...but we should be grateful for those who lovingly do point it out. We wouldn't want to trip on it, or cause someone else to stumble.

I was told very young that it is not polite to point.  

We all sin.

Some people don't even like the word, but that is possibly because they don't thoroughly ...yet, simply understand it.

Sin is not an exclusive thing, nor a complex thing ...it is separation from God.

Reading His Word, praying to Him ...are ways to follow and bring a closeness.

Separation comes from ignoring His Word.  This is done many ways, inclusive of some of the following:

• Only claiming, and not knowing
• ONLY TALKING, and not listening
• Teaching, yet void of learning
• Putting our present above all past

What I mean, by that last point, is that knowledge is not just at our grasp, nor is it at our whim.  

Knowledge can be a destructive tool ...and only the correct use of it defines wisdom.

I do not label sin ...God defines what pleases Him and what doesn't.  I am not the authority.  I merely claim to be able to read.

I guess the dispute is:

• Whether we do take the time to read
• What we choose to read
• What we consider of value and true

Sometimes the kids know more than me ...especially with the computer.  But, overall ...I perhaps know best.  Why would I claim that?

I have more experience.  Experience can be good or bad, but both can help us achieve growth.  It's how we process it.  And generally, the longer a person works for a company ...the more experience that person gets.

Likewise, the longer you have a relationship with God, the more wisdom can be obtained.  I am saying, 'can' ...as I also see the wisdom in two people being married a long time, where they 'can' reach new depths of understanding love or they can become weary and bitter as they grow apart.

It has much to do with how we view & value.  Some people love dogs, others enter them in dog fights.  People enter into dog fights too.  But, let's look at the early stages.  How do things begin?

Let's imagine a town with no speed limits.  The are no stop signs, and no caution signs.  People are always speeding, and now they seem to be buying faster cars ...to speed even more.

Members of the community gather with their concern, after many people have lost their loved ones as a result of speeding traffic.  The following weeks show some improvement, as some of the people do slow down ...but everyone doesn't.  And though traffic fatalities do decrease, there are still many deaths.

The community, as a whole, begs for a standard ...and the town soon puts up stop signs, caution signs, and institute a speed limit.

As you can see, any rational society would seek to maximize their collective safety and security.  As we still stand in shock ...in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing, many of us are beginning to wake up.  But, in that first waking moment ...how do we respond?

The more critical or significant a moment is, the more importance we should place upon the correctness of that first response.  How we respond will inevitably have influence upon how others respond.  And more errors come about as a result of back-peddling from a previous response.

Let's look at our response to the Boston Marathon bombing.  We gathered together as many agencies as we could in a cooperative effort.  And a significant part of a large city was shut down.  Do we now understand how Israel may feel when they have faced this sort of thing, over and over again?  Do we understand the inconveniences that people have to endure for the greater safety and security of the people?  Or do we continue to feel sympathy for those who deliberately plan out the evil of attempting to kill and maim?

I believe that Israel does what it does for the collective good of its people ...not wishing that it has to be done, but only taking measures which are necessary.  These are the same kind of measures that we took during times of threats and violent acts carried out against those living within the borders of our United States of America.

But, the language that I hear about the collective good of the people ...though it may initially sound the same, I believe it is coming from a slightly different source.  Or perhaps a much different source.

I hear of things that were also being said in a different part of the world, during a different time ...but not a time which we should be ignorant of.  Something of such great impact as World War II, should not be an overlooked portion of our history books. 

Collectivism is something I am hearing ...which has associations with Marx and Lenin, and with the former Soviet Union.  But, I see an ideology advertised ...called Lean Forward.  They encourage us to think bigger, listen closer, fight smarter, and act faster ...and to celebrate the best ideas, not matter where they come from.   Does that mean, even if they come from Marx or Lenin?

Here is more promotion from Lean Forward:  "We all want to live in a nation that's better tomorrow than it is today.  But, for the past 20 years, we've been recycling the same conversations.  Enough with the arguments.  It's time to advance the issues.  MSNBC has evolved into a trusted destination for American progress.  Our best days are still ahead.  We are for people who believe in progress.  We are for people who believe in the promise of America.  We're for people who believe forward is the only way to go."

MSNBC has evolved into a trusted destination?  I'm sure they believe we evolved from apes too, and they must think we still have the brains of one.

Okay, I got carried away there ...let's not be so bold as to think any of us are immune to being led down the wrong path.  I've made major blunders in my life, but you'll have to decide if listening to me is a Meiner one.  The idea that is being promoted is called Collectivism, which more accurately means 'group-oriented".  There are two main types:  

• Horizontal Collectivism stresses decision-making upon equal individuals
• Vertical Collectivism is based more on hierarchial structures of power, and on moral and cultural conformity

On the surface, it would appear that Horizontal is preferred ...where the group is considered more important than any one individual, with the view that the group will "take care" of all individuals.  And harmony is considered paramount.  They would stand in opposition to the Vertical model, where political authority is used to advance collective goals, stating that it is linked to statism and the diminution of freedom.

But, in stating they are against moral and cultural conformity ...are they not creating a new morality defined as tolerance, yet intolerant to how morality has always been defined?  Aren't they creating economic and social policy ...in essence, striving to achieve statism?  Can you see how they are clearly doing the very thing they say they are opposed to?

But, that would be considered deceitful, wouldn't it?  Yet, isn't that what Satan did ...promoting equality as being equal to God?  And isn't that the same lie he told Eve to convince her to eat the fruit ...that God forbid it, because if she ate of the fruit she would be like God?

I do not consider it fruitless to follow God's ways ...as I find it abundantly fruitful.  We confuse the definition of sin ...but, it is simply separation from God.  And the only way that it has been somewhat effective in mass ...is through political force.  So, with that in mind, it seems to me difficult at times to separate faith and politics ...especially when the political machine has been created as a weapon of mass destruction against faith.

You tell me of the consistency of such things as the changing of policy, with the guise of tolerance ...moving from a "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military, to then saying it's all right to tell, as long as you don't tell you are a Christian.

Most Christians should be strong, and used to rejection ...but, how about those who are not strong?  How about those cases where rejection could be fatal?  For so long, abortion has been masked ...and so many ignore what they cannot see, what they refuse to see.  Do we also refuse to see the fully born child, clearly butchered and no longer hidden?

Friedrich Hayek addressed the version of economic collectivism that our society today appears to be promoting with its "fair share" ideology, in his book, "Road to Serfdom"....back in 1944.  He asserts that it instead leads to loss of freedom, the creation of an oppressive society, the tyranny of a dictator, and the serfdom of the individual.  Yes, back in the 1940's ...with many examples of such individuals as Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin.  Our own beloved F.D.R. dismissed Churchill's word of caution, stating that Stalin was a 'good' man ...and trusted him.  Who do we trust?

I personally trust God ...and I feel that separating from God's ways is the sin that leads us down a very dangerous path, that I'm rather perplexed why more people cannot see the true deception.  So what happens when many follow the wolf in sheep's clothing ...isn't that a b-a-a-a-d thing.

But, don't just take my word for it. 

Ludwig von Mises, wrote, "As soon as a faction has succeeded in winning the support of the majority of citizens and thereby attained control of the government machine, it is free to deny to the minority all those democratic rights by means of which it itself has previously carried on its own struggle for supremacy."

George Orwell, a dedicated democratic socialist, believed that collectivism resulted in the empowerment of a minority of individuals that led to further oppression of the majority of the population in the name of some ideal such as freedom.

"It cannot be said too often - at any rate, it is not being said nearly often enough - that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of."

Ayn Rand, creator of the philosophy of Objectivism and a particularly vocal opponent of collectivism, argued that it led to totalitarianism. She argued that "collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group," and that "throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good." She further claimed that "horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by altruists who justify themselves by the common good." (The "altruists" Rand refers to are not those who practice simple benevolence or charity, but rather those who believe in Auguste Comte's ethical doctrine of altruism which holds that there is "a moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good.")

And if you can't take their word for it either ...there is one word all should take seriously.  That is the Word of God ...holy, and wholly for us to discuss.   Don't follow Lean Forward, and MSNBC with their vetted end to the discussions ...and time to act.  That is only good if you act right ...and I don't see much of that happening.