4:39 AM

These winds are gusting up to 55-60 mph, looks like. Power has flickered twice, and I’m losing my internet, off and on. I’m going to take a nap, with the phone next to my ear. (Ok, Bethany?)

My eyes are incredibly heavy. Tons of rain, tons of wind, and sorta noisy. I doubt I’ll sleep long, but I’ve been known to sleep through some crazy things.

Should hit in a few hours. Naptime, before it gets here.

3:49 AM

Ok, I spoke too soon – as soon as I posted the preceding, the wind and rain both picked up, and decided to jump up to about 3x what they were.

Internet got really spotty right after, so I’m speedtyping this. The big old trees are whipping around like they’re possessed, and the rain is coming down in discrete, ragged sheets, instead of the steady drizzle it’s been giving us all night.

Plenty of time left before this even gets close, unfortunately. I’ll keep blogging as long as I can.

3:24 AM

This isn’t going to be a Camille – but it’s going to suck.

I’m 8 miles north of Highway 90, in Gulfport – winds are picking up, and rain is getting harder. I lost internet for a few hours, but it’s back up. Quick blog, so you know what’s going on. Hancock county is getting tornadoes, Gulfport is starting to get nailed, now – it’s windy, although not hurricane force yet.

I’m here. I’m ok. I will be ok. I may not be around, internet-wise, but I’ll be here come morning. It’s going to be a wild ride – but I don’t pity Waveland/BSL/Diamondhead. They’re going to get NAILED.

Like I said – winds picking up, rain picking up, tornado warnings all over. Not here, but a lot of other places. Getting a bit noisy – may go out to check soon, in rain gear. (I’ll be careful.)

Be back in a bit, should internet connection permit!

9:45p

Wind’s about the same – clouds are circulating at a good clip, still with scattered showers.

Just found out that the side screen door wasn’t fastened, on the inside. Fixed 😀

Time to fill up the water bottles.

Yeah, I’m going to do some graphics.

9:15p

Still merely breezy. Occasional rain squalls, but short duration, and low intensity.

Small crowd on IRC, chatting.

Grabbing something to eat, and then I’ll do some graphics.

6:57p

First:

Just talked to a Sherrif’s deputy. I’m riding this one out. Someone else who reads this is likely to do so as well. They don’t have any volunteer cleanup operations planned as yet – but he told me to show up at the Lorraine Rd. station (on your left hand side, just south of I-10), if you want to help – TOMORROW NIGHT. NOT NOW, NOT UNTIL THE STORM BLOWS OVER. I’m not telling anyone to stay now, nor do I suggest it. If you want to help tomorrow, though, I’ll see you there, at some point tomorrow. After I check in with Bethany, of course!

Second:

I have a chat channel set up, on dalnet’s IRC network. Load up your IRC client (or, use trillian’s built-in IRC client), find a server on Dalnet, and join channel #katrina.

Stop by and talk.

I’ll be there until I lose power or connection. Either/or!

Alternatively, stop by my main site, and message me on any of my chat programs. Via trillian, I’m on MSN, ICQ, AIM, and Yahoo. My online status for any of the above can be seen (and I can be contacted through those, as well) on the top right.

Talk to you soon.

5:35p

Checking in from Gulfport, Mississippi, about 7 miles north of the beach.

Katrina is bearing down on the New Orleans area, and will slam into that city with some seriously devastating winds. I’m riding it out, and liveblogging what I can through the night and early morning, as power/connection allows.

This post will be updated, as long as it’s still Sunday.

Ok, I got sent these interview questions about 5 minutes ago – I even watched them being written! That is because they were sent by my girlfriend, Bethany.

1. If you could live anywhere you wanted, where would
it be and why?

Tucson, Arizona. That’s my hometown, and I think it’s the most beautiful place in the country. Barring that… wherever Bethany happens to be!

2. What are the benefits/drawbacks of coming from a
large family?

Benefits: Lots of playmates, growing up (although, in my case, the next-oldest is almost 4+ years younger, and I’m the oldest), you learn a lot about parenting by watching so many examples, and you have a fun time when you’re all together for family dinners and/or get-togethers.

Drawbacks: Sharing rooms, financial shortcomings at times, and being blamed for stuff your siblings did 😀 I really have never thought of the drawbacks, other than that. I’m from a large family, and my parents are both from large families. I’ve always vaguely pitied small families, for some mildly obscure reason. I can’t really say why. That’s about the extent I’ve thought about it previously.

3. How has music affected your life?

Music has been a big part of just about every aspect of my life. I’ve been singing since preschool choirs, and my mother was a children’s choir director my entire life. She’s recently moved up to music director for our whole church, now. I’ve been in, or around music for pretty much forever, and I absolutely adore singing. I really can’t say, exactly, how it affects my life, though. It’s just… interwoven with it, I suppose. I can’t imagine life without music, and I have a hard time imagining what it would be like. I hope that answers the question.

4. What food do you wish your girlfriend would learn
to make?

I wonder if this is a trick question…

Seriously, though. Something called Chicken and Rice Casserole, from a cookbook of my mom’s. It’s probably my favorite dish. I’ll teach it to her soon, though, so no worries 😀

5. What family member has most impacted your life and
why?

Oh, man. I don’t know how to answer this one. Different family members have impacted me more in different areas of my life, really. Steve was always my best friend, my Dad gave me my love of reading and for the sciences, and my Mom has always cultivated my love for music, as well as culture in general.

I’m close to my other siblings in different ways, but Steve and I are probably the closest. I really don’t know how to answer this other than that.

From the comments at Evangelical Outpost:

Actually, I think the only fair target for Christian activists is other Christians.

You’ve chosen these beliefs and these issues for yourselves, and ceaselessly advertise your commitment to them. I’d say that’s an invitation to others with similar beliefs to engage in disputes over them with you. But non-Christians have never asked anybody to come around and bug us with their foreign beliefs. We just want to be left alone.

Now you tell us you’re going to stop beating your wife in order to have more time free to go outside and beat up the neighbors.

Please. Stay home.

(Kevin Keith)

This comment just… irks me. Fisk, Carlton. Posthaste.

Actually, I think the only fair target for Christian activists is other Christians.

Activists…

I wonder what he means here.

The use of direct, often confrontational action, such as a demonstration or strike, in opposition to or support of a cause.

Hrmm? A demonstration? I suppose. Is blogging a demonstration, Kevin?

Kudos, as always, to those who do sidewalk counsel in front of abortion clinics, incidentally. However, that wasn’t the issue at all. The issue was this:

I actually know guys who are primarily concerned with wearing wife beaters not to beat their wives but to beat up on the bride of Jesus: the church. Seriously, I know men, many men, who focus almost exclusively on fighting battles within the church and Christianity. These sick freaks think its fun to fight with other Christians about theology, church practice, etc., just to fight. That’s pretty much all they care about. This is the Enemy’s strategy to keep many gifted men out of the Great Battle. Ever read C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters?

It’s about Christians, for Christians. It’s about arguing about minute differences in theology, not witnessing to others, talking to those outside of Christianity. We have a Great Commission, not a Great Pseudo-Doctrinal Debate.

That’s the issue, Kevin.

You’ve chosen these beliefs and these issues for yourselves, and ceaselessly advertise your commitment to them.

Actually, only the seriously prideful advertise their commitment. We DO advertise what the Christian life entails, and what the goal of it is to be – but we never profess to be perfect, or to trumpet our commitment in the sort of way that is implied here. If we do, we’re speaking out of pride, not out of sound understanding of what we are supposed to be commited to. Effacement of self and exaltation of God.

Reversing the two seems to me a bit counter-productive, don’t you think?

I’d say that’s an invitation to others with similar beliefs to engage in disputes over them with you.

Problem is, if they have similar beliefs, both are commanded NOT to engage in pointless bickering over petty differences. That’s the POINT of the post, Kevin.

But non-Christians have never asked anybody to come around and bug us with their foreign beliefs.

Not exactly foreign, as they’ve been here since roundabouts 30 AD. They are hardly foreign, either, wherever you happen to live. Then, of course, there’s that little thing about that imperative in those “similar beliefs” which says that our goal is to share those beliefs with every man, woman, and child on the face of this planet.

Kind’ve hard to ignore that, as well as the injunction against petty disputes, and still think you’re being an obedient Christian, no?

We just want to be left alone.

Really?

Is this not the word that we spoke to you in Egypt, saying, ‘Leave us alone that we may serve the Egyptians’? For it would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the wilderness.” – Exodus 14:2

Hmmph.

Now you tell us you’re going to stop beating your wife in order to have more time free to go outside and beat up the neighbors.

Oooh, isn’t that just precious. An intentional play on the original play on words!

No, he’s condemning the perpetual squabbles that have plagued the church since time immemorial (and, incidentally, which you non-Christians love to throw in our faces as evidence of our hypocrisy – which is generally a valid criticism… but you can’t have it both ways) over issues which should be on the periphery of Christian efforts. Instead, he is suggesting that people attend to the real work of Christian service. Preaching the Gospel, feeding the hungry, loving the unlovely, and caring for the sick – to name a few.

Please. Stay home.

No. Staying at home is for invalids. He’s suggesting that the reason we act like invalids is that we’re poisoning our own well by our continual bickering over nothing.

Using the perjoratives like “activist” to misrepresent the subject matter is bad – but the general tone is worse. You’re a good writer. Act like it, instead of leaving throwaway comments like this that make you look like a sanctimonious turd.

Firstly:

“What is Atheism“, by “Goosing the Antithesis“, an atheistic blog.

So atheism is a peculiar position for an evangelist in that you don’t necessarily have any answers to give. Many atheists don’t have any answers and aren’t as efficient at evangelizing because they don’t provide a safe space for the Christian to look at and feel comfortable with before jumping away from religious indoctrination. This is not great. Ideally, there should be a safe space there, one made of the bonds of friendship, family and love, the power of science, the control and responsability brought about by individualism, the beauty of life and nature, and so on.

…

Basically, the main thrust of any individualist, rational evangelizing is to liberate the individual’s life and values from their self-imposed belief systems, so that everyone can live at peace with each other and believe whatever they want in their own private lives. That is the ultimate goal.

Note: “Liberate” them from self-imposed beliefs – so they can believe whatever they want.

Say what?

Interesting post, but a prime example of what atheism does not provide – answers. They want to replace something with… nothing. Or, they want you to believe whatever you want – as long as it wasn’t what you believed in the first place. Odd attitude.

Secondly:

Infidel in Exile is on to us! Francis Schaeffer: A key Figure for the Dark Side

An interesting look at my favorite thinker, from someone opposed to what he thinks. I find it highly fascinating.

But in many years of debating with Christians on numerous Christian and atheist websites, blogs, and forums, no one has ever thrown even a single Francis Schaeffer argument or citation at me. Not until I visited evangelical websites and blogs did I come to appreciate his importance for the Dark Side.

Schaeffer’s own work was highly focused on living his philosophy, and he lived in faraway Europe. Craig, Boyd, Koukl, etc, live in the US, and seem to be engaged in building and running small apologetic empires rather than in serious intellectual engagement with the world Out There, as Schaeffer was. That may also have something to do with it.

Very interesting take.

In response on this post, I was told that arguing for an objective morality was contrary to a recognizance of faith, as faith – in essence, that a logical argument for the existence of objective morality was an attempt to “prove” faith.

The quotes are as follows:

Razor,

Faith, by definition, exists apart from logical proofs. Foundationalsim assumes a preset of basic beliefs – your initial post serves to legitimze this approach by postulating the existene of basic beliefs. Does that not seem circular to you?

I am certainly NOT suggesting that logical exercises are not useful – in most cases they are. However, reducing matters of faith to logical precepts removes the mystery aspect of faith, suggesting somehow that the wonder and mystery of our God can be defined and detailed to the nth degree by our keen human intellect.

I mean no offense, but it smacks of arrogance to me, and brings forth a sickening feeling in my innermost being that usually comes when attempts are made to somehow intellectually legitimize faith through logical science. Faith requires no such legitimization, which is really antithetical to faith, in the strictest sense.

What I find helpful is using logical devices to construct a systematic theology. However, a systematic theology assumes that a foundation of faith already exists – it does not serve to provide logical foundations to faith.

Well, today’s sermon at church was about faith, but only partially. In that sermon, we were given a quote from Charles Spurgeon, which I’m going to use for this post. See, according to Spurgeon, faith consists of three things:

What is faith? It is made up of three things—knowledge, belief, and trust.

Knowledge, chiefly, is what concerns me today. “Faith begins with knowledge“, says Spurgeon. When we have faith, we must know what we have faith in. I cannot stress enough that we cannot have a blind faith. A faith which does not even know what it is faithful for, what it is faithful to, why it is even faithful at all… this is not a faith worth recognizing. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. This is what faith requires. Knowledge.

Now, let me hasten to say that this knowledge must not be perfect. it must only be sufficient. This knowledge is NOT, contrary to my brother’s assertion, the proof of faith – it is simply the portion of faith which requires us to know what we are having faith in.

Now, this knowledge does not constitute the entirety of faith. We must then “believe that these things are true“. As Spurgeon says: “Believe these truths as you believe any other statements; for the difference between common faith and saving faith lies mainly in the subjects upon which it is exercised. Believe the witness of God just as you believe the testimony of your own father or friend. “If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.“”

Catch that part I bolded? The difference is NOT the amount of faith – it is the object of that faith. Saving faith is differentiated by what you believe in.

“So far you have made an advance toward faith; only one more ingredient is needed to complete it, which is trust. …The Puritans were accustomed to explain faith by the word “recumbency.” It meant leaning upon a thing. Lean with all your weight upon Christ. It would be a better illustration still if I said, fall at full length, and lie on the Rock of Ages. Cast yourself upon Jesus; rest in Him; commit yourself to Him.”

He continues the lesson with this:

“Faith is not a blind thing; for faith begins with knowledge. It is not a speculative thing; for faith believes facts of which it is sure. It is not an unpractical, dreamy thing; for faith trusts, and stakes its destiny upon the truth of revelation. That is one way of describing what faith is.
Let me try again. Faith is believing that Christ is what He is said to be, and that He will do what He has promised to do, and then to expect this of Him.”

Faith does not require proof. Faith does require knowledge. It does require belief of veracity, although it does not require proof of veracity. It does require trust, although it does not require proof of trustworthiness.

Apologetics is an activity which is concerned with clearing away the obstacles to a true understanding of what God teaches, who He is, and what is really, actually true. This is the goal, the object, of apologetics. It is not to somehow “prove” the existence of God – or even of principles. It is an outline of the body of knowledge which, if taken all together, will give you a healthy, Biblical knowledge of the Holy, and what it entails. That is, at bottom, the purpose of apologetics. Not to prove, but to clear away obstructions. Not to argue minutae, but to unblock the way. Not to engage in debate for the sake of debate, but to define clearly the path which must be traveled.

Sometimes, that process is quite involved. It may have to start hundreds of allegorical miles away from even the beginning of that path. Sometimes, it may start with a log dropped right at the entrance to that narrow way. Regardless, the mission is clear. Remove all impedances, wherever possible, to a knowledge of the Holy.

Remember – the first step is knowledge, true knowledge, of what you are to have faith in. Only then can you believe that the object of your faith is true.

(All quotes from Charles Spurgeon may be found at Spurgeon.org, where they are hosting his small book, “All of Grace“.)

This quote was in response to this post. My response is below.

Holy Jebus,

If that’s what’s god paradise is all about, then he just lost one of his flock for ever.

I ain’t going to paradise to see others denied because they are gay, sorry G”D.

——————————————————————————————————–

Okay,

So you believe, just as I do, but you do in a different context.

If you are truly as you claim to be:

“God and Christians love you, and we’re reaching out to you right now.”

then you would accept what Tesla coil is, even if he did and still does something that “is wrong” you would forgive him till the end and accept him into paradise(love your worst enemy or God loves the sinner and forgives them).

But that’s not my G”D, the God I believe in is someone carrying for compassion and that people treat each other in a fair and grown up way, that’s my believe.

Holy Jebus,

If that’s what’s god paradise is all about, then he just lost one of his flock for ever.

I ain’t going to paradise to see others denied because they are gay, sorry G”D.

All I’m going to reply to this is a simple quote, from Jesus himself.

Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

You can’t do “buffet-style” Christianity. Pick what you want, ignore the rest. This thread has been filled with examples of where the Bible clearly says that Homosexuality is wrong. Ignore them at your own peril.

Okay,

So you believe, just as I do, but you do in a different context.

No. You’re playing “buffet-style” in this case – he’s not. There is a world of difference, and I hope you recognize that. Since you claim to be a Christian, I’m going to point thisout, and be very blunt with you – what you are saying is antithetical to what the Bible teaches.

But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

If you are truly as you claim to be:

“God and Christians love you, and we’re reaching out to you right now.”

then you would accept what Tesla coil is, even if he did and still does something that “is wrong” you would forgive him till the end and accept him into paradise(love your worst enemy or God loves the sinner and forgives them).

You’re mixing apples and oranges. He, as a person, is not wholly defined by a single type of action. it may very well affect much of what he does, but he, himself, is not “homosexual”. I, for example, am not “Electronics Technician” – I DO the work, but that does NOT make me WHO I am. It’s just what I DO. Don’t label, don’t turn people into labels. Tesla, I’m sure, is a nice guy, plays mechwarrior well, is a good friend, and is also wellspoken. Those are only parts of who he his. He is not “homosexual”. Homosexuality is an action, and a lifestyle, not the person himself. Ever.

I’m sure we’d get along just fine face to face, as I got along just fine with my ex mother in law. It has been awkward at times, but that’s life. I don’t identify action with person. Have you ever lied? Do I then call you “liar”, not by your name? Identify you with lying for the rest of the time I know you? No, I understand that this happens to be a failing you had – and very may continue to have – but I’m not going to judge you for it, and have a conniption about the fact that you lied. Homosexuality is a sin. In the Bible. I live by that book, and follow it as best as my human frailties allow me. Nowhere in that book does it say that I am bound to condemn, to persecute, or to turn my back on someone because he is homosexual. I AM, however, bound to point out sin where it stands, and attempt to get people to turn from it.

But that’s not my G”D, the God I believe in is someone carrying for compassion and that people treat each other in a fair and grown up way, that’s my believe.

That’s also looking completely past every other aspect of God – such as His Holiness, His Justice, and His Wrath. There is Grace, Mercy, and Love, sure – but there is also the need fo the former, just as much as the latter. God is not all daisies and rosebuds, and children skipping along in a line chattering nursery rhymes. There is also God’s awesome, sovereign, and holy requirement that dictates His Judgement of sin. Do not make the mistake of seeing only the Mercy, when Justice is required for Him to be merciful at all. With no Justice, how can there be mercy, if there is nothing to be merciful of? THAT is the pitfall the majority of “name it and claim it” televangelists fall into. God is not all Mercy. He is also Justice – but most of all, He is absolutely, entirely, Holy – and holiness cannot allow sin in it’s presence. Jesus died to cleanse us of sin – but, remember what John said?

REPENT, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!

Ok, here I fix the error of my last post. Still, though, I think I was a bit overdramatic. I think it was all right, though. Any suggestions on how I can improve the next exchange?

The quote that occasioned the response that follows:

I still don’t like the implication that homosexuals are sinners purely for being homosexuals.

Just for clarification: I am not a homosexual. But I fully believe that homosexuals have a right to be who they are, without someone citing a book that they happen to believe in as proof that they are some kind of blasphemy.

Oh, and would it help if I also said I’m a Christian too? If we’re citing the bible here, whatever happened to “Love thy neighbour”?

I still don’t like the implication that homosexuals are sinners purely for being homosexuals.

It’s not implication. It’s stated as fact, over, and over, and over in the Bible. The same way that someone who tells a lie, is a sinner. One lie. Commits adultery once.

It is NOT some “greater” sort of sin – it’s just like every OTHER sin – equally abominable in the sight of God. Every single little sin, regardless of what we classify as “good”, as “bad”, or “greater”, or “lesser” is equally sin. No differentiation.

Just for clarification: I am not a homosexual. But I fully believe that homosexuals have a right to be who they are, without someone citing a book that they happen to believe in as proof that they are some kind of blasphemy.

Sure, everyone has a right to lie, a right to steal, a right to fornicate – it’s called “free will”. Having a “right” (read: ability to do so) does not mean it’s right. I don’t “look down on” someone who commits a homosexual act any more than I do on someone who lies to me, or lies to someone else. They did something wrong, like everyone else in this world has, at one time or another. Am I supposed to say that fornication is bad, yet fornication between members of the same gender is good? When the very act itself is called a sin? It doesn’t compute. Any sin, regardless of what it happens to be, is wrong. Period. I cannot make any distinction, and I cannot make any exceptions. God doesn’t.

Oh, and would it help if I also said I’m a Christian too? If we’re citing the bible here, whatever happened to “Love thy neighbour”?

“You will know them by their fruit” – no. If you are, you’re seriously wrong – and I invite you to read your Bible more closely.

I missed the crucial problem with this argument. The “being homosexuals” part. You “are” not a homosexual. You *act* like a homosexual. You are not defined by a single sin. This does not define who you are. I catch this error later on in the thread, but I’m still annoyed it took me so long to figure it out.

Now, for all you commenters out there, you can insert strong text, emphasized text, links, strikeout text

quotes

and lookup words in the dictionary, all with the handy dandy tabs I’ve installed on top of the comment form.

Aren’t I nice?

Plugin is called “Comment Quicktags”, and I got it from Asymptomatic.net.

The post which occasioned my response below.

Every time I read this topic, I’m beginning to feel less and less welcome here. This topic shows just how tolerant you are as you pass judgment on others, who do not feel the way you do. You people must feel really good about yourselves now.

I’m just trying to live out my life the best I can.

But hey, what do you care! I’m just a freak who goes against God and nature.

Every time I read this topic, I’m beginning to feel less and less welcome here.

Hrmm? Why so?

This topic shows just how tolerant you are as you pass judgment on others, who do not feel the way you do.

Who passed judgment on what? I certainly didn’t. The only person I will judge is one who is in the church. If you are not, it’s not my job, my right, or even my privilege to do so. Anyone who is outside the church falls under God’s judgment, not mine. Within the church, the only judgment I possess is that which pertains to someone’s teaching, or practice, of God’s Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyone who tells you otherwise really doesn’t know his or her Bible.

Will I say I believe homosexuality is wrong, and do my best to keep it from being encouraged? You betcha. Will I judge someone for being homosexual? No way!

See, judgment involves passing sentence, and determining guilt, or innocence. There are only two sentences that matter, in the Biblical world, and both depend on God to mete out. This is outside the church, understand. Within the church, there is something a bit different, and it never involves the judgment of just one person – many are called upon in a situation where church discipline is involved.

The above passage is solely aimed at those “within” the church who seek to lead people within the church astray. There is no hidden meaning, no catch. It’s very plain, simple, and to the point. If your aim is, or the result of your actions is, leading those in the Body of Christ away from Christ – you are in deep, deep, trouble. It may not happen now, and it may not happen in this lifetime – but that is perhaps the strongest wording in the entire Bible. It’s a scathing denunciation of those who use the church for man’s ends. It was directed, also, solely at the poster I quoted, as an answer to the common skeptic’s argument he advanced.

You people must feel really good about yourselves now.

Not really. I mourn the fact that our culture is at the point where this is even a debate. So no, not really.

I’m just trying to live out my life the best I can.

So are we all.

But hey, what do you care! I’m just a freak who goes against God and nature.

That’s for you to talk over with God. I only quote what He said. Perhaps you should speak with the writer of the message, not the messenger – you know? I can only speak to what I’ve been told, what I believe, and what I have been taught.

My (ex) mother-in-law is a lesbian. We’ve had the same talk as has gone on here, really, and I’ve told her exactly what the Bible says about the practice of homosexuality. I don’t treat her any different than I would someone that had lied to me. It may annoy me, but hey, I sin too. I’ve lied myself. I’ve looked at women in ways I should not have, myself.

“For all have fallen short of the glory of God”

“There is none righteous – no, not one”

Everyone does wrong. There are no exceptions – but there IS a substitution, and there IS a refund. Jesus substituted Himself for us – Jesus paid the penalty, thus we get a refund on our sins – which would otherwise be Payable On Death.

Homosexuality is NOT the “unpardonable sin”. Nor is murder, nor is lying, nor are any other instances of wrongdoing. The only unpardonable sin is the refusal to accept His pardon. The riskiest thing for a man to do is NOT to go over Niagara falls in a barrel, it is NOT skydiving – it is putting off for tomorrow your acceptance of the only way out of the predicament we find ourselves in – wrongdoers who will one day be judged by a God who expects perfection.

“Today is the day of Salvation”. Not tomorrow.

I don’t judge – I point. Upwards.

Upon reading this response, I seem to come across a bit pedantic. I start out decently, I think, but fall into a sort of lecture mode. I wish I could change that, now – and I think I made up for it later. I consider it to be one of my least worthy attempts at explaining the dichotomy between judgment and pointing out transgression. I tried, though. I include it as part of my “historical” (in a sense) progression toward what I enjoy so much today.