Ted, Please explain how this was taken out of context.
All too often, "cast the first stone" has been used to justify sinful behavior. The misunderstanding is the premise that if mortal man cannot condemn others for sinful behavior, then the sin must be OK or at least left unpunished. But the Bible clearly states that sin is NOT OK and MUST be punished. The punishment has been commuted thanks to the grace of Jesus, but sin is still NOT OK.
I agree. My personal gripe is that people are always so quick to judge others and ignore their own transgressions. That's why I remind people of what Jesus said.
And when I talk about punishment, I'm talking about the divine punishment for all sin: "The wages of sin is death." The consequences of sin still apply. Witness the death of David's love child with Bathsheba, even after he confessed the affair and cover-up to God and begged for his forgiveness. David kept his kingdom and his life, but lost his son and lost moral authority.
Isn't that old testament? God is a little too harsh in that book. I prefer the new testament God. <g>
In the case of Clinton, he tried to mitigate his sin and his cover-up to his private life. At the same time, he tried to avoid the impact to his political career, his legal liability, and his reputation, all of which are valid consequences of his sin. That's why I said in my original message, "Maybe Bill ought to have considered that when he lied." (#reply-19012338) He knew that the consequences went well beyond his own private life, and that's why he chose to lie.
I disagree. If he thought that the consequences went beyond his private life, he would have not lied to the Grand Jury. He was protecting his family and also was very fearful of losing them....hence the lie.
The right sees Clinton much more cynically than I think he deserves.
P.S. - Ironically, I'm now late for church. Cya! ;-)
That's what you get hanging with sinners.
ted |
