Your confusion is completely understandable. You make the jump from sin to crime seamlessly. Crime is between a human and another human. Sin is between man and God. Since you deny His existence, that becomes difficult to reconcile.

Pardon me if I don’t presume too much, but I’ll explain. The DESIRE to commit an act which God finds sinful is as guilty of a sin as the act itself. That has never, and will never become true in the human arena. Your “thought crimes” spin is tricky, but empty.

Just so we are clear, since you don’t believe His Words, why concern yourself with the “burdens” He places on those who believe? Isn’t that their affair? And trust me, His believers are not feeling too burdend by His laws, when weighed against His providential blessings.

We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; Always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. For we which live are always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. So then death worketh in us, but life in you. We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

- 2 Corinthians 4:8-18

Why can’t you just admit you made something up? You were wrong, end of story. Now own up to it like a good Christian.

I sleep well at night, do you?

Most of the time, yes. However, sometimes reality does keep me awake. I guess I could just pretend that the Almighty was watching over me and soothe my mind. But then things are just so much worse when reality hits like a ton of bricks, when it cannot be avoided.

I guess being a good Christian (or Muslim, or Jew…) is having the ability to skirt reality on a consistent basis even when it tries to hit you.

Matthew is where we get introduced to thought crimes. Couple of passages are quite clear that thinking something and doing something are equivalent. You know, if you think to yourself “wow, what a hot chick, hubba hubba”, it’s on par with actually sleeping with her.

Luckily, our potential new overlords have a plan to avoid those sinful thoughts.

Does that chip on your shoulder show up in the mirror?

JM Hanes on June 20, 2007 at 2:12 AM

Thanks for the insult, but talking clear is not talking down. We can all tell a psuedo intellect by the clarity of their writings. You have a different perspective, you think the Declaration was never used until Lincoln (or as you say “lay forgotten for nearly a century, till Lincoln eventually dusted…”), a historically naive perspective. But thanks for at least clarifying your statement. I’m just not as smart or learned as you, as you state you are “…perfectly qualified”, I would never want to argue with someone with those qualifications. BTW, self-evident was used in the form of, within the light of God and knowledge imparted by him (thank God, or at least Luther,for the reformation), but then I am sure you would argue with that (even though I may have some of them thar scholary books that defend that, once again offered to you)…and I again would be wrong, not being perfectly qualified, and barly bareley not very good educated.
Good day to you…

Besides, the burdens placed by Jesus on the people (Matthew 5 and up) are even more extreme than the existing law.

Krydor on June 19, 2007 at 2:51 AM

Oh yes, that terrible oppressor of the masses, Jesus.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

– Matthew 11:27-30

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. As he spake these words, many believed on him. Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

- John 8:28-32

Scoff as you will, I have known these things to be true for more than half my life. Anyone who would have their troubles eased need only apply themselves to the care of others.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

– James 1:27

“So many big words.”

I can talk down to you, if your prefer. Yes, Lincoln dusted off the Declaration of Independence to justify freeing slaves. It was his emphasis on “the proposition that all men are created equal” which ultimately changed the way Americans regarded the Declaration forever. Indeed, up till the Civil War, the principle of equality had proven mostly problematic and the Declaration’s original value as a revolutionary document had declined.

Well, they’d best get to robbing this Peter fellow, that I may reap the rewards.

(I’ve always liked that one, as my real name is Paul.)

JM Hanes on June 19, 2007 at 2:15 AM

So many big words, I thought a subordinate clauses were Santas Elves. Your statement of Lincoln being the one that dusted off the Declaration is what I attacked, and you danced around that. You should stick to the argument at hand, and not throw out your big words that mean nothing.

To paraphrase Thomas Brackett Reed “You never open your mouth without subtracting from the sum of human
knowledge.”

Pity you did not take me up on some of my books, they would have helped you.

Listen, troll, the democrats do have a plan, it is to raise the taxes, rob Peter to pay Paul (and Paul seldom complains), it is to lose the war on terror…but fight it if they are in power, to limit free speech, to continue their attack on Black America (remember your dem party is the party giving birth to the KKK) by continuing to not educate them, by opening the borders to all, to ignore their own illegal policies (Feinstein’s husband made a grand living off of her votes), by embracing those who deface national monuments, and the list goes on and on. Some plan.

And how did your so brilliant mind, make the leap from signers of the constitution to “The Democrats have got a plan”, at least show some class and intellegence and make a smooth segway.
You poor pitiful liberal. I think the tofu and doritos have affected your mind.

Seixon on June 19, 2007 at 4:04 AM

Better read a little more, Enron’s finances was such a mess that it will take years to sort out. Glad you have such a handle on their finances and to whom they were directed, you are the only one who knows. I am not sure they were in it to “make money” or at least legal money, but one thing is certain, we will never know because so many polititions were paid off by Enron, and the ones in charge of the country were the Clintons.

Yeah, I know. The term “moral relativism” is often thrown around with too little rigor. But in this case, well, you decide…
****
related: 72% of atheists find curly fries as threatening as Hasidic Jews.
Which, that just seems sill…

Besides, the burdens placed by Jesus on the people (Matthew 5 and up) are even more extreme than the existing law.

Krydor on June 19, 2007 at 2:51 AM

Funny, I’ve never thought my faith was strong. I see so many people who easily and nonchalantly do what’s right, with a warm smile and an encouraging word, no matter the circumstances, and I envy them.
A fellow once said, “meek” is more correctly translated as “debonnaire.”
How do you like that? “And the debonnaire shall inherit the Earth.”

Thanks, Krydor, and all the best to you.

Whatever you have to do to keep the faith…
Seixon on June 19, 2007 at 4:04 AM

I sleep well at night, do you?

Why can’t you just admit you made a completely false statement? How very un-Christian of you.

Actions speak louder than labels. Enron boomed during the Clinton years, taking advantage of the slacking of the Fed credit, made possible by the … Clintons.

The “Clinton years” also known as the “Republican Congress years”… So who do you give credit? The legislating body that passes all the laws and budgets, or the guy who stands at the end of the line and signs? Or perhaps the answer is none of the above? The 1990s saw an economic expansion – and only political hacks will try to give credit to Congress or Clinton for that. What usually follows a recession? What else happened during the 1990s? Does the machine you are using to view this ring a bell?

The action, and the easy access to the White House was through the 1990s. Throwing around money to the politicos later resembled more attempts to cast out lifelines from the sinking ship than genuine affiliation.

Look, naliaka, Enron employees threw their money to the GOP by about a 2:1 ratio since the founding of the company. Lay donated almost exclusively to Republicans. Can you deal with reality? Who was running Congress during the 1990s?

I actually don’t mind discussing this, to break through the constructed wall of “campaign contributions” media blocks to revisit the earlier time, to remind everyone as to what Enron was and what it was planning to accomplish by the Kyoto Treaty. But drat, Bush didn’t go along.

Enron was, gasp, planning on making money. I find it hilarious that instead of admitting you were making up an entire argument to try and debunk the thought of Lay as a Christian, you are pretending he was a liberal deep in the pockets of the Democratic party. You just can’t make this stuff up, that’s downright hilarious.

Whatever you have to do to keep the faith…

Go through with new eyes, new confidence that you and your mother were wronged by fallible, selfish people, and read how much time Jesus spent yelling at the priests for making everyone miserable and not “getting it” and putting burdens on people that God never stated nor intended. Later, he puts on the thunder and lightening and blazing – and “yelling” will seem mild in comparison, and the state of affairs to avoid is “HYPOCRITE.”

I understand that your faith is strong, and I’m happy for you. No snark intended. Religion and faith do not, cannot and will not work for me.

Besides, the burdens placed by Jesus on the people (Matthew 5 and up) are even more extreme than the existing law.

Do you just skip right over inconvenient qualifiers and subordinate clauses? The Signers attached little importance to the Declaraton as a foundational document. Get back to me when you can track the substantive, formative, influence of the Declaration through the Federalist Papers, the designing of the Constitution and its subsequent amendation.

If the personal commitments of the signers were at issue here, I’m perfectly qualified to talk about them, but they aren’t. If, however, you want argue that the Declaration played an equally robust role in American thinking between the Revolution & Emancipation as it would play from then on, make your case. Otherwise, you’ve got books. The Democrats have got a plan.

JM Hanes on June 19, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Thanks for defining a revisionist, I liked this line the best

Declaration basically lay forgotten for nearly a century, till Lincoln eventually dusted it off to justify the emancipation of slaves.

I am sure Florida coming into the union, calling up of armed forces for a couple of wars before Lincoln, and other events that you have forgotten about, had nothing to do with the Declaration and its impact. I think before Lincoln ever got to it, it was pretty well used.

The signers risked their lives and fortunes, hardly would I say they did not attach any importance. But then you

There are a few good books detailing the signing and the commitment of the signers. Also details of their commitment to God and country. If you would like I could offer you a couple of suggestions. It might help you get a better handle on this “In the 18th century Christian world, royal monarchies, not people, derived the power and the right to rule from God”, Luther and the reformation had already resolved that problem. I have some good books on that also that may help you.

The foundation of all American law and justice and the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights and EVERYTHING is set on the opening premise of the Declaration of Independence: “We find these truths to be self-evident: That man is endowed by his Creator with certain inalienable rights, those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The base they worked on was God gave man rights that for a government to be just should be respected. All else flows from that.”

Actually nothing else flows from that. Not only is the Declaration where homage to any divine involvement both begins and ends, none of the documentary history you cite was premised upon or relied on it at all. In that respect the Declaration was a classic historical one-off.

Most folks are aware that Ben Franklin famously crossed out “sacred” and wrote “self-evident” when the Declaration was being drafted. One of the most significant reasons for doing so is seldom noted, however. The claim being asserted by the Americans was specifically designed to counter the Divine Right of Kings which was, in fact, the preferred Christian model for governance. Democracy was considered dangerously unChristian, and its Greek origins made it especially pernicious. In the 18th century Christian world, royal monarchies, not people, derived the power and the right to rule from God.

In justifying themselves to that world, the Americans actually had to trump the power of God & Church. They did this by relying on the most decidedly non-Christian enlightenment principles in existence: the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God, which were themselves trumped by self-evident, not sacred, truths. Indeed, self-evident may be the most important and most powerful word in American history.

It’s also worth noting, however, that the Signers, themselves, did not attach any particular, let alone singular, importance to the Declaration as a founding document; they would be perfectly amazed at the Scriptural status it has since acquired. I’m a Declaration fan myself, but ignoring its early history is revisionism of the first order. Once the Revolution commenced in earnest, the Declaration basically lay forgotten for nearly a century, till Lincoln eventually dusted it off to justify the emancipation of slaves.

Guess you and I have different definitions of what makes a Christian, a capitalist and an entrepreneur. There are other ways to make money in this world than banking on the elusive carbon credit, and the eviserating and dishonest Kyoto Treaty. Actions speak louder than labels. Enron boomed during the Clinton years, taking advantage of the slacking of the Fed credit, made possible by the … Clintons. The action, and the easy access to the White House was through the 1990s. Throwing around money to the politicos later resembled more attempts to cast out lifelines from the sinking ship than genuine affiliation.
I actually don’t mind discussing this, to break through the constructed wall of “campaign contributions” media blocks to revisit the earlier time, to remind everyone as to what Enron was and what it was planning to accomplish by the Kyoto Treaty. But drat, Bush didn’t go along.

My definintion of “Christian” is probably more narrow than most, based on my religious indoctrination as a child. It’s a good bet that within my definition, most of the proclaimed Christians here would not qualify. Most of it has to with that whole 7th day of rest deal, which is Saturday.
Krydor on June 18, 2007 at 6:54 PM

It’s a good bet that within my definition, most of the proclaimed Christians here would not qualifySigh. That’s one of the unvarnished universal TRUTHS of this world.
Then you understand truly what this means:
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life and only a few find it.” Matthew 7:13You had first hand experience with human perfidy and hypocrisy and you know how bitter it is to be let down when you trusted so much. People love to hold up that scripture to justify themselves, not realizing they condemn themselves in front of God with it. It was not stated for a church to exalt itself over another church, it’s to the individual to comprehend his accountability to God Himself.

Remember, EVERY church is a mix of the following: a small group of committed Christians, a larger group of nominal Christians and the rest are happy pagans. Therefore, a wise Christian understands that the communal, physical church if run well, has useful purposes, but the “Body of Christ” is actually the individuals living their lives amongst their neighbors. This is nothing new under the sun. It’s always been like this and will be in the future.

Go through with new eyes, new confidence that you and your mother were wronged by fallible, selfish people, and read how much time Jesus spent yelling at the priests for making everyone miserable and not “getting it” and putting burdens on people that God never stated nor intended. Later, he puts on the thunder and lightening and blazing – and “yelling” will seem mild in comparison, and the state of affairs to avoid is “HYPOCRITE.”
We were in Ivory Coast and began going to an English-language church (Ivory Coast is Francophone.) It was a big church, because it served every English speaker that worked there and passed through – all the Anglophone Africans, Bristish COmmonwealth citizens and Americans. We went to several evening fellowships and ONE woman came up to us and welcomed us as newcomers. Out of seventy people easily. Probably 80% Missionaries. She turned out to be the pastor’s wife and the pastor was a former cowboy – bunkhouse, boots, spurs, mud, cattle, the Works, from Montana. You would have loved to hear him growl about the quality of missionaries they were getting “Too many coming from fundamentalist churches that would boggle the minds of the most steadfast believers here. They think they are the only true church and all the other sects of Christianity were not “real” Christians
Heh. He said that, really. Just like you did. Only his job was to somehow make them cooperate!
He also said that if a missionary came to Africa and couldn’t set up a church, he was an idiot and should go home.
Those are the kind of salty people to hang out with.

AH, took me a little bit, but I really don’t want to be accused by the likes of Seixon of violating the 9th commandmant.
http://www.mises.org/story/872
My assumption (stated waaay up there and laughed at by Seixon) was that Lay of Enron was not a “Christian Bush-lover” but simply a typical Leftie-me-me-me liberal is born out by this linked analysis.

Ah, so Lay, with his doctorate in economics, is a liberal lefty because he supported the Kyoto Accord because… it would benefit his own company. Wow, that sure sounds like a liberal to me, definitely not a capitalist!

Face it honey, Kenneth Lay was a Republican, and donated, from the looks of it, exclusively to Republicans. You claimed the exact opposite, which was entirely false. Now you’re trying quite pathetically to dig yourself out of the hole by pretending that Lay was supporting the Kyoto Accord for any other reason that benefiting his own company.

You said, “So how come Lay/Enron preferred to contribute to the Democrat Party?” This is entirely false. Can’t you stop the dishonesty and just admit that?

Lay was a member of a hard Left environmental group and steered Enron into carbon offsets, and was left out in the cold (so to speak) when Bush refused to sign the Kyoto agreement.

It shouldn’t surprise me that you read things and believe every word without questioning any of it. Bible anyone?

The business practices he supported leaned statist, monopolistic and heavily to Left environmental energy constucts.

Monopolistic = Left environmental? Seriously, what have you been smoking lately? Lay did what was best for his own company – such as cooking the books.

When the MSM starts bloviating and obsessing about charts of political contributions from corporations that are trying to curry political favor from any administration in office – unsuccessfully from Bush, but successfully from Clinton (India energy deals), the statistics become smoke and mirrors to hide the truth.

Tell me again why anyone would waste time lobbying someone other than those in power unless their whole intent was putting someone else in power. Thanks.

For a good buddy of Bush, as the Left claims, Lay had zero influence in getting him to sign an appalling treaty designed (as admitted to by the Europeans as solely to put brakes on American production and the American economy). Enron was banking on that treaty and lobbied hard for it, for its own short term gains, to the detriment of the country and its long-term future.

Now you’re coming around. I think that speaks well of Bush, that he didn’t sell the nation’s economy down the river on behalf of his friend.

Can’t say what Lay was really like, and can’t ask him, but his decisions and leadership was steering the company into Al Gore’s camp and his precious carbon offsets industry. We have all found out already that carbon offsets are bunk. Imagine a load of bunk the size of Enron. Scary.

The only reason Lay was steering into that camp was because his company stood to make lots of money off of it. Get it? That’s what the capitalist entrepreneur does, not the lefty liberal government should control everything type.

Quit making things up and trying as best you can to find scraps of incoherent ramblings to support your false allegations. I mean that both in general terms and in the context of defending a faith that cannot be defended from reality.

Hi Seixon,

Last time I saw you taking on all comers, you were getting pummeled from the left — so I guess that means you must represent the reasonable middle! I’d say carry on bravely, but I don’t think I need to. :)

JM Hanes on June 17, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Damn skippy.

Back in the day, when I was a kid, I was a member of a fundamentalist church that would boggle the minds of the most steadfast believers here. We were the only true church and all the other sects of Christianity were not “real” Christians. We were especially fond of that little passage from Matthew. Most, if not all, Christian sects use that to justify their existence. One of them is wrong.

Chances are good that you would not consider those folks to be Christians, either. However, as I said before that is irrelevant. That they consider themselves to be Christians is enough for them. They crossed the line for me when they informed my mother that her mother was burning in hell because she was a Roman Catholic.

Same goes for the Christian Identity movement. I find ‘em abhorrent and they attract every type of bigot, racist and idiot out there under the guise of being “the only true faith”. Both of us can claim, and do so without issue, that they certainly are not Christian by our interpretations of what we have read, studied and interpreted to fit a modern context.

It’s the Christian interpretation of choice for the White Supremacists. They have made common cause with Islamists. They claim to be Christian (within their interpretation) they certainly are. They are radicals and are prone to violence against unbelievers.

The question was asked “who are the Radical Christians?” The answer to that question is “The Christian Identity Movement”. They are what they are, and just as dangerous in a physical sense as the radical Islamists. Once again, regardless of what we think of them, it’s how they label themselves and justify their actions that is important.

My definintion of “Christian” is probably more narrow than most, based on my religious indoctrination as a child. It’s a good bet that within my definition, most of the proclaimed Christians here would not qualify. Most of it has to with that whole 7th day of rest deal, which is Saturday.