I love this video. Found it about a week ago and had to show it to my chemistry classes during break. Watching the jaws hit the floor was just priceless… then someone said… we need to make one of those ><

OPEN THREAD HYMNS

The spirits that surround thy throne
May bear the burning bliss;
But surely that is theirs alone
Who, undefiled, have never known
A fallen world like this.

O how shall I, whose native sphere
Is dark, whose mind is dim,
Before the Ineffable appear,
And on my naked spirit bear
The uncreated beam?

There is a way for man to rise
To that sublime abode:
An offering and a sacrifice,
A Holy Spirit’s energies,
An Advocate with God

*****************************

We shall live in peace (on the internet and on the Eternal net),
Someday, (I don’t know when)
O deep in my heart
I do believe
We shall live in peace
Someday.

Then again, Chris L, a Goldberg machine is overworked, overwrought, and overengineered to accomplish a simple task in the most complicated way possible. And random and variable elements are required to behave in a predictable manner each and every time.

So in form and function…

Since this is an open thread, I think you should visit this link and keep the Internet Monk in your prayers.

It is with a heavy heart that I bring my latest update on Michael. We have learned that his cancer is too advanced and too aggressive to expect any sort of remission. Our oncologist estimates that with continued treatment Michael most likely has somewhere between six months and a year to live. This is not really a surprise to us, though it is certainly horrible news. From the very beginning, both of us have suspected that this would prove to be an extremely bad situation. I don’t know why; perhaps God was preparing us for the worst all along by giving us that intuition.

ick@the gospel coalition

re 8:

Bummer – that’s too sad.

McLaren’s teachings that all religions can lead to eternal redemption earns the apostasy label.

*sigh*

if only he taught that

Why do you make such an easy transition from saying “when it directly affects/alters redemption” to “lead to eternal redemption”?

Good article.

The United States has an exalted image of itself, and would be a far more morally decent place if it did not. A touch of scepticism and self-debunkery would work wonders for its spiritual health. The very impulse which drives it to stand tall and feel good about itself is the one in danger of tearing it apart.

so true.

The United States as a country, just as Paraguy or Seden or Unganda, has no place in the kingdom of God. We, as the followrs of Jesus, are citizens of an invisible kingdom, and we must bring forth the fruits of that etrnal kingdom.

When we seek to protect earthly kingdoms we diminish the kingdom of God.

“hatred and disgust”

Those are your words which I have never said. God can and does use the configurations of countries, however they are divine conduits and not members of God’s kingdom.

All is part of God’s kingdom, Rick.

We should not hate nor love them.

We should love even our enemies.

I’m not assigning enemy status to anyone. I was simply saying that if we are called to love even our enemies (which may or may not be “individuals”) than certainly we can show more than just apathy (neither love nor hate) towards those things you call ’servants of God.’

A “country” is far more than an “organization.” Reducing it to just that is to ignore that it is comprised of people with a shared history, story, language, culture and sometimes religion. You wouldnt say about a church that it is nothing but an organization, nothing more or less, would you?

Rick,

I think that is awfully simplistic, not to mention, well, wrong.

The blood of God was shed for fallen sinners. It cannot redeem buildings or organizations or geographical territories. The Son of God came to save sinners, and the Divine will is encapsulated within the company of the redeemed. Allegiance to anything else always leads to compromise, even when we are unaware of that allegiance.

But when we attempt to incorporate that allegiance into the Divine will we do violence to the redemptive core and to the gospel itself. Of course there are degrees, but all those degrees arise from the same misunderstanding of who we are, who God is, and the redemptive essence of the gospel.

And to be clear to thers, I am not so much attacking nationalism as I am exalting Christ and His church.

nations = ethnos = people

and still others by judicial banishment.

lol

As for Neptune, well, not only will the hydrogen deuteride be reconciled but Pluto will be restored to her rightful planetary status.

To include snails and plutonium in the conversation concerning redemption and reconciliation is to tragically reduce the cross and the ministry of the Redeemer. Christ did not shed His blood for rocks and trees.

Read Romans 1. Your god sees rocks as people. God created man in His own image, and Christ died for sinners. I have yet to see a rock sin.

The implication that Christ died for rocks is not only ludicrous, it is blasphemous.

Christ died for sinners, but the lifting of the curse at the resurrection will affect the rocks as well.

Not necessarily, Neil.

To say, “There was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” need not be exclusionary (in fact, I would argue that to make it such is a leap) but is merely describing the make up of the “great multitude.”

To say that the multitude is made up of people from all nations is to say that God is not represented by one nation, tribe or tongue.

40 – I agree.
41 – No, but it is consistent with your position so I figured it worth nipping in the proverbial bud.

While I don’t always agree with him, I’m happy to read at least one conservative evangelical think theologically rather than politically about issues of social justice.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/03/hey-mr-falwell-read-your-bible_comments.html

Phil,
Yeah, I think he’s a rather conservative evangelical. I’m aware that those labels are tenuous.

Case in point, the last guy to comment there called Scot a liberal. Why? Because he defends gov’t programs to help the poor.

Who are we becoming?

http://chadholtz.net/?p=1138

Phil -

There is a fine line between being skeptical, cynical and then downright hostile.

Most of the people on this site don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the 3.

Phil,
I don’t buy into the accusation that just because you support the government in social reform you are “bowing to the empire.”

That’s just false.

It’s also rather arrogant because it implies that you think people on welfare are idolaters.

The truth is, empires are a fallen “power and principality” just like humanity is. They are not beyond redemption.

I applaud humanitarian efforts by the “government”. I am in favor of them. However I operate in a different kingdom which should – I said should – be the example of compassion and humanitarianism.

I am not against the government; I just consider them as mostly lost sinners caught up in a fallen system. Some actually attempt to do right, while many more are motivated by power and votes and money.

But when some Christians manifest a decidedly different and more hostile tone toward liberal presidents than they do toward conservative presidents, then they have left the ministry of Jesus.

There is significantly more rhetoric against the healthcare bill than there ever was touting what should be implemented to help the uninsured and the cost.

So to single out people who receive health insurance from the gov’t as people who are “bowing to the empire” is just wrong.

Actually, when I was commenting about that, I wasn’t really thinking about people who receive the aid. I was thinking of those who were not that long ago very skeptical of the federal government because of the administration in charge, but who now seem to have lost all the skepticism. Personally, I think a healthy amount of skepticism should be present regardless of who’s in charge.

The change of heart reminds me of this little story from Bill Clinton’s inauguration in ‘92:

At the 1992 Presidential Inaugural when the White House was handed back to a Democrat for the first time since 1976 some of the Hollywood rabble come to DC to reflect in someone else’s glory for a change, began booing when the jets flew over in formation. Actorvist Ron Silver was heard to counter the booing with, “No, it’s okay; they’re our planes now.”

Phil,

Just a few facts re: the success of the modern welfare state in combatting poverty.

For most of American history, poverty rates were between 20% and 25% of the American population. In 1959, the poverty rate was something like 22%.

In the 1960s, they dropped to below 15%, and they currently hover in the 11% to 12% range.

In a real sense, those that view the government as big brother and an evil entity, do so with a Left Behind flair. I continue to be amazed/confused at the way kingdom people can morph into Glenn Beck when they take their eyes off of Jesus and on to some Dungeons and Dragons moral/economical battle.

Question: How can you tell when a believer has an idolistic view of government?

Answer: When they become emotionally against or in favor of one.

This strikes me as very odd, coming from you. Not because you make it a habit of painting your opponents in the worst possible light but that you have never said anything close to this to those on this site whom you agree with politically, particularly Chris L.

Well, my response on your blog was against a particularly extreme misrepresentation of an entire group of Christians. I must say that I’ve not seen Chris L. write anything that I’d compare to it. It would really be the equivalent of something more like I’d expect from John Chisham.

Chris has said some things that I think go too far, but I’ve generally not seen him denigrate whole groups of people in such a way. It seems to me that you really want someone to validate you personal vendetta against him more than anything.

Do I think Chris has been overly harsh with you at times? Yes, that’s been my answer again and again. And I don’t think I’ve ever tried to justify it. I don’t, however, think he has ever portrayed any of his ideological opponents as heartless monsters in the way the commenter on your blog did.

What things, specifically, were people skeptical over with regards to the former administration?

Well, mainly things associated with the whole “War on Terror”. Of course, there was the actual handling of the war itself, but there was also the whole issue of the Patriot Act, etc.

Basically, in the same that people on the right complain about Obama, people complained about Bush. It was just for different things. Personally, if people don’t like the government’s having access to our personal information for things related to the Patriot Act, I have to question why they think it’s OK for that same government eventually having access to our medical records.

I do find it interesting that the conservative right (vs. left) is often identified with Christianity. And yet they are for fewer taxes for the rich and less programs for the poor. But the Bible is full of references that those who have much should willingly give to those who have little or none.

When asked about the overbearing and lower weighted taxes demanded by Caesar, Jesus said give them to him. What was lost by a medieval scribe is that after Jesus said pay it, He went off on a tirade and called Casaer a list of unbecoming names like Caesar Zero.

Later on Jesus died for Caesar Zero.

#80 – Speculation at best, but they were spiritual and had nothing to do with political bills or economic principles. But I expected you to present some sort of defense.

This is a wonderful example of how the real question, who are we becoming? is lost. Listening to the arguments of Chris L and others like him makes Christians look like great Americans but not much else.

Guys can we change the name of this Blog to “Politics, Pundits and Policies” – of late it would be a much better fit.

The incessant bantering back-and-forth is really not profitable. It’s a worldly issue… If only biblical/life issues generated as much passion as the politics of the day.

I find Chad’s attempts to slyly bring down Chris L’s integrity at every turn to be much worse than any name-calling. Sure, it appears the highroad is being taken – on the surface – but it’s very transparent.

Make no mistake, I’ve had more run-ins with Chris than anyone else here, but Chad seems to be on a mission. Don’t play the game.

Anyways… let’s try and break the 1000 comment thread on this one!

Guys can we change the name of this Blog to “Politics, Pundits and Policies”

I agree. But I would also add “Paul’s Pointless Pontifications”

I do believe that there is room for satire and parody without it being mean-spirited.

No one mistakes Chris L’s rhetoric as simple satire or parody, Phil.

eye of the beholder…

If you go back and reread the Torah, there is no penalty for taking the gleanings – rather, the penalty was personal disgrace,

For someone that prides himself in his goyish theology one would think you’d be aware that “personal disgrace” (which was communal disgrace) was a worse fear and penalty than being locked up in jail or given a ticket today.

Chris,
Your response to my observation is correct. But I still find it interesting that a group of people largely recognized as espousing Christian/Judeo values is largely against programs that give to those who have not earned it.

Well, Chris, the picture of me is cuter than the picture of you. That’s gotta be worth something.

@100

but aren’t ALL taxes doing that anyway?

humans are not fundamentally economic beings… that’s the mistake of everyone in these disagreements.

in some sense, you’re all wrong. not just in substance, but mode of communication too.

just say’n.

i probably shouldn’t have stopped playing Rock Band.

Forced benevolence is not within the biblical purview of government.

Yeah, cause Rom 13 was meant to be an exhaustive treatise on the role of government in a 21st century capitalist economy.

Chris L.,

I disagree with the bank robbery example. Bank robberies are wrong because:

1.) They are illegal
2.) They are violent
3.) They are utterly random

A government that, acting through the power of taxation, redistributes wealth either in the form of caring for the old, the unemployed or the disabled, does not commit a crime, does not engage in violence, and does not act in a manner that is random.

It’s not about the lack of consent, either. What if I disagree with the use of *my* money to pay for police, fire, military, courts, etc.?

Of course, your response is “well, that’s the government’s proper sphere. The government, by giving to those less fortunate, is confusing its roles.”

That may or may not be a valid point.

But that, alone, does not turn the government into a bank robber.

Finally, what I can’t understand about Christian libertarians is how you all reconcile these two facts:

1.) Libertarianism teaches me that all of us are a product of our choices and actions, nothing more, nothing less. If you are poor, you are simply a moocher, a vagrant, a moron. The rich NEVER exploit the poor. It is the rich, through progressive taxation, that are exploited by the poor. With free markets, the rich thrive because of their talents, while the poor suffer because they are worthless sacks of sh*t.

If you don’t believe me, read some Ayn Rand and get back to me.

2.) The Bible teaches me that the poor are to be provided for, taken care of, and loved. The poor are often exploited by the rich. Above all else, the poor are made in the image of God, and thus are deserving of our respect.

How these two theses fit together is beyond me.

Phil,

There are several issues at play here.

First, my basic point is that libertarianism does indeed teach things about the poor that are contradicted about the Bible. To quote (and adapt) Chris L., that does not mean that you all actually hate the poor, it just means you are on the road to hating the poor (or are experiencing some level of cognitive dissonance).

Second, we have to examine the heart of this debate. Why exactly would one ever argue, “the government has no role to play in increasing equality in our society?”

The answer is how one conceives of the poor, and whether you think the government at one point participated in or acquiesced to the subjugation and oppression of others (or even continues to do so today).

If you think that the government bears no responsibility for the poor, or if you think that the poor are NEVER exploited by the rich, or if you think that the poor are poor SOLELY because of their own choices… well, then you would think the government has no responsiblity for caring for the poor.

But, if you think that there are structural reasons for poverty, or that the rich do in fact exploit the poor, or that the poor are more than just lazy morons, or that the government has some responsibility for our nation’s (increasing) inequality, then perhaps you think that the government does bear some responsibility for caring for the poor.

Finally, I think it’s a false dilemma to argue that it’s either 1.) the government’s job or 2.) individuals job to care for the poor.

No one really believes this. The government plays a big role in education, for example, but we all know that for education to succeed, it has to be accompanied by 1.) parental involvement 2.) adequate social capital 3.) cultural reinforcement. (And please don’t respond by saying, “well, gee whiz, people certainly do punt education to government and don’t take responsibility for their kids.” Hogwash. The Public School system did not create our nation’s dysfunction in education. The reason for dysfunction is the lack of social capital, cultural reinforcement, etc. In that way, I view many public schools like a band-aid over a gaping wound.)

Before Watergate, people thought of a healthy society as one where 1.) the government 2.) churches and other civic institutions and 3.) families, all worked together to create a thriving society.

Now, a segment of our population (Tea Partiers) believes that families and churches work for a healthy society, and they do that by hopefully destroying the government.

This idea, so widespread now, will be the end of us.

Phil,

I would be interested in hearing about cases where the government caused poverty. People were rich, the government got involved, and then?

and an expectation that with more power comes more responsibility

Jesus seemed to think so. Something Jesus said we have on our fridge reads, “To those whom much has been given, much will be expected.”

And I was using Rom. 13 only because it appears to be your favorite text as of late. The point is, the entire Bible is not an exhaustive treatise about the role of gov’t in any time, theirs or ours. It’s not a political science book but a theological one.

Chris L.,

Chad’s latest comment brings to mind a question I’ve had for you for some time now.

You seem to take the Bible’s stance on certain governmental issues at a pretty granular level. For instance, I recall that you’ve defended capital punishment on the basis of eyewitness testimony before.

Can’t context, though, play a big role in the justness of these issues? I recall in a class I took once that one problem with eyewitness testimony is that its reliability was formulated in and is dependent upon “stranger-less” societies. In other words, for the vast majority of human history, strangers were incredibly unusual, and this has helped to give us the standard of eyewitness testimony we have today.

In a stranger-less society, when you saw something happen, you either 1.) recognized immediately who did it (very likely) or 2.) thought, wow, that’s a stranger I’ve never seen before, which helped you remember who that person was (less likely).

Now, however, we live in “stranger-filled” societies. And eyewitness testimony is actually a remarkably poor way of convicting a person with any semblance of reliability.

That’s just a minor example, but I think it’s valid.

And it honestly gets us back to whether comparing the Israelites to the U.S. and its 21st century capitalist society is valid.

Second, we have to examine the heart of this debate. Why exactly would one ever argue, “the government has no role to play in increasing equality in our society?”

I don’t know that anyone here is advocating that position, though. I wouldn’t say the government doesn’t have a role. I’d say its primary role is to ensure that one citizen does not infringe upon the rights of others. I would, say, however, in the area redistribution of wealth, its role is debatable. From a constitutional perspective, I’d say that there’s not much to support many of the social programs around today, but I think most of them are too ingrained to simply get rid of them.

I simply don’t think that the federal government is the best entity to entrust the entirety of the healthcare industry in the US to. I believe there are other solutions available that will actually lead to a more just and equitable outcome.

I would be interested in hearing about cases where the government caused poverty. People were rich, the government got involved, and then?

I wouldn’t say that it’s a matter of people once being rich and than becoming poor, but rather, I’d say that it’s an issue of government programs perpetuating a certain cultural norm. For instance, I lay the blame for much of the problem of children growing up without fathers in the black community at the feet of the federal government’s welfare policy. Now, you may disagree with that, but the statistics I’ve seen seem pretty damning to me. If you have a program that lessens the consequences of a certain behavior, it shouldn’t be surprising that a certain behavior increases.

Of course, you’ll probably accuse me of blaming the victim here, or whatnot, but I’m not at all. I just think that problems that are caused or at least exacerbated by systematic “falleness” are not going to be solved by that same system.

Chris L.,

Why is it when the government helps it’s a “sugar-daddy/crack dealer” but when the church helps it’s a benefactor?

Why is it when the government helps by sending an unemployent check, it breeds dependance, but when a Church assists with a deaconate fund, it breeds compassion?

That’s the heart of the cognitive dissonance, and that is why your position just makes absolutely no sense.

Libertarians teach that assistance is futile because the poor are stupid and waiting to suck at the teat, breeding dependance.

Christians teach that assistance is important because the poor are exploited, and when the poor receive help, it breeds gratitude.

You can’t reconcile those two. You just can’t.

When the government becomes the benefactor of the poor, the church is robbed of its role.

That makes no sense. Please give an example of this, maybe in socialist Canada, for example. “The poor will ALWAYS be with you.”

Going back to the other thread, I asked you a question but didn’t get an answer:

There’s a church in Downtown Detroit where the pastor is bi-vocational. One of his congregants gets deathly ill. In your example, this is where the church jumps in. But suppose they have zero means to do so.

Would you, and your church, be willing in this case to raise $70K for this unknown person in Detroit to pay their hospital bill and ensure they get the care they need?

Is the gov’t robbing you of this opportunity if the healthcare is provided for (ie: like Canada)?

I find that thought that any problems in the black community arising from anything other than three hundred years of slavery, followed up by 150 years of systemic social and governmental oppression, to be highly, highly amusing.

Libertarians teach that assistance is futile because the poor are stupid and waiting to suck at the teat, breeding dependance.

Christians teach that assistance is important because the poor are exploited, and when the poor receive help, it breeds gratitude.

You can’t reconcile those two. You just can’t.

Call me an optimist, but I would hope that a church would be able to exercise a bit more wisdom when dealing with the poor than the government. Growing up in a pastor’s house, I will unfortunately say that I met plenty of people who really did try to take advantage of people’s generosity. In dealing with them, it really did take wisdom. I’d say there are ways to offer assistance to a person that are better than simply giving them a check.

Also, it seems to that you’re equating welfare with unemployment – they aren’t the same. Ideally, unemployment is actually a form of insurance. Employers pay premiums every month to offset payments to the unemployed. Now, there are times when the system gets different support from the federal government, but, ideally, it should actually function relatively standalone. Also, there are strings attached to unemployment compensation (although, I’ve known people who’ve tried to game that system as well).

Chris L.,

About the death penalty, I guess my question is would you still allow for someone to be convicted on the reliability of two eyewitnesses when neither of them knew the defendant before the crime?

Here, I think the right answer is to scientifically examine eyewitness reliability in 21st century America, not quote the Bible.

Chris L. and Phil,

I think my basic response to your latest comments is that you are both operating under a major false dilemma.

I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no way for the government to usurp the private sector’s role in creating a more just society. There will always be needy people. Period. There will always be exploitation. Period. And there will always be a need for BOTH the government and private individuals to work *in concert* to make for a better society.

So where the government’s hand is too heavy, perhaps that is where individuals are better suited.

But I simply cannot abide by the notion that the government can abdicate all responsibility for inequality in this country, when it did so much to create inequality through slavery and Jim Crow.

A further thought on 137…

I suppose you would also have to agree with John Chisham that unless aid is married to a proclamation of the gospel (as if the two are separable) than it is a lesser good. What really matters is saving their souls, not their bodies.

Let the government help people. Let the Jehovah’s Witnesses help people. Let the Black Panthers help people.

But let us help people as well. Good point, Chad. I am against Rick Warren’s joining hands in humanitarian efforts but Christ supported it.

” In the case of the government, though, the giver is a principality/power, and is not made in the image of God.”

So the government is God’s instrument to execute justice but not to feed the poor?

sorry, I one last thing…

In the case of the government, though, the giver is a principality/power, and is not made in the image of God.

what a crock of shit

Col. 1:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

While the gov’t is indeed a “power” it is also comprised of people.

You have the gift of justification, Chris L.

So if the U.S. military literally were to literally save my life in the case of an invasion, it’s ok for me to say “Gee whiz, thanks” but if the government were to sign an unemployment check, give me kid health insurance, or provide my kid with a free lunch, and I said “kudos to you” we’re on the express track to hell.

Really?

Of course not. I don’t think anyone would make that leap given an individual case.

When you look at things on micro or individual scale, it’s easy to see how they can provide benefit for certain people, and I’m sure that there are many people who do consider the aid they receive a gift from God. But when you step back and look at the bigger picture, I think it’s OK to ask it the system is best way to meet those needs and if there are unintended consequences.

I really don’t know where the “express track to hell” characterization is coming from.

Chris L. and Phil,

I was trying to understand what Chris L., meant by this comment

“When the provider is Caesar, the gift is no better than crack cocaine.”

I really don’t undertand what that comment means, in light of the fact that we all agree that the government does in fact provide us with numerous gifts.

In other words, why am I allowed to say thanks for protecting me, but if my kid gets a free lunch, it is something akin to a powerful and horrific drug?

My observation didn’t strike me as terribly controversial. I happen to think crack is a pretty horrible thing.

Chris L., as far as the sarcasm is concerned, I don’t appreciate it. And I believe it dishonors Christ.

Chris L.,

Got it. And as far as the brusque “Mein Kampf” comment, I appreciate the apology.

As always, I appreciate the debate. I’m off, and good night.

I never said people worship the state. What I suggest is that entering that battle requires the dropping of our spiritual weapons. Your view seems to at least compromise the suggestion that we live, and breathe, and have our being in an invisible kingdom.

The state has no part in us and we must be Jesus-light to them, not engage in the same issues that interest and excite them. We are continually distracted and our participation in carnal genres misrepresents the gospel to people who desperately need to hear and see it.

#163: the Windsor Star is a pretty obscure newspaper, just an FYI. I’m sure you could comb the web and find a lot of Canadians (from more prominent papers) saying the opposite. Just like in the US, there are several sides for-and-against.

Most Canadians like to gripe about taxes because they have nothing more to really complain about, except the cold weather, which they can’t blame anyone for.

Chris, I see a few things inconsistent with your view:

1. why are you not as concerned about the financial impact of US military adventures in foreign countries? What percentage of US Citizens’ income goes to military?

2. in accordance with your suggestion, how do you suggest getting the church involved in providing healthcare funds for people who can’t afford it?

I gave you the example of the person from inner-city Detroit who needs $60K for a medical procedure. Would you (or your church) be willing to foot the bill for this stranger?

Additionally, this is why Americans need help regulating their food intake:

The Big Issue

This is more for those griping that “rights” are being infringed on (smoking publicly, etc).

Government solutions for such things cause more problems and are typically ineffective.

The gov’t of Ontario banned smoking in public places a couple years ago. Please outline the negatives as you see them.

Federal level? What? Are you serious?

The Whiskey rebellion was a military uprising against Alexander Hamilton’s whiskey tax used to pay for the American revolution.

What would you say if Obama, in an attempt to impose a new tax, federalized state militias in order to suppress dissent, and even traveled with the army to oversee the progress of battle?

You would freak out. But that’s PRECISELY what happened in 1791.

#174: Chris have you ever ventured north of the border? Seriously – to compare Canada (more socialist than anything else) with fascism is the fuuuurttthhhest stretch I’ve ever heard in my life. It doesn’t have a fascist bone in its body.

It never stops there.

Let’s look at your slippery slope: guns were made illegal by the gov’t (so we have a low murder rate) and that’s intrusive to you. We’ve now outlawed smoking in public places so what will be next, a tax on our oxygen? Weak, weak, weak.

You blow holes in your own arguments with such stuff.

In the end your arguments are based on fear – for the wrong things.

Point to what you yourself termed as “ineffective”. You can’t in this case.

One key difference is that one is a continuous, “untouchable” spend, and the other is a point-occurrence, which can be scaled back

Actually, that’s a good definition of military spending. When do you think the military budget will actually go down instead of way up? It’s not discretionary according to Washington.

I’m concerned

Not in comparison to your shrillness with healthcare.

Chris L.,

No, I was clearly referring to “beer on Sundays” which you cited as a nanny-law.

No, Chris L., you were wrong. That’s a blue law, and it’s dying. No need to put words in my mouth.

Let’s see, what else did you cite? Salt ban? Proposed by an incompetent lawmaker, it has been withdrawn.

Soda tax? Also will likely fail.

Seatbelt and helmet laws? I support them.

Restrictions on speech elsewhere around the globe? Good thing we have the First Amendment.

I’m still curious how we’ve got a slippery slope considering that 220 years ago, our first (and second-greatest) President personally led the U.S. military in order to suppress dissent over a whiskey tax.

I’d love to see Glen Beck’s reaction to Obama directing troops through western Pennsylvania.

You can have them if you want, but how about not exporting them?

Yes, the conspiracy is finally being revealed. Canada is slowly undermining American “rights” to eat and smoke themselves to death. You got us.

I’m not shrill on healthcare.

Yes, you are.

I just happen to care about the Ponzi scheme currently being peddled by D.C.

And yet you ignore military spending? How about a little consistency.

If you want to be bankrupt in 20 years, that’s up to y’all, but we’ve still got a fighting chance at missing this bullet.

Ummm… the US is pretty much bankrupt as it is. As for Canada, I can’t remember a time when things were better. Dead serious. Of course, when you guys go down over the course of the next couple decades, we’ll know doubt get sucked down the drain with you to a great extent.

Why is it stupid, Chris? He’s actually quite right.

I found the quote:

The slippery slope argument…proves itself dangerous and naive even as it tries to protect us from danger and naivete. First, it assumes we’re already at the top of the slope, when it’s just as likely that we’re already at the bottom or somewhere in the middle. Second, it assumes that, even if we were at the peak, there’s only one side we might be in danger of sliding down, as if the mountain had only a northern liberal slope without an equally dangerous southern conservative slope….you can back away from one danger and smack over the cliff of another. (122).

What do you find “stupid” about that?

I find McLaren’s point rather salient, actually, when you consider that a basic knowledge of American history reveals that, yes, we are indeed not at the top of any slope, but in the middle of a conversation that’s hundreds of years old.

Chris L., you can continue arguing that cigarette taxes are next to fascism all you want, but I’m content to rest in facts, reason, and knowledge of American history.

Government is best that governs least – whether in handing out freebies or “nudging” its populace.

This strikes me as duplicitous in nature, as Rick suggested, you state time and time again that government is a God ordained institution. Yet you parse and splice that opinion to fit a perceived agenda.

Just War=God’s instrument
Health Care=The demise of our country
Laws=protection of the populace
Helmet Laws=Intrusive and unconstitutional

So in actuality Government is God ordained, unless Government goes against God/Me then I must usurp that God given role.

A couple of wrap-up points:

It’s silly to argue that seatbelt laws are *nothing* more than stealth revenue generators. They also save (numerous) lives as well taxpayer money.

Also, I’m really interested to know how cigarette taxes are “by definition” fascist.

Finally, why all the platitudes? Government is best that governs least? That’s just not true. What is it with the crypto-anarchism around here?

Government is best that governs least

Chris, ever heard of Somalia? Sounds like your dream country based on your definition.

Not “healthcare”. What has currently been proposed to add to an already bankrupt system is not “healthcare”

A few comments earlier you said that you didn’t want the US heading to bankruptcy. Now it’s already bankrupt (as I suggested)?

How you consider seatbelt laws or bans against smoking to somehow be Draconian is amazing. You’ve been spending too much time at InfoWars.com and watching Alex Jones.

The US is certainly being undermined and will be undone in short order, but not from the direction you think.

raising the additional funds for the road was to pull people over for seatbelt and helmet infractions.

simple solution: Wear your seatbelt and helmet.

Well, it is a slippery slope, Paul C. You wake up one morning and buckle your seat belt and by dinner time you are having orgy sex under the altar of Artemis.

No more than Obama is yours.

I have no idea why you would even say this. There is plenty of evidence, however, to suggest you are far too wrapped up in saving the America you think is best. As Rick has pointed out numerous times, it’s nationalism run amok. Nationalism = idolatry.

I have said repeatedly I could care less – even if we become China tomorrow – and no matter who is in office. I care about issues, not individual leaders.

Oh, and I’m curious as to whether you were this vocal about Bush’s Prescription drug plan? 1.2 trillion is a lot of shekels.

And what about the Iraq war? 800 billion is a lot of pesos.

Paul,

Interestingly, if you add the cost of Bush’s wars and the prescription drug plan, you get 3 times the cost of Obamacare. That’s like 3 Barack Obamas! Not bad.

Chris L.,

You’re a really inconsistent libertarian. I just can’t figure it all out.

Seatbelts aren’t a public health issue? Really? Thousands die in car accidents, needlessly, and it’s outweighed by the crypto-fascism of seatbelt laws, but consensual adults can’t trade in sex?

Because of public health?

Really?

Chris,

What proof do you have that suggests legalizing same-sex marriages destabilizes a society or decreases its population?

Are gay people going to marry someone of the opposite sex and procreate just because the gov’t wont let them marry the person they love?

I see some of you have failed my mid-term. Passion about government subsidizing care for people, or government ignoring care for people, is equally counter productive and wastes passion that could and should be more spiritually placed.

Even when the government appears to be your friend – it isn’t.

Thanks, Chris L. I forgot that when you look at the impact of prostitution, you are allowed to examine its impact on families, but that highway fatalities are mysteriously limited to singles and the childless.

Got any other streeeeeetttchhhhessss for me?

And what about cigarette taxes? Because I’ll tell you about who really bears the brunt of second-hand smoke, it’s the children of smokers.

“Christian libertarianism” is an oxymoron. It’s just a code word for “we’ll ban stuff we don’t like and cry libertarianism! when people try to ban stuff we either like or don’t mind.”

Viewing any government as anything more than an ordained vehicle for order usually results in either love or hatred for that government/country.

The church wastes obscene amounts of money.

The government wastes obsecen amounts of money.

Romans speaks to the hypocrisy of judging things that we ourselves also do. Leave the government alone and seek Christ.

Chris L,
No response to 220?

To me the redemption of the earth is just a bonus, a nice little side bar. Something nice to know, but not central. But, by some, it seems to be brought up on par with the redemption of mankind. I would dare say our eternal abode will encompass much more than restored landscaping. To Rick’s point, I don’t believe Christ died for the rocks or fishes.

I kind of felt like I needed to step away from this comment thread today, and honestly, I don’t think anyone is going to change their mind based on anything I write here, so I regret letting myself get swept up in these discussions like I have. God knows my mind is rarely changed by something I read in a comment thread, so I probably shouldn’t expect others to be any different.

Anyway, I found this comment by John kind of interesting. A few years ago (speaking of minds changing) I probably would have agreed with it. But I think a few years ago my eschatology was actually more influenced by American Evangelical propaganda rather than historic Christian orthodoxy on the subject. And actually, the historic, Christian position has always been that we are awaiting a renewed heaven and earth. I can see the point in saying it’s a “sidebar”, but I’d say it’s in essence what Christ’s work is all about. Of course it’s possible to over-emphasize the communal apart from the individual (and actually, when you think about it, much of the tension that arises in these political discussions comes out of efforts to resolve this paradox to a big extent), but I think in evangelical circles the focus on ones relationship with Christ is really akin to talking about our boyfriend or girlfriend.

I have a weird relationship with evangelicalism right now. I think that it simultaneously puts too much emphasis on a “personal” relationship, but on the other hand not enough on a real experience. Perhaps the way I view salvation has become closer to an Eastern Orthodox view where I see those who are in Christ as being truly “in Christ”, and I think that there is something truly mystical about that. And what Christ does, and what we get to take part in, is really cosmic in its scope.

I know this is kind of out there, but, hey this is still an open thread, so what the hell…

“I have a weird relationship with evangelicalism right now.”

For some time I have had no relationship with “evangelicalism” and I am very content to let it continue that way.

Phil,

I agree. I was raised in evangelical church and while you are in it it is hard to see just how me-centered it really is (and soul centered).

Each Friday morning me and a group of about 10 others discuss prayer with an EO priest who volunteers some time at the Div School. It’s been fascinating learning to pray with him while all of us from various backgrounds share our own journeys with prayer both corporately and privately.

Chris L-

Texas is calling. They want you to chair their history textbook commission for the next quadrennial

There is no comparison to be made at all between the economics of the abolishment of slavery and the economics of expanding “coverage”

Sure there is. But you’ll see what you want.

Sorta like your baseless assertion that legalizing same sex marriage will de-stabilize our society and reduce our population.

is a winning proposition

…for the 30 million without insurance, it is.

Apples and hand grenades.

Excellent!

I just realized, I am a combination of the gnostics, the mystics, the Baptists, the Pentecostals, the deeper life people, and tomorrow I will begin a new movement called the “Jesus Essenes”.

Back to the Rube Goldberg thing, my friend just sent me this video: How to open the living room curtains automatically!

#259 – Yep. That is most disturbing. Just as disturbing as inflated staffs and salaries at churches, and building motgages draining obscene amounts of interest while some believers are in dire need around the world. And the books, CDs, and conferences can be associated with the temple money changers.

I contend that most of what the church claims is wrong with the government is being practiced in the church as well.

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

John – There is no perfection in those areas, however most churches do not even consider the possibility of being much more financially frugal.

I still wonder what God thinks when children die due to food and water issues and churches in America spend billions just in mortgage interest.

Who is my neighbor?

The fewer taxes for the rish and less programs for the poor are rather cliche

i agree…as is the need to perpetuate the trope of “government is bad”.

When trials, temptations, and unpleasantness comes our way we should expect them. And the greatest response to those things is actually a nonresponse. And when our neighbors see that these things do not move us or even elicit responses to the contrary, they must be a little curious.

When we respond just like our unsaved neighbors our salt is worthless, especially when the core issue is money.

The Rick Freuh Thesaurus

Concern is really “worry”
Frustration is really “complaining”
Capitalism is really “greed”
Taking a stand is really “judging”
Conservative is really “self righteousness”
Patriotism is really “compromise”
Speaking truth is really “labeling”
Loving the Word is really “hate”
Americanism is really”prejudice”

Rick,

Sorry for the name misspelling.

Re #265 – that’s an exchange with someone else that I’ll probably allow to play out without my involvement.

Re #266 – I’m not sure that I would agree that the greatest response to trials, temptations, and unpleasantness is a nonresponse, but I do think that I understand the concept that you are aiming for. I certainly agree that as Christians our lives ought to stand out and we should bear witness to the love of Christ in everything we do. I don’t believe that means that we should have no political involvement or that we will never share a political or social view with a non-Christian. In that regard I think we will always differ. I respect your conscience in the matter (by not demanding that you become politically opinionated or involved) and I hope that you can respect the conscience of others (by not demanding that they ought not be politically opinionated or involved).

My #268 is merely to point out that it cuts both ways. I believe Frueh theology is centered on the person and work of Jesus Christ, and for that I am exceedingly grateful.

The Hipster Responds

#273 – I sincerely hope he doesn’t drive or go to a restaurant on the “Sabbath” out of respect for God. The lunacy grows daily.

Lev.6:17 – Mankind shalt not vote in chambers overlaid with wood on the Sabbath for that is an Obamination unto the Lord thy God.

Lent is man made. Sunday is not the Sabbath, and in fact, Jesus is now our Sabbath and the observance of days is a shadow of the law.

What does it matter, though, Jesus is Satan’s brother according to Beck. I honestly have a difficult time understanding how reasonable believers cannot see the overt unchristian nature of men like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh (among others).

Regarding the Sabbath, I’d wholly recommend The Rest of God by Mark Buchanan. It’s a quick read, but I found it very, well, convicting. Not convicting in the sense that I felt guilty, but the idea of being purposeful about taking time to remember the importance of the Sabbath just makes you realize how ingrained the idea of a works-based culture is.