl landscape. Obviously most Evangelicals in America don't argue that women can't wear trousers, or believe in attaining Christian Sinlessness. There does exist, in some expressions of Evangelicalism, the idea that attaining greater degrees of sanctification is possible.

Again, I should note, the historic Protestant convictions of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions do not reject the importance of holiness, piety, and the reality of sanctification. But historic Lutheran and historic Reformed churches approach the subject of holiness and sanctification in very different ways, emphasizing the working of the Spirit in the Means of Grace in our lives; and that while we exist in this life we remain Simul Iustus et Peccator, we are Sinner-Saints; and the struggle against the Old Man is a constant reality that must be addressed. Thus the emphasis is less on attaining a state of holiness, but rather the emphasis is on Confession and Repentance, to remind us daily of our need of the Gospel. So I don't want to give the impression that holiness/sanctification isn't a concern in Historic Protestant confessions--it is. Very much so. But there is a marked difference between Historic Protestant confessional theology and Modern Protestant theology which emerged through the First and Second Great Awakenings of the 18th and 19th centuries, along with the religious movements of the 20th century.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

The moment I try to be holy by my own way of doing things I only make myself a worse sinner than I was before.

Click to expand...

I absolutely loved this post, right up until this sentence, so I'm hoping that I've just misunderstood what you were saying.

To me there's only one way to be holy, and that's by having a contrite heart. You don't get holy by reciting some creed, or going to some church, or invoking some name... as much as many Christians seem to think that that's true. It's about my heart calling out to God's heart, and God's heart answering. To me it doesn't matter whether that plea comes from a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or a strip club. Holy, is simply about my life being open to God's will. As such I put very little value in a name.

So I'm hoping that what your final sentence is referring to is people like those in Matthew 7:22-23,


If such is the case then I agree, and I'm also afraid, that many of the staunchest Christians fall into this group, who think that fervor is an apt substitute for contrition.

partinobodycular said:

To me there's only one way to be holy, and that's by having a contrite heart.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But that happens only by grace of God. We have to accept Him, but that moment is given to us by God.

Ephesian 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.

This doesn't mean that we aren't justified by works. We are equally justified by faith and works. What it means is that we do these things by the grace of God, not of ourselves.

partinobodycular said:

I absolutely loved this post, right up until this sentence, so I'm hoping that I've just misunderstood what you were saying.

To me there's only one way to be holy, and that's by having a contrite heart. You don't get holy by reciting some creed, or going to some church, or invoking some name... as much as many Christians seem to think that that's true.

Click to expand...

I don't think those things will make me holy either.

What I wrote there is a rather explicitly Lutheran sentiment, and so no doubt requires a lot of unpacking.

The key biblical text that this sentiment is rooted in is, arguably, the 7th chapter of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans. It can be a difficult part of the epistle to parse, simply because Paul weaves back and forth about how the Law is good, and yet the Law, paradoxically makes me a worse sinner. In the overall context of the Epistle it makes a lot more sense.

So here's an analogy. Imagine you're an alien from outer space visiting earth and somehow you got yourself a car and learned how to use it. You are driving down the road and you see a red light, you go right through it. You broke the law, yet you were ignorant of it. Compare that to knowing the law and driving through a red light anyway. Now, in our legal framework, the outcome is likely to be the same: You get pulled over and get a ticket for running a red light. But knowledge of the law vs ignorance of the law does have a significant distinction in one's moral relationship to the law.

So St. Paul explains in this part of the epistle that knowledge of the Law didn't make one less a sinner, it actually made him more sinful--had he not known the commandment, then he'd be ignorant; but knowing the commandment means he is aware of his guilt. Knowing the Law does not make one less of a sinner, but actually makes one realize they are a sinner.

In Lutheran theology we call this "The Second Use of the Law", the Law functions as a kind of mirror, when we look out ourselves reflected back in the Law, we don't see that we're good, righteous, and holy--just the opposite. The Law says to love my neighbor, but I'm not loving my neighbor. The Law says "Do not kill", and Jesus goes on to say that even bearing anger against another person is a kind of murder done in one's own heart; how can I serve my neighbor in love if, instead, I hold resentment against them? Even if I go through the motions it may indeed just cause me to resent them more. So while I may not literally murder them, I withdraw from them, become callous, and they may suffer in some way, or experience pain, or die--all while I remain resentful or apathetic. And my inaction is as much compounding my guilt as any injurious action I may take.

So what happens, then, when I come to know the Law and desire to obey it? What then? Here is where things get even trickier. Because here, again, the Law is a mirror. The closer I look at my own reflection in a mirror, the more likely I am to see the details, when it comes to my physical appearance it is probably just a skin blemish here or there, or a new wrinkle from aging there. Now, others probably don't notice or care, but as I scrutinize myself in the mirror, I become more aware of these blemishes. When the Law acts like a mirror, it's not mere trivial physical imperfections that I notice; but rather the blemishes on my soul. What does it mean to "Love the Lord your God with all your mind, with all your heart, and with all your strength"? What does it mean to "Love your neighbor as yourself"? On the surface it all seems quite simple, but the more we dig, the deeper we realize this goes. What does it mean to "Love God"? Does it mean having warm fuzzy feelings about God? Is that really why there'd be a commandment to love God with our whole mind, heart, and strength? This is clearly not about feeling warm fuzzies, it's bigger and deeper than that. And what does "With all your mind, and with all your heart, and with all your strength" mean? How does one love God with their mind, let alone their whole mind? What about with one's heart, let alone their whole heart? What does loving God with my strength even mean? It gets bigger, it gets deeper. And why does Jesus connect the commandment to love God with loving my neighbor? When Jesus quotes these two parts of the Torah, He does so in answer to the question, "What is the greatest commandment?" these two are united together, as though they become a singular commandment, the Greatest Commandment.

And so here is the paradox: The more I try to gaze into the Law, the more I see the truth about myself. I'm a sinner. And I'm not just kind of a sinner, I'm a great big ugly sinner. My heart is not shaped and orientated toward God and by God, but rather my heart is shaped and orientated by my own passions, my desires, desires which are all misshapen and twisted in all sorts of ways, ways which cause all manner of conflict, strife, and suffering in my relationships with others, with my community, with society, even with the rest of God's creation; and is twisted and misshapen away from God. It's not merely that I don't love God, the reality is that, the closer I look into the mirror, what I really start to see is that, right in the center of myself, there's something that actually hates God, something that is so utterly opposed to God that it's almost inhuman.

That, of course, is what is historically called Original Sin. It's also the kind of thing C.S. Lewis is trying to get at in his works like The Great Divorce when he speaks of there being something in us that will become hell unless its nipped in the bud.

And this is offensive, to ourselves especially, because of course we want to be moral creatures. Rather, we want to think we are moral creatures. Almost nobody goes through life thinking, "I'm an evil person that likes evil and oh boy do I like evil." There are, of course, people who suffer depression, anxiety, and mental illness where due to trauma or other factor they have an unhealthy negative view of themselves. But self-esteem isn't really the matter I'm getting at. It's rather the fact that while we almost all know, and recognize, bad things happen, and people do bad things, we generally imagine it's other people who do bad things. Just look at the political rhetoric. It's the immigrants, it's the Democrats, it's the homosexuals, and the trans people, it's the Muslims, it's the Jews, it's the atheists, it's the secular humanists; or from the other side: it's the racists, it's the Christian Nationalists, it's the homophobes, transphobes, it's the rich billionaires, it's the corporate oligarchs, etc. It's always them. It's never us. And most certainly it is never me.

I don't mention political discourse here to play a "both sides" game; but neither do I want to pretend as though human nature is partisan. It's not. Human nature is, well, universal. It's all of us. all the time.

We can do this in just about any context. It's always those people who are doing evil, it's never us. Because, as though by nature, we are, of course, good; it's only those other people who are bad. The most evil and vile people of history never thought of themselves as evil and vile--they were the good guys, their ideas were noble, their actions righteous. Every single villain of history believed in the righteousness of himself and his cause.

When Rome put Jesus Christ to death, they did so because it was the righteous and noble thing to do. When Caiaphas and some members of the Sanhedrin met in secret to hand Jesus over to Pilate, they were convinced of the righteousness of their actions.

It's not shocking, or particularly shocking that an empire built on the blood of innocents would put an innocent to death. Neither is Caiaphs, Pilate, or Herod particularly or especially evil--they were human beings doing what human beings do. And it looks pretty ugly, because it was.

When we try to use the Law to make ourselves feel good about ourselves, it's like putting on makeup to cover up the blemish--it's appearance, but no substance. It's washing the outside of the cup, rather than the inside.

When I say when I try to be holy I only make myself more of a sinner. That's what I mean. It means the brighter and more spotless I make the outside of the sepulcher look, the more stark the contrast it is with the inside--full of rotting, decaying bones.

Grace is the only thing that can clean up these old bones.

-CryptoLutheran

partinobodycular said:

It's about my heart calling out to God's heart, and God's heart answering. To me it doesn't matter whether that plea comes from a church, or a synagogue, or a mosque, or a strip club. Holy, is simply about my life being open to God's will. As such I put very little value in a name.

So I'm hoping that what your final sentence is referring to is people like those in Matthew 7:22-23,

22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’​

If such is the case then I agree, and I'm also afraid, that many of the staunchest Christians fall into this group, who think fervor is an apt substitute for contrition.

Click to expand...