Christmas Break. I drove down to my parents’ house on Saturday. Conversation was about a number of things, like the business world of youtube, taxes, and the futuristic internet infrastructure that is coming up. [When I mentioned this, and I might have used the term mesh networks, I remember Daniel's eyes widened and a look of fear. This was the "bad" thing for which apparently I could be targeted for. -2/18/20]…
Most people plea out before they go to trial anyway. Daniel thought the Bible advocated something like that--coming to terms with your enemy....
Daniel brought up an idea of how to protect my valuables. He said if the police had a search warrant, they could take keys or fingerprints from you, but if your property was secured with something like a password, the courts have ruled that the police couldn't compel you to give that over. He acted really excited about a safe that was password protected, and suggested I get one several times. I drove to the store, and Daniel was walking back, so I picked him up, and we went together. He was telling me about places where things could be hidden, like in a shoe. We were in an isle, and there was a guy standing there stiffly with a look of horror on his face staring in the direction of the shelf while I told Daniel that the best way to hide something is for it to be something people don't know to look for, and mentioned how they used to hide gold under fence posts. Daniel repeated what I said deliberately, "Fence posts..." (These days you have to consider drones.) [Written 10/20/20]...
I talked about Trump's battle with the FBI and the internal war going on. "Maybe you should write a story about it some day." [My mother added, her tone jaded and sarcastic.] Why? That doesn't seem to be the sort of story I would write.…
I went out for a bit. When I came back, mom wanted me to edit her story. There was one section she needed help with. She didn't know how to describe approaching a police station, and what the interior would be like. Like I know?...
Then she gets really upset that I use sign language, and then decides I don't actually want to say something to her, and this means there is something that is really important for me to communicate that I then don't consider her worth it to make sure she understands. [We used to talk in sign language all the time. This obviously makes sense if there was audio but no video recording at that time. -2/14/20]...
There was more distance between us [my mother and I], like we were more like strangers
[I did not openly accuse my family members of being informants for a long time, until I amassed more evidence. The decision to do so was not easy. I had argued with them on the principle of doing wrong because the government ordered it, but I did not persuade them to stop and come clean. I did not expect their cooperation if I accused them explicitly, and did expect opposition. But I decided it was better to be real with people, and not have to pretend or hide the situation. I sent messages with my accusations and why I believed they made the wrong choice, then allowed them to defend themselves and give their side as I presented my journal. This part was posted in October 2020.
Here are their responses to this post:]
My comment: This is short and about family. I strongly recommend you all [family] read it.
My father's comment: I'm working on a response.
My father's comment: You wrote “I might have used the term mesh networks, I remember Daniel's eyes widen and a look of fear. This was the ‘bad’ thing for which apparently I could be targeted for. -2/18/20],” … “Most people plea out before they go to trial anyway. Daniel thought the Bible advocated something like that--coming to terms with your enemy.” So you remember Daniel’s eyes widen and you assume he was afraid of the subject of mesh networks? You take any simple expression as confirmation of you theories. That is extreme Confirmation Bias.
You also wrote about your mother: “She said something and I reacted like I was pulling back, like I had recognized that she was an informant.” Again. You imagined some comment or way of acting as confirming your theory that your mother was an informant.
You are believing your imaginations and taking your impressions of other’s expressions as truth. I have first-hand knowledge of this: You asked about our Roku as if I was clueless of the invasion of privacy issues. I explained that I bought the one without a voice-command microphone. You stated in your Journal that we were “nervous” and imagined that we were “tasked” with informing on ourselves. So it doesn’t matter what the facts are, you assume that you have great skill at interpreting facial expressions and pauses in conversations and your interpretations always confirm your assumption that others are informants.
Your tests for verifying your theory (that certain people are informants) are not good. You have stated that informants will call you crazy when they are accused. So if you walk up to a random person and tell them “Informants will call you crazy if you accuse them. You are an informant!” And they reply “You’re crazy!” what have you proven or disproved? I’m not saying that there aren’t any valid concerns about the possibility of informants and surveillance, but we should think soberly and with proper perspectives.
All of your book is demonstrating your belief (without solid evidence) that the government is doing all these things to you. It is orchestrating all these events in your life. That they are the reason for cars breaking down, your computers not working, making you ill by poisoning the air conditioners and foods, people harassing you, having everyone inform on you, etc…
It is true that the political environment was anti-America, anti-freedom, anti-Christian and hostile from 2009 through 2016. Obama politicized the government agencies. See: “Government Hostility Toward the Right Wing” http://www.akdart.com/obama147.html There was a lot of talk about our loss of freedoms at that time. Edward Snowden warned of mass surveillance programs. This seems to have had an extreme effect on you. While its good to be observant of potential threats, to take prudent measures concerning privacy and security, and to advocate for our freedoms, becoming obsessively concerned and fearful is not ok. "The fear of man brings a snare, But whoever trusts in the LORD shall be safe." - Pro 29:25. Jesus said “I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world.” John 16:33.
You have not judged others or events rightly. The Lord says “A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses” Deut 19:15. You need solid evidence and sound reasoning.
While you have had to deal with some bad characters, allowing your bad experiences to cloud your judgment about everyone else is not right. "Let none of you think evil in your heart against your neighbor;" Zech 8:17. “There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your "neighbor?” James 4:12. And "Do not say, ‘A conspiracy,’ Concerning all that this people call a conspiracy, Nor be afraid of their threats, nor be troubled. The LORD of hosts, Him you shall hallow; Let Him be your fear, And let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary," - Isaiah 8:12-14a
Thank you for allowing us to review your journal entries and respond before posting.
My comment: [@my father] Thank you for your response. You state that I provide thin evidence. I am not suggesting that every example is in itself rock solid proof that someone is acting maliciously on behalf of the government. Some things are merely consistent with it, or are more consistent with it than not, and so as a person observing these crimes, I include these cases as well.
I was surprised by Zech 8:17 and I looked it up. It is underlined in my Bible, and my translation says "do not devise evil in your hearts against one another." (ESV) Also note Jeremiah 9:4, Romans 3:10, and John 2:24. The reality is that people are naturally malicious and hide their evil deeds (John 3:19). This is the way of the world. It isn't just the era of Obama in which there were systematic attempts to covertly damage political adversaries. I certainly do not need to be obsessed with looking for evil to find it. There is an avalanche. "They do not rest until they have caused someone to stumble." Psychopaths tire themselves trying to destroy innocent people. There are plenty of them. If you hear someone saying they are a victim and they describe the behavior of a psychopath, and you assume they are making it up, you are possibly dismissing an actual victim.
I am not a judge in a court of law. Due process, and establishing every accusation, is necessary before punishing someone for their crimes. It is also important to be considerate of not falsely accusing people. I can help to avoid that by redacting names, being careful of what I am actually asserting, and showing the facts. That is something I am trying to be conscious of in this process. But we are not obligated towards an irrational bias that people are basically good. We shouldn't wait while people are being threatened and harmed by criminals who aren't confessing to their crimes and ignore what reasons for suspicion may be available.
My mother's comment: My perspective on these times - it did seem like you didn't trust or even like me anymore. You treated me as an enemy and would not confide in me or even have normal conversation about your life or interests. Of course this put up walls (to emotionally protect myself). when I tried to find out what was wrong so I could apologize and we could be close again, you stonewalled me. You would not say what I had done to offend you. At that point, relationship wasn't really possible. I could not reasonably continue to be vulnerable and open to someone who was rejecting me (I had enough rejection in my life and cannot handle it well). So yes, I closed off to you. I was glad when you were gone from the house again, so I could breathe. I could have peace.
I did not understand for a long time why you treated me that way. Not until I read your journal. It shocks me less to see it the second time, but you have successfully created that emotional wall between us. Your life is your own, and I won't tell you what to say in your book. It is your perception and you are free to write it. But I would prefer that you make it clear that it was your perception.
As I said to you before, I have never spied on you. I respect your privacy. I only wanted to find out what was wrong between us to see if it could be remedied.
My mother's comment: I have not shared any confidence about your life with others. When things would appear to be a negative report, (such as how you were treating me) I also did not relay that. I still believe in hope of restoration, but will not hang my heart on it. Some in the household were aware of it, because they were present.
My mother's comment: 2/17/20 - I tend not to remember specific conversations, so can't address intelligently what we were talking about or give it context. For me, when something is past, it's really gone. I prefer to forget than keep a record of wrongs.
All I can say is that for a while, we have been strangers more than family.
My mother's comment: I do not give permission to post misinformation about me on my page OR to my friends. Even with libertarian freedom, I cannot condone you bearing false witness and dishonoring your parents.
My mother's comment: So many assumptions are made here, that are untrue.
My comment: This is a problem and I'm not completely sure what the right answer is. I am required to honor my parents. Telling people you are an informant would likely be thought of as dishonoring. What then of children who know of their parents' crimes? Especially when others could be or are hurt? But the bigger issue is the pressure that must be applied to you to make you an informant, as of course you could not do so willingly. If you are under serious threat or torment, then it would be much more dishonoring of me to leave you in that position. By telling people you are a victim, likely of things like what I have experienced, I'm making it possible for them to help you without you risking yourself in asking for help. Also, I am making you less useful as an informant. If everyone knows you could be spying on them, people could withhold that information that could put them in jeopardy with your overlords. So it is more likely you won't be worth coercing to be an informant. Given these options, it seems honoring you most requires me to expose what abuse you must be suffering. As for the truth of claim, people will have to reason for themselves as the evidence unfolds.
My mother's comment: I don't know how to convince you of my sincerity. I have not lied to you. I am not under any threat, unless you consider being falsely accused of being an informant by my own daughter - a threat.
Daniel's comment: I concur with dad's assessment here. I see plenty of Confirmation Bias both here and in your previous writings.
I had wanted to speak to recommend against posting an earlier writing but have seen that you've clearly formed a worldview that those who ask/suggest others to keep quite about any vial things are categorically along the lines of psychopath/narcissist/informant oppressors of those who've been treated unfairly... whereas it would seem that you haven't left any room for other possibilities of healthy minded and loving individuals cautioning against such an action; for even a good reason. Like you can’t have a healthy reason to suggest not to share such info and anyone who does is categorically one of these bad people described above… and I would espouse that this is not the case at all. A valid reason one may suggest not to share is because; like in a school like environment bullies typically find those they perceive as weak and then proceed to bully that individual; so the idea of a "victim mentality" or the likeness to it may open you up to such characters and attacks and a person who cares for you may which that no such bullies would find there way to you. As this is the case, a loving friend may caution one against using such language to avoid such characters — and this is not an oppressor but a friend.
I once heard an accusation against me back at youth group and I spoke to [our youth pastor]l about going before the youth group to deny that claim. He advised me against doing that as I would "put that image into their mind and they would associate that idea with me" and so I saw the wisdom in what he said and never spoke of it again.
The last time you were with us all I remember you sharing and explaining the “Narcissist mentality”. I have not yet grown accustomed to thinking in terms of Narcissist, Informants, or Psychopaths as terms for profiling in the way that you do. It seems strange and foreign to me, but I see that you have a developed worldview on these subjects. So whenever I hear these words from you I try to stretch my brain to grasp your worldview to try and better understand your statements and claims. And since I’m not accustomed to this way of thinking those terms are not something I’m led to to describe people. If I were to try to find the closest Biblical matching description a Narcissist, as I understand it, would be a lover of self. The other two I don’t have a Biblical similarity to assign to. Though your description of a Narcissist does not match the Biblical one I would associate it to.
When I first saw you use "informant" language towards me I was puzzled at this bizarre statement and at first thought some one may have hacked your account here. As I read on I began to realize much else of the writing seamed to fit with the way you speak so my mind searched for where in the world this was coming from. After reading your first paper and seeing many heavy implications and things said in such away that, what the reader likely sees are circumstantial, you have spoken as though there was indeed great intentional wrong done. This “way of seeing the world” and everything wrong in it, and dwelling on it, and reading into most everything, is a very unhealthy way to think and a much worse way to foster a way of thinking.
To my recollection your name has only come up in conversation a handful of times over the past 15 years or so and I’ve always simply said that you were the smartest one among us siblings. And with only those “closest of friends” I’ve shared no more than you’re left handed and I think people who are left handed are talented, you know sign language, and approximately however far away you were may have come up. Beyond this I have had no reason to speak to others and I have not offered any more details. I care for you, I believe I would fight for you if need be and defend you wherever is right to do so.
The Bible has a way of speaking about how our mindset ought to be, like in John 15:11 “These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full”, in John 15:13, 17 “But now I come to You and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. … Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.”, and in Philippians 4:8 “Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.” Since it is known that our own hearts are “deceitful above all else and desperately wicked, who can know it” in Jeremiah 17:9 and “for the flesh doth desire contrary to the Spirit” in Galations 5:17 going on to verse 22-25 speaks of the fruit of the Spirit and walking in the Spirit. The first verse mentioned in this paragraph about God’s joy remaining in us, (John 15:11) in context, speaks of “if we keep His commandments” and then states “a new commandment I give to you … to love”. And this joy we have in Him by love also has some aspects of love we can see in 1 Corinthians 13 where it describes love as “thinks no evil”, “bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” which speaks to the mindset of how we who are in Christ are to be… and by love alone, which we are called to, we are not to presume or assume wickedness or ill intent from any persons where their may be doubt, but the scripture would seem to imply that loving your neighbor would be assuming the best about their intent in general when intent is unknown. As Philippians 2:1-3 says “Therefore if there is any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and mercy, fulfill my joy by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”
Part 1/2
Daniel's comment: In those who are Christ’s, do you not believe that God is able to perfect the work He started in us, and those you accuse, to bring about His good work to completion? Does God not indeed bring those who search Him out and meditate on His word to maturity in Christ? Would you then assume the worst about those in whom God has done a great work, without proof? There are even those in the world who are not of God who have a “law unto themselves” who live by a high standard towards good character (see Romans 2:14). We believers have Philippians 2:13-15 “for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless, children of God without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world,” which clearly shows blameless and harmless as attributes of which Christ continues in working in us. And even before God gave us His Holy Spirit to indwell us, before Cain slew Abel, “So the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.”” … why would the God who created us say to Cain “but you should rule over it”? Is this not in the same spirit as the Gentiles who by nature do the things of the law are a law to themselves (Romans 2:14). And lastly on presuming the worst about others we have Romans 14:10-13 “But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: “As I live, says the Lord, Every knee shall bow to Me, And every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather resolve this, not to put a stumbling block or a cause to fall in our brother’s way.”
I mentioned earlier how worshiping God can be healing. I have no way of knowing yet if this has registered with you. Even people who are not of Christ have seen the evidence of this as it is stated in the book “The Power of Habit” that when a bad habit is developed the pathways exist within the brain for it as it was created by the habit in the first place. When the habit is ceased those neural pathways remain but are merely dormant. If these pathways are not overwritten or a new stronger habit replaces it then it takes about 9 years before they’re gone. Although in the instance of people addicted to pornography it has been shown that those neural pathways get completely overwritten by practicing worship. This is what I remember hearing in the audio book many years ago and was surprised that a secular book would publish something like this. Yet we who have God’s holy word have many testimonies that when an individual humbles themselves before God and repents and turns fully to obeying and worshiping God that God deliver’s them from their enemies. And again “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood”.
As to your writings here… as I read about mesh networks and you wrote “Daniel’s eyes widen and a look of fear” I was assuming you were talking about some one I don’t know. But then you wrote that this was about family. I have no idea what look you perceived at the time. I have absolutely no reason to fear mesh networking, nor have I ever, as I love the idea and am actively still pursuing the idea… even now towards becoming a HAM radio operator. The technology absolutely fascinates me. If you didn’t know this about me I don’t live in fear, not in fear of anything. I’m in God’s hands. I also resolved many years ago never to make a decision based on baseless fears. Fear is not something I’m really familiar with. The closest I come is a natural healthy skeptical fear when doing parkour and looking at a jump beyond what I’m accustomed to… and that’s not a baseless fear but a fear based in reason and rational thought — also known as a healthy fear.
As to “Most people plea out before they go to trial anyway. Daniel thought the Bible advocated something like that--coming to terms with your enemy.” you seem to be bending my understanding of Matthew 5:25 “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.” . You say “coming to terms with your enemy”, the word enemy seems a bit inaccurate with scripture, as it implies more than an adversary, as an enemy is hostile and desires to harm. But an adversary going to court is simply pursuing the laws for legal terms for which you have not held up your end on. I happen to dislike many past “Republicans” because they’ve been “sell outs” on important moral principles and I hope they would never “come to terms” with the immoral changes others are trying to put into law. So your depiction of my stance here is inaccurate.
Part 2/2
My comment: [@Daniel],
I wrote about narcissists and psychopaths in the Bible in this blog post: https://wordpress.com/post/saclark411.wordpress.com/518 I believe they are called "scoffers" in the Bible, among other things.
You are assuming that I am committing the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.
Affirming the Consequent:
If P therefore Q
Q
Therefore P
If Person is an informant then the person does not want me to speak out
The person does not want me to speak out
Therefore person must be an informant
This is a fallacy because there may be more ways to get to Q besides P.
I am not reasoning in this way. However, I do recognize if people ask me not to speak out, it is consistent with them being an informant, although it does not necessarily follow from this information that they are.
As for your three arguments against speaking out:
- I would identify as a victim and attract more bullies.
Victims need to be protected from harm, and the abusers need to be brought to justice. If someone is stabbing me, there is a real and objective wrong that exists that needs to be dealt with. As for other possible good or bad things that can come afterwards, we can look at the pragmatics:
Pros:
-Victim may be able to discourage attacks and recruit aid
-Victim may be able to bring assailant to justice
-Other victims may be encouraged to not stay with their abusers and live needless lives of hell, and to speak out (it is all to common for victims to just stay with their abusers, and tragic)
-Awareness can be raised about the nature of the crimes that can occur, and it will be harder for this or any other assailant to continue perpetrating this type of crime undiscovered
-A culture of justice will be bolstered for everyone, including children yet to be born
-Victim will not have to live a false life and can have genuine relationships
-People will have a more realistic view of human nature and may be able to come to grips with the reality of their own depravity, and to repent
Cons
-Sadists will be inspired
-If no one comes to the victim's aid, predators will be emboldened to hurt this and similar victims
-Victim will likely be retaliated against by the assailant
-Victim will be a less desirable companion as people may not want to associate with the victim's assailant
In many of these cons, I am only risking myself, which is my right to do. However if I do no speak out, the culture of oppression that is not only harming me but others will go unchecked and unchallenged. Unacceptable. Regardless, injustice isn't something we can just wink at. These are serious crimes.
Your second argument:
- Love thinks no evil.
In this case, I would like to take a look at examples of how Love was exemplified for us. Does God think no evil when he looks at humanity? Did Jesus think no evil of others as he walked on this earth? When I am not sure about how to apply a general principle like this, I can look to the example of Christ. Matthew 23 suggests that Love does in fact recognize the sins in others.
Your third argument:
- Do not judge a brother.
As we both know, the Bible has a lot to say on this slightly complicated topic. For example, Matthew 7:1 says do not judge, but we see in verse 5 that you may judge once you take the plank out of your own eye, and in fact it was a prohibition against judging in a hypocritical fashion, similar to Romans 2:1-5.
In 1 Corinthians 5:12 we see Paul has nothing to do with "judging" those who are outside, but in context we are to understand this as a judgement in exerting church discipline. We do in fact see that judging fellow believers is a requirement in some cases, the purpose being to restore them to healthy fellowship. (James 5:19-20, Matthew 18:15-19, 1 Corinthians 6:5) This is an organized rebuke that would result in an official sanction of removing the believer from fellowship.
As far as the Romans 14 passage you brought up, the "sin" in question was not actually a sin. A person believed something was a sin when it wasn't, and they were being encouraged to act in a way they thought was sinful, though it was of no moral consequence, and that attitude of rebellion towards God was what was in itself a wrong. There is a lot of allowing God to do His work as people follow him.
For the world, the law is a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ (Galations 3:24), and under it every mouth will be stopped (Romans 3:19). If we were to not follow the example of the prophets, apostles, and Jesus, and command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30), we would be failing as God's ambassadors to the world.
However, as it relates to my situation, we are provided with many examples and commands to speak out against injustice, to warn and protect.
2 Timothy 4:14-15
"Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words."
Isaiah 1:17
"Learn to do good;
Seek justice,
Rebuke the oppressor;
Defend the fatherless,
Plead for the widow."
Ephesians 5:11
"And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."
Daniel's comment: On the last verse you shared here where it's speaks to exposing the unfruitful works of darkness you must have this verse in the context it is meant. Both before and immediately after it talks about not speaking of such things:
Ephesians 5:3,4 "But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor course jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks."
Ephesians 5:12 "For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done in secret."
So then what is verse 11 talking about when it says "expose them" if we are not to speak of such things? Verse 13 explains "But all things that are exposed are made manifest by the light, for whatever makes manifest is light." So it is not "exposing" that brings them to light, but the "manifest by the light" implies the light itself is what exposes them. So use the light to expose what is in darkness, and do not use speaking of what is shameful to bring darkness to peoples attention. The light makes manifest, so speak of the light and that should be the tool the Holy Spirit uses to pierce the soul and expose the darkness.
My comment: Thank you for the thoughtful response. As for verses 3 and 4, I do not believe Paul is saying don't name uncleanness that is among you. Rather he is saying don't commit the sins at all. It isn't like he meant if you are committing them, just make sure not to get caught.
It is shameful to even speak of the sick crimes committed. And this is the reason given why we are to have nothing to do with them.
What does expose mean? What is the alternative interpretation you are defending here?. Lets say there is a man who is committing some crime against one of his dependents, and a Christian knows about it. It sounds like by your interpretation of this verse, "bringing light" would be for the Christian to hold up the standard of God's word that such a thing is sin, which is certainly a good and necessary thing to do, but to go no farther in actually exposing the crimes themselves, considering it "shameful" and allowing a helpless person to go on being abused. That doesn't sound like exposing the works of darkness to me.
Here is the word expose in the Greek, its definition, and all of the cases it has been used: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm...
Daniel's comment: Alternative interpretation? I'm speaking to the context of the scripture. We can go back even further in the passage in verse 4:29 "Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth", verse 4:31 "Let all ... evil speaking be put away from you". And before that verse 4:23 "be renewed in the spirit of your mind". All of this leading up to verse 5:3 "let it not even be named among you" and the thought of verse 11 again followed immediately with the emphasis that it is "shameful even to speak of those things".
And again verse 13 being the clarification of what "exposed" is to mean 'in this context' is even further clarified by verse 14:
"Therefore He says:
'Awake, you who sleep.
Arise from the dead,
And Christ will give you light.'"
Here verses 13 and 14 clearly show the light causes one who is asleep to awake and the dead to arise which clearly indicates the work of salvation being done in those who "shall be saved".
If I then use exposing the ugliness of abortion as if that were the same context of this Bible passage to shine light, how them does this produce the work of salvation in a person? That in and of itself will not produce a change in a person to awake or arise to the light Christ gives. Only the light of God, whom Jesus is, and who we are to be to the world can do this.
Same passage; explains it: Ephesians 5:8-10 "For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord."
My comment: More context for Ephesians:
Eph 4:14-15 - that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—
Eph 4:25 - Therefore, putting away lying, “Let each one of you speak truth with his neighbor,”[fn] for we are members of one another.
Eph 4:29 - Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it may impart grace to the hearers.The word corrupt here means not useful: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm...
Eph 4:31 - "Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you, with all malice." The word for evil speaking can mean to damage someone's good name. Interestingly it is also used translated blasphemy in Revelation 2:9 - "I know your works, tribulation, and poverty (but you are rich); and I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan."
As already explained, "not be named among you" wouldn't mean don't call each other out on your sins, but rather don't commit them. We already know about the requirement to call out believers who are sinning. "Shameful to speak of" is given as a reason to not commit the acts. It does not appear to be a reason to cover them up.
The context of "light," starting in verse 8, is having been redeemed by Christ we now walk in light, truth, and wisdom. Light is a generic term. It can mean:-of truth and its knowledge, together with the spiritual purity associated with it-that which is exposed to the view of all, openly, publicly
https://wwwblueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm...cont...
My comment: I think some examples of how light was applied to the corrupt works of darkness would be useful:
Matthew 22:16-18
"And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?”
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, “Why do you test Me, you hypocrites?"
Jesus is accusing them of having malicious intent.
John 13:21-26
When Jesus had said these things, He was troubled in spirit, and testified and said, “Most assuredly, I say to you, one of you will betray Me.” Then the disciples looked at one another, perplexed about whom He spoke.
Now there was leaning on Jesus’ bosom one of His disciples, whom Jesus loved. Simon Peter therefore motioned to him to ask who it was of whom He spoke.
Then, leaning back on Jesus’ breast, he said to Him, “Lord, who is it?”
Jesus answered, “It is he to whom I shall give a piece of bread when I have dipped it.” And having dipped the bread, He gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
2 Timothy 4:14-15
Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm. May the Lord repay him according to his works. You also must beware of him, for he has greatly resisted our words.
Daniel's comment: [@me], Digging deeper in to the context of Ephesians 4:17-5:21 it does seem that the majority of the context is speaking as to actions of putting off the old man and putting on the new. The central verse then that would either affirm my assessment of this passage or disprove it is Ephesians 5:3 where it says "let it not even be named among you". If that verse is as you say then you might dismiss the idea of not speaking of such evil things. Going through some studies on YouTube (which is unusual for me) I found a pastor who was curios at this exact phrase and looked it up. Start at 13:28 into the video https://youtu(dot)be/O16TzQBs1M0?t=808 "the word in Greek literally means that these things shouldn't be given a name" … "Paul's basically saying that they shouldn't even be spoken". And this was the point I was making by this passage of scripture.
I noticed you didn't address Ephesians 5:12 which speaks very plainly: "For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done in secret." Do you have an alternative interpretation of this?
Ephesians 5 (Part 2) :3-21 • Living as Children of the Light
My comment: As I have argued, "not even named among you" cannot mean "don't point out people's sins" because we are required to rebuke and are given many examples of it.
I have addressed "shameful to speak of" in two of my previous posts.
My mother's comment: [@me] Right. "Not even named among you" - means none of you should be accused of those things.
My mother's comment: Rebuke comes in private for private things - and public for public things (As Paul to Peter or the prophets to the kings of Israel) ... but if someone is unrepentant and practicing sin or criminal behavior, it is a sin to remain silent about it. The means for exposing darkness must be godly too. Gossip would be an example of shameful speech.