winsomebulldog

Modesty is disappearing. There is no doubt about that. And it's even more appalling that it is happening within the body of Christ as well. However, civil laws to dictate what people should wear are not going to fix anything. And the erosion of modesty is not some kind of "pass" to be used to explain our inability to control ourselves. Self-control begins "at home." Meaning, "Lead by example." Nowhere are we (Christians) told to go out and force others to observe our way of life or belief system. We are instead told to go out into the world and be salt and light. We are told that if we demonstrate true Christian love, then it will draw others in. We are not told to insist that the world conform to us so that our "walk" through it will be easier or more "comfortable." It is part of that walk that we must learn to resist the temptations this fallen world has to offer. To suggest that rampant lust is the fault of whoever triggered it (either intentionally or not) is to say that God should be blamed for Adam and Eve's fall in the garden because, after all, He put the tree with the pretty fruit in there for them to lust after. If He hadn't done that, then they wouldn't have been tempted and we'd all still be living it up in Eden. [i hope everyone here sees the terrible flaw in this sarcastic notion.] Adam and Eve were tempted by the fruit hanging on that tree, just like a man looking at a provocatively dressed woman might be tempted to lust after her. But, just like Adam and Eve, the fault for surrender to that lust isn't with the fruit or the One who put the fruit in front of them. It is born entirely by Adam and Eve who chose to give in to the temptation rather than to resist it. Again, as has been said dozens of times by now, the woman who chooses to dress in a provocative manner is in sin for doing so, but that is where it stops, plain and simple.

Clothes line preaching. What do you want to do? Enact some kind of draconian clothing laws? The fact remains that the woman is only responsible for what she wears. Her responsibility ends there. What a man does with his thoughts are all on him, 100%. A fact you don't seem to be able to grasp. Well said.

I think one needs to define provocatively. bikini's are not really provocative to me, but that full length green silk dress that my wife used to wear just drove me over the edge. Excites me just to think about it. (hope it's OK to lust over your own wife) And that was back when I was about 23 or 24 years old, so it's not just my age. We all have different tolerances and drawing lines in the sand in a free republic just isn't an easy thing to do. I do believe that the vast majority of women and men who dress toward the provocative side are doing so for attention.... Our society is kind of hyper sexed this time in our history and so if you want to blame anyone, you might attack our media and advertising...... for it's they that set the tone for what inexperienced young ladies wear. Most guys are just hormone crazed beings that will get excited over something no matter what the norm is. My grandfather used to tell me that when he was a boy they used to get excited over ankles. If it weren't so cold we might be better off in the long run to just go back to the buff..... everyone would get used to it and we'd not have this probllem..... at least that's what my nudest acquaintances tell me, and they should know. OK...if I can see any part of her chest, or the dress qualifies as a belt, that's provocative. If her shorts get confused with her panties, that's provocative. If her shorts SHOW her panties, that's provocative. If her tukhus cheeks hang out of her shorts, that's provocative. If her pants are so tight they look like someone painted them on with an airbrush, that's provocative. If her clothing outlines her sexual area, that's provocative. Men, you're not immune to this. If your pants show off ********, you need to consider changing. If your bare chest shows, you need to cover up, some women get excited over that. These things should be obvious. I apologize in advance if I offend anyone, but since some have no clue what's wrong.... Perhaps you should lock yourself up in your own home and never go out? Yes, I see women dressed inappropriately all the time. It's my responsibility in a lost and fallen world to express Christ. How's about we not let those dastardly women wear shorts in the summer? Here's the Law of Christ though. If your eye offends you pluck it out. In a proper society, decorum is maintained. When America was ruled by Christian thought, we had decorum. There was a standard and we for the most part abided by it. But now, anything goes in the name of alleged freedom. I have learned what I needed to know. You can lock the thread. Decorum is hardly the same thing as modesty. And as I and others have already said, returning to some notion of what was modest opens up an entirely different can of worms. Just how modest is modest enough? Where will that line be drawn? At skirts that at least reach the knees? Then what happens when men begin lusting after women because they can see their calves and ankles?

I think one needs to define provocatively. bikini's are not really provocative to me, but that full length green silk dress that my wife used to wear just drove me over the edge. Excites me just to think about it. (hope it's OK to lust over your own wife) And that was back when I was about 23 or 24 years old, so it's not just my age. We all have different tolerances and drawing lines in the sand in a free republic just isn't an easy thing to do. I do believe that the vast majority of women and men who dress toward the provocative side are doing so for attention.... Our society is kind of hyper sexed this time in our history and so if you want to blame anyone, you might attack our media and advertising...... for it's they that set the tone for what inexperienced young ladies wear. Most guys are just hormone crazed beings that will get excited over something no matter what the norm is. My grandfather used to tell me that when he was a boy they used to get excited over ankles. If it weren't so cold we might be better off in the long run to just go back to the buff..... everyone would get used to it and we'd not have this probllem..... at least that's what my nudest acquaintances tell me, and they should know. My husband said something similar when we talked about this thread. Basically, his response was that an attractive women is going to get attention no matter what she has on. Period. So that's it then? Whatever she can get away with exposing until all the decency laws catch up with her? I am married to a head turning blond who in her 60's still gets the looks of lust from men and even boys and the look of jealousy and envy from women. And she's not dressed like a floosey. In fact she does not wear the fashions she wore as a youth in the 1960's (old photos are quite sexy from the bouffant on down that is). So are we to just twiddle our thumbs and shake our heads as the hem line of discretion (which has long surpassed the waistline) simply vanishes? Oh well, says people like you and your husband.... what can we say or think or do? I may not be the most innocent angel on the block but I know when its about time to get the angels on the block rallying for truth and decency. You seem to be getting a little upset with me over this, though I am not at all sure why. You are suggesting that if we just brought back the laws that forced women (and men) to wear more clothing, it would solve the problem of lusting. I cannot believe anyone actually would think that. As has been mentioned multiple times before, more clothing is not the answer. When women were clothed from neck to ankle, men lusted if they caught a glimpse of the ankle. When women are completely clothed from head to toe in a burka, men still lust after them. Having a law that would make it illegal for women to show a certain amount of skin or for men to appear in public with no shirt will do nothing but add laws to the books. Human nature is what it is. People will be tempted with lust for others. And no, it is not somehow more the fault of the one doing the tempting than the one who gives in to the temptation. That's just absurd. Now, if you are trying to send out a clarion call for people of faith to somehow stand up and try to change the direction the world is heading as a whole, then I can understand that. As Christians, it is our responsibility to be light in an increasingly dark world. As such, we ought to make an effort to resist the downward slide of society. HOWEVER, implying that stopping women from dressing scantily will somehow fix all these ills is hardly rational. It is a symptom of a far larger problem and I am afraid will not be solved until the Lord returns. As to my husband and I sitting around "twiddling our thumbs," I suggest that you have no idea what we do or don't do, since we do not truly know one another. I do not make a habit of dressing provocatively. Nor does my husband make a habit of running around in public with no shirt. (He won't even wear shorts in public, mostly because his legs are so pale. ) On the other hand, we don't feel it is our job to call out every single person we see who we happen to think is dressed inappropriately. Frankly, I am continually disturbed by the growing trend where people go out in public in their pajamas. This offends my sensibilities, having been raised to believe that one ought to at least be dressed before leaving the house. Apparently, that is no longer the case. In my opinion, it demonstrates a lack of respect for oneself and others, not to mention a marked streak of laziness, which is a sin. Perhaps the "angels on the block" should be "rallied" to confront this sin as well?

Did you read the articles I linked to? Did you even read all of my posts? For clarification, the direct quotes I'm taking from my earlier posts are in blue. I agree that Joe Paterno was demonized by most of the media purely because it got them attention.However, I disagree with the notion that just because he spoke with the head of the campus police about it, he is then absolved of all further responsibility in the matter. And, for the record, I knew very well that the campus police were "real" police. I agree that "hindsight is 20/20." But I also disagree that this situation can be compared to someone who's lost a friend to suicide. As someone who has been suicidal myself in the past, I know that people with that level of depression often hide it surprisingly well. Again, it is Joe's open admission that he found the situation overwhelming that bothers me. It just doesn't jive with who he is and was. Paterno said he was initially reluctant to speak because “I wanted everybody to settle down,” but the Post reported he was so eager to defend his record that he insisted on continuing the interview from his bedside Friday morning, though ill. As I pointed out earlier, Joe says it was his choice not to speak out. The reporter in the article you are quoting doesn't have any proof that Joe was "asked not to speak to the press by prosecutors and Penn State University." He is making an assumption that Joe in fact contradicts in the above statement. And I disagree significantly with the article writer's assertion that Joe's "actions were generally in line with how most reasonable people would act if put in the same situation." I do not think a reasonable person would have acted the same at all. Or perhaps I am simply not a reasonable person, because I know I would have been far more aggressive in pursuing it. As I said earlier, "I don't know about you, but if one of my employees came to me and told me that he'd witnessed someone using my facility to rape a child, I'd dang well want to know exactly what was being done and how it was being handled." First, I would not be content with the employee being vague about what he'd seen. I would want specific details. Then I would have followed up with the college and the campus police to see that it was being properly investigated. Taking away Sandusky's keys and telling the charity that he established about it is not proper investigation. If I saw that happen, then I would have gone to the city and/or county police. I would have gone to the blasted FBI if I had to. I have not said that I think Joe necessarily hid Sandusky's behavior because he was afraid it would hurt his chances of getting recruits to the college or that it would cost him money. In fact, I said that it seems like Joe turned the matter over to others and then put it out of his mind because he found the situation too distasteful to deal with. I absolutely agree that this kind of thing is uncalled for and cruel. And I again question why Joe's legacy is so much more valuable than the children Sandusky abused? Are we supposed to just turn a blind eye to his refusal to ensure something came of McQueary's testimony because he's a football legend? By that logic, OJ Simpson (another football legend) should have been allowed to slide for his various crimes as well, for the sake of legacy remaining untarnished. The reporter states in one breath that he isn't "trying to blame the media boogeyman" and then in practically the next turns around and says that all the commentators who are "destroying" Joe's legacy are just too stupid to see the "truth." I'm sorry, but that's pretty arrogant. He's so incredibly brilliant that he alone sees the truth about how poor Joe is being unjustly blamed? I know emotions in a case like this run high. And I agree that many of the media out there are using the situation to their advantage, overly sensationalizing all the hype, and even making statements like the one quoted above that are blatantly cruel. However, that hardly means that this one writer is the lone person out there who has the intelligence and wherewithal to deduce all the intricacies of the case. I do not mean to be confrontational and sincerely hope I do not come across that way. I do notice that you have repeatedly ignored Joe's own words that I have quoted. Surely they hold more weight than the reporter who wrote the article that was in the OP. Tell me, what do you think about his words concerning his shock at the notion that a man could commit rape? Do you sincerely believe that? Considering your words about how you think Joe would have been driven "nuts" by being told to stay quiet, I assume you "know" him better than I do. (I am admittedly not a college football fan, though I do like the NFL quite a bit.) Do you think it is in his character to be so overwhelmed by this situation? (as he says he was.) Do you think it makes any kind of sense that he would be told something like this and be perfectly content to pass the buck to someone else to see that it was "taken care of" and then make no effort at all to ensure that it was indeed dealt with?

I think one needs to define provocatively. bikini's are not really provocative to me, but that full length green silk dress that my wife used to wear just drove me over the edge. Excites me just to think about it. (hope it's OK to lust over your own wife) And that was back when I was about 23 or 24 years old, so it's not just my age. We all have different tolerances and drawing lines in the sand in a free republic just isn't an easy thing to do. I do believe that the vast majority of women and men who dress toward the provocative side are doing so for attention.... Our society is kind of hyper sexed this time in our history and so if you want to blame anyone, you might attack our media and advertising...... for it's they that set the tone for what inexperienced young ladies wear. Most guys are just hormone crazed beings that will get excited over something no matter what the norm is. My grandfather used to tell me that when he was a boy they used to get excited over ankles. If it weren't so cold we might be better off in the long run to just go back to the buff..... everyone would get used to it and we'd not have this probllem..... at least that's what my nudest acquaintances tell me, and they should know. My husband said something similar when we talked about this thread. Basically, his response was that an attractive women is going to get attention no matter what she has on. Period.

It's the fact that Joe says he didn't want to make any calls or ask any questions because he didn't want to have any "influence" on the situation. I don't know about you, but if one of my employees came to me and told me that he'd witnessed someone using my facility to rape a child, I'd dang well want to know exactly what was being done and how it was being handled. And Joe's suggestion that he'd never heard of rape and/or child molestation is just impossible to believe. We aren't talking about a man who'd spent his entire life living in a box somewhere. He was the coach at a major university. He has children and grand-children of his own. Has he never, ever seen the news, because heaven knows that there are an obscene number of reports of children being horribly abused on a nearly daily basis? I find it offensive that Joe seemed so willing to "pass the buck" and then wash his hands of the entire situation. I am certain that he found it disturbing and untenable. He was no doubt horrified. But all those emotions should have spurred him to make sure the truth came out. At the least, I would have expected that when weeks or months passed and nothing happened, that he would have gone back to them and asked for some kind of update. I mean, here's what happened after McQueary reported the incident: So, they took away his keys. And Paterno obviously thought this was a perfectly appropriate response to the situation. I just find this absurd. I think it ultimately comes down to Paterno not wanting to know anything about what Sandusky had done. It offended his sensibilities so he decided to ignore it once he'd dumped it in someone else's lap. That's it. Shame on him. Make no mistake, I'm not saying that McQueary, Curley, Spanier, and anyone else who knew what had happened are any less culpable than Paterno. I simply do not agree that Paterno is somehow being turned into a scapegoat, or that he should be cut some kind of slack because he has this grand history in college football or because he was an old guy or because he was planning to retire anyway. (Which was only something he decided to do once the scandal broke.) Frankly, I find it equally appalling that McQueary was blithely going along with his life as well. It's inexcusable behavior on the parts of everyone involved. I just can't help wondering if it had been some no-name coach from a hole in the wall college with a pathetic excuse for a football team, would everyone be so quick to defend his lack of action?

I agree that Joe Paterno was demonized by most of the media purely because it got them attention. However, I disagree with the notion that just because he spoke with the head of the campus police about it, he is then absolved of all further responsibility in the matter. And, for the record, I knew very well that the campus police were "real" police. It is my opinion that in a situation like this, anyone who has knowledge of the truth has a duty to ensure that something is done about it. Yes, Paterno went to his superiors. He spoke with the head of campus police. Yet, when it was obvious that nothing was done about it, he apparently shrugged and said, "Okay, I did my part." That, in my opinion, is flat out wrong. For example, if I had been in this situation, I would have likely done exactly what Joe did. But, when nothing came of it, you can bet that I would have then gone to someone else, other police perhaps who were outside the influence of the university, and reported it. I would not have rested until I knew something was being done about it. I just cannot fathom how anyone can excuse Paterno for doing less than everything possible. And, despite what the author of the article suggested, Paterno is talking. In fact, here is a bit of what he had to say: He didn't want to make a mistake? So the choice not to talk to the press was his. Part of the answer is that neither Paterno, McQueary, or any of the others who knew the truth did anything to make sure that Sandusky was exposed. Notice that Joe says he told McQueary that it was his job to figure out what to do. That sounds to me like he realized the responsibility for reporting it fell on him. And he did report it. But here's what gets me. Paterno says that he'd never heard of rape and a man. Exactly what "man" is he talking about. Sandusky? Really? Joe had never in his life heard anything about how a man can force himself on someone else (woman, child, even another man) and it is called rape? Or, is he calling the 10 year old boy a man? I'm sorry. I sincerely have a problem with those words. I have a problem with the entire notion that Paterno was so completely overwhelmed by what McQueary told him that he just found himself at a loss as to how to handle it. (Which is something else he said.) Basically, by Joe's own admission, he handed it off to his bosses and put it out of his mind. It haunts him now, but it obviously didn't then. Because if it had been haunting him, then I cannot conceive of how he could just let it go. Yes, the man is a football legend. No doubt about it. The sad truth is Joe destroyed his own legacy. He was faced with a difficult situation, I know. The problem is, his failure is made even more shocking by that legacy of his. The man who was known for promoting honor failed to show it himself. Does he bear the same responsibility of someone who openly helped a pedophile commit his crimes? Of course not. But while it may be true that Joe upheld his "legal" responsibility when he talked to the head of the campus police about it, he utterly failed to uphold his moral responsibility to the children Sandusky was molesting when he did not insist that something more be done. Sorry, Joe, but you just don't get any sympathy from me on this one.

This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Sure, the husband is going to catch grief from his wife, but that's because the two have a close connection. The "tart" is a total stranger. She might likely never be seen again by the couple. I should add, however, that there are some women out there (and possibly here ) who would indeed have something to say to the scantily clad woman. Still, none of this in any way changes the ultimate truth that both the "tart" and those who lusted after her are guilty of sin. (And equally so, since sin is sin.) Did you even see the post I wrote about who is ultimately responsible for making women feel emboldened empowered or willing to exploit themselves in this way? (1 Peter 3:7). I did read your post. I have read all of them. However, I do not quite see how instruction for husbands to love and honor their wives translates for men being responsible for the way women behave. Every adult, male or female, is responsible for their own actions.

How about this - you are watching the movie Thor with your wife, and when it gets to scene where Thor is walking around shirtless and your wife's eyes start ogling him. What do you do? You didn't see the end of the movie? Where I snatched his hammer away from him and .... LOL So, in other words, you would like for me to punch the provocative woman in the face? Chick fight! Strains of Wyguy, here, I think. oh, how I miss him.

This has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Sure, the husband is going to catch grief from his wife, but that's because the two have a close connection. The "tart" is a total stranger. She might likely never be seen again by the couple. I should add, however, that there are some women out there (and possibly here ) who would indeed have something to say to the scantily clad woman. Still, none of this in any way changes the ultimate truth that both the "tart" and those who lusted after her are guilty of sin. (And equally so, since sin is sin.)

How is asking, "Is she partly to blame?" different from the original question of, "Who is to blame?" We already agreed that all are to blame. How does changing the group of men to one man, and how does focusing on her more than him change the answer? Both are guilty. She is guilty for her sin, and he is guilty for his sin. Well and succinctly said, Neb!

But this was a straight up question with defined criteria......why bring other scenarios into the mix? Because it is about the same thing. Just a different scenario. Sin is sin. Perversion is perversion. Vice is vice. And we are far too quick to rationalize evil. I agree wholeheartedly with these words. It is an ever growing trend that no one is willing to take responsibility for their own thought/actions/selves, but instead always seeks to put the "blame" on someone else. We (Christians) are not to live our lives based upon what those around us do. We are not to maintain our "holiness" (for lack of a better word at the moment) only when no one is around to tempt us to abandon it. It all comes right back to the old "the devil made me do it" defense. It's the coward's way out, used when the guilty person wants to alleviate their culpability for their own actions. Every person in this scenario is responsible for their own actions, period. There are instances where universal responsibility may not apply. Namely, I do not believe a young child is in any way responsible for abuse they suffer at the hands of others, even though many abusers attempt to suggest so. (Horrific, but I know many child molesters try to claim that their victims "lured" them in.) But this is a wholly different situation than what was originally raised. And ultimately, whatever scenario one wants to come up with, personal responsibility is never "shared." Just as another example, I in no way support the notion that those who are abused as children who then grow up to be abusers or violent themselves ought to be absolved of some of their responsibility due to their pasts. (This is a social legal issue, but it goes along with the notion of responsibility for one's own actions.) * I should mention that I am agreeing with the notion that all sin is sin, etc. And also that I see an ever increasing tendency to "whitewash" the plain truth. IE, that our sin is no one's fault but our own. This may or may not have been the full meaning behind John's words above, but is what I believe. I quite heartily disagree with this notion: "Are we so quick to whitewash the instigation of a thing and blame those who have an addiction / tendency to sin?" Again, I could be wrong, but this seems to suggest that those with an "addiction/tendency" to sin ought to in some way be "cut some slack" when they are tempted by their "addiction." Ex. - a drug addict who is tempted by a drug dealer. Ultimately, it is the addict's responsibility to resist the temptation. The dealer is obviously wrong and bears his/her own responsibility for their actions, but they are not somehow to blame for the addict falling into sin, even if they "instigated" the situation that gave rise to the temptation.

Nope! Scripture is very clear that we can't blame God when we are tempted and if we can't blame Him when we are led away by our own lusts how can we blame this female? Potiphers wife threw herself, half dressed, at Jospeh. However, Joseph did what was right and I'm absolutely certain it wasn't easy. Perhaps Joseph might even have felt a certain right to some enjoyment and carnal pleasure due to all that had happened to him. Yet, He put God first! You are playing Judge where God does not. Peace, Dave Agreed! It is our responsibility to resist temptation, even when it throws itself into our face and demands our attention.

Well, I believe it is well understood that people (humans in general) like to have things tied up in neat, easy to digest, little packages. The "apple" that Eve supposedly ate is merely a tradition that someone, somewhere started. It's a mental word association thing. Say fruit, most people immediately think of an apple. I don't know of a single person who teaches a doctrine that the fruit mentioned in Genesis was in fact an apple and no other kind of fruit. This is just one such instance of people making mental links that are not actually based upon Biblical fact. The "whale" that swallowed Jonah is another one. It was actually a "big fish." If you want to get strict about it, whales are not fish at all. But for the average person, the largest sea creature they can think of is a whale. So when they think about the story of Jonah, their minds immediately conjure up an image of a whale. Yet, just like the apple, I know of no one who teaches that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. And one more: the story of the birth of Christ. There are a whole host of traditionally accepted notions about this great event that are based not on the Bible itself, but on the mental leaps that people make without really thinking about it. The stable is almost always depicted as a barn, when a study of history suggests that it was more likely a cave or even the lower floor of a house. The trio of wise men are often called kings and generally depicted as showing up right on the heels of Jesus' birth when it was more likely to have been months later. Mary is invariably shown riding on the back of a donkey being led by Joseph when the Bible never says any such thing happened. December 25th itself is nothing more than man-made tradition. Yet, like the other examples, I have never seen anyone teach these aspects as doctrinal gospel. In fact, I would say it is far more common to hear a teacher/preacher draw attention to the error. I know my pastor likes to mention things like the "apple" from time to time. He'll toss it into a sermon, then pause to see if we catch it before pointing out that the Bible never says apple at all. Same thing with the whale, etc. Now, as to your OP, I would have to answer your question of "Just because I can find these things and use-supporting scripture does that make it CORRECT?" with NO. There are countless examples of instances where scripture is taken out of context and used to "support" a point of view. I mean, I have literally witnessed people who took verses and tried to use them to support blatant racism. (Understand, I am not suggesting you are in any way like these people. I am merely making a point.) Atheists routinely try to pull verses out to support their suggestion that God contradicts Himself, that (if He existed in their minds) He is cruel instead of loving. The list of such examples is virtually endless. Twisting scripture is a common occurrence. About the rest of your post, I will defer to the earlier posts from Eleanor and others as they have answered you far more wisely than I could have.

All of them. Every single one of them is in the wrong.

I see the warnings about Timeline in the same light as I do Facebook (and other social sites) in general. There are always warnings about posting too much personal information. This is just common sense. Never post anything on the web that you don't want the whole world to know. Including your future children, you current or future employer, you parents, grandparents, pastor, etc. This isn't a problem for me, since I don't have kids and my dogs haven't figured out how to work the computer, yet. However, even if I did have kids, they wouldn't find anything horrible if they were to scan back through my social history. No pictures of me passed out drunk. No posts about partying all night or being stoned out of my head. Because that's not the life I live. Nor have I ever lived that way. I was raised to believe that it was my responsibility to not behave like some kind of animal and I never have. And therein lies much of the problem with so many of those who put their entire lives out there on the web. They have absolutely no sense of responsibility, no concern what-so-ever about the potential consequences of their actions. It's sad, disturbing, and a sign of the times in which we live, I'm afraid.

The article says, Yet, I have not seen any actual quote from Lowe's that states this is the reason they withdrew their ads. The only quote I have seen is this one: To me, this sounds more like they opted to pull out because they didn't want any part of the controversy this show has spawned. I think it is less about some kind of political or religious statement on the part of Lowe's. I just think they wanted to "get out while the getting is good." Unfortunately, I fully expect them to wind up being coerced into issuing an apology and reinstating the ads. It's sad, but that's the way things are these days. Political correctness is more important than anything else, including our right to choose who or what we support or associate ourselves with.

This is the religion of peace, folks. And Christianity is the one that's supposed to be all about suppression.

Yikes, this is one of those topics that can just twist my brain into a knot. Yes, I personally believe we will know and recognize each other in heaven. I base this upon the verse that has already been quoted, 1 Corinthians 13:12. Also, I base it upon, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. I do find it comforting to believe that one day I will see my saved loved ones again in heaven. However, Jesus did teach that at least some of our relationships won't be the same there. IE, there won't be marriages. So, things will be somewhat different, though I won't even pretend to understand exactly how. As to knowing friends/relatives/loved ones who are not in heaven, well I have no real scripture to back it up, but I have always been taught that we would lose our memories of them on the last day when God "wipes away" all our tears, sorrow, pain, etc. This is purely conjecture, however, and not something that I believe any of us can know for certain. It does seem like it would be difficult to be happy knowing someone we care about is suffering in hell, however. Then again, none of us can begin to even guess at how it will truly be. I have many family members that I loved dearly who are gone, some of them died when I was so young that I have little memory of them at all other than the fact that I loved them. My uncle is one of them. My maternal grandfather died when I was very young. I have no memory at all of him, which my father told me was a shame since he said my grandfather adored me. Now I don't know if my uncle or grandfather were saved. I do know that my mother, father, sister, and mother-in-law all made professions of faith and so I fully expect to see them again one day. But if my uncle and grandfather are in heaven, then I believe I will know them when I get there. I don't think it's going to be like some family reunion we might go to down here where someone has to introduce all those people you only see once every year or so. I suppose the greatest example is Jesus Himself. None of us has actually seen Him with our physical eyes. We cannot know what He would look like. Yet when we reach heaven, I believe we will know Him instantly. And not because He'll be the guy sitting on the big throne, but because we will have understanding beyond anything we can know or experience here. As 1 Corinthians 15:51-52 says, we'll be changed. This passage may be talking about our physical bodies, but I think it must go further than that. Our minds and "hearts" must be changed as well. Otherwise heaven wouldn't be all that great a place. Because Christians can barely get along with one other down here. If something miraculous and God instigated doesn't change within us, we'll still be squabbling over which denomination was right and which was wrong. Not to mention our sinful nature that will have to be done away with once and for all. Just my opinion. Basically, whether it's right or wrong, I hang on to the idea that I will see my family again some day. And that we'll know each other.

I know I shouldn't be, but I continue to be amazed at the hypocrisy displayed by this nation. Everyone is protected, except Christians. The editorial got it right, though, when it talked about how poorly we Christians are at responding to it all. We get mad and then we get just as a ugly as those who insult us. I've fallen into that trap myself a few times. Tebow is a breath of fresh air in how he handles it all. I pray he keeps it up, and that his faith remains strong. Because we all know that everyone who follows the NFL, and anyone out there who makes it their business to roast every single openly Christian public figure to a crisp, is just waiting for him to slip up and get "caught" doing something wrong. An affair, drugs, something - anything - that can be used as a weapon against him and Christianity. I'd hate to be in his shoes and have that kind of scrutiny focused on me. I know I'd fall flat on my face pretty quickly.

Thank you! Merry Christmas to you, too!

Then he shouldnt be called a pastor or attempt to lead.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but my feeling about Osteen (and others of his ilk) is that they are leading thousands to hell in a hand basket. He's out there, professing to be a Christian minister, a leader, and he's teaching a bunch of feel-good fluff and thousands are eating it up and jumping on the bandwagon with him. They're joining his church, or another one like it, telling themselves and everyone else that they're Christians, too, when they really don't have any idea what the word means. They know nothing of Jesus, heaven or hell, salvation, or any other meaningful part of God's Word. They're just going to church so they can participate in a big sing along and come out feeling happy and content. Osteen recently brought his traveling show to my area and they ran commercials for it on the local stations. I'll never forget the snippet of some woman talking about how uplifting and encouraging it was. While there's certainly nothing wrong with coming out of a church service feeling uplifted or encouraged, there needs to be a balance of coming out feeling convicted and repentant, too. But that doesn't happen much anymore. At least not with people like Osteen and many of the other more popular psuedo-preachers. Because they're out there giving people what they want, just like the Bible said they would be. It's pretty tragic that so many people are choosing to turn away from the truth, though.