Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (8415)	10/16/1998 9:20:00 PM
From: INFO_DART	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13994

Hi, I'm new around these parts, but thought this was somehow relevant to the discussion. Message 6049400

To: Les H who wrote (8415)	10/17/1998 2:18:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13994

********OFF TOPIC (OR MAYBE NOT): BAPTISTS & ADULTERY********** Les, you are upset that the Rev. Henry Lyons has been allowed to remain President of the National Baptist Convention, "even though he faces Florida and federal indictments for theft and racketeering...and is also, by his own admission, an adulterer.." I, too, am surprised that such an obviously tacky individual was left in a position of spiritual authority. I would be more troubled by the theft and racketeering charges than by the adultery, especially since he has confessed to the latter. After all, theft and racketeering are regarded as crimes. Adultery is not, even though some archaic and unenforced laws against it do remain on the books in several states. Adultery is, however, widely viewed as a sin, that is as a moral offense. Nevertheless, you seem -- perhaps I misread you -- more troubled by the adultery: The Bible says God forgives any sin if the sinner asks and repents. But it also says that no sin goes unpunished. We do not doubt that Lyons has asked for forgiveness and repents. But by remaining convention president after admitting adultery, he seeks to go unpunished for that sin. Well, Les, I guess it depends on which passages of the Bible you put the most emphasis on. And on that score there is great variation among Christians in general, and even Baptists in particular. Now, I'll admit that I have not spoken to any members of the National Baptist Convention about the Lyons case, but I suspect they might cite the following passage (which in Matthew, follows directly after the Lord's Prayer): For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you; But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. Matthew 6:14-15 They might also go on to interpret that passage, and other scriptural passages like it, as follows: It is up to God, not to sinful man, to judge what punishment should be administered to, or voluntarily accepted by, any particular sinner for any particular sin. Only God can pass judgment, in other words. They might even go on to argue that whoever would condemn another for his sin is himself guilty of the cardinal sin of Pride, because he seeks to usurp God's place. (There are plenty of professed Christians who do take that position.) Sorry to nitpick, Les. :-) But you obviously would not have brought up the Lyons case unless you thought it was applicable to the case of another Baptist, Bill Clinton. And it seemed to me that it was worth pointing out a fundamental distinction between "crime" and "sin" (IMO) has been too often blurred in the endless discussion of the Clinton case. I also feel that there is a great deal of confusion as to how one should react to evidence of the one or the other (of crime, and of sin). And then there is the bedeviled question of whether a political leader should set the kind of example we would expect from a spiritual leader...etc..... jbe