To take this discussion a bit deeper, before we had written word, how did our ancestors keep their beliefs alive ??? didn't they sit around the fire and talk???? sure, is a lot of room for favoring one line of thought over another to be past down thru generations.

The Nicene creed come to mind. Ever wonder why no "Gospels" by females were included?? Even though "Mary" was the "Mother of God"

quote:

Originally posted by roarindan:
before we had written word

In Eurasia that was a very long time ago.* “Oral traditions,” i.e., stories were passed down verbally.

Because, according to Biblical scholars, the Gospels were written decades after Christ’s crucifixion, the stories that were later recorded in Greek would presumably have circulated orally as well, probably initially in Jesus’ language which was Aramaic.

* Unless one accepts the story of the Noachian flood that destroyed everyone on Earth except Noah and his family. Although it’s not known what language they spoke or if it had a written version, it would have been whatever was the common world language until all the different languages were created following the Biblical tower of Babel event.

I find the history of which of a large number of “gospels” and other writings were ultimately accepted by various sects as canonical (valid) to be interesting. For example, Martin Luther reportedly believed that the Book of Revelation by one of the early Johns should not be considered part of the canon.
There are early writings that fall into the general category of religious accounts that were attributed to women.

There are many sources, including YouTube videos that discuss the question.

quote:

Originally posted by roarindan:
To take this discussion a bit deeper, before we had written word, how did our ancestors keep their beliefs alive ??? didn't they sit around the fire and talk????

Surely, you know the answer is by oral tradition until Moses wrote down the words in the books attributed to him. But if you're talking about the Judeo-Christian belief system, they wouldn't be your ancestors unless you're Jewish.

quote:

sure, is a lot of room for favoring one line of thought over another to be past down thru generations.

The Nicene creed come to mind. Ever wonder why no "Gospels" by females were included?? Even though "Mary" was the "Mother of God"

Mary isn't the mother of God as that really is a contradiction; the eternal God being birthed by a woman? Mary is the woman spoken of in Genesis 3 as the seed of the woman who will be bruised on the heel by the serpent but will crush the serpent's head. Mary is also the young maiden of Isaiah 7:14 who will give birth to a son and she will name Him Immanuel, God with us. The Holy Spirit came upon Mary and the second person of the Godhead took on a tent of human flesh in the womb of Mary.

I don't really wonder why no other gospels are included in the Bible, what for? If we added gospels that support the other gospels, what did we gain? Nothing. If added gospels contradicted the other gospels, then which do we believe?

But if you really want to go deeper, you brought up the "written word." The video below is a Singaporean pastor using a Chinese interpreter to preach to a Chinese audience how the ancient pictogram words of the traditional Chinese characters captured the Old Testament stories parallel and aligned with the text of the ancient Hebrews. If he was spouting BS, his Chinese audience could easily call him out as they know the Chinese characters better than him. So the wonder is: how did a pictogram written language from 4,500 years ago reflect the stories written in Genesis? This video is just the first of 15 videos on a playlist.

I have watched some of that, Fender. Will continue to chip away at it. I get the impression so far that Tucker is wanting to illuminate Israeli hostility toward Christians.

This is a very good piece my wife came across on social media, on the TPUSA and Grammys events. Unsure of the author....

If you’ve been on social media for even five minutes over the past two weeks, you’ve undoubtedly seen people praising Jelly Roll for talking about Jesus at the Grammy Awards and Kid Rock for sharing the gospel at the TPUSA halftime show. This fits into a larger trend that’s been going on for awhile now— Jesus is popular.

But is that something to get excited about? It seems that anyone who hesitates to answer that question without a resounding yes is quickly put to shame.

How could you not celebrate the name of Jesus being mentioned in front of all those Hollywood stars? Why wouldn’t you rejoice that the gospel was shared during the halftime show? How dare you question the work of God in the life of Jelly Roll or Kid Rock.

Negative. Critical. Judgmental. Legalistic.

These kind of responses and name calling have tempted me to remain silent on the topic, but I think it’s just too important. So first, I want to say that I am not judging the hearts of these celebrities. And while I think we can look at the fruit of their lives and be concerned, the final judge of hearts and motives is God and God alone. I am not saying God cannot or is not at work in their lives. Secondly, God can absolutely use these mentions of Him for His purposes and glory, just as He can use anything. But that fact does not automatically make it a good thing. My goal is to take a step back and look at what’s happening from a bigger perspective. In what way is this celebrity Christian culture destroying the true and Biblical Gospel?

Kid Rock shared part of the gospel message. Good, right?

The problem is that he also claims to be a believer in that gospel (for a few years now) while simultaneously living a life in complete opposition to it. He sings songs laced with profanity. Songs about underage girls, sex, topless dancers, heroin, and hard liquor. His social media profiles are full of all things profane— from pornographic videos and images to inappropriate language, photos, and jokes.

He opened up his halftime act with one of his many vulgar songs before telling the world to open up their Bibles and give their lives to Jesus. Many are saying that his performance was an artistic representation of his transformation— a wicked song from his past that he only lip-synced (something he’s already denied) to a “hymn” — from unsaved to saved. But I have a few questions even if that’s true.

First, was it really necessary to “show his past” by singing a horrible song while the crowd danced and sang along? Is it ever right to glorify sin? Second, if a transformation really has taken place in his life, then why does he continue to sing these debauched songs at his concerts? Why does he continue to promote them and make money off of them?

Jelly Roll is quite similar. “Jesus is for everyone!” he tells the crowd. Good, right?

Again, the problem is that he’s claimed to have found that Jesus. “I still cuss like a sailor. I still smoke a little smoke and drink a little drink like Eric Church, but man, I got a heart for God” he told another crowd a few months ago. And last week in a podcast interview, he expressed how glad he is that the world is coming back to a Jesus that is all about love and who doesn’t care about lifestyle (while throwing the f bomb in every few words during the interview).

God can do a work in the lives of these men— and maybe He is — but we can still mourn the fact that they’re currently displaying to the world an incomplete, vague Gospel and a Jesus that we don’t find in the Bible.

The true gospel isn’t a one prayer, fast pass to heaven while simultaneously living like hell here on earth. The true gospel saves us from the penalty AND the power of sin. The Biblical Jesus calls a people out of the world and unto holiness. True salvation begins with repentance and results in transformation.

No, none of us are perfect. We will all struggle in our battles with sin. We will fail. But genuine faith does not boast in or condone sin. It does not unashamedly love both the world and Christ. Genuine faith is on a path leading away from the world, sin, and flesh and toward Christ, righteousness, and the fruit of the spirit.

This isn’t about refusing to rejoice that the gospel was shared. It’s about that message being incomplete and deceiving—a message that says you can have Jesus and the world, too.

A gospel that costs you nothing.

A gospel that's easy.

A Jesus that lets you live any way you want.

A Jesus of their own creation that makes them feel good.

But that’s not the gospel. And that's not the Jesus of the Bible.

It’s just another door to the wide road that leads to hell— except this one uses words like gospel, Jesus, and heaven. That’s what makes it so dangerous. And it’s the type of message the Bible warns us the most about— disguised as light (2 Corinthians 11:14), wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15), another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:4), and false gospels (Galatians 1:6-8).

So should we be celebrating when a Christianity that looks just like the Church of Laodicea is being promoted to the world?

Should we be excited when an incomplete gospel message, a Jesus that’s only love, and a cheapened salvation message is proclaimed to thousands on TV?

Should we rejoice that two popular celebrities who claim to have “found Jesus” are exhibiting sinful lifestyles as an example to the world of what the children of God look and act like?

Admit that God can use it? Sure. Be hopeful that God is truly at work in their lives? Yes. But act like it’s a good thing? Absolutely not.

-----------------------------

Don’t ever take my word for it. Search the Bible for yourself!

Jesus & the Gospel being unpopular & hated by the world: John 7:7, John 15:18, Matthew 10:22, 1 John 3:13,

God calls His children to die to sin, self, and the world: 1 Peter 2:24, Galatians 5:24

Genuine faith is evidenced by repentance, turning from sin, and obedience: Matthew 3:8, Luke 24:37, 1 John 1:6, 2 Corinthians 7:10, Hebrews 12:14, 1 Peter 2:24

Can’t love both Christ & the world: James 4:4, John 2:15-16

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
I have watched some of that, Fender. Will continue to chip away at it. I get the impression so far that Tucker is wanting to illuminate Israeli hostility toward Christians.

I think Tucker gets a bad rap... he's not antisemitic. He's not a Nazi.
He asks uncomfortable questions.

Israel is, by definition, going to be opposed to Christians.

It’s a nation run, TMK, by an atheist Socialist majority - and “Jew” without faith is just a racist buffoon.

Any group of Christians in the ME are going to be rather committed to Christ.

Atheists are going to attack such a group.

As for the “Kid Rock” style of Christianity…


Don’t know. Musicians/other entertainers often have a complex relationship with faith.

Everyone does, probably.

Johnny Cash was quite overtly Christian - and overtly had substance issues/fidelity issues, etc.

Tucker Carlson just needs to go away. He's a nutjob, not unlike Candace Owens. And yes, he is antisemitic. He has drank the Kool-Aid.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Tucker Carlson just needs to go away. He's a nutjob, not unlike Candace Owens. And yes, he is antisemitic. He has drank the Kool-Aid.

And his Christian priest guest?

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Tucker Carlson just needs to go away. He's a nutjob, not unlike Candace Owens. And yes, he is antisemitic. He has drank the Kool-Aid.

And his Christian priest guest?

Christian priest?

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
Tucker Carlson just needs to go away. He's a nutjob, not unlike Candace Owens. And yes, he is antisemitic. He has drank the Kool-Aid.

And his Christian priest guest?

Christian priest?

Dr. Fares Abraham.

He's not a priest.

I agree that priest would be an incorrect identifier for Dr. Fares Abraham, based on his description online and the definition of "priest".

Seems that he'd be more than qualified to be a "pastor", but the title "priest" implies a stricter affiliation and authorization by a larger governing body to perform rituals and/or sacraments.

This is based on my brief research just now, in light of this discussion.

I’m gonna go on a somewhat “curvy” description of my Religious experience…my late wife and I were both third generation Jehovah’s Witnesses…raised to believe that they alone were the only means to salvation and to look into other sources for salvation was a BIG NO, NO…to question anything other than the “current” beliefs and teachings was a sin…long story a little bit shorter…around 1985 we both started to question the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s teachings on Salvation…the questions we were struggling with were soon made known to the “powers that be” in our local Kingdom Hall (Church) and we were confronted, rather harshly I might add, about our questioning the “God Breathed” teachings from the “Governing Body” of the “Church”…when I think back, one of my biggest concerns was their outright refusal of any member’s participation in anything remotely related to firearms for any purpose…the 2nd Amendment was not in their interest at all (this slipped in under the door, so to speak).But the biggest eye opener was from a book written by a former “governing body” (higher up…we make the rules…you comply), Raymond Franz…he left the higher ups in the JW upper echelon and wrote a fantastic book titled ‘Crisis Of Conscience’ exposing the JW’s history of false teachings, whom my wife and I became close friends with) who exposed the bullshit inner workings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses…both of us were facing a “firing squad” of hate, with the punishment of being “disfellowshiped” or “persona non grata” with extreme prejudice from ANY our JW friends and family…we chose to write a polite letter expressing clearly why we were leaving the “organization” (those familiar with the Jehovah’s Witnesses will hopefully relate to the terms I’ve used in this post …to wrap it up…after leaving this cult, both my late wife and I accepted Christ as our Savior (not an organization as the JWs) and decided to fellowship with the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod (I don’t look to them as the source of my Salvation, but only as a source for fellowship with likeminded believers (especially when the 2nd Amendment is concerned…we’ve got a bunch of men and women LCMC members at my range

Re: Celebrity Christians: you're telling me those Christians who happen to be celebrities are far from perfect? Well, you could have knocked me down with a feather.

Unless you've died and already gone to see Jesus, you're far from perfect as well. Is it any wonder that anyone who's been steeped in sin and got saved only as an adult will still have a lot of issues? Not everyone was raised by missionary parents like Tim Tebow and he would also say he's still working on some issues still.

The Samaritan woman at the well had five husbands and wasn't even married to the man he was living with when she met Jesus but that didn't stop her from telling people about Jesus as soon as she got back to town. Guess what? At the time she told the first person in town about Jesus, she was still in a state of adultery.

Peter was called out by Paul for being a hypocrite for eating with the gentiles only when there were no Jews around (Galatians 2:11-14).

Paul and Barnabas quarreled over Mark and both of them can't be right at the same time (Acts 15:36-41).

Many New Testament books were letters written to the churches because of immoral behavior or incorrect doctrines of Christians in those churches. NEWS FLASH: All living Christians continue to be sinners and we're just different in the severity and types of sins that beset us. Guess how you tell which Christians are walking around with logs in their eyes? They're the ones pointing out the splinters in other people's eyes.

I find that most people complaining about "incomplete" gospel being given haven't even shared their idea of the "complete" gospel with anyone.

Re: Jews not liking or discriminating against Christians: Is it really news to learn that members of one religion don't like members of a different religion? Are people not aware of the history of Christians persecuting other Christians? You have the Roman Catholic Crusaders besieging and sacking Constantinople, the heart of the Orthodox Christian Church. There's the killings of the Armenians by the Calvinists and the favor was later returned by the Armenians. The Pilgrims on the Mayflower fled to America by way of Holland because of persecution by the Church of England. Even now, you have Baptists and Pentecostals looking down on each other.

Christians around the world today are being persecuted and killed in countries such as North Korea, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, Syria, Nigeria, Pakistan, Libya, and Iran. Are the Christians in these countries not as worthy as Christians in Israel? No. So if someone is highlighting the hardships of Christians in Israel while not mentioning the atrocities meted out to Christians in those other countries, the simple truth to me is: the agenda is not about making a point about persecutions against Christians but rather about making a point about Israel. "Those Jews are bad so we shouldn't help them as Christians; they can face the Islamists by themselves."

I think the difference is , the amount of money the U.S. gives, and the political message that Christians MUST help Israel - which occasionally tries to seize ancient churches for redevelopment/cause issues for Christians in Bethlehem.

(Netanyahu did tell the local governments to stop trying to seize the churches, and the Bethlehem problem has been ongoing for many years.)

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
[T]he agenda is not about making a point about persecutions against Christians but rather about making a point about Israel.

This is most certainly true.

I'll share here a response I authored to an "objection" of my sister-in-law's. The words in the body of the objection are largely hers, and only minorly adjusted from my original notes (which were verified-accurate by her) to make them more readable. I nick-named the objection "picky-choosey". I originally only cited the KJV, as that is what I use, and it enables use of the comprehensive concordance, which facilitates a fuller understanding. My wife suggested I include CSB as well, because she (perhaps rightfully) expected her sister to be very dismissive of the old English vocabulary in the KJV.

As always, I expect to be sharpened by feedback. I appreciate your consideration...

Objection: “Picky-choosey” Why do Christians follow some commandments or “rules” and not others? How do we determine what in the Old Testament is carried into the New Covenant, and what we can now ignore? What aspects of the Old Testament law were fulfilled by Christ? Why can we nowadays eat pork, but not be gay?

Response: Why do Christians follow some commandments or “rules” and not others?
A large part of this perceived hypocrisy is due to folks who profess belief in Christ, but who aren’t actually in a relationship with Him. That is to say that they haven’t actually put their faith in Christ for their salvation. When we trust in Christ for our salvation we are indwelled by his Holy Ghost and our priorities are aligned with His. If there is an absence of his Spirit, then the person doesn’t have that help in resisting the world, and will almost certainly remain complicit in sin, which will be perceived as hypocrisy by onlookers.

Another reason for this flawed Christian presentation is the fact that sanctification is a process. Sanctification is defined in its Greek root as: to set apart; to make holy; active dedication and service to God. It is not instantly complete at the salvation point of initial faith and repentance of a believer. As powerful as the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is, it is at odds with our inherent “desperately wicked” humanity and the devil himself.

It is often said that a large portion of a given church congregation is in fact “unsaved”. It would vary church-to-church of course but, in most cases, it’s safe to say that the majority of an assembly of “Christians” on a Sunday morning is hell-bound. When we take that into consideration, is it any wonder that nearly everyone you meet who identifies as Christian doesn’t act the way you think they should? Especially considering where we live, here in the Southeastern United States, most folks will tell you they’re a Christian even if they manifest almost no “fruit” in their lives; that is to say they don’t attend church or exhibit any Christ-like characteristics outside what may come coincidentally natural to them as individuals. This portion of my response should not be misinterpreted as an implication that church attendance is a choice that 100% of the faithful will make; church attendance is not a required “proof of salvation”. It will, however, manifest in the lives of the overwhelming majority of believers. Fellowship is something that the indwelled Holy Ghost will motivate us to participate in.

I do believe that the above three paragraphs address the meat of the objection, without even needing to specifically investigate the Old Covenant vs New Covenant aspect. We understand that “Christians” don’t “pick and choose” which biblical guidance to follow, but rather that many just haven’t picked or chosen Christ in earnest, which would compel them to conform their character to that of Christ, and manifest honest Christian behaviour.

Why can we nowadays eat pork, but not be gay?
Considering the specific point of contention of Christian condemnation of homosexuality in comparison to whether or not we should eat a certain thing, we’ll take a brief look at the OT vs NT “law”.

In Mark 7:18-23 Jesus says:

“Are you also as lacking in understanding? Don’t you realize that nothing going into a person from the outside can defile him? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into the stomach and is eliminated” (thus he declared all foods clean). And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of people’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, greed, evil actions, deceit, self-indulgence, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a person.” - CSB

“Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” - KJV

The King James version (first English translation of the Bible for the masses) enables the use of the "Strong's Bible Concordance”, which allows us to efficiently study how the Hebrew and Greek root words used in the original manuscripts were defined in the day of their authorship. “Lasciviousness” is synonymous with sensuality, in the Greek root. Homosexuality, along with other contemporary aspects of sexuality as defined by western secular culture, lean heavily into sensuality, which is a misapplication of our human sexuality. Sensuality is a core aspect of any perversion of human sexuality. Sensuality is defined as the enjoyment, expression, or pursuit of physical pleasure through the five senses. Perversion is defined as the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended. The perversion of our sexuality that is homosexuality often prioritizes sensuality (as does much of heterosexual contemporary sex culture) over the shared intimacy that human sexuality by God’s design intends.

Christ certainly, more directly addresses the question of Old Covenant food laws in his above statement in Mark 7. What’s it matter, when it isn’t a representation of a man’s heart? That’s not to say there isn’t sinfulness that can be associated with food intake; I should take reasonable care of my body, as it is a “temple of the Holy Ghost”, and enables me to do work for God.

There is no shortage of scriptural references that condemn homosexuality. Some do it more directly than others.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Paul tells the church in Corinth:

Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived: No sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, or males who have sex with males, no thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, or swindlers will inherit God’s kingdom. - CSB

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” -KJV

The words “effeminate” and “abusers” directly address both parties in a homosexual relationship. They are defined in the Greek as the passive and active participants in homesexual activity. If anyone presents the objection “Well Paul isn’t Jesus”, implying that Paul is fallible and because Jesus didn’t directly address homosexuality, we can’t really know what God has to say about it, I’d remind them that Paul was a Jewish persecutor of early Christians who God chose to author a large portion of what we know as the New Testament. Jesus appeared to Paul after Christ’s ascension into heaven, temporarily blinded him for three days, and said of him “...he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel…”. We can trust Paul if we trust Jesus.

So, there’s the answer, in relatively simple terms, to the question of “why can we eat pork but not be gay?”.

How do we determine what in the Old Testament is carried into the New Covenant, and what we can now ignore? What aspects of the Old Testament law were fulfilled by Christ?
Regarding other laws that, if misunderstood, can induce confusion, it’s generally accepted that He fulfilled all the law outside the Ten Commandments; things like dietary laws, menstrual uncleanness laws, etc. Jesus famously added to (or encompassed) the Ten Commandments in Matthew 22:37-40 and Mark 12:29-31 by issuing the two commandments: love God with all your heart, mind, and soul; and love your neighbor as yourself. The Ten Commandments were not “fulfilled” the same way that other laws were because they are all products of Jesus’ two commandments anyway. If you love God and your neighbor, you’ll be adhering to the Ten Commandments. Loving God and your neighbor isn’t hindered by a lack of adherence to Jewish food or “cleanliness” laws. Nor does adhering to them enhance your ability to love God or your neighbor. A lack of adherence to any of the ten commandments does hurt your relationship with God and your fellow man.

As a further commentary on homosexuality, and sin in general, I want to address what has become a popular appeal of the church to the secular world: “come as you are”. In an effort to get folks into church, which can be for right or wrong reasons, it’s logical to be welcoming. However, we run into problems with Biblical contradiction when we give the impression that you can come as you are and stay as you are. If you make the choice to choose salvation in Christ, God is going to change you. He makes this clear in His word. Romans 12:2, 2 Corinthians 5:17, and Colossians 3:1-10 are all fine examples: “...be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind…”, “...if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.”, and “...have put off the old man with his deeds; and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him…”. Christ welcomes all, in whatever condition: come as you are. But you can’t stay as you are. You won’t. Not because I say so, or a pastor says so, or a church says so, but because God says so. You will change whatever aspect of your life that is persisting outside of His perfect will. It may not be instant, but it will happen. It may not even be “complete” before you die, but you will be at odds with ungodly characteristics of your life. In this case, He defines how a human partnership works, and you, out of love characterized by gratitude and respect, will be inclined to change your behaviour to conform to His perfect will, if your life prior has been in opposition to it.

All this to say that you can’t be a gay Christian. When you’re redeemed by God’s grace in Christ’s sacrifice your will immediately begins to conform to His. We know that homosexuality is not in accordance with His will. Changes aren’t instant; we aren’t made immediately thrice holy, as God is. Though the Holy Ghost is astonishingly powerful, we are up against our inherent sinful nature and the very powerful enemy, Satan, who has a tendency to ramp-up his attacks when people choose salvation in Christ. Satan is outraged that he has lost us, and will go to great lengths to prevent us from being effective workers for God. It may seem as though a “gay Christian” is a reality, when we see someone in church who we know engages in homosexual activity. They seem to exist in that paradox because they’re either A: lost and hell-bound (and we’re glad they’re in church) or B: redeemed and struggling with sin. So, when we perceive a circumstance that doesn’t make biblical sense, we need to consider the potential realities, and help the person however we can. We need to love them as Christ would. That means helping (with the help of the Holy Ghost) them become nearer to God, in order that (if already redeemed) they are further sanctified and experience the richer joy of better accordance with God’s will. Or helping them come to the point of initial surrender and salvation, which is freedom from their justified sentence to eternal torment and access instead to eternal joyous perfect communion with the Creator and their saved brothers and sisters in Christ. We need to ask ourselves if people in these circumstances are at odds with their sin, or complicit in it. It is impossible to be saved and complicit in sin; the indwelling of the Holy Ghost will enhance our conscience’ opposition to sinful behaviour. The Holy Ghost is God himself, and can’t peacefully coexist with sin.