6/10/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Let's be done with smugness


Let's be done with smugness

I want to propose that a richer and more wide-eyed understanding of the horrible nature of sin is a profound moral advantage in the fight against sin.

And I wish to say that to know this should lead believers to bury their smugness and take more note of texts like
 
1 Peter 1:14-17 and Titus 3:1-7.

The piece will be repetitive, so some of the few that visit this web-site will find it a bit tedious. Still, maybe the patience to work through it will be worth the effort. [Having read the piece I know it isn’t very well laid out, but...]

It wears on me a bit to hear people treat all sinners alike and to hear them insist that all sins are of the same character. I do accept—and would insist—that all sin is damnable and if God in his generous grace in Jesus Christ did not deal with it none of us could bear his holy presence or gain life. But it’s silly—almost criminal—for believers to brand all sins as equally wicked when the Bible and sanctified common sense teach otherwise. (By "sanctified common sense" I mean common sense put to a holy use.)

I suppose it’s true that the more horrible we think a sin to be the more we will struggle against it. Would you say so? It’s certainly how we act at the individual and societal level. Comparatively speaking, not many of us will break into a house to steal but a vast number of us will cheat on income tax returns. Not many ladies will in fact murder their husbands but a great number of them will be guilty of gossip. I see that exceptional circumstances enter into the discussion at some point but in general terms that embrace the vast majority of us I’m sure that if we see a particular sin as horrific we avoid it or struggle bravely to avoid it. The motives may be mixed (prudence, the fear of being discovered, the ramifications for those we love, and such) but I’m fairly sure we’d all agree that the worse we feel the sin to be the more fervently we’d want to avoid it. The narrative about Joseph and Mrs Potiphar in Genesis 39:6-9, I think, illustrates motivation. None of this seems controversial to me so I’m going to take it as true

Let’s take a further step. If we truly think Sin is an abomination we’d be more set against it and even when in specific instances we sin with distressing regularity we would still be utterly opposed to it and bravely fight the good fight. If we don’t think it to be very bad then we’re lacking a weapon with which to fight it. A child raised in a morally careful and healthy home clearly has a moral advantage over a child raised in and shaped by a vicious ghetto environment. The difference is real! This too appears to be non-controversial.

I recognise that we might tend to commit a particular wrong rather than another because this one is easier to commit than the other is. It might also be easier to hide than the other so that fear of discovery and perhaps punishment of some kind would not hinder us as much. I’m thinking that it would be easier to lie about the amount of "sundry expenses" on an income tax return than it would be to work up the courage to suffocate an abusive husband. But that’s not the sort of thing I’m talking about at this precise moment though it will enter a bit later. No, at this moment I’m talking about how we view the wrong. If I see the wrong as horrible (rather than, say, of little consequence or even as maybe justifiable)—if I see it as horrible my attitude toward it and vision of it will come to my aid in avoiding it. This would be true even of a sin that could easily be hidden. The fact that it can easily be hidden might encourage me to do it but the fact that for one reason or another I think it to be monstrous would discourage me from doing it. I would have thought this to be plain truth that anyone who gave it a moment’s thought would say yes to.

You understand I’m not saying that if we all thought this sin or that was horrible that we would never do it because it’s demonstrably true that we all do things that we feel the horror of. Sadly it’s a common experience to come across people who have been caught in a great wrong and see them filled with shame and incapable of explaining why they would have done such a thing because they don’t understand why they did it. (I’ve so sinned myself.)

No, I simply want to make the point that sensing the grievous nature of sin gives us another tool with which to oppose the sin. It might not keep us from it in all cases but we are better prepared to make a fight of it than if we weren’t aware of the staggering nature of the evil. In general terms, we’d probably find it more difficult to keep the money we were overpaid for a job if it came from a poor widow rather than if it came from a thriving big industry. We’d probably think you’d have to be the lowest form of person to do the first and we’d probably say it serves the big company right for being stupid. We’re not being paid to be their accountants, don't you see.

So where has all the above been going? I’m proposing that a richer and more wide-eyed understanding of the horrible nature of sin is a moral advantage even if we don’t make use of it. I’m saying that those of us who have been privileged with light in which to walk have been given a stupendous moral advantage over those raised in moral gloom. The light is both a weapon and an inspiration. The light that exposes the loathsome nature of sin is geared to enlist our emotions and will against it and our failure to use that advantage is serious! In light of what many of us have been blessed with, Jesus’ question "what do you do more than others?" is of chilling consequence. See Matthew 5:46-48. Peter was certain that for some people it would be better if they had never known the way of righteousness. See 2 Peter 2:21. We are all equally sinners (Romans 3:23) but there are sins that are greater than others (see John 19:11, Ezekiel 16:47, 51 and elsewhere).

Sin against soft but bright light is greater than sin committed where the light has not reached. It is more than a question of knowledge. To know and to experience the love of God is a profound moral blessing that multiplied millions have not known. For the richly blessed to feel superior is smugness hardly forgivable. It’s obscene to stand safe on the shore shouting scorn while poor souls are going down in the storm of moral pollution. To be well armoured and to compare ourselves favourably with the moral weaklings whose defences have been eroded by society is pathetic. It would be like a man who is able to see despising a blind man because he is blind.

I’m ashamed of our smugness.

by Taylor Richardson ... Seeing is Believing: The Design of the Human Eye




http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1412

Seeing is Believing: The Design of the Human Eye

by  Taylor Richardson

If one of your friends asked you, “How do you know God exists?,” what would you say? There are many different ways to prove God’s existence, because God has given us so much evidence. Sometimes we find that evidence in things we see in the Universe, for example, the Sun. The Sun is like a giant nuclear engine. It gives off more energy in a single second than mankind has produced since the Creation. It converts 8 million tons of matter into energy every single second, and has an interior temperature of more than 20 million degrees Celsius (see Lawton, 1981). Sometimes we find evidence in the animal kingdom. Take the golden orb spider for instance. Pound for pound, the dragline silk of this spider is five times stronger than steel, and is twice as strong as the material that currently makes up SWAT teams’ bulletproof vests. In fact, due to its amazing strength and elasticity, it has been said that you could trap a jumbo jet with spider silk that is the thickness of a pencil.
And sometimes the evidence for God’s existence can even be found within our own bodies. The writer of the book of Hebrews spoke about this evidence when he said: “For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God” (3:4).
One of the best examples of design within the human body is the eye. Even Charles Darwin struggled with the problem of how to explain how such a complex organ as the eye could have “evolved” through naturalistic processes. In The Origin of Species he wrote:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense (1859, p. 170, emp. added).
But even though Darwin acknowledged that the eye could not have evolved, he went on to argue that it had, in fact, been produced by natural selection through an evolutionary process. It seems almost as though Darwin could not seem to make up his mind on the matter. But he is not the only one who has struggled to explain, from a naturalistic viewpoint, the intricacy of the eye. Evolutionist Robert Jastrow once wrote:
The eye is a marvelous instrument, resembling a telescope of the highest quality, with a lens, an adjustable focus, a variable diaphragm for controlling the amount of light, and optical corrections for spherical and chromatic aberration. The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvelous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events? (1981, pp. 96-97, emp. added).
How indeed? Though Dr. Jastrow argued that “the fact of evolution is not in doubt,” he confessed that “…there seems to be no direct proof that evolution can work these miracles.… It is hard to accept the evolution of the eye as a product of chance” (1981, pp. 101,97,98, emp. added). Considering the extreme complexity of the eye, it is easy to understand why Jastrow would make such a comment. In his book, Does God Believe in Atheists?, John Blanchard described just how complex the eye really is.
The human eye is a truly amazing phenomenon. Although accounting for just one fourth-thousandth of an adult’s weight, it is the medium which processes some 80% of the information received by its owner from the outside world. The tiny retina contains about 130 million rod-shaped cells, which detect light intensity and transmit impulses to the visual cortex of the brain by means of some one million nerve fibres, while nearly six million cone-shaped cells do the same job, but respond specifically to colour variation. The eyes can handle 500,00 messages simultaneously, and are kept clear by ducts producing just the right amount of fluid with which the lids clean both eyes simultaneously in one five-thousandth of a second (2000, p. 313).
Statements like this proves that the eye was so well designed, and so complicated, that it could not have happened by accident, as evolution teaches.

THE EYE’S DESIGN

The anatomy of the eye was first examined and recorded at Alexandria, Egypt, in the first century A.D. An anatomist, Rufus of Ephesus, described the main parts of the eye, which included the dome-like cornea at the front, the colored iris, the lens, and the vitreous humor (which gives the eye its shiny look). Today, thanks to microscopes, we now know that these, along with many other parts of the eye, work in harmony to produce the gift of sight.
Diagram of the Human Eye
The outer white layer of the eye is called the sclera, more commonly known as the “white of the eye.” This layer is an extremely durable, fibrous tissue that extends from the cornea (the clear front section of the eye) to the optic nerve (at the back of the eye). Six tiny muscles (known as the extraocular muscles, or EOMs) connect to the sclera around the eye and control the eye’s movements. Four of the muscles (known as the rectus muscles) control the horizontal and vertical movement, while two (the oblique muscles) control the rotation. All six muscles work together so that the eye moves smoothly.
The inside of the eye can be divided functionally into two distinct parts. The first is the physical “dioptric” mechanism (from the Greek word dioptra, meaning something through which one looks), which handles incoming light. This includes the cornea, iris, and lens. The cornea is the transparent, dome-shaped window (about eleven millimeters in diameter) that covers the front of the eye. Its most important function is to protect the delicate components of the eye against damage by foreign bodies. Thus, the cornea acts like a watch face, in that it lets us look through the “window” of our eye while protecting the internal components from debris and harmful chemicals. The cornea also takes care of most of the refraction (the ability of the eye to change the direction of light in order to focus it on the retina) and works with the lens to help focus items seen at varying distances as it changes its curvature. The iris and the pupil work together to let in just the right amount of light. There are two opposing sets of muscles that regulate the size of the aperture (the opening, or the pupil) according to the brightness or dimness of the incoming light. If the light is bright, the iris constricts, allowing little light to pass; but if it is dark, the iris dilates or expands, allowing more light to pass through. The light (or image) then moves through a lens that has the ability to adjust its shape to help it clarify the image by changing the focal length of the lens between 40.4 and 69.9 millimeters where it is then focused (in an inverted form) on to the retina.
Between the lens and the retina is a transparent substance (the vitreous fluid) that fills the center of the eye. This substance is important because it not only gives the eye its spherical shape, but also provides nutrition for the retinal vessels inside the eye. In children, the vitreous feels like a gel, but as we age, it gradually thins and becomes more of a liquid.
The second is the receptor area of the retina where the light triggers processes in the nerve cells. The retina plays a key role in visual perception. In his book, The Wonder of Man, Werner Gitt explains how the retina is a masterpiece of engineering design.
One single square millimetre of the retina contains approximately 400,000 optical sensors. To get some idea of such a large number, imagine a sphere, on the surface of which circles are drawn, the size of tennis balls. These circles are separated from each other by the same distance as their diameter. In order to accommodate 400,000 such circles, the sphere must have a diameter of 52 metres... (1999, p. 15).
Alan L. Gillen also praised the design of the retina in his book, Body by Design.
The most amazing component of the eye is the “film,” which is the retina. This light-sensitive layer at the back of the eyeball is thinner than a sheet of plastic wrap and is more sensitive to light than any man-made film. The best camera film can handle a ratio of 1000-to-1 photons in terms of light intensity. By comparison, human retinal cells can handle a ratio of 10 billion-to-1 over the dynamic range of light wavelengths of 380 to 750 nanometers. The human eye can sense as little as a single photon of light in the dark! In bright daylight, the retina can bleach out, turning its “volume control” way down so as not to overload. The light-sensitive cells of the retina are like an extremely complex high-gain amplifier that is able to magnify sounds more than one million times (2001, pp. 97-98, emp. added).
Without a doubt, this thin (only 0.2 mm) layer of nerve tissue is a marvel of engineering. It contains photoreceptor (light-sensitive) cells and four types of nerve cells, as well as structural cells and epithelial pigment cells. The two kinds of photoreceptor cells are referred to as rods and cones because of their shape. Each eye has about 130 million rods and 7 million cones. The rods are very sensitive to light (whether it is bright or dim), and allow the eye to see in black and white. Cones, on the other hand, are not as sensitive as rods, and function only optimally in daylight. There are three different types of cones—red light, green light, and blue light—each of which is sensitive to its respective color of light, and which allow the eye to see in full color. The rods and cones convert the different lights into chemical signals, which then travel along the optic nerve to the brain.
Not only are the images produced by the dioptric mechanism miniaturized and upside-down, but it turns out that they also are left-right inverted. The optic nerves from both eyes split up and cross each other in such a way that the left halves of the images of both eyes are received by the right hemisphere of the brain, while the right halves are received by the left. Each half of the observer’s brain receives information from only one half of the image. As Gitt went on to explain, “Note that, although the brain processes the different parts of the image in various remote locations, the two halves of the field of vision are seamlessly reunited, without any trace of a joint—amazing! This process is still far from being fully understood” (p. 17). It is hard to believe that this inverted system of sight could have been produced through evolution.
Since the eyes are one of the most important organs in the body, they must be taken care of constantly. And God designed just such a built-in cleaning system, consisting of the eyelashes, eyelids, and lacrimal glands. The lacrimal glands produce a steady flow of tears that flush away dust and other foreign materials. The tears also contain a potent anti-microbial agent known as lysozyme that destroys bacteria, viruses, etc. The eyelids and eyelashes work together to keep dirt and other debris from entering the eye. The eyelids act like windshield wipers, blinking 3-6 times a minute to moisten and clean the eye.
For many years, scientists have compared the eye to the modern manmade camera (see Miller, 1960, p. 315; Nourse, 1964, p. 154; Gardener, 1994, p. 105). True, the eye and camera do have many things in common, if the function of the camera demands that it was “made,” does it not stand to reason that the more complex human camera, the eye, also must have had a Maker? Alan Gillen explained it best when he wrote: “No human camera, artificial device, nor computer-enhanced light-sensitive device can match the contrivance of the human eye. Only a master engineer with superior intelligence could manufacture a series of interdependent light sensitive parts and reactions” (p. 99, emp. added). That master engineer was God. The writer of Proverbs knew this when he wrote, “The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (20:12).

REFERENCES

Blanchard, John (2000), Does God Believe in Atheists? (Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press).
Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; a facsimile of the first edition).
Gardner, Lynn (1994), Christianity Stands True (Joplin, MO: College Press).
Gillen, Alan L. (2001), Body by Design (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Gitt, Werner (1999), The Wonder of Man (Bielefeld, Germany: Christliche Literatur-Verbreitung E.V.).
Jastrow, Robert (1981), The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Lawton, April (1981), “From Here to Infinity,” Science Digest, 89[1]:98-105, January/February.
Miller, Benjamin and Goode, Ruth (1960), Man and His Body (New York: Simon and Schuster).
Nourse, Alan E., ed. (1964), The Body (New York: Time, Inc.).

From Mark Copeland... Conflict Over Circumcision (Acts 15:1-35)

                          "THE BOOK OF ACTS"

                 Conflict Over Circumcision (15:1-35)

INTRODUCTION

1. During his first missionary journey, Paul saw that God "opened a door
   of faith to the Gentiles" - Ac 14:27
   a. The conversion of Sergius Paulus - Ac 13:6-12
   b. The conversion of many Gentiles in Antioch of Pisidia - Ac 13:42-49
   c. The conversion of Greeks in Iconium - Ac 14:1

2. It wasn't long before the question of Gentiles in the church became an
   issue...
   a. Should the Gentiles be accepted without first converting to 
      Judaism?
   b. Should they be required to be circumcised, and keep the Law of
      Moses?

[After a "long time" in Antioch of Syria, Paul and the church were
faced with a crisis regarding the issue of the Gentiles...]

I. THE CONFLICT

   A. SOME CAME FROM JUDEA...
      1. Teaching that Gentiles could not be saved without circumcision 
         - Ac 15:1
      2. With whom Paul and Barnabas strongly disagreed - Ac 15:2
      3. This conflict might have involved Peter - Ga 2:11-16 (some
         think this was during Ac 15:1-2; others think it was later)

   B. PAUL AND BARNABAS SENT TO JERUSALEM...
      1. Accompanied by "certain others" (such as Titus) - Ac 15:2; 
         Ga 2:1
      2. To talk to the apostles and elders, which Paul did "by
         revelation" - Ac 15:2; Ga 2:2
      3. On the way, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria - Ac 15:3
         a. Describing the conversion of the Gentiles
         b. Causing great joy among the brethren

[Since the men causing disturbance came from Judea, Paul and his 
companions went to Jerusalem, to locate the actual origin of this
problem.  This led to...]

II. THE CONFERENCE

   A. PRELIMINARY MEETINGS...
      1. Formal reception by the church
         a. Paul's party was received by the church, the apostles, and
            the elders - Ac 15:4
         b. To whom Paul reported all that God had done with them - Ac 15:4; cf. Ac 14:27
         c. Some of the sect of the Pharisees objected - Ac 15:5
            1) Likely Jewish Christians who had been Pharisees
            2) Demanding Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law of
               Moses
      2. Private meeting with some who were "of reputation"
         a. In which Paul explained the gospel which he preached - Ga 2:1-2
         b. Where some false brethren tried to compel Titus (a Gentile)
            to be circumcised, which Paul refused - Ga 2:3-6
         c. James, Peter, and John commended Paul for his work among the
            Gentiles - Ga 2:7-10
            1) Extending to him the right hand of fellowship
            2) Asking only that he remember the poor (something he was 
               careful do on his remaining missionary journeys)

   B. PUBLIC MEETING...
      1. The speech of Peter - Ac 15:6-11
         a. How God selected him to be the first to preach to the
            Gentiles - cf. Ac 10:1-43
         b. How God bore witness to their acceptability by giving them
            the Spirit - cf. Ac 10:44-48; 11:15-18
         c. That God purified them through faith, just as He did the
            Jews
         d. That they should not test God, by placing a burden on the
            Gentiles which they themselves could not bear
         e. That God will save the Jews in the same way, through the
            grace of the Lord Jesus - cf. Ac 2:38 (Jews) with Ac 10:48
            (Gentiles)
      2. The testimony of Paul and Barnabas - Ac 15:12 
         a. How God did many miracles and wonders through them among the
            Gentiles
         b. Which the multitude listened to quietly
      3. The counsel of James - Ac 15:13-21
         a. Reminding them of what Simon (Peter) had just said
         b. Reminding them of the Old Testament prophecy of Amos - Am 9:11-12
         c. Offering his judgment:
            1) Not to trouble the Gentiles who were turning to God
            2) But write to them, asking them to abstain from:
               a) Things polluted by idols (i.e., meats offered to idols)
               b) Sexual immorality
               c) Things strangled
               d) Blood 
         d. This would go a long way in keeping peace between Jewish and
            Gentile converts

[With the testimony of Paul and Barnabas, Peter, and James, supported by
God's approval through miraculous signs and prophetic scriptures, the 
conflict came to a quick resolution (for the time being)...]

III. THE CONCLUSION

   A. DELEGATION AND LETTER...
      1. The apostles, elders, and the whole church agree to send a
         delegation - Ac 15:22
      2. Judas and Silas, selected to accompany Paul and Barnabas along
         with the letter - Ac 15:22
      3. A copy of this letter is preserved by Luke - Ac 15:23-29
      4. Note:  those who caused the trouble are identified as having
         done so without any authority from those in Jerusalem - Ac 15:24

   B. RETURN AND RECEPTION...
      1. Paul and the delegation return to Antioch, and deliver the
         letter - Ac 15:30
      2. The multitude rejoice over its encouragement - Ac 15:31
      3. Judas and Silas exhort the brethren with many words - Ac 15:32-34
         a. Judas eventually returned to the apostles in Jerusalem
         b. Silas stayed in Antioch, later to join Paul on his travels 
            - cf. Ac 15:40
      4. Paul and Barnabas remain in Antioch, teaching and preaching
         - Ac 15:35

CONCLUSION

1. The conflict over circumcision and the Law illustrates the challenges
   faced by the early church...
   a. The challenge of transition from the Old Covenant to the New
      Covenant
   b. The challenge of accepting into the church those who were 
      considered "unclean"
 
2. But the challenges were overcome, in large part due to the apostle
   Paul...
   a. A Hebrew of the Hebrews, but also an apostle to the Gentiles
   b. Whom God used to help bridge Jew and Gentile together

To fulfill what Jesus died to accomplish on the cross, to bring peace
between Jew and Gentile, making one new body (Ep 2:11-16).  This ought
to remind us who are Gentiles how blessed we are to be able to come
into the fellowship with God and His people.  

Have we let Jesus add us to His one new body, the church...? - cf. Ac
2:41,47

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2012

From Gary... Homo sapiens

From reading this sign, one could infer that "Homo sapiens" is just another species; one of many animals. While it is true that we have a lot in common with the animal world, we are different. Human creativity, reason and artistic abilities put us in a class all by ourselves. Wait, that is right, but not right. God made us and placed us at the top of the order of things.  So, this sign is wrong; wrong because it leaves God out of the picture. And, like it or no- God is with us!!!  Now, the very "SMART" (perhaps stupid might be more accurate) among us have reasoned God out of existence (at least in their own minds). Morals, ethics, civility; everything that makes Homo sapiens a social creature is best defined by the Almighty and not Human reason.  Think about this for a minute- Human reason changes with the centuries. Remember, the Greeks viewed the world through pure reason; now the standard is the scientific method. Time will only tell what the common world view will be, in say, 500 years or so.  One thing is a surety, the Christian's standard has been and will be the Scriptures, even unto ten thousand years. But, for those who will not listen, I am quite sure that this will fall on "deaf ears".  Consider this passage from the book of Corinthians for a moment....
 
1 Corinthians, Chapter 2
1Co 2:1  And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God.
1Co 2:2  For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.
1Co 2:3  I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,
1Co 2:4  and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
1Co 2:5  so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1Co 2:6  Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;
1Co 2:7  but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
1Co 2:8  the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
1Co 2:9  but just as it is written, "THINGS WHICH EYE HAS NOT SEEN AND EAR HAS NOT HEARD, AND which HAVE NOT ENTERED THE HEART OF MAN, ALL THAT GOD HAS PREPARED FOR THOSE WHO LOVE HIM."
1Co 2:10  For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
1Co 2:11  For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
1Co 2:13  which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
1Co 2:14  But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
1Co 2:15  But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
1Co 2:16  For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ
.

Humans are taller, better fed, housed and educated (maybe yes, and maybe no on that last one) than ever before.  But, I ask you- are we any better social creatures than those to whom Paul wrote in Corinth? If you answered yes, then perhaps you are deceiving yourself. Only obedience to God and a heart willing to adhere to HIS design for our lives really changes things.  And the closer you are to God, the better a person you will become. Believe that, because it is right!!!