Re: Joseph N. Bell's "War Against Sin," I would disagree with his conclusion that "we sin-fighters are left with defining sin with our own personal lights." One's "personal light" is hardly a suitable guide. My "personal light" tells me that 80 m.p.h. on an uncrowded freeway is a suitable speed for both my car and my driving ability. Guess who would disagree?
We are a nation governed by law, not a democracy governed by the majority. The law is designed to protect me from those whose "personal lights" say it's OK to harm me. I'm sure Mr. Bell will find this hard to take, but most of our law, as it relates to humankind's crimes against one another (sins), has its precedent in biblical law.
Mr. Bell has difficulty in accepting the biblical definitions of sin. I wonder why. If that collection of books is suitable to form the foundation for the moral codes of Western civilization, then it should certainly be suitable to define the very disease for which it provides the cure, sin.
More money and time has been expended, than any time prior, on sex education, acceptance of homosexual life styles, state and federally financed abortion, drug interdiction and drug law enforcement. In recent years, these moral issues have been dealt with without the benefit of biblical ethics. Let's examine the results. Unwed teen pregnancies are skyrocketing, teen suicide is higher than ever, AIDS accelerates its deadly toll within the homosexual community, child abuse and sexual molestation by parents is rapidly increasing, and we're no closer to winning the drug war than we've ever been.