Why don't Christians practice what they preach?

hislegacy said:

If you vote for someone who has a history of spousal abuse and actually attempted to run over his wife, is a slum lord and has questionable financial dealings any better?

Click to expand...

Is there someone, somewhere that is not like this?

ChristianForCats said:

:Quit sinning" means starting immediately after salvation, none of us ever sinned again.

Click to expand...

I remember after I got saved and I broke a traffic law. It was the first time I had "sinned" after I got saved. John Wesley began the Holiness movement. But the church does not teach people that we are called to live a life free from sin. Which means who the Son sets free is free indeed. (John8:36) We no longer have to live in bondage to sin.

ChristianForCats said:

There is no reason to think there is anything funny about it.

Every American adult who speaks and writes English knows there is no such thing as murdering an unborn child because birth is required to be a child and have the right to life.

Click to expand...

"There are times when we also should challenge the other side’s use of the term fetus. Abortion proponents use the term because it dehumanizes the unborn child. We can point out that fetus is merely a Latin term that means “unborn child.” Do this with a smile, especially if they have made an ad hominem attack by mentioning that you are Catholic. After all, Catholics should know a little Latin. But whether you call the unborn child a “fetus” or a “baby” does not change the reality that a human life is at stake."

Quote from Robert Burke, a historian and retired attorney. He and his wife, Helen, have been married for more than three decades and have three children. He learned everything he needed to know about abortion from his Irish-Catholic mother: that all children are a gift from God and deserve to be protected.

More quotes from Robert Burke that will hopefully help you know when "a child is a child" and when life begins. God bless.

Establish common ground​

"Start a discussion by establishing some kind of common ground on which you can build a dialogue. You could start by asking someone who is pro-abortion when he or she thinks that life begins. Tell him to put aside questions of religion and morality—this takes away the argument that you are trying to impose your Catholic faith—and ask him when human life begins from a scientific viewpoint."

"You will get an answer ranging from at conception/fertilization to at the moment of birth to somewhere in between. Some pro-abortionists have redefined conception to mean when a fertilized egg is implanted in a woman’s uterine wall. Therefore, in their opinion, the morning-after pill, which prevents a fertilized egg from being implanted, does not cause an abortion. However, it does destroy a life in being."

"If he says that he cannot answer the question, you can respond with a sense of incredulity. Ask him: if a mother feels the baby move or kick, isn’t that a sign of life? Or ask why a baby born after seven months is a child but an unborn child that is still in the womb after almost nine months isn’t."

"Once you get an answer as to when life begins from a scientific viewpoint, you can point out that many states use a cessation of brain activity as a means of determining death. You can then ask if the reverse is true: can brain activity be considered a sign of life? What about being able to detect a heartbeat? Is that a sign of life? You can then point out that that we can detect an unborn child’s brain waves about forty days after conception and can detect a heartbeat at six weeks after conception. If we can detect brain waves and a heartbeat, aren’t those both signs of life?"

"You can also ask him about the ability to feel pain—does being able to feel pain indicate that someone is alive? If so, you can point out that an unborn child can feel pain at twenty weeks. Is it humane to allow an unborn child to be ripped to pieces during an abortion since it can feel what is happening?"

A ‘potential’ human life​

"Your opponent might then respond that it’s only a “potential” human life. By all means, ask him to define what that terms means. It’s important to remember that teenagers and college students often repeat what they’ve heard without really understanding the meaning of the terms they are using (sadly, that’s also true of many adults). That’s why it’s important to pin them down on the meaning of what they are saying. It will force them to think about what’s actually being discussed rather than just parroting what they’ve heard others say."

"Your opponent might try to argue that the unborn child doesn’t look human at an early stage of development. I respond by saying that child looks exactly what a human is supposed to look like at that stage of development. You can look at any prenatal book, such as What to Expect When You’re Expecting, to see exactly what the unborn child looks like at every stage of development in the womb."

"If the abortion proponent says that a fetus is only a “potential human life” because it cannot live outside the womb, ask if a premature baby in an incubator is only a “potential human life”—or is it a human baby who deserves all the constitutional protections of life? After all, what is an incubator but a crude, artificial womb?"

"If an unborn child is only a “potential human life” because it cannot take care of itself, then what is a six-month-old baby? It cannot take care of itself, either. Is it a human being or only a “potential human life?”"

"What about someone is who is disabled or has had a stroke? Does he cease to be human because he can no longer take care of himself? If we agree that such a person is still human, then the fact that an unborn child cannot take care of itself is not a valid reason for denying its humanity."

‘Follow the science’​

"People are often told that we must “follow the science” when it comes to pandemics or climate change. It’s fair to ask your opponent why he is not willing to follow science when science shows that life begins at fertilization."

"Or ask him this: has he ever known a woman who has suffered a miscarriage? Did he offer condolences on the loss of her baby? If so, then why is a woman who has had a miscarriage considered to have lost a child, but another woman who chooses to have an abortion at the same stage in her pregnancy is considered only to have lost a “blob of tissue”?"

"You can point out to your opponent that several states have laws making it a crime to kill an unborn child (unless the mother chooses to have an abortion). For example, if someone kills a woman who is six months pregnant (when the child would be viable outside the womb) and the unborn child also dies, the criminal can be charged with a double homicide. But if the same woman chooses to have a late-term abortion, the law says that is her right. Ask your opponent: does that make logical sense?"

Does legal equal right?​

"At some point, the person on the other side may point out that abortion has been the law of the land since Roe v. Wade. You can grant that point—after all, it’s true [1]. But then ask if people who were fighting against slavery in the nineteenth century should have accepted the Dred Scott decision as the law of the land. In 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sandford that black slaves were property. Should abolitionists have ceased their efforts and accepted Dred Scott as settling the issue of slavery?"

"What about the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson? In 1896, the court ruled that blacks could be treated as second-class citizens under the doctrine of “separate but equal.” Should Martin Luther King Jr. have accepted that decision as the law of the land and never have started his efforts to bring civil rights to blacks?"

"A brief look at history will show many court decisions that were wrong. If we accepted them as the law of the land, we could never right those wrongs."

Her body, her choice​

"At some point, the other side will probably bring up the old rallying cry that it’s a woman’s body and therefore her choice. You can agree that a woman has the right to decide whether or not she wants to get pregnant. But once she is pregnant, there is another life at stake."

"As far as it being her body, you can point out that if you take a sample of the woman’s DNA and compare it to the baby’s DNA, it won’t match (the unborn child received only half of its DNA from the mother and the other half from its father). The unborn child is surrounded by the woman’s body, nourished by her body, and protected by her body—but, from a scientific viewpoint, it is not part of her body."

"As for being “pro-choice,” ask your opponent why so many on his side are against a woman being given information so that she can make an informed choice. Why do Planned Parenthood and others fight laws that would require doctors to show a woman a 3-D ultrasound of her baby, or to warn her that having an abortion can cause fertility problems and that she may have trouble conceiving a child in the future?"

"Why don’t they warn her that having an abortion can increase her risk of getting breast cancer later in life? Is it because abortion is a multi-million-dollar industry, and Planned Parenthood knows that if a woman sees a 3-D ultrasound of her baby, she is less likely to go ahead with the abortion? If “pro-choicers” really cared about a woman’s health, wouldn’t they want her to have all this information?"

"Do not let your opponent sidetrack the issue by claiming that the ultrasound involves an invasive procedure and requires putting a wand (transducer) inside the woman’s vagina. Although that is one way to do an ultrasound, a topical ultrasound can accomplish the same result without any discomfort for the women."

The ‘hard cases’ argument​

"I can guarantee that at some point the subjects of rape and incest will come up. The other side raises these issues to prove that we need to keep abortion legal in some circumstances (which means that they want to keep it legal in all cases). Admittedly, these are hard cases, but there is an old legal maxim that hard cases make bad law."

"We can and should admit that these are heart-rending cases. But we have to ask: if we don’t execute rapists and child molesters, should we then execute the innocent, unborn child who is the product of their crime? It’s a question of balance. We have to balance nine months of what might be a terrible reminder to the woman of what she’s suffered against a death sentence for the child."

"I would also disagree with the other side’s assumption that an abortion is in the woman’s best interest in the case of rape or incest. Many women suffer years of depression following an abortion because deep down inside they know that they killed their baby. Post-abortion syndrome is a form of PTSD and is a real medical issue. But of course, Planned Parenthood and others don’t want to warn women about this. Wouldn’t it be better to give these women the support they need (emotional, financial, etc.) during their pregnancy and then help them decide what is best for them in terms of keeping their baby or giving it up for adoption?"

"Rape and incest cases make up about one percent of all abortions. Ask your opponent: if you agree to keep abortion legal in these two cases, will he agree to outlaw all other abortions? If he says no, ask him if he really cares about the issues of rape and incest, or is he only using them as a smoke screen?"

"If by some chance he agrees with your suggestion, ask him why he’s agreeing. Is it because he recognizes the humanity of the unborn child? If so, why does a child conceived by rape or incest deserve less protection?"

Life and health of the mother​

"Another argument you are likely to encounter is that abortion may be necessary to protect the “life and health of the mother.” Do not fall into this trap! “Life and health of the mother” is code for abortion on demand."

"Suppose a woman gets pregnant and tells her doctor that she is depressed about being pregnant. The doctor might then say that depression will affect her physical health and therefore an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman’s health."

"What about an exception based on just preserving the life of the mother? This is hard to argue against, but such a law would have to have safeguards. Such a law might state that two independent doctors would have to agree that a woman’s life was in danger and that it was impossible to save the unborn child’s life. In that case, to do nothing might result in the death of the mother."

"For example, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo starts to grow inside a fallopian tube), with our current medical technology, it is impossible to save the baby’s life. If a doctor removes the fallopian tube, the child will die; but the intent of the procedure is to save the life of the mother, not to kill the baby."

"Ask your opponent if he has ever seen the results of an abortion. If he has not, challenge him to go online and look for himself. Point out that an abortionist will piece together a dismembered baby as a way of determining that he removed all the body parts from the womb. After he sees the results of an abortion, ask him if he is looking at a baby or merely a blob of tissue."

"Your opponent may ask you if you want to put women in jail for having an abortion. I would answer no, because women have been lied to for years that their unborn child is not a human being. But doctors know better, and I would put doctors who perform abortions in jail."

Deaths from illegal abortions​

"Another argument that abortion proponents often use is that thousands of women died every year from illegal abortions before Roe v. Wade. This is a lie perpetuated by Planned Parenthood and others. The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. According to the CDC, in 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was twenty-four and from illegal abortions thirty-nine."

"Tell your opponent that he doesn’t have to take your word for it. Encourage him to research it online. As sad as it is that even a few women lost their lives in abortions, it’s equally sad that every successful abortion kills a child."

Finally, your argument for teaching sex education in public schools is a valid argument. I'm not sure what they teach in schools now in sex education classes but 45 years ago they taught sex education in health class in our small rural school. We could opt- out if we wanted to (that parents made that choice). And the teacher taught about sexual intercourse between a MAN and a WOMAN. That's really all one needs to know about sex education because sexual intercourse between a man and woman could lead to a new life. Every thing else outside of that is sexual pleasure something that doesn't necessarily need to be taught to middle or high school students in a class room setting but the school could have a sexual health center where sexual pleasures could be talk about on a one on one situation.


"Your opponent may point out that outlawing abortion won’t stop all abortions. You can agree with him but counter that outlawing murder hasn’t stopped all murders. Does that mean we should decriminalize murder? We may not be able to stop all murders (or abortions), but we can try to reduce the overall number of deaths. And, of course, every abortion results in the death of a baby."

"Ask your opponent if he wants to live in a society where someone such as Kermit Gosnell can kill babies who are born alive after a botched abortion. Does he want to live in a society where Planned Parenthood kills babies and sells their body parts for money? He may respond that he wants to live in a society where the government can’t tell women what they can do with their bodies. Go ahead and agree with him—but point out that the government can and does protect the lives of children, and that’s all you want in this case."

Imposing one’s religion​

"If someone says he is personally against abortion but doesn’t want to impose his religious beliefs on others, ask if he is opposed to murder, rape, and human sex trafficking? If yes, is he willing to impose his beliefs on others by making these acts against the law? Or is he willing to take a “let everyone do their own thing” attitude in these areas?"

"Many, if not all, so-called “Catholic” politicians say they are personally opposed to abortion, but then they vote for funding abortions and against even the mildest restrictions on abortion. Would you believe a politician who was personally opposed to higher taxes but voted for every tax bill that came before Congress?"

"At some point your opponent may try to trip you up by asking if you support the death penalty. Some pro-lifers are opposed to the death penalty, while others support it. There are good arguments on both sides, but the two issues are apples and oranges. A convicted murderer is entitled to due process. His guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He is then entitled to numerous appeals, often lasting for many years. In contrast, the unborn child has no due process rights and no right to appeal. And, most importantly, the unborn child is an innocent."

"Whenever you find yourself about to discuss the issue of abortion, say a quick prayer to the Holy Spirit to guide your words and your actions. You don’t want to beat down your opponent (tempting as that may be in some cases). You want to bring him around to your point of view that all lives, even the unborn, are worthy of respect and protection."

​

Hvizsgyak said:

"Why don’t they warn her that having an abortion can increase her risk of getting breast cancer later in life?

Click to expand...

Because that statement is not true.

Hank77 said:

Because that statement is not true.

Abortion and Cancer Risk | Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk

Learn if induced abortion or miscarriage can affect a woman's risk of getting breast cancer.

www.cancer.org

Click to expand...

And your statement isn't true either. There have been studies that show their is a link between induced abortion and breast cancer and there have been studies that show there isn't any link. And they have been 100% legitimate. So I would error on the side of caution (for the sake of saving women's lives from dying of breast cancer and promote not having an abortion. So please don't make it sound like there is absolutely no possible link between induced abortions and breast cancer because there are studies to prove otherwise.

You and many others are so quick to promote abortion so women have a way to end unwanted pregnancies that you don't consider the consequences of having an abortion on a woman's conscience, feelings and emotional stability. A woman doesn't need to be scarred emotionally and a unborn child killed just so satisfy your "right to choose" abortion.

Because most of us love debates.

There are simple and obvious reasons...
1) Those who say they are Christian are not
2) Those who say they are Christian and even think they are Christian are not
3) Those that judge know not - or rather they don't know the context
4) They are trying and improving, repenting and repeat.

Hvizsgyak said:

At some point, the other side will probably bring up the old rallying cry that it’s a woman’s body and therefore her choice.

Click to expand...

It is her choice if she wants to go to heaven or not.

Hvizsgyak said:

"Suppose a woman gets pregnant and tells her doctor that she is depressed about being pregnant.

Click to expand...

If she is depressed then she lacks the hormone oxytocin. That would explain why she does not bond with her baby. We can study the prairie voles to understand how these connections take place.

ChristianForCats said:

...These people are right sometimes, like when talking about Christians voting for someone who was known to [do immoral stuff]... While a lot of Christians in Georgia were voting for the sexually immoral candidate, Christians nationwide said sex education should never be taught in schools... I am starting with this one because it is the most obvious and hypocritical example of Christians not practicing what they preach.

Click to expand...

This is the sort of manipulative nonsense I heard during the 2016 election. I voted for Trump knowing full well that he wasn't a model citizen in many respects. But he was a heckuva lot less bad than the other candidate that year.

One candidate made inappropriate comments about grabbing women back in 2005. The other candidate had a history of corruption, shady dealings, and even broke the law by setting up a private email server while Secretary of State for the sole purpose of evading normal oversight. The problems I had with Hillary greatly outweighed the misgivings I had against Donald Trump. While there were things I liked about Trump, I found nothing redeeming about his opponent.

ChristianForCats said:

One big reason many people decide to stop being Christians is they only witness Christians acting badly, showing off a lot of hate and disrespect despite believing God is love and the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," that came straight out of the Lord's mouth.

Click to expand...

Most who profess are not. But the perception of hate and disrespect are subjective and are not always as they seem.

ChristianForCats said:

These people are right sometimes, like when talking about Christians voting for someone who was known to rape girlfriends while married, paid them to have abortions, and abandoned his own kids, instead of a sexually moral pastor who would do whatever it takes to help girls and women not need or be paid to get abortions. While a lot of Christians in Georgia were voting for the sexually immoral candidate, Christians nationwide said sex education should never be taught in schools. Not just LGBT sexuality, but also all contraception, which obviously would prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, and sexual anatomy. So instead of following through on their verbal condemnation of abortion, they endorsed it on Election Day. And it is true that many Christians get abortions despite knowing it is a sin. The same is true for many other Christian issues and I will address them later. I am starting with this one because it is the most obvious and hypocritical example of Christians not practicing what they preach.

Click to expand...

They may be right, but the bigger issue is using what they see as an excuse. When the reality is for most, they are just not concerned with having Christ rule their lives.

ChristianForCats said:

One big reason many people decide to stop being Christians is they only witness Christians acting badly, showing off a lot of hate and disrespect despite believing God is love and the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," that came straight out of the Lord's mouth. These people are right sometimes, like when talking about Christians voting for someone who was known to rape girlfriends while married, paid them to have abortions, and abandoned his own kids, instead of a sexually moral pastor who would do whatever it takes to help girls and women not need or be paid to get abortions. While a lot of Christians in Georgia were voting for the sexually immoral candidate, Christians nationwide said sex education should never be taught in schools. Not just LGBT sexuality, but also all contraception, which obviously would prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, and sexual anatomy. So instead of following through on their verbal condemnation of abortion, they endorsed it on Election Day. And it is true that many Christians get abortions despite knowing it is a sin. The same is true for many other Christian issues and I will address them later. I am starting with this one because it is the most obvious and hypocritical example of Christians not practicing what they preach.

Click to expand...

I think this is the dilemma many Christains find themselves in today. We have progressively moved away from a God fearing nations in the west to become more secular even to the point of being antagonistic against religion and especially Christainity. The more society becomes steep in secularism and atheism the more contrast there is with Christainity and the harder it will be to live as a Christain.

I think we are entering a time where many will either move away from the church or will secularize the church compromising Gods truth due to political correctness. We are in a postmodern period where religion, the grand narratives and traditions of old are being torn down. Everything is relative so the truth of sin is no more. Everything becomes a compromise and rationalized away.

If we go back to the time of Christ and the early church they were very much out of line with Roman society even to the point of persecution and death. But Christains still stood up and were willing to spread Gods truth. I think that is what is needed again. I think the Bible mentions a spiritual awakening will happen and Christains will rise up after a great falling away from God. I think this is when Gods spirit will be reinvigorated and people will be inspired to stand up.

But in the meantime I think there are many Christains going about doing Gods work in the background, in charities, neighbourhoods, quiety helping others and being an example of Christ. It would be hard to be a politician in todays world. You could not survive unless you were willing to compromise your beliefs. As society is secular you would have to be willing to promote anti Christian policies. Thats why I think religion and politics don't go well together.

Oh boy, another "Why isn't everyone like me?" thread.

Because. Just because. I don't care for any candidate in any sense, such that I can sincerely say that I would vote for Joe Biden because he is a life-long Catholic, or for Trump because he promises to do XYZ. So what. Nothing about whatever they say matters; politicians lie so damn much they ought to just combine the two major parties into one 'Big Fat Liar Party' and call it a day. And anyway, today it is like this, and tomorrow we don't know what will happen. Before Trump was elected by the electoral college, virtually nobody thought he could ever be president, but he still was. Politics are not a good way to express what are supposed to be eternal values rooted in our experience of God as Christians, since political aims and such are so malleable and hence so unlike the unchangeable God Who we recognize. That doesn't mean that we therefore cannot or ought not participate in them at all (even in Egypt, which has had a very rough experience with democracy since the ousting of Mubarak, and now of Morsi, the Christians at least tried to elect the best candidates that they could find), but that we ought to be realistic in how much we can really support any party platform or individual, and in what ways. Unfortunately, HG Bishop Suriel of the Coptic Orthodox Church is ineligible to run for office in the United States despite serving here now (he was born in Egypt), and anyway we do not directly mix our faith with our politics in the Coptic Orthodox tradition, but we still have both. I think one of the reasons why the question that the OP is asking is so contentious for a lot of people is that the western version of secularism is either "no religion anywhere ever, outside of your church/temple/mosque/ashram", or the kind of 'social gospel' that is easily rendered into an arm of the state for the dispensing of social services, and many Christians -- perhaps rightly sensing that neither of these fit with their personal politics -- may develop either a distaste for participation in the entire process, or gravitate towards personalities or platforms that seem to give them the biggest leg up in the competition for resources and attention, even if that means they have to at least tacitly co-sign onto whatever other absolute nonsense the politician promising them things says or does. Read: I don't agree that a vote for a politician who does sick things like commit rape or pay for abortions is somehow not an endorsement of those things just because you personally wouldn't do them. You don't get to pick and choose like that any more than you get to pick and choose which aspects of the traditional wedding vow concerning staying together 'in sickness and in health' are to apply to your marriage. In this analogy, you are 'marrying' the whole politician, warts and all, because once they're done 'courting' you (getting your vote), they're going to let themselves go, and then you'll see who they really are. And just like with regard to marriage, many people participate in politics with little forethought, and many others -- sensing the potential for ruin with little possibility of benefit -- just decide to forego the entire thing.

tl; dr: It's complicated, but everything is terrible and people are the worst. Even you and me. Hahaha.

ChristianForCats said:

One big reason many people decide to stop being Christians is they only witness Christians acting badly, showing off a lot of hate and disrespect despite believing God is love and the commandment, "Love your neighbor as yourself," that came straight out of the Lord's mouth. These people are right sometimes, like when talking about Christians voting for someone who was known to rape girlfriends while married, paid them to have abortions, and abandoned his own kids, instead of a sexually moral pastor who would do whatever it takes to help girls and women not need or be paid to get abortions. While a lot of Christians in Georgia were voting for the sexually immoral candidate, Christians nationwide said sex education should never be taught in schools. Not just LGBT sexuality, but also all contraception, which obviously would prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions every year, and sexual anatomy. So instead of following through on their verbal condemnation of abortion, they endorsed it on Election Day. And it is true that many Christians get abortions despite knowing it is a sin. The same is true for many other Christian issues and I will address them later. I am starting with this one because it is the most obvious and hypocritical example of Christians not practicing what they preach.

Click to expand...

Because it’s hard. Because not everybody agrees on what it means to be a Christian, what a Christian is, or what a good Christian, or even what being Christian entails. Because ”good” is intangible and variable and exists if one is Christian or not. Because it’s not a yes or no, black or white thing and there is complexity, subjectivity, and nuance to things like morality, goodness, and life. Because life is messy and things are complicated.

Lost Witness said:

I don't 'vote'
Never have even before being Born Again of the SPIRIT.

Click to expand...

Yikes.

Ignoring for just a moment that’s a rather shocking thing to brag about, even not voting is a vote. It means you vote to be excluded and defer to the populace’s choice.

Tropical Wilds said:

Yikes.

Ignoring for just a moment that’s a rather shocking thing to brag about, even not voting is a vote. It means you vote to be excluded and defer to the populace’s choice.

Click to expand...

Voting is amoral. A lot of people say "you gotta vote". But I say it's your choice. I personally would rather someone not vote at all than cast a vote for the nazis, the commies, the wobblies, and the zombies.

In the 2016 election, I pretty much said if you think Hillary is the best or least bad candiate, vote for her - if you think Trump is best or least bad, vote for him - and if you think they're both rotten or don't care, then either don't vote at all or vote for some third-party candidate. (Effectively, those actions are about the same in terms of consequence.)

ZephBonkerer said:

Voting is amoral. A lot of people say "you gotta vote". But I say it's your choice. I personally would rather someone not vote at all than cast a vote for the nazis, the commies, the wobblies, and the zombies.

In the 2016 election, I pretty much said if you think Hillary is the best or least bad candiate, vote for her - if you think Trump is best or least bad, vote for him - and if you think they're both rotten or don't care, then either don't vote at all or vote for some third-party candidate. (Effectively, those actions are about the same in terms of consequence.)

Click to expand...

Not voting could be considered morally neutral, but it’s also not something I’d brag about either given the sacrifices made in order to secure the right to be able to do so. It’s a bit of a tone-deaf flex to make. Then again, 100 years ago I couldn’t have voted if I wanted to so the reality of being denied a voice is real and relevant to me and not something I take for granted. My great grandma warmed a bench in jail for “voting illegally” so I’d be mortified to say I had a relative willing to end up in jail to secure the right to vote for women, but I don’t care to use that right.

Thier play actors playing church. These Christian people believe their own lies. Proverbs 1:28. Then they call upon me, but I will not answer; They shall seek me early, but they shall not find me: 1:29. For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord. 1:30. They would none of my counsel; they despised my reproof. Thier ignorant to start with, these play actor Christian people. They listen to traditions of men, false doctrine. They don't take God seriously or want to study sound doctrine. Thier life is a double standard. They lack moral discretion. No moral compass. They reject wisdom of Jesus and prefer traditions of men. 1:31. There fore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices. 1:32. For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, And the prosperity of Fools shall destroy them. They lack faith and thier spirtualty bankrupt. These fake Christian people will go to sheol. Its holding place for the spirtualty dead. I'm not knocking churches down. Beth Aven means, house of nothing. Some churches are dead works, dead wood. The shepherds are accountable to God. On judgement day, the fake shepherds go with satan into lake of fire. The Christian people who lived life of double standard, some during millennium will conform to God's standard and find eternal life. The fake shepherds are to blame. Revelation chapter 20, those with free will, spirtualty dead, will be judged by their works on judgement day, revelation chapter 20. Those found unworthy, will go into lake of fire with satan. Much of the deteriorating, morally and spiritually, has to do with misguided preachers and parents who failed to teach their children God's laws and provisions. Get the picture. The millennium is boot camp, discipline and God's word taught during millennium. Corrections will be made by Jesus, during the millennium. Revelation chapter 20.