Mistakes, lies, false witness,and such sins..

[Reformed]

I think that the important thing to keep in mind with online forums is that we do not know one another, cannot judge one another, cannot discern one another’s motives/ intent, and are incapable of discerning what another person understands of the Scripture beyond what that person says.

I think the closest thing to online message boards is pen pals. I bet most Millennials and even Gen-Xers may think pen pals are a relic of ancient history. I suppose that is somewhat true. When I was in grammar school we had an opportunity to have an international pen pal. Writing to another person my age in England was a wonderful experience. Writing a letter takes more time and effort than making keystrokes. The mind is engaged more. There is also something intensely personal about handwriting. Sloppy penmanship, as opposed to careful penmanship, helps communicate personality traits. There are just some things you can do with ink on paper that you cannot do on a computer. Knowing that my letter had to travel across the Atlantic Ocean to a foreign land made an impression on my 10-year old brain. When I received the first letter from my pen pal I was excited! I anticipated the next letter as I learned more about growing up in another country. It was a rich and rewarding experience.

Contrast that with online message boards. Read something that annoys you? With a few keystrokes, you came flame the offender. But you can also encourage someone. The problem is that communication is rapid. How many of us get impatient waiting for a reply to the brilliant post we just made? Must not the world stop because we are engaged in a thread that is ten pages in length within the first hour? Many of us (myself included) do not take sufficient time to consider what the other person is really saying. We judge motives (guilty) and make assumptions (guilty) and feel good about doing so (guilty). We have a burning desire to be right even if that means we cause collateral damage. Of course, I am speaking in general terms. I cannot indict anyone other than myself. However, I find it hard to believe I am the only one that struggles in this area.

 

[JonC]

I think the closest thing to online message boards is pen pals. I bet most Millennials and even Gen-Xers may think pen pals are a relic of ancient history. I suppose that is somewhat true. When I was in grammar school we had an opportunity to have an international pen pal. Writing to another person my age in England was a wonderful experience. Writing a letter takes more time and effort than making keystrokes. The mind is engaged more. There is also something intensely personal about handwriting. Sloppy penmanship, as opposed to careful penmanship, helps communicate personality traits. There are just some things you can do with ink on paper that you cannot do on a computer. Knowing that my letter had to travel across the Atlantic Ocean to a foreign land made an impression on my 10-year old brain. When I received the first letter from my pen pal I was excited! I anticipated the next letter as I learned more about growing up in another country. It was a rich and rewarding experience.

Contrast that with online message boards. Read something that annoys you? With a few keystrokes, you came flame the offender. But you can also encourage someone. The problem is that communication is rapid. How many of us get impatient waiting for a reply to the brilliant post we just made? Must not the world stop because we are engaged in a thread that is ten pages in length within the first hour? Many of us (myself included) do not take sufficient time to consider what the other person is really saying. We judge motives (guilty) and make assumptions (guilty) and feel good about doing so (guilty). We have a burning desire to be right even if that means we cause collateral damage. Of course, I am speaking in general terms. I cannot indict anyone other than myself. However, I find it hard to believe I am the only one that struggles in this area.

I forgot about pen pals.

You bring up very good points. This is why I may argue some but when it comes to a serious debate I only engage via email.

When we watch live debates we are seeing who has the best live argument (not the best position). But with email you read and study the opposing view and reason out a response by looking carefully at your own view. For me it is most about doctrine (letters would be the same).

Online forums are at an almost live pace without the advantages of live correspondence. They are written like email but without the advantage of contemplation.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

[QUOTE]Perhaps we all should be careful not to impose our ideas and practices on other people. [/QUOTE]

How is this possible.? A regular member offers his view and offers scripture. How is that imposing their view.
Many ignore or resist the scriptures offered.
So how is anything imposed on anyone, what does this mean?

 

[JonC]

JonC,

Perhaps we all should be careful not to impose our ideas and practices on other people. [

How is this possible.? A regular member offers his view and offers scripture. How is that imposing their view.
Many ignore or resist the scriptures offered.
So how is anything imposed on anyone, what does this mean?

Hi Iconoclast

Good question. I am not talking about discussing our opinions or interpretations.

My words were in context to holding other people to our preferred practices and ideas. For example, I try to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition (it bothers me). But it is acceptable. I should not call into question people who do (the context was that people should not edit or delete posts).

I do not like seeing posts by people who post without knowing how to properly use the quote features. To me it demonstrates laziness. But that is my personal impression (some may not understand how the feature works, may struggle with technology, ect.). I would never argue these people are actually lazy (I would argue they should learn to operate the media they use so as to better facilitate communication).

Does that make sense?

I was not talking about doctrine but about imposing personal practices and ideas on other people.

 

[Marooncat79]

Sin begins in the heart and mind of a person.

It could be one isolated sin.

It could happen so frequently that it could be said to be habitual.

In Proverbs 6:16-19 warnings are given to attempt to warn and guard against such sins.

How do you distinguish between a sincere mistake, a lie, an intentional lie?

What is the proper way to address such a person?
Are we to address it?

What if the person persists, either because of a mental defect, or being bound and under the power of such sin?

Is the loving thing to do just ignore it, as if it did not happen?

Or speak the truth in love, offer correction?

You answered your own question. Intent is the determining factor or misinformation or sin

 

[JonC]

You answered your own question. Intent is the determining factor or misinformation or sin

Considering your post, I wonder how often Christians sin because they have misinterpreted another's words, actions, or intentions and attack the other with malice unbefitting a child of God.

Perhaps this is why Scripture tells us how to deal with other people. It seems to me that too often Christians toss out God when they feel they have been affronted or are offended (the exact time Christians are told to respond in love and without malice is the time they respond with hatred).

It is easy to get along when you are getting along. Perhaps the test Christian character is getting along through disagreement.

For example, let's use the illustration in the OP. Let's say @McCree79 hit the follow button on a conversation by @Iconoclast in tap-talk. Suppose @Iconoclast confronted @McCree79 of following him and @McCree79 denied tracking him. If Iconoclast continually insists @McCree79 is lying then is @Iconoclast sinning in how he addresses McCree's accidental and unknown use of a tap-talk feature by holding malace against him? Would each not be convinced that the other is lying? Who would be making the false accusation? @McCree79, who is not actually following @Iconoclast but hit the button in tapa-talk or @Iconoclast since @McCree79 is not lying?

(@Iconoclast & @McCree79, just using you two as an illustration because of the tapa-talk comment)

These discussions remind me of a contemporary moral issues class.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

What is interesting with this thread is we are ultimately preaching to the choir.

We should be preaching to the choir. That is what makes it that much more disappointing when professed believers sin openly.

I think that we all can benefit by looking at our interactions on forums But the fact is I doubt any of us here are liars, false witnesses (intentionally), or mastered by sin.

The issue is, what if that is indeed what is taking place?
We agree it should not happen. I think it has and does happen.
The question becomes how to deal with it.
Some people want to ignore it, or hope it goes away.They just enable it to go on.

I think that the important thing to keep in mind with online forums is that we do not know one another, cannot judge one another, cannot discern one another’s motives/ intent, and are incapable of discerning what another person understands of the Scripture beyond what that person says.

I do not agree. Far from it. Over time we get a good indication of exactly what a person is about.
Do we know 100%, no we can leave that to God.
We can get a really good idea, however.
A person who is planning evil is not going to announce such intentions openly. Those planning such sins especially on a Christian messageboard will cover it even with religious words or mis-direction.

For example, they could say, I am really concerned about you and hope things are better for you since you stopped beating your wife. I forgot to ask you are you taking prescription drugs to comfort you?

This makes it look as if they are taking the high road, while they insert disparaging false witness in the conversation.

So what do we do? We interact as Christians with the posts (what is written by the member) and we discuss/ argue/ fellowship around doctrine.

If doctrine is offered we can do that. These sin related issues are not over doctrine, but rather ethics.

I have seen times when Christians treat other people as if they were not Christians (as if they were instead liars, deceivers, etc.),

There is no guarantee that everyone is a Christian. If the posting and conduct is sinful, the response is going to deal with that sin head-on.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC

Considering your post, I wonder how often Christians sin because they have misinterpreted another's words, actions, or intentions and attack the other with malice unbefitting a child of God.

I have seen that very thing take place, repeatedly on BB.
False witness is in the same root sin as murder.

For example, let's use the illustration in the OP. Let's say @McCree79 hit the follow button on a conversation by @Iconoclast in tap-talk. Suppose @Iconoclast confronted @McCree79 of following him and @McCree79 denied tracking him. If Iconoclast continually insists @McCree79 is lying then is @Iconoclast sinning in how he addresses McCree's accidental and unknown use of a tap-talk feature by holding malace against him? Would each not be convinced that the other is lying? Who would be making the false accusation? @McCree79, who is not actually following @Iconoclast but hit the button in tapa-talk or @Iconoclast since @McCree79 is not lying?

Yes, that could be. Now, what if a person does not have tapa-talk?

What if a poster [let's call him John] follows another poster[Rob] to a different board, clicks the setting to follow his posts.
They have clashed before on a different board, but now John only posts when Rob does and he opposes everything Rob posts, and makes false accusations, and bears false witness against him.
Not only that, but he then agrees with mormons, and every other poster saying unsound things biblically, as a way to undermine Rob?

Which of these sins would be taking place?

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look,

a lying tongue,

and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,

feet that be swift in running to mischief,


19 A false witness that speaketh lies,


and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Granted a person would have to be pretty twisted, mentally, or emotionally to conduct themselves in such a way.

 

[JonC]

JonC



We should be preaching to the choir. That is what makes it that much more disappointing when professed believers sin openly.



The issue is, what if that is indeed what is taking place?
We agree it should not happen. I think it has and does happen.
The question becomes how to deal with it.
Some people want to ignore it, or hope it goes away.They just enable it to go on.



I do not agree. Far from it. Over time we get a good indication of exactly what a person is about.
Do we know 100%, no we can leave that to God.
We can get a really good idea, however.
A person who is planning evil is not going to announce such intentions openly. Those planning such sins especially on a Christian messageboard will cover it even with religious words or mis-direction.

For example, they could say, I am really concerned about you and hope things are better for you since you stopped beating your wife. I forgot to ask you are you taking prescription drugs to comfort you?

This makes it look as if they are taking the high road, while they insert disparaging false witness in the conversation.


If doctrine is offered we can do that. These sin related issues are not over doctrine, but rather ethics.



There is no guarantee that everyone is a Christian. If the posting and conduct is sinful, the response is going to deal with that sin head-on.

The term “preaching to the choir” means to pointlessly try to convince a person or group to accept an opinion that they already hold.

My experience with people on this forum is that they are honest (sometimes to a fault) and tell others exactly what they believe.

But disagreement does not mean dishonest. Sometimes it seems that people mistakenly believe that anyone who disagrees with them are against them. That is typically not the case. People can confuse doctrine with persons (the held belief with the person who holds the belief).

If you think that there are people intentionally lying on this forum then perhaps you may want to reevaluate your own perceptions. When we deal with others within this type of communication it is impossible to judge motives. If you have somehow arrived at a moral conclusion regarding the intentions of members then you can rest assured that you are making assumptions. What we think has no bearing on the reality of any given situation.

In the example I offered earlier (of @McCree79 hitting "follow" on tapatalk), the belief that McCree is a liar does not make him a liar.The one in the wrong is the one considering himself the victim while unknowingly making false accusations.

Everyone is not a Christian. I doubt when we look at any given church that every person sitting in the pews is saved. But we cannot see into the hearts of others. We deal with sin, and in churches we exercise "church discipline". On this forum, when people violate the rules or post questionable content or in a questionable manner people can report it to the administrators.

I believe the best measure we have to determine whether or not we should consider someone as a Christian is how their behavior measures up to how we are told to live our lives. Does that person keep a "record of wrong", show malice towards other people, reply hatefully, etc.? Or do they post in love, dismiss wrongs, try to build up rather than tear down, etc.? We deal with behavior, not hearts. For all we are in Christ, we are not God.

 

[JonC]

JonC



I have seen that very thing take place, repeatedly on BB.
False witness is in the same root sin as murder.







Yes, that could be. Now, what if a person does not have tapa-talk?

What if a poster [let's call him John] follows another poster[Rob] to a different board, clicks the setting to follow his posts.
They have clashed before on a different board, but now John only posts when Rob does and he opposes everything Rob posts, and makes false accusations, and bears false witness against him.
Not only that, but he then agrees with mormons, and every other poster saying unsound things biblically, as a way to undermine Rob?

Which of these sins would be taking place?

16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:

17 A proud look,

a lying tongue,

and hands that shed innocent blood,

18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,

feet that be swift in running to mischief,


19 A false witness that speaketh lies,


and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Granted a person would have to be pretty twisted, mentally, or emotionally to conduct themselves in such a way.

I cannot answer for John and Rob. Your illustration is unrealistic and much too broad. I doubt any Christian would accept Mormonism, deal with only one member on a forum, ect. But I will try to interact as best I can.

The reason I use the "follow" button is to restrict those who can PM me (on another forum). That's the only thing I could think of (without tapa-talk I do not think it would track posts).

Maybe John was sending a PM to Rob so he was following him.

I guess I'd tell Rob not to take online discussion boards so seriously. If he does not want people to read his posts then he should not post.

If Rob is a Mormon then I think John can witness to him but only in the context it is allowed on the forum. I am a member of a poetry and literature forum and that would be against the rules while using the site. I do not think that Mormonism is Christian, so the illustration has no pull on me either way (Rob could be an atheist and my answer would be the same).

I think John could witness appropriately to Rob via PM, that is if Rob was willing to discuss the topic. Either way John should respect Rob's beliefs (not Mormonism but the fact that Mormonism is what Rob believes). When we are combative and disrespect other people we can never truly communicate.

Or maybe John knows Rob, they were romantically involved years ago and Rob has not yet realized who he is dealing with.

 

[Reynolds]

I cannot answer for John and Rob.

Until recently I did not know that the "follow" tab was useful when using tapatalk (I have a note 10 plus which is large enough to use the website). I never knew it could follow a members posts (still don't really know how that works). The reason I use the "follow" button is to restrict those who can PM me.

I guess I'd tell Rob not to take online discussion boards so seriously. If he does not want people to read his posts then he should not post.

If Rob is a Mormon then I think John can witness to him but only in the context it is allowed on the forum. I am a member of a poetry and literature forum and that would be against the rules while using the site. I do not think that Mormonism is Christian, so the illustration has no pull on me either way (Rob could be an atheist and my answer would be the same).

I think John could witness appropriately to Rob via PM, that is if Rob was willing to discuss the topic.

Seems like Rob and John both have too much idle time on their hands.

 

[JonC]

Seems like Rob and Jon both have too much idle time on their hands.

New topic - Fun with Rob and John.

I do not even know why I am being asked. I know some about Mormonism (enough to know they are not Christian), but not much. I'm just learning about the "follow" button.

Kinda a strange conversation but what the heck. John needs help dealing with Rob so I'll do my best.

Go Clemson!!!!!

 

[JonC]

Back to the OP:

The idea Christians who disagree are liars spreading false accusations is not correct. They may be spreading error in terms of doctrine but they are not guilty of lies.

@Iconoclast is a Calvinist. Many are not. Those who share their non-Calvinist beliefs are not liars bearing false witness. We may view one another as making a mistake in interpretation but it is not fair to say they are lying. This is a discussion board and people are going to disagree over doctrine.

Mormonism is a false religion. But that does not mean Mormons are liars or guilty of bearing false witness.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

Back to the OP:

okay

The idea Christians who disagree are liars spreading false accusations is not correct.

This statement is not correct and in fact is the kind of statement spoken of in the OP>
The OP was not addressing Christians who have a doctrinal disagreement at all.
The OP said nothing about doctrine.
Nowhere does anyone say those with doctrinal disagreement are liars.
Mistakes, lies, false witness can happen apart from any doctrinal issue.

Liars are Liars. People who bear false witness are Liars.

This statement is the kind that leads to sowing discord among the brethren as it implies a sinful motive when none exists. The word doctrine or doctrinal disagreement is not even on this thread but has been added by this post.

Declaring such a thing is itself a false accusation. On any message board, there is going to be doctrinal disagreement.

They may be spreading error in terms of doctrine but they are not guilty of lies.

Yes , error in doctrine is one issue.

@Iconoclast is a Calvinist. Many are not.

Iconoclast is not the subject of this thread.

Those who share their non-Calvinist beliefs are not liars bearing false witness.

Has any Calvinist said they are Liars? I do not recall any such post. I do recall Calvinists offering scriptures to correct the error. Where does such an idea even originate?

We may view one another as making a mistake in interpretation but it is not fair to say they are lying. This is a discussion board and people are going to disagree over doctrine.

Mormonism is a false religion. But that does not mean Mormons are liars or guilty of bearing false witness.

Again, liars are liars, Those who bear false witness against a person are liars. No one at any time has said the wrong doctrine offered is because the person is a liar, it is because error is error.

 

[JonC]

JonC,



okay

This statement is not correct and in fact is the kind of statement spoken of in the OP>
The OP was not addressing Christians who have a doctrinal disagreement at all.
The OP said nothing about doctrine.
Nowhere does anyone say those with doctrinal disagreement are liars.
Mistakes, lies, false witness can happen apart from any doctrinal issue.

Liars are Liars. People who bear false witness are Liars.

This statement is the kind that leads to sowing discord among the brethren as it implies a sinful motive when none exists. The word doctrine or doctrinal disagreement is not even on this thread but has been added by this post.

Declaring such a thing is itself a false accusation. On any message board, there is going to be doctrinal disagreement.



Yes , error in doctrine is one issue.


Iconoclast is not the subject of this thread.



Has any Calvinist said they are Liars? I do not recall any such post. I do recall Calvinists offering scriptures to correct the error. Where does such an idea even originate?




Again, liars are liars, Those who bear false witness against a person are liars. No one at any time has said the wrong doctrine offered is because the person is a liar, it is because error is error.

Sorry, with the introduction of Mormonism I thought you were going in a different direction. I misunderstood your point (I have no clue what you are taking about).

The examples you use seem to be extreme. To me your point is lost in the illustrations. I very seriously doubt anyone has ever followed people to other forums or posted to just one person on the forum. I doubt any Christian would affirm Mormon doctrine.

If you are asking if Christians make mistakes they do. If you are asking if Christians should lie or make false accusations against other people (Christian or not) they shouldn't.

But these are very basic Christian doctrines. I am not sure what you are asking.

Is there someone spreading Mormon doctrine here? If so, report it and we can deal with it as needed.

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast,

I re-read this thread when I got home (especially your last few posts).

It looks as if it is a "strawman thread" addressing hypothetical actions that either have never occurred or at least have nothing to do with members here. We do not even have a Mormon membership. It does not appear that members here are liars, although sometimes things get heated and people disagree. I have not observed anyone addressing only one other member.

If you are having issues on another forum then perhaps that forum is the most appropriate to deal with them. If someone is acting inappropriately then the administration on that forum can ban them or at least warn them to correct their behavior. Point out that you are the only person the guy has engaged and explain why you believe it a concern (or just ask the person why he has only engaged you and ignored the rest of the forum).

That said, if Mormons are accepted on your other forum then I suppose they have a right to be there. You seem to be seeking advice, but all that I can give is maintain a Christ-like attitude towards these people while rejecting Mormon doctrine.

I hope that helps.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

Sorry, with the introduction of Mormonism I thought you were going in a different direction. I misunderstood your point (I have no clue what you are taking about).

I was giving an illustration of how this sin can grow. Looks like everyone else understood the illustration.

The examples you use seem to be extreme. To me your point is lost in the illustrations.

They were clear to others. Maybe you do not understand illustrations too well.

I very seriously doubt anyone has ever followed people to other forums or posted to just one person on the forum.

I know for a fact that is exactly what has happened. As sick and demented as it seems, someone has done exactly that very thing.
Their first 40 posts were towards the one person and his posts.

I doubt any Christian would affirm Mormon doctrine.

He did not affirm it, he just agreed with their unbiblical postings when they opposed the truth he presented. He would rather side with the cult member than the Christian. He had an agenda that controlled his actions in a sick perverted fashion.

If you are asking if Christians make mistakes they do. If you are asking if Christians should lie or make false accusations against other people (Christian or not) they shouldn't.

They should never do that. That in part is what this thread can accomplish.
For someone to behave in such a fashion, and lie about it should be corrected and dealt with. Do you agree?

But these are very basic Christian doctrines. I am not sure what you are asking.[/QUOTE]

I am asking others for feedback on how they deal with the situations. We are our brother's keeper.

Is there someone spreading Mormon doctrine here? If so, report it and we can deal with it as needed.

That was mentioned as an example in this thread so we can get feedback.

 

[JonC]

"JonC,



I was giving an illustration of how this sin can grow. Looks like everyone else understood the illustration.


They were clear to others. Maybe you do not understand illustrations too well.



I know for a fact that is exactly what has happened. As sick and demented as it seems, someone has done exactly that very thing.
Their first 40 posts were towards the one person and his posts.


He did not affirm it, he just agreed with their unbiblical postings when they opposed the truth he presented. He would rather side with the cult member than the Christian. He had an agenda that controlled his actions in a sick perverted fashion.



They should never do that. That in part is what this thread can accomplish.
For someone to behave in such a fashion, and lie about it should be corrected and dealt with. Do you agree?

I am not doubting your experience and am sorry you had to go through such hurtful things (I assume on a Christian board).

I do know how you feel. I have also encountered believers who were less than Christ like in their behavior. But what I have found is that in Christ we can forgive those who we believe have wronged us. When we consider the blood shed for us, that while we were sinners Christ died for us, it makes perceived wrongs against us pale to nothing in comparison.

I learned long ago not to provide feedback without knowing the other side of the story, and even then it is rarely advisable. I can take you at your word, that at least you believe your report to be true.

But I am sure your Mormon "opponent" sees things differently. Perhaps the issue is a difference in understanding associatedwwith LDS doctrine? You are assuming an intent you cannot know. I cannot even hazard a guess at the other guy's motives and it would be wrong of me to try. .

All I can say is you cannot let the actions of others (whether real or just perceived) control your life.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

I re-read this thread when I got home (especially your last few posts).

okay

It looks as if it is a "strawman thread" addressing hypothetical actions that either have never occurred or at least have nothing to do with members here.

Well, that might be your view but your opinion is not shared by everyone.
This is not a strawman at all, but quite real.
It also affects members here. The truth from proverbs is for all believers.

We do not even have a Mormon membership.

We do not need Mormons JohnC. they are cult members who need to be told the truth. Why would a Christian not speak the truth to a Mormon.
Sorry, you cannot understand the illustration. Others did understand though.

It does not appear that members here are liars

,
Of course, it does not appear that way because liars cover their sins well.
That is why the OP. asks questions to get feedback on how others have dealt with liars. The only thing worse than a liar might be someone who helps cover his lies.

although sometimes things get heated and people disagree. I have not observed anyone addressing only one other member.

Me neither, at least on baptistboard.

If you are having issues on another forum then perhaps that forum is the most appropriate to deal with them.[/QUOTE]

I did not say I was having issues on another forum. I am on other forums but I deal with what comes up.

If someone is acting inappropriately then the administration on that forum can ban them or at least warn them to correct their behavior. Point out that you are the only person the guy has engaged and explain why you believe it a concern (or just ask the person why he has only engaged you and ignored the rest of the forum).

If that situation comes up I will keep your suggestion in mind.
The thing is, a person who is a liar might lie in another forum as well and accuse me or whoever indicated he was lying of being the guilty person and then he could hide in plain sight.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

okay


Well, that might be your view but your opinion is not shared by everyone.
This is not a strawman at all, but quite real.
It also affects members here. The truth from proverbs is for all believers.



We do not need Mormons JohnC. they are cult members who need to be told the truth. Why would a Christian not speak the truth to a Mormon.
Sorry, you cannot understand the illustration. Others did understand though.

,
Of course, it does not appear that way because liars cover their sins well.
That is why the OP. asks questions to get feedback on how others have dealt with liars. The only thing worse than a liar might be someone who helps cover his lies.


Me neither, at least on baptistboard.

How I deal with people who lie about me is I remind myself that while we were sinners Christ died for us. I try to remember that I am commanded to forgive (even my enemies) and not to keep a "record of wrongs".

The answer is that there is no difference between the Christian who lies and the Christian who keeps a record of it. Both are mired in sin, disobedient, and in need of repentance.

I hope that better addresses your question.