In the scenario that John outlined, let's focus upon two homosexuals. One
homosexual man struggles with the fact that he is having sexual relations
with another man, something he knows that he should not do, but he does it
anyway. Another homosexual man sees no problem with it and indulges in the
same activity with absolutely no sense of guilt or conflict. It seems to me
that according to John, the fact that they are both engaged in homosexual
activity is irrelevant. The one who has embraced truth is the one who
struggles with what he does, but the one who does not struggle with what he
does is the one who has rejected truth. I think the characterization of
"what we do is an irrelevant thing" is fair in this context. If it is not,
then please explain because in the scenario that John himself outlined,
whether people sin or not is not the relevant thing. What is relevant is
whether or not they struggle with their sin. Again... I am not trying to
put words in John's mouth. I am trying to explain what I am hearing him
say. Please, Gary, step in and explain what John is really saying if you
think that Izzy and I have misunderstood him. If anyone else thinks they
have a handle on this, please step in. If John himself thinks he can be
more clear, please do so. Thanks.
Man, you are really something. I was saying that some do not live as they believe, deep down inside and the guilt or the tears (I have forgotten now) is evidence of the case.
Notice --------- simply observation and only two lines.
Verse, a rather complex observation taken from some unkown sourse and 50 lines.
Gary's point is right on .......... simple and very much to the point.
John
Hopefully this clears things up. Lets move on.
