Yahoo! News has a piece on the former Pope, John Paul II, suggesting that his refusal of medical care to further extend his life may have been culpable, and the Vatican denied this. It reads,
"ROME - A doctor alleged Wednesday that Pope John Paul II violated Catholic teaching against euthanasia by refusing medical care that would have kept him alive longer — a charge immediately dismissed by Vatican officials."
Comments: Kept him alive longer? The guy was one of the longest lasting heads of Rome in several centuries. I think he was 406 when he died. He was formerly a goalie for the Polish national soccer team (and a surprisingly good one), and probably lasted so long because those coaches are really tough on the players -- besides the fact that Romanists drink plenty (unlike Baptists who abstain, for the most part). Episcopalians are the ones who really know what to do with wine glass or whiskey bottle. JP II should have stuck with soccer, and "just said no" to the whole ecclesiastical Halloween thing. Soccer does a whole lot more to improve your life than idolatry.
No, he did not commit euthanasia by refusing extraordinary medical care. No one has the obligation, but may choose the option if available, to go on a life support machine, or do what (in extraordinary ways) other men of other ages could not have done, and which would likely cause great economic hardship on those around him by so opting.
However, by biblical law, once a man DOES opt for this care, you cannot lawfully cease it in some arbitrary fashion, which would likely result in the unlawful termination of his life. That is murder 1, and is also called "Euthanasia" in our day, since many today do not have a stomach for imbibing the truth straightforwardly.
If this seems arbitrary to some because of the "forward only" direction of the ethical requirement (once accepting extreme care, you cannot afterward cut it short), note that there are analogous circumstances in the ethical aspects of one's life, as in marriage. Because it is covenantal, one cannot be REQUIRED to enter the covenant, but once vows are exchanged and the marriage consummated, going backward is culpable as a capital offense (adultery carries the death penalty as a possibility, and willful desertion is grounds for divorce).
Some things only move one direction by persmission, and once bound cannot be reversed. Such is the case with extraordinary medical care and its later removal. Prevention is better than such medical care, however. Soccer and a little wine are the order of the day. And people who drink aloe vera juice are smarter than most.
Live well and die late. And remember, if you don't go to other people's funerals, they won't come to yours.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
The Statue of Liberty: What Is It?
The statue of liberty was a gift from France (1886), one of the most notoriously Romanist of all nations, which put to death countless Huegenots, Protestants who were faithful men and women of God, and which country invented the beheading machine known as the "guillotine," put to good use in one of the bloodiest episodes in human history. This gift -- the kindness of the wicked is cruelty -- was subsidized by the sale of countless idols -- miniature likenesses of the larger statue yet to be created in direct opposition to God's Word.
The statue features, as we have seen, a female figure standing upright, with a torch in her left hand, and a stone tablet in her right. She displays a saint-like halo in the form of 7-point spiked rays. This is a medieval "saint" icon upgrade of the Romanist cast. It stands just over 300 feet tall, and signifies independence from Great Britain, the long-standing enemy of France.
The statue is based on the Colossus of Rhodes. Wikipedia notes of this -- one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (an idol of the Greek sun god Helios):
"The Colossus of Rhodes was a huge statue of the Greek god Helios, erected on the Greek island of Rhodes by Chares of Lindos between 292 and 280 BC. It was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Before its destruction, the Colossus of Rhodes stood over 30 metres (100 ft) high, making it the tallest statue of the ancient world."
The U.S. had no business befriending a nation committed to, and unrepentant of, perennial idolatry, false religion, and prolific bloodshed (including the murder of many saints and other innocents) as a sign of fellowship in revolution. Revolution itself is a demonic deposing of the authoritative order God has established.
We should send it back, or blow it up, but not before beheading it. "Liberty" here means the liberty to do as we please (autonomy). We do not need any upgraded sun gods. Thank you. We have tanning salons and coppertone.
If you want to read more on the Feminist Monster of New York Harbor [Personally, I like Godzilla better anyway], here is the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_Liberty
The statue features, as we have seen, a female figure standing upright, with a torch in her left hand, and a stone tablet in her right. She displays a saint-like halo in the form of 7-point spiked rays. This is a medieval "saint" icon upgrade of the Romanist cast. It stands just over 300 feet tall, and signifies independence from Great Britain, the long-standing enemy of France.
The statue is based on the Colossus of Rhodes. Wikipedia notes of this -- one of the seven wonders of the ancient world (an idol of the Greek sun god Helios):
"The Colossus of Rhodes was a huge statue of the Greek god Helios, erected on the Greek island of Rhodes by Chares of Lindos between 292 and 280 BC. It was one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Before its destruction, the Colossus of Rhodes stood over 30 metres (100 ft) high, making it the tallest statue of the ancient world."
The U.S. had no business befriending a nation committed to, and unrepentant of, perennial idolatry, false religion, and prolific bloodshed (including the murder of many saints and other innocents) as a sign of fellowship in revolution. Revolution itself is a demonic deposing of the authoritative order God has established.
We should send it back, or blow it up, but not before beheading it. "Liberty" here means the liberty to do as we please (autonomy). We do not need any upgraded sun gods. Thank you. We have tanning salons and coppertone.
If you want to read more on the Feminist Monster of New York Harbor [Personally, I like Godzilla better anyway], here is the wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_Liberty
Art of The State: American Idolatry Today
The second commandment forbids idolatry; this much most people can gather from a cursory reading of the text. What many seem to have a great deal of trouble with, however, comes when the requirement of application enters the picture.
It reads:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
It reads:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
First, we need to grasp the idea of a "graven" or "carved" image, and then move on to qualify this in the immediate context of the passage. The point of a "graven" image -- as these were extremely common in the ancient world of religions -- is what we might call a carving "in the round," or more commonly "a statue." These were necessarily three-dimensional pictures or portraits of the inhabitants of one of the three spheres mentioned in Genesis originally.
Genesis 1 portrays the acts of God in both creating, and then setting in order, the cosmos, according to a pattern reminiscent of what would later become the Solomonic Temple (which was prefigured by the more portable - but still glorious -- tabernacle of Moses, constructed under the watchful and skillful eyes of Bezalel son of Ahisamach, and Oholiab his assistant -- the mastercraftsmen.
The second commandment is thus tied directly both to the cosmos pictured in Genesis 1 -- the concept of new creation -- and to the Temple (a type of the Church). Genesis 1 and Exodus 20 then have something at which they aim -- priesthood. This is the canonically-implied backdrop to the ten commandments, which begins with deliverance from the cruel bondage of Pharaonic Egypt. Here then is the canonical point: from the moment a believer in Jesus puts His trust in the Lord as a new creation, he becomes a priest (and king) in training. It is the solemn duty of all priests of the Lord to stand up and speak out against idolatry in the land (the primary symbol of Egypt -- the golden calf -- was idolatrous). The priests must drive the idols from the land to the best of their ability before God.
Now the second commandment has several parts, which we must investigate separately, and the put together carefully with what we learn of them from our brief analysis. The tri-fold expression -- heavens above, earth beneath [the heavens], and water under the earth (oceans), take on the form of a common Aramaism (and Hebraism), which uses the three most important aspects of something to summarize the whole in a way meant to show TOTAL comprehension of the territory covered by the tri-fold expression.
This means that the second commandment the forbids the making of statues meant to represent anything whatsoever, in all the cosmos, regardless of where you might find it, and the triadic descriptor emphatically emphasizes the point, in a way similar to the Pauline use of the Greek double negative, "ou mae." This receives the various translations, "May God forbid it," "By no means!" "May it never be!" or simply "God forbid." The cottonpatch translation reads "Hell No!" in an attempt to convey the full force intended by the expression, and by way of connotation actually comes closer to the sense conveyed.
The consequences of transgression are severe and damnable. This point is not to be avoided. The second part of the commandment, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them," at first seems to contradict what has gone before. But in light of the rest of the canon, perfect sense can be made of this. The question arises, "why are we forbidden to do what we cannot (bow down and serve) to what we have not made (assuming that we obeyed the first part? The Book of Daniel shows that while Daniel and his faithful comrades did not make any idols, yet the state (the king) made a great idol, commanding that all men under his authority bow down and serve this idol.
So the second commandment simply explains that even when you have avoided making them, your duty goes further. You cannot bow down to, nor serve any idol that someone else has made, and would require you to serve. This was precisely the situation of the early Christians, who were commanded to burn a pinch of incense before a statue of Caesar, swearing "Caesar is Lord."
The second commandment anticipates this situation fully. It also offers the warning that the state is likely to attempt coercion tending toward idolatry that God's people must resist.
The next part, "for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;" explains that those who break this commandment, God counts among "those that hate me."
Idolatry is the hatred of God, just as the faithful worship of God is love of the Lord. God takes idolatry personally, and shows himself jealous of his prerogatives. Since He has created all things good, and given all good things to men, and no idol (false god) has, the glory to be given to God is his alone, very much like a property right. "Visiting the iniquity" means "punishing for sin" and "keeping my commandments" is a self-reflective phrase, meaning those who keep THESE commandments. These God visits with blessing, the manifesting of his love which He bestows upon His people, the obedient servants, like Daniel.
It is well also to note here that God thinks in terms of "generations," the approximate name of the book of Genesis. In both cases, of those who love or hate the Lord, the appropriate sanction falls upon the blessed or curse in a certain number of generations. In other words, blessings and curses can be, and are, inheritable. They are trans-generational because of the nature of covenants.
The phrase, "to a thousand generations" merits the synonym "forever," showing the same sense of the psalmic summary formula, "Praise the Lord, for He is good; his mercy endures forever."
God's goodness forbids evil, which only destroys men. Chief among these evils is the sin of idolatry, for it says, "Those who make them will be like them." Despite the very clear and forceful language the Bible uses repeatedly, men seem never to grasp the simplest point regarding this commandment
God hates idols. Do not make them. If someone else does, rebuke them for it. If someone tries to get you to worship or serve them, resist. Honor God at any cost -- like Daniel and friends. For of Daniel, the word (3 times!) calls him, "O man highly esteemed by God," and that from an angel!
Now a very brief survey of our own national landscape reveals that we have at the least two sets of idols which are enormous in size. The first is the statue of liberty, and the great zeal in the U.S. for freedom without limits -- or badly defined and shifting limits (depending on the climate of the age, so the Constitution goes) -- can be understood as the offspring of that sin for which this idol stands.
In theological language, it is called "human autonomy," freedom to define good and evil apart from God's law, as one sees fit. Where this merely a large sign of some sort, it could be called the "sign of liberty." But given that it is an idol -- it necessarily stands for a kind of liberty that amounts to autonomy in the nature of the very tall case.
Likewise, the famous site of Mount Rushmore, showing four presidential busts -- portraits from the shoulders up or approimately so -- hearkens back to exactly the early sculptures of Roman emperors which appear in history of art texts. Even the Rushmore style matches the style then common, from which we have learned the appearances of men like Marcus Aurelius and others. It is called "Verism," from the Latin for "truth" or accuracy.
The wikipedia definition for verism reads,
"Verism was often used by the Romans in marble sculptures of heads. Verism shows the imperfections of the subject, such as warts, wrinkles and furrows. It zeroes in on the minuscule details of the human head. Although the marble heads themselves came from the Greeks, this style is extremely different from Greek head sculptures because the Greek would idealize the subject, and liken the subject to a god."
In other words, America has set up idols to the gods and goddess of autonomy, in direct defiance of the Word of God, wherein He promises to count those who do so haters of Himself and to visit them for their iniquities -- curse them --to the third and fourth generations. I believe that the failure of presidents to remove the idols from earth -- which is their solemn duty -- in great part accounts for the extraordinary failures of an otherwise great nation in terms of its abilities to produce, work hard, think well, and to innovate like no other nation.
And yet, our crime rates soar, relativism has overrun the universities, our manufacturing sector is all but outsourced (gone), we have the largest trade deficit in human history, and many other signs that God's disfavor is upon this nation clearly display His anger. We engage in wars that harm us, and accomplish nothing good for the country, we impose laws that injure our business sectors, our CEO's are in jail in record numbers, and the nation is simply faltering badly in many ways.
This is not due to incompetence or lack of intelligence, or anthing of the sort. When it comes to diligence, Americans put in more hours than any other nation per capita, but hate their jobs all the same. When you hate your work, you hate the better part of your life. Our songs reflect this, where countless artists sing of dreaming of the moment when work ends, and leisure begins (Take this job, It's five o'clock somewhere, etc), and clockwatching when work is supposed to be -- believe it or not -- pleasant. And it is when God blesses the fruit of your labors. But His curse makes everything ten times harder to yield the same results. Work becomes a drudgery, and yields little that doesn't get taken from us by the tax man.
The solution is simple. Put away the idols, forbid their manufacture or trade -- small idols are bad too, and the Lord has no pleasure in them -- break down the large ones, and remove them from God's presence. When the blessing of God replaces His curse, the actions will prove we should have done this generations ago.
This nation could prosper wildly, but only with obedience to God's law. For "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces any people." (Prov. 14:34). And it says, "Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
And again, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
God hates idols. Do not make them. If someone else does, rebuke them for it. If someone tries to get you to worship or serve them, resist. Honor God at any cost -- like Daniel and friends. For of Daniel, the word (3 times!) calls him, "O man highly esteemed by God," and that from an angel!
Now a very brief survey of our own national landscape reveals that we have at the least two sets of idols which are enormous in size. The first is the statue of liberty, and the great zeal in the U.S. for freedom without limits -- or badly defined and shifting limits (depending on the climate of the age, so the Constitution goes) -- can be understood as the offspring of that sin for which this idol stands.
In theological language, it is called "human autonomy," freedom to define good and evil apart from God's law, as one sees fit. Where this merely a large sign of some sort, it could be called the "sign of liberty." But given that it is an idol -- it necessarily stands for a kind of liberty that amounts to autonomy in the nature of the very tall case.
Likewise, the famous site of Mount Rushmore, showing four presidential busts -- portraits from the shoulders up or approimately so -- hearkens back to exactly the early sculptures of Roman emperors which appear in history of art texts. Even the Rushmore style matches the style then common, from which we have learned the appearances of men like Marcus Aurelius and others. It is called "Verism," from the Latin for "truth" or accuracy.
The wikipedia definition for verism reads,
"Verism was often used by the Romans in marble sculptures of heads. Verism shows the imperfections of the subject, such as warts, wrinkles and furrows. It zeroes in on the minuscule details of the human head. Although the marble heads themselves came from the Greeks, this style is extremely different from Greek head sculptures because the Greek would idealize the subject, and liken the subject to a god."
In other words, America has set up idols to the gods and goddess of autonomy, in direct defiance of the Word of God, wherein He promises to count those who do so haters of Himself and to visit them for their iniquities -- curse them --to the third and fourth generations. I believe that the failure of presidents to remove the idols from earth -- which is their solemn duty -- in great part accounts for the extraordinary failures of an otherwise great nation in terms of its abilities to produce, work hard, think well, and to innovate like no other nation.
And yet, our crime rates soar, relativism has overrun the universities, our manufacturing sector is all but outsourced (gone), we have the largest trade deficit in human history, and many other signs that God's disfavor is upon this nation clearly display His anger. We engage in wars that harm us, and accomplish nothing good for the country, we impose laws that injure our business sectors, our CEO's are in jail in record numbers, and the nation is simply faltering badly in many ways.
This is not due to incompetence or lack of intelligence, or anthing of the sort. When it comes to diligence, Americans put in more hours than any other nation per capita, but hate their jobs all the same. When you hate your work, you hate the better part of your life. Our songs reflect this, where countless artists sing of dreaming of the moment when work ends, and leisure begins (Take this job, It's five o'clock somewhere, etc), and clockwatching when work is supposed to be -- believe it or not -- pleasant. And it is when God blesses the fruit of your labors. But His curse makes everything ten times harder to yield the same results. Work becomes a drudgery, and yields little that doesn't get taken from us by the tax man.
The solution is simple. Put away the idols, forbid their manufacture or trade -- small idols are bad too, and the Lord has no pleasure in them -- break down the large ones, and remove them from God's presence. When the blessing of God replaces His curse, the actions will prove we should have done this generations ago.
This nation could prosper wildly, but only with obedience to God's law. For "righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces any people." (Prov. 14:34). And it says, "Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord."
And again, "Little children, keep yourselves from idols."
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Quotes of the Day
"Any 12 people who can't figure out a way to get of of jury duty are not my peers."
-- Anonymous
Famous last words: "Don't worry, honey, I read somewhere that they only eat fish and berries."
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot. (S. Wright)
Redneck logic: "Do you have any idea how much safer the world would be if we didn't have the news?"
Michigan: First Line Of Defense From The Canadians (okay, but its your body check)
-- Anonymous
Famous last words: "Don't worry, honey, I read somewhere that they only eat fish and berries."
There's a fine line between fishing and standing on the shore looking like an idiot. (S. Wright)
Redneck logic: "Do you have any idea how much safer the world would be if we didn't have the news?"
I stayed up all night playing poker with Tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died.
-- Stephen Wright
Last week my tie caught on fire, some guy tried to put it out with an axe. (R. Dangerfield)
Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.
For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
If you can read this, I can slam on my brakes and sue you!
If you think nobody cares if you're alive, try missing a couple of car payments.
Montana: At least our cows are sane! (and your politicians?)
My mind is like a steel trap, rusty and illegal in 37 states.
There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.
I'm not saying I'm old, but last year my birthday cake looked like a prairie fire.
Fish should always be cooked in its own natural oils - Texaco, Mobil, Chevron ...
Arizona: But It's A Dry Heat- (so is a convection oven)
| Alabama: Yes, We Have Electricity - (let go of the wire and the tingling will stop) |
Michigan: First Line Of Defense From The Canadians (okay, but its your body check)
Montana: Land Of The Big Sky, The Unabomber, Right-Wing Crazies, And Very Little Else (not true, you also have worthless real estate, prairie dogs, and rednecks)
New Mexico: Lizards Make Excellent Pets (and go well with salsa)
Ohio: At Least We're Not Michigan (No, you're more a badly polluted industrial Disneyland)
Texas: Si, Hablo Ingles (And our death row is shorter than yours)
Washington, D.C.: Mayor wanted: must be drug-free
Is They Anything Dumber'n "Hate Crimes" -- Really Now
At First I thought it was a typo. Then I realized they were not establishing "Hat crimes," as in the wearing of gangster looking hats in churches during services, or some such other law we could probably find on the books in Georgia. Now big hair, that should be a crime, falling under anti-seventies legislation more generally. And this whole nose-ring thing is iffy at best. That just has to be some kind of jewelery hate. But this is not what they meant. They meant "hate" crimes, not hat crimes. "Oh," said I. "That's a whole lotta differnt." To be more precise, it is a different kind of stoopid (with two "o's").
Suppose a man commits a crime. He pulls a Cheney, aims at the nearest lawyer with a high-powered rifle and opens fire. Does it really matter what color the lawyer is (was?), or whether the guy who shot him hated people of that color, or just hated lawyers? What if he just hated trial lawyers, but not corporate litigators, and shot the wrong kind by mistake?
Here is another situation which shows the absolute silliness of this kind of law. The man who shoots the lawyer in this second scenario does it because he hates the guy standing just behind him. He doesn't hate the lawyer, but only the man standing behind him, who is let us say -- purple. The shooter hates purple people, and opens fire on the purple guy, killing both the lawyer and the purple guy he hated. The lawyer was killed indiscriminantly because the shooter was impatient as well. We need to ask,"Is this an impatience crime," and should we add more years to the stay in prison -- if we should even have prisons -- for his impatience in not waiting properly to shoot only the second guy?
And if we are going to do this, let us do it right. There must, just like murder, be DEGREES of hatred involved here. We need first degree hate crimes for those who hate like they mean it, and second and third degree hate crimes for the sluggards that just don't have it in them, but keep trying anyway. This will require police officers to administer hatometer tests, like breathalyzers, which measure your voice volume, muscle tenseness and the like, to get a fair reading on your hate level at the crime scene.
And why should hating lawyers be considered any more virtuous than hating people for whatever color or personal disposition they may have? Personally, I can't stand it when people take really huge bites of hamburgers and chew like cows in public.
That settles it. We need dining and anti-dining laws. And woe to the man who uses not his knife with his fork. That is knifism, and we simply cannot afford to tolerate this as a civilized nation. What next, napkin abuse?
Now according to hate crime laws, the shooter will get a lengthier or more severe sentence for shooting the purple guy rather than for shooting the lawyer. The deaths of the two victims -- given the whole point of "all men are created equal" -- should each merit the same sentence since their value as persons is not different one from another.
The two things which ought to matter when a judge issues sentence are
1. Actual guilt (Did he do it or not?)
2. Intent (Did he pull the trigger with a purposeful effort to harm the victim(s))
The motive standing behind the intent might be hate, maybe it was envy or jealousy -- though I suppose few are jealous of lawyers.
In order to be consistent in adding "hate" -- an elusive emotion -- as an aggravating condition to a crime, we would also need to have "greed crimes," "envy crimes," "lust crimes," and one wonders (at least this one wonders) whether just good old-fashioned stupidity should sometimes be sufficient to render a man culpable.
Just think of it this way -- If a man walks into a fast food restaurant and goes postal on everyone -- how could his premediated choice to open fire on innocents NOT be a hate crime already? All murders "with malice aforethought" -- the old-fashioned way of rendering the idea of premeditation in legal terms -- constitutes hatred. When man points a loaded weapon at people and gets busy, we do not need to ask his motivation. We already know. Premeditation is the legal point of interest, not hatred. Because the first established proves the second anyway. Even our legal language reflects this fact.
This shows that hate is not really the point of the so-called hate laws anyway. It is the alleged minority status of the victims -- not hate per se -- that makes something a "hate crime," meaning these should be called minority-related crimes. But this, of course, shows favoritism -- when justice is supposed to be blind in this regard -- to one class of person rather than another. The Bible forbids this. In jurisprudential matters, it specifically notes the tendency some will have to favor the poor in a legal action against the wealthy, and forbids this.
Hate is not a crime. Neither is irritability, untidiness, being a jerk (idiocy), acting with contemptuous pride ("contempt of court" does not name the emotion, but specific disobedience to a court order, or a violation of the court's code of conduct), coveting, staring at people with malice you don't like, or randomly despising people who wear green clothes.
Some people just hate everyone, and there is nothing you can do about it. But so long as this type of man -- we call them "misanthropes" - these are equal opportunity haters who do not discriminate -- does not put his hatred into action against innocent persons in unlawful ways, we don't (and should not) care. Jerks abound. Get over it, and grow up. Anyone who has a driver's license knows this. If you doubt this, then explain California.
I have makeshift maneuvers on the road for which I do not even have words. What WAS THAT? It was another jerk behind the wheel, practicing high-speed hate on the right shoulder.
All of these are sinful, but not every sin is a crime, nor should it be. The desire to regulate a person's inward attitudes and emotions is positively Orwellian in the worst sense of the word. It represents a somewhat goofy and mostly "right violating" effort to play thought-police. The founders of the U.S. Constitution would utterly have hated this kind of law. It represents just the kind of governmental tyranny they stood against so adamantly, and which moved them to extend a Bill of Rights to protect individuals -- not just the states -- from the overreach of the federal government.
Hates crimes thus constitute a class of laws not only UNconstitutional, but plainly ANTI-constitutional. And I for one hate them. This of course begs the question:
Is that a meta-hate crime? Should I be arrested twice for this? And so far as I can tell, were we to take hate crimes seriously, we would have our jails filled with dentists. These people can do real damage with very long needles. Children everywhere -- and most adults -- fear them. And they put mercurium in your teeth (fillings), a substance known now to present long-term health hazards. Mercury is well-known to be very poisonous to people. Do not eat thermometers.
Punchline: If I decide to hate all lawyers, that is MY BUSINESS and no one else's, certainly not the police's business. They simply have more important things to do, like catch people who, with real malice, perpetrate real crimes upon innocent persons.
Hate crimes are nonsense; they represent the very height of Draconian intolerance (which the groups that advocate them usually go on about at length), they imply the necessity of all manner of other crimes no one wants (envy crimes, gluttony crimes etc), and they are goofier than cat pizza.
Performance and intent are the two important features of sentencing. This is what the Bible teaches; and you will note that it avoids all manner of silly implication.
Don't hate me. I'm just a messenger. It's in the text. This is just one more modern instance of legal gobbly-gook one runs into by failing to appropriate as the final legal standard that law code which God has graciously given to us. The law of the Lord is perfect. Your law code? Not so much. And I really hate bad law. I was born that way. I can't help it; it's my orientation. And I can't wait for "intemperance crimes" to hit the market.
This refutation of silly ideas enacted into legislation has been brought to you by our non-Euclidean sponsors, who insist on coloring outside the lines just a bit.
Just for fun, here are a few other really stupid laws on the books in the good old US of A.
Thankfully, in Baltimore, Maryland, it is not legal to take a lion to the movies. Alpacas and dromedaries are iffy.
Here is one to raise eyebrows. In Oxford, Ohio, it is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face. Yes, ladies, be sure to keep those beards neatly trimmed or else.
Okay, okay. I'll quit picking on the U.S. Don't go all Cheney on me. Here's one from China. According to a law in China, you must be intelligent to go to college.
[Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't that WHY people go to college, because they wish to improve their reasoning, math, study and other cognitive skills? And when you come out, if you are too intelligent, you cannot work for the Communist government; this is mostly because Communism appeals only to people dumber than a bag of cement].
Wait for it. Okay, here it is -- In Topeka, Kansas, servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups. This seems to be a manliness law. Men must be manly, ergo teacups are right out. How can you be manly with a teacup in your hand, and a gun in the other. No one will take you seriously. And Smith and Wesson might sue you.
Or maybe this prohibition is supposed to prevent sissy-sized portions. It might be an anti- anti-hospitality law. No jipping the customers.
[Apparently, if you wish to get completely trashed in public, you must have a bigger cup. This only makes sense -- just like sobriety.].
In the fine state of Nebraska, it is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.
[But what really IS the meaning of "soup"? Does "stew" count, or is that an illegal substance alongside beer? This seems to be classed right alongside hate crimes, as an inhospitality law].
This brings a whole new set of questions to the fore. If you under-tip at a restaurant because a waiter is recognizably a minority, is that a pecuniary hate crime? But what if the defendant simply claims the guy's cologne was way too strong?
Some city's like Berkeley, which shall remain nameless, have outlawed public smoking because of the second-hand offenses associated with it. What? And not the overuse of cologne? This can take people down who have allergies. Cars must go too (too much second hand carbon monoxide -- we like it fresh not stale). But I can blog these later.
For your convenience, and exuberant, tear-tossing laughter, the dumb network has put together a fine collection of stupid laws on the books in all fifty states. Here is their
URL -- http://www.dumblaws.com/ Enjoy.
Suppose a man commits a crime. He pulls a Cheney, aims at the nearest lawyer with a high-powered rifle and opens fire. Does it really matter what color the lawyer is (was?), or whether the guy who shot him hated people of that color, or just hated lawyers? What if he just hated trial lawyers, but not corporate litigators, and shot the wrong kind by mistake?
Here is another situation which shows the absolute silliness of this kind of law. The man who shoots the lawyer in this second scenario does it because he hates the guy standing just behind him. He doesn't hate the lawyer, but only the man standing behind him, who is let us say -- purple. The shooter hates purple people, and opens fire on the purple guy, killing both the lawyer and the purple guy he hated. The lawyer was killed indiscriminantly because the shooter was impatient as well. We need to ask,"Is this an impatience crime," and should we add more years to the stay in prison -- if we should even have prisons -- for his impatience in not waiting properly to shoot only the second guy?
And if we are going to do this, let us do it right. There must, just like murder, be DEGREES of hatred involved here. We need first degree hate crimes for those who hate like they mean it, and second and third degree hate crimes for the sluggards that just don't have it in them, but keep trying anyway. This will require police officers to administer hatometer tests, like breathalyzers, which measure your voice volume, muscle tenseness and the like, to get a fair reading on your hate level at the crime scene.
And why should hating lawyers be considered any more virtuous than hating people for whatever color or personal disposition they may have? Personally, I can't stand it when people take really huge bites of hamburgers and chew like cows in public.
That settles it. We need dining and anti-dining laws. And woe to the man who uses not his knife with his fork. That is knifism, and we simply cannot afford to tolerate this as a civilized nation. What next, napkin abuse?
Now according to hate crime laws, the shooter will get a lengthier or more severe sentence for shooting the purple guy rather than for shooting the lawyer. The deaths of the two victims -- given the whole point of "all men are created equal" -- should each merit the same sentence since their value as persons is not different one from another.
The two things which ought to matter when a judge issues sentence are
1. Actual guilt (Did he do it or not?)
2. Intent (Did he pull the trigger with a purposeful effort to harm the victim(s))
The motive standing behind the intent might be hate, maybe it was envy or jealousy -- though I suppose few are jealous of lawyers.
In order to be consistent in adding "hate" -- an elusive emotion -- as an aggravating condition to a crime, we would also need to have "greed crimes," "envy crimes," "lust crimes," and one wonders (at least this one wonders) whether just good old-fashioned stupidity should sometimes be sufficient to render a man culpable.
Just think of it this way -- If a man walks into a fast food restaurant and goes postal on everyone -- how could his premediated choice to open fire on innocents NOT be a hate crime already? All murders "with malice aforethought" -- the old-fashioned way of rendering the idea of premeditation in legal terms -- constitutes hatred. When man points a loaded weapon at people and gets busy, we do not need to ask his motivation. We already know. Premeditation is the legal point of interest, not hatred. Because the first established proves the second anyway. Even our legal language reflects this fact.
This shows that hate is not really the point of the so-called hate laws anyway. It is the alleged minority status of the victims -- not hate per se -- that makes something a "hate crime," meaning these should be called minority-related crimes. But this, of course, shows favoritism -- when justice is supposed to be blind in this regard -- to one class of person rather than another. The Bible forbids this. In jurisprudential matters, it specifically notes the tendency some will have to favor the poor in a legal action against the wealthy, and forbids this.
Hate is not a crime. Neither is irritability, untidiness, being a jerk (idiocy), acting with contemptuous pride ("contempt of court" does not name the emotion, but specific disobedience to a court order, or a violation of the court's code of conduct), coveting, staring at people with malice you don't like, or randomly despising people who wear green clothes.
Some people just hate everyone, and there is nothing you can do about it. But so long as this type of man -- we call them "misanthropes" - these are equal opportunity haters who do not discriminate -- does not put his hatred into action against innocent persons in unlawful ways, we don't (and should not) care. Jerks abound. Get over it, and grow up. Anyone who has a driver's license knows this. If you doubt this, then explain California.
I have makeshift maneuvers on the road for which I do not even have words. What WAS THAT? It was another jerk behind the wheel, practicing high-speed hate on the right shoulder.
All of these are sinful, but not every sin is a crime, nor should it be. The desire to regulate a person's inward attitudes and emotions is positively Orwellian in the worst sense of the word. It represents a somewhat goofy and mostly "right violating" effort to play thought-police. The founders of the U.S. Constitution would utterly have hated this kind of law. It represents just the kind of governmental tyranny they stood against so adamantly, and which moved them to extend a Bill of Rights to protect individuals -- not just the states -- from the overreach of the federal government.
Hates crimes thus constitute a class of laws not only UNconstitutional, but plainly ANTI-constitutional. And I for one hate them. This of course begs the question:
Is that a meta-hate crime? Should I be arrested twice for this? And so far as I can tell, were we to take hate crimes seriously, we would have our jails filled with dentists. These people can do real damage with very long needles. Children everywhere -- and most adults -- fear them. And they put mercurium in your teeth (fillings), a substance known now to present long-term health hazards. Mercury is well-known to be very poisonous to people. Do not eat thermometers.
Punchline: If I decide to hate all lawyers, that is MY BUSINESS and no one else's, certainly not the police's business. They simply have more important things to do, like catch people who, with real malice, perpetrate real crimes upon innocent persons.
Hate crimes are nonsense; they represent the very height of Draconian intolerance (which the groups that advocate them usually go on about at length), they imply the necessity of all manner of other crimes no one wants (envy crimes, gluttony crimes etc), and they are goofier than cat pizza.
Performance and intent are the two important features of sentencing. This is what the Bible teaches; and you will note that it avoids all manner of silly implication.
Don't hate me. I'm just a messenger. It's in the text. This is just one more modern instance of legal gobbly-gook one runs into by failing to appropriate as the final legal standard that law code which God has graciously given to us. The law of the Lord is perfect. Your law code? Not so much. And I really hate bad law. I was born that way. I can't help it; it's my orientation. And I can't wait for "intemperance crimes" to hit the market.
This refutation of silly ideas enacted into legislation has been brought to you by our non-Euclidean sponsors, who insist on coloring outside the lines just a bit.
Just for fun, here are a few other really stupid laws on the books in the good old US of A.
Thankfully, in Baltimore, Maryland, it is not legal to take a lion to the movies. Alpacas and dromedaries are iffy.
Here is one to raise eyebrows. In Oxford, Ohio, it is unlawful for a woman to appear in public while unshaven. This includes legs and face. Yes, ladies, be sure to keep those beards neatly trimmed or else.
Okay, okay. I'll quit picking on the U.S. Don't go all Cheney on me. Here's one from China. According to a law in China, you must be intelligent to go to college.
[Correct me if I'm wrong. But isn't that WHY people go to college, because they wish to improve their reasoning, math, study and other cognitive skills? And when you come out, if you are too intelligent, you cannot work for the Communist government; this is mostly because Communism appeals only to people dumber than a bag of cement].
Wait for it. Okay, here it is -- In Topeka, Kansas, servers are forbidden to serve wine in teacups. This seems to be a manliness law. Men must be manly, ergo teacups are right out. How can you be manly with a teacup in your hand, and a gun in the other. No one will take you seriously. And Smith and Wesson might sue you.
Or maybe this prohibition is supposed to prevent sissy-sized portions. It might be an anti- anti-hospitality law. No jipping the customers.
[Apparently, if you wish to get completely trashed in public, you must have a bigger cup. This only makes sense -- just like sobriety.].
In the fine state of Nebraska, it is not legal for a tavern owner to serve beer unless a nice kettle of soup is also brewing.
[But what really IS the meaning of "soup"? Does "stew" count, or is that an illegal substance alongside beer? This seems to be classed right alongside hate crimes, as an inhospitality law].
This brings a whole new set of questions to the fore. If you under-tip at a restaurant because a waiter is recognizably a minority, is that a pecuniary hate crime? But what if the defendant simply claims the guy's cologne was way too strong?
Some city's like Berkeley, which shall remain nameless, have outlawed public smoking because of the second-hand offenses associated with it. What? And not the overuse of cologne? This can take people down who have allergies. Cars must go too (too much second hand carbon monoxide -- we like it fresh not stale). But I can blog these later.
For your convenience, and exuberant, tear-tossing laughter, the dumb network has put together a fine collection of stupid laws on the books in all fifty states. Here is their
URL -- http://www.dumblaws.com/ Enjoy.
Americans and Their Heating Costs: Many Ways to Whittle Them Down
Reuters News Agency has bad news for us. Our winters keep getting more expensive in terms of heating bills. This winter is no exception. This post will provide a few, brief and extremely practical suggestions for how you can beat the un-heat, without depending on Uncle Sam to do it -- at least no directly. Here is the bad news caption from Reuters.
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. consumers are expected to pay record prices for heating oil, electricity and propane to warm their homes this winter, and low-income families will need government help to cover those bills, government energy officials said on Tuesday."
To beat back the energy beast, you might consider some of the following information, which few people have seemed to have learned, even though the information is freely available on the internet.
First, if heating oils prices are predicted to skyrocket, they usually do in fact surge. The weather guys now use extremely sophisticated stochastic computer models and other unpronouncable programs to get their forecasts right as closely as possible.
So you can do what businesses do -- hedge. But options or futures contracts through a fairly cheap online broker, and maybe buy a good electrical utility company stock to spread the risk -- diversify your assets. This way when the price of energy shoots up, so do your profits on the contracts you have bought. You can then use the profits to pay your energy bills, and may even have some left over.
Futures contracts now settle at the end of every day, so the risk level is not nearly as high as it used to be. Options are safer still, since the amount of money it is possible to lose amounts to the total paid for the contract and not a penny more. This way, with a little sound investing, you can turn bad news into good news.
If you would like to take a peak at the CBOT futures listings, go here:
http://www.cbot.com/cbot/pub/page/0,3181,949,00.html
At the Chicago Board of Trade Options Exchange (notoriously the CBOE), you can take online tutorials for free to learn how to manage options contracts to your full pecuniary advantage. They have excellent education tools -- all free to you -- and by typing in "top ten options brokers" into your friendly neighborhood google window, you can start yourself off on the right track to locate inexpensive discount brokers of options.
The strategy is fairly simple -- you buy the contract about 6-8 months ahead (that is, you might buy a February (or March), 2008 contract for heating oil in September - October of this year, when it is relatively cheap, and sell it when prices are really high. You will have paid for perhaps three months of high bills out of pocket, only to have these profits fully reimburse you if all goes well. You can also sell options, whose price you believe is likely to fall in order to earn money in the markets. Post-Iraq U.S. oil prices should drop markedly, whenever we actually do pull out. This is predicatable, and many options on different commodities likewise come with cyclical or otherwise fairly predictable results.
Second, If you have the money to invest, you can purchase -- with a surprisingly large chunk of help from government subsidies -- a solar array to heat your home that fits neatly on the roof, and generates more power than you will need, which you then sell back to your local utility company. Thousands of people already do this. It not only lowers the cost of power to you, but the surplus energy sold to your utility will help pay down costs for everyone else. Uncle Sam will pay you handsomely to do this. So for a little up-front expense you can recover later -- it pays for itself in a few years with the subsidy -- your energy ends up being free in the long run.
In California, governor Arnold S. has taken proactive measures to reduce the cost of such a solar unit by as much as one third. Go Arnold. You can read all about it from the news here:
http://soundingcircle.com/newslog2.php/__show_article/_a000195-000982.htm
The price is right. If you combine both these strategies well, you could really get ahead. If you go solar, AND make some money trading heating oil contracts, you could use the profits from the contracts sales to pay down the initial cost of the solar heating unit. Perhaps you might end up getting it for free when the dust settles.
Other ways, more unpopular -- but quite effective -- to temporarily cut your overall energy costs include carpooling with your work peers, taking public transportation (which usually offers a monthly discounted pass for sale) on a temporary basis -- meaning just so long as the energy costs remain unduly high. This is a price-offsetting guerilla tactic; I am not suggesting this as a permanent option. You could also -- if price plausible - move closer to work. This only works in some areas, and in some situations, granted, but it is an opportunity for some.
Here are a few other suggestions I found online to help in this regard.
1. If you use propane or heating oil and have a choice of suppliers, compare prices. Find out if your home-business qualifies for a business discount or business rate.
2. Some utility companies offer free energy evaluations where a certified inspector will come to your home and assess your home and office energy-use. The inspector will show you where you can save resources and money and offer specific suggestions on how to do so. You can locate an energy expert through the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET).
Here are a few other suggestions I found online to help in this regard.
1. If you use propane or heating oil and have a choice of suppliers, compare prices. Find out if your home-business qualifies for a business discount or business rate.
2. Some utility companies offer free energy evaluations where a certified inspector will come to your home and assess your home and office energy-use. The inspector will show you where you can save resources and money and offer specific suggestions on how to do so. You can locate an energy expert through the Residential Energy Services Network (RESNET).
The Energy Policy Act (2005) allows for tax credits -- reducing your taxes saves money by another means, but the money you save is just as green as if you lowered the cost of your energy consumption. The RESNET website http://www.natresnet.org/ has alll manner of further ways to cut costs and improve your energy efficiency.
3. For a specific weatherization assistance program, try www.eere.energy.gov/weatherization Another information resource is The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
4. Buying A Home? Consider Energy Ratings and Mortgages. [This is also on the RESNET site].
"Home energy ratings provide a standard measurement of a home’s energy efficiency. Ratings are used for both and new and existing homes. In new homes rating often verify energy performance for the ENERGY STAR homes program, energy efficient mortgages, and energy code compliance. Homeowners who want to upgrade the home’s energy efficiency can use the energy rating to evaluate and pinpoint specific, cost-effective improvements. For existing homes, homeowners can receive a report listing cost-effective options for improving the home’s energy rating. An energy rating allows a homebuyer to easily compare the energy performance of the homes being considered."
The more you put into such efforts, the more likely the more you will get out of them. That is just the way life is. But you would be surprised how much you can save with a moderate extension of real effort in the right direction. Many more resources abound on the internet. Happy hunting (and earning and saving).
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Lincoln, NE Legislator Sues the Lord Of Knowledge
The Associated Press has reported that a self-described agnostic and Nebraskan legislator has sued God. It says,
"State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
This indictment overlooks one obvious problem, everything is God's property to do with what He pleases. That includes us. It also fails to notice that not all killing is wrong, and that men have already declared war on God, so that when he retaliates, it is always justified on at least two counts. God kills, but never murders, and He cannot violate his own laws. But state legislators do this all the time.
So here I have listed my 8 reasons why you should avoid the temptation to sue God -- the substance of the Book of Job -- and why charging God with wrongdoing is foolish in the extreme.
1. Men are extremely sinful, and God has no sin at all. This means that, should He decide to countersue, you are (so we say) "toast."
2. God knows everything, including all future events -- both possible on any other supposed condition, and real -- the ones which actually come to pass. This means He saw it coming, and already had billions of years to prepare a defense. The Bible says, in so many words, that God believes the dictum which says that the best defense is a good offense.
3. God is good, which means He hates evil. Sueing Him is necessarily evil, since He cannot err or do what is wrong, thus the plaintiff invites disaster with no possibility of winning, except in a very crooked court. This will only indict the whole lot of them.
4. The man who claims to be an agnostic, and sues God -- even if only to make what he imagines is a hypothetical challenge, admits he might be wrong since agnosticism necessarily leaves the question open. This means he might -- on his own view -- be insulting his own future Judge. If he claims the possibility is even slight, angering an omnipotent Being is more foolish than starting World War III, which could only unleash a limited amount of destruction.
Rule #1 for the week is "never deliberately anger an Omnipotent Being."
5. God is by nature all-wise and thus does not do foolish things. Thus, whatever He does, no matter how strange or harmful it may appear to us, simply shows that we are working with insufficient information. This very discrepancy thus proves that we are not qualified to judge Him. Even were He to explain WHY He does what he does, this is no guarantee that the smartest human ever could even BEGIN to understand it. We are simply not wise enough to judge in such lofty matters. Let the mouth-covering begin (Job's response to God's answer at a time when God actually DID show up to answer charges just like those lodged in Nebraska.
6. The Book of Job has already answered the charges. This guy needs to read up, and shut up, before he gets himself and those he represents -- all killed. God reserves the right to do as He pleases in heaven and in earth. Thus, if He finds this man "annoying" as a bad example to others, our foolish legislator, may find himself in need of another legal document, usually called a last will and testament. God does as He pleases. This is risky behavior like no other.
7. When God thinks, the Bible tells us, He thinks covenantally. One aspect of covenants is the notion of representation. This means that this fellow has just put everyone in the state of Nebraska, not only himself, in a highly precarious position, and made them guilty of blasphemy. Charging God falsely is blasphemous, a crime God promises to punish directly, should the civil magistrate fail so to do.
It is written, "You shall not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain." This is one of the promises of the Bible. Since God cannot lie, we may expect a response from Him, sooner or else later. Timing is God's prerogative.
8. If the state of Nebraska files this case, even if only to publicize the point, the entire state has in fact sued God. If they do it in a federal court, this puts the rest of us at risk too. The U.S., you will have noticed already has too many problems. We don't NEED more problems, and we certainly do not want omnipotent enemies.
9. If the state of Nebraska accepts and files the indictment, it has (like insurance companies) acknowledged God as a legitimate and real legal party. This would directly result in the refutation of the legislator's most basic assumption (agnosticism), meaning He is actually suing an omniscient and omnipotent Being. I cannot imagine a more foolish course of action.
10. Assuming the prior point, that NE files and processes the indictment, this would itself be sufficient grounds to disqualify the legislator from holding office since placing one's entire constitutency -- and perhaps country -- at extreme risk unnecessarily and foolishly is just the opposite form of behavior he was employed to exemplify in the first place. Remember, "God" is listed as the Creator whose existence, blessing, and aid form the basis of all "inalienable rights" which citizens of this country have.
But inalienable does not mean that God cannot remove them, only that we cannot. The rights rest with God, not with the renter. He extends or revokes at liberty, just like the state of NE does with drivers who weave all over the road habitually. This fellow has steered his entire state into oncoming traffic. His agnostic outlook admits this may be the case, and the founding documents of his country (and the state constitution of Nebraska) affirm this is likely what he has done.
Life is hard enough without other people putting you at great risk you do not want. Christians in the state of Nebraska should sue (or puruse a referendum depending on the state's regulations) for his prompt resignation. This list provides adequate legal grounds (though in seedling form) for how to begin proceeding in terms of legal reasoning.
"State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha sued God last week, seeking a permanent injunction against the Almighty for making terroristic threats, inspiring fear and causing "widespread death, destruction and terrorization of millions upon millions of the Earth's inhabitants."
This indictment overlooks one obvious problem, everything is God's property to do with what He pleases. That includes us. It also fails to notice that not all killing is wrong, and that men have already declared war on God, so that when he retaliates, it is always justified on at least two counts. God kills, but never murders, and He cannot violate his own laws. But state legislators do this all the time.
So here I have listed my 8 reasons why you should avoid the temptation to sue God -- the substance of the Book of Job -- and why charging God with wrongdoing is foolish in the extreme.
1. Men are extremely sinful, and God has no sin at all. This means that, should He decide to countersue, you are (so we say) "toast."
2. God knows everything, including all future events -- both possible on any other supposed condition, and real -- the ones which actually come to pass. This means He saw it coming, and already had billions of years to prepare a defense. The Bible says, in so many words, that God believes the dictum which says that the best defense is a good offense.
3. God is good, which means He hates evil. Sueing Him is necessarily evil, since He cannot err or do what is wrong, thus the plaintiff invites disaster with no possibility of winning, except in a very crooked court. This will only indict the whole lot of them.
4. The man who claims to be an agnostic, and sues God -- even if only to make what he imagines is a hypothetical challenge, admits he might be wrong since agnosticism necessarily leaves the question open. This means he might -- on his own view -- be insulting his own future Judge. If he claims the possibility is even slight, angering an omnipotent Being is more foolish than starting World War III, which could only unleash a limited amount of destruction.
Rule #1 for the week is "never deliberately anger an Omnipotent Being."
5. God is by nature all-wise and thus does not do foolish things. Thus, whatever He does, no matter how strange or harmful it may appear to us, simply shows that we are working with insufficient information. This very discrepancy thus proves that we are not qualified to judge Him. Even were He to explain WHY He does what he does, this is no guarantee that the smartest human ever could even BEGIN to understand it. We are simply not wise enough to judge in such lofty matters. Let the mouth-covering begin (Job's response to God's answer at a time when God actually DID show up to answer charges just like those lodged in Nebraska.
6. The Book of Job has already answered the charges. This guy needs to read up, and shut up, before he gets himself and those he represents -- all killed. God reserves the right to do as He pleases in heaven and in earth. Thus, if He finds this man "annoying" as a bad example to others, our foolish legislator, may find himself in need of another legal document, usually called a last will and testament. God does as He pleases. This is risky behavior like no other.
7. When God thinks, the Bible tells us, He thinks covenantally. One aspect of covenants is the notion of representation. This means that this fellow has just put everyone in the state of Nebraska, not only himself, in a highly precarious position, and made them guilty of blasphemy. Charging God falsely is blasphemous, a crime God promises to punish directly, should the civil magistrate fail so to do.
It is written, "You shall not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain." This is one of the promises of the Bible. Since God cannot lie, we may expect a response from Him, sooner or else later. Timing is God's prerogative.
8. If the state of Nebraska files this case, even if only to publicize the point, the entire state has in fact sued God. If they do it in a federal court, this puts the rest of us at risk too. The U.S., you will have noticed already has too many problems. We don't NEED more problems, and we certainly do not want omnipotent enemies.
9. If the state of Nebraska accepts and files the indictment, it has (like insurance companies) acknowledged God as a legitimate and real legal party. This would directly result in the refutation of the legislator's most basic assumption (agnosticism), meaning He is actually suing an omniscient and omnipotent Being. I cannot imagine a more foolish course of action.
10. Assuming the prior point, that NE files and processes the indictment, this would itself be sufficient grounds to disqualify the legislator from holding office since placing one's entire constitutency -- and perhaps country -- at extreme risk unnecessarily and foolishly is just the opposite form of behavior he was employed to exemplify in the first place. Remember, "God" is listed as the Creator whose existence, blessing, and aid form the basis of all "inalienable rights" which citizens of this country have.
But inalienable does not mean that God cannot remove them, only that we cannot. The rights rest with God, not with the renter. He extends or revokes at liberty, just like the state of NE does with drivers who weave all over the road habitually. This fellow has steered his entire state into oncoming traffic. His agnostic outlook admits this may be the case, and the founding documents of his country (and the state constitution of Nebraska) affirm this is likely what he has done.
Life is hard enough without other people putting you at great risk you do not want. Christians in the state of Nebraska should sue (or puruse a referendum depending on the state's regulations) for his prompt resignation. This list provides adequate legal grounds (though in seedling form) for how to begin proceeding in terms of legal reasoning.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Do Not Speak Evil Against The Ruler Of Your People -- What Does This Mean In Context?
Acts 23: 1- 6
"And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not [Did not know], brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."
This often misunderstood passage -- and very badly handled -- has many good exegetical cues built into it for our edification and admonition.
First, we need to know precisely what Paul said that caused him to repent of what he had said just prior. Then we will look for immediate synonyms and parallels in the local context. Third, we will look briefly at the source being cited here from the Older Testament to make the case for the proper NT interpretation of the sense and proper application of this commandment.
First, we have Paul's saying after being striken -- punched -- at the command of the high priest. He says, "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"
The first part of this utterance is that which brought the infraction challenged by those standing near the high priest (likely the temple body guards appointed to his specific protection). For the Temple had its own guard (a small armed force), not appointed by the Romans.
"God shall smite thee [in like manner]," -- the implication of what He has said amounts to invoking a curse upon the chief ecclesiastical authorities within his nation. Notice that Paul understood that God adminsters justice in reciprocal fashion -- Lex talionis. Well had Paul studied the law of the Lord under Gamaliel.
Second, we note synonym for Paul's action used by his detractors, "Do you REVILE God's high priest?" Third, Paul had acted in ignorance, meaning that the high priest was not wearing his formal vestments, and the time of the incident was not near the time of sacrifice. This was not required of the high priest -- or chief priests since there were by the time of the apostles more than one. This came about at the time of John Hyrcanus in the second century B.C., but bears little on our present study meriting more than simple notation.
So we have the example of speech "God will smite you [also]" -- (a curse in the Name of God)
We have the verb "revile" used as a synonym for the curse, and we have the citiation "Do not speak evil against the ruler of your people" from the first testament. This shows clearly that Paul does not forbid simply criticism or any kind of speech whatsoever that may been seen to detract from the honor of the office. That is not the point. The point was VIOLENCE, first of the fist, and then of Paul's retaliatory VERBAL violence, the invoking of a curse with God's title (which is included in the biblical sense of God's Name or reputation).
Repeatedly the Proverbs speak of wicked men saying, "Violence covers their lips," or "their mouths feed on violence." These expressions refer specifically to CURSING others in the Name of God, with the attending hope that God will in fact bring about the curse from their lips, since they themselves may not be strong enough or in the right position to do it with their own fists.
Cursing is verbal violence, invoked in God's Name in the hope that the Lord will honor the curse. This does not mean it is always inappropriate, just that it is covenantally specific, and highly regulated in the Bible. Now the fact of Paul's curse is not questioned even by Paul; only the object of the curse is in question, and whether the invoked curse was proper. Paul, upon learning his error, retracts it, and reproves himself from the law.
But what of the verse he cited? Exodus 22:28 reads,
"Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people."
Here, "gods" [elohim] simply means "judges" as the footnote indicates in the online source and NIV. The point is that the judge must be free from pressure of any kind to impose the sanctions specified in the law of God without fear of retribution or intimidation, lest he pervert the law and justice. Thus, no man is allowed to retaliate against the judge for issuing a judgment with which he disagrees. This does not mean that no appellate courts existed in Israel. They did. But the man was not free himself, apart from due process of biblical law (taken as a whole), to retaliate against the judge issuing an unfavorable judgment, whether by physical or verbal violence (cursing or reviling).
This has nothing to do with criticizing a nation's foreign policy, or voicing one's dissent let us say from Clinton's known adulterous relationship in the whitehouse. That is not the imposition of a curse, but the repeating of public information one may (and should) strongly disapprove of.
The U.S. Constitution itself provides for free speech so that citizens may issue in public speech, or else in writing, their grievances against the abuses of power in government. The Bible does not dispute this right, but it does add qualifications, such as gracious speech and taking care not to incite insurrection by what one says -- using speech to arouse violence or incite crimes.
By noting the original source of Paul's quote, and the parallels in its immediate context, we may conclude with confidence that the saints do have the right and duty to speak out against abuses in places of power, so long as they do so carefully and "seasoned with salt, so that they may know how to answer everyone."
Those ordained as ministers of the gospel have a special duty to resist wickedness, providing something of a system of checks and balances between church and state. But the relationship between these two specified in the Word is another post -- or series of them -- altogether.
Speaking violence against a ruler is simply not permitted. Even Paul reproved himself for ignorantly invoking such against one of the chiefest of judges among his people, even when that judge has plainly abused his power. I have no doubt, however, that Paul was right, since striking an apostle was likewise an extraordinary offense which the high priest committed without repentance (unlike Paul). This is not something you want on your resume.
"Had one of Jesus' -- the Judge of all men -- favorite people struck on the mouth"
This was an extremely bad idea, to put it mildly. Nevertheless, Paul conducted himself within the limits of his office to the best of his knowledge. And obeyed the law of Exodus in the New Testament period -- insert theonomy sermon here -- even when reproved by the wicked properly citing it against him. Paul was a humble man.
This was not one of the ten commandments, but a case law, or ordinance in Israel, whose authority continued into the Newer Testament simply because there was no retraction of it stated or implied in the Newer. Paul was clearly a Theonomist in modern terms. Apart from this hermenteutic - and Theonomy provides both a hermeneutic as well as an objective moral standard -- one cannot make sense of Paul's actions here. For when he spoke of food and dietary laws, he freely urged that one can eat what he likes, for his freedom in the Lord. Not so with Exodus 22:28 and many other laws which continue for the single reason that they were nowhere countermanded later.
For the Law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul. This does not mean, only a small part, but the whole, of the law of the Lord, since no qualification attends the affirmation. This is what the judges are to impose in pronouncing sentence. Any other standard would necessarily be unjust, since God has but one standard of justice.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Are Typhoons Really Random?
Yahoo! News has reported this tidbit regarding current events.
SHANGHAI, China - "A typhoon expected to be among the most powerful storms to hit China in years churned toward the densely populated coast on Tuesday with 165 mph wind gusts, and the government evacuated 1.8 million people."
In the Bible, God repeatedly takes responsibility for what most call "natural disasters" today, and what insurance companies call "acts of God." Chalk one up for the Insurance industries, who have not forgotten just Who is in charge.
God is sovereign, and he brings negative sanctions to bear upon nations who violate his covenantal mandates. These are neatly summarized in the 10 commandments. God does not celebrate "blessed diversity" in religious traditions like your local colleges and universities. He punishes them, as both a warning of the greater wrath to come (a true kindness), and as a way of pruning the earth from its more wicked elements, to prevent larger hindrances to the Gospel of Christ at a later time.
This teaching corporately one can find plainly spoken in the Proverbs of Kings in the Older Testament. God specifically uses the elements, especially wind, as a place identified with divine judgment -- recall that God spoke to Job "out of the whirlwind," at the books end, and that the Proverbs warn our calamity will overtake us like a whirlwind should we fail to heed his commandments after many rebukes.
After a careful reading of the Bible, the "news" isn't just news anymore. It contains reports of God' sovereign acts in history, which He has told us in plain Hebrew and Greek that we are to see as His action against wicked nations -- including our own -- when disaster of this kind strikes. This is a divine call to repentance, not a random occurence, or a merely "statistically probable" event.
The universe simply is not random. And the phrase, "God is watching you," is not a platitude one is to reserve for children to keep them in line. It is good advice that keeps people from dying if (and only if) they heed it. For all the ways of a man are in plain view of the Lord. If you wait until the whirlwind strikes, you have waited far too long. Real people die in these calamities, and they actually do go to hell, if they do not die in the Lord.
So today's lesson is the lesson of Shanghai. Repentance is better than monstrous whirlwinds that can tear whole cities into pieces in a matter of minutes. The gargantuan amount of energy expended by such disasters in relatively short time periods is mind-boggling. They come on like a bandit overtakes a man in the night, and plow with a divine hammer.
This is why the whirlwind is used as a synonym for God's judgement repeatedly in the word. The time to "evacuate" -- flee from sin to Christ -- is before the judgment strikes. This is the lesson of Shanghai, and it is the only good news you will find there today.
The rest is carnage and wreckage.
This is a forewarning, as much as the delicious fruit and vegetables at your local farmer's market, grocery store, or (even better) home-grown garden are a sign that God is good to all men, and his goodness, like his wrath, aims to lead men to repentance. We can see both in nature. God has revealed these clearly. And no one objects to the apple pie. Shall we accept only the good from God (with thanksgiving) and not the bad?
God is good. This means 1. He gives good gifts (see your garden for more on this) and 2. He sternly reproves evil (see Shanghai for more on this). Goodness and evil, you may have heard, do not, and cannot just "all get along." So we dare not mistake His patience for tolerance. God does not tolerate evil at all. For "the wicked detest the righteous, and the righteous the wicked" (Proverbs 30). God's Beneficience and mercy abound; so does his justice.
All you have to do is look. Or just watch the news. For the extended version, study history. For the clearest version, study your Bible. Be grateful, and be warned. That is our job. God is doing His just fine, so you don't have to worry about that. When in doubt, read the book of Job.
And if you live in notoriously windy places, you may want to pray a bit more often, and buy insurance. At least they will get it right in explaining what has happened. God acts in human history, and insurance companies, pre-eminently concerned with "the bottom line," ($) do not hesitate to note this.
SHANGHAI, China - "A typhoon expected to be among the most powerful storms to hit China in years churned toward the densely populated coast on Tuesday with 165 mph wind gusts, and the government evacuated 1.8 million people."
In the Bible, God repeatedly takes responsibility for what most call "natural disasters" today, and what insurance companies call "acts of God." Chalk one up for the Insurance industries, who have not forgotten just Who is in charge.
God is sovereign, and he brings negative sanctions to bear upon nations who violate his covenantal mandates. These are neatly summarized in the 10 commandments. God does not celebrate "blessed diversity" in religious traditions like your local colleges and universities. He punishes them, as both a warning of the greater wrath to come (a true kindness), and as a way of pruning the earth from its more wicked elements, to prevent larger hindrances to the Gospel of Christ at a later time.
This teaching corporately one can find plainly spoken in the Proverbs of Kings in the Older Testament. God specifically uses the elements, especially wind, as a place identified with divine judgment -- recall that God spoke to Job "out of the whirlwind," at the books end, and that the Proverbs warn our calamity will overtake us like a whirlwind should we fail to heed his commandments after many rebukes.
Here is a whirlwind which the Lord at one time sent. Exactly where transpired, I have no idea. What I do know is that the tree figured in front of it, is T-O-A-S-T:
http://www.fishindog.com/images/tornado.jpg
Here is another one:
http://www.fishindog.com/images/tornado.jpg
Curiously, God has limited his direct arsenal of elements (or weapons) He uses in the case of imposing negative sanctions against those who transgress his holy law. It does not include, for instance, earthquakes. These are simply a function of the fall more generally, and are not ascribed anywhere in the Word to God as a judgment, unless they attend a volcanic eruption -- the latter of which the Psalms clearly warn God does use from time to time to reprove the wayward among men.
Here is an erupting volcano:
http://www.ericandkeri.net/misc/mt_oyama_eruption.jpg
After a careful reading of the Bible, the "news" isn't just news anymore. It contains reports of God' sovereign acts in history, which He has told us in plain Hebrew and Greek that we are to see as His action against wicked nations -- including our own -- when disaster of this kind strikes. This is a divine call to repentance, not a random occurence, or a merely "statistically probable" event.
The universe simply is not random. And the phrase, "God is watching you," is not a platitude one is to reserve for children to keep them in line. It is good advice that keeps people from dying if (and only if) they heed it. For all the ways of a man are in plain view of the Lord. If you wait until the whirlwind strikes, you have waited far too long. Real people die in these calamities, and they actually do go to hell, if they do not die in the Lord.
Here is what a lava flow looks like (the lake of fire is a very large version of this, probably located in the future somewhere in the Pacific "Ring of Fire"):
https://www.terragalleria.com/parks/np-image.havo3710.html
Hell is not a cartoon schema to make the red-forked devil in red underwear amusing. It is a blast furnance in outer darkness that has no end or reprieve, day or night. This is not a popular message, and it never has been. Neither is the plain teaching of the Bible that God strikes wicked nations with a rod of iron. But it will do no one the least bit of good to pretend otherwise, since this happens to be true.So today's lesson is the lesson of Shanghai. Repentance is better than monstrous whirlwinds that can tear whole cities into pieces in a matter of minutes. The gargantuan amount of energy expended by such disasters in relatively short time periods is mind-boggling. They come on like a bandit overtakes a man in the night, and plow with a divine hammer.
This is why the whirlwind is used as a synonym for God's judgement repeatedly in the word. The time to "evacuate" -- flee from sin to Christ -- is before the judgment strikes. This is the lesson of Shanghai, and it is the only good news you will find there today.
The rest is carnage and wreckage.
This is a forewarning, as much as the delicious fruit and vegetables at your local farmer's market, grocery store, or (even better) home-grown garden are a sign that God is good to all men, and his goodness, like his wrath, aims to lead men to repentance. We can see both in nature. God has revealed these clearly. And no one objects to the apple pie. Shall we accept only the good from God (with thanksgiving) and not the bad?
God is good. This means 1. He gives good gifts (see your garden for more on this) and 2. He sternly reproves evil (see Shanghai for more on this). Goodness and evil, you may have heard, do not, and cannot just "all get along." So we dare not mistake His patience for tolerance. God does not tolerate evil at all. For "the wicked detest the righteous, and the righteous the wicked" (Proverbs 30). God's Beneficience and mercy abound; so does his justice.
All you have to do is look. Or just watch the news. For the extended version, study history. For the clearest version, study your Bible. Be grateful, and be warned. That is our job. God is doing His just fine, so you don't have to worry about that. When in doubt, read the book of Job.
And if you live in notoriously windy places, you may want to pray a bit more often, and buy insurance. At least they will get it right in explaining what has happened. God acts in human history, and insurance companies, pre-eminently concerned with "the bottom line," ($) do not hesitate to note this.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Hammurabi and His Ancient Babylonian Legal Code
Much is made in history texts of the ancient legal code ascribed to Hammurabi, the babylonian king. This is the law code associated with the most often popular God "Marduk," chief God (in most years of the Babylonian empire -- he was ousted briefly on at least one occasion). It contains a fair number of statutes [282] covering a respectably wide variety of situations one might encounter. But the public university praise for Marduk and the code of his servant, always goes too far, and leaves almost nothing to say of its clearly superior counterpart in ancient history, which is the law of the Lord. This is not to suggest that university professors have figured out that all legal codes are covenantal by nature, and thus have a god as their ultimate example and norm. Most are not nearly that self-conscious.
But some people are.
Here is one regulation from Hammurabi's code, which highlights its clearly inferior status when compared with the Word of God, showing its man-made and flawed character.
[25] reads: "If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye [looks] upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire."
The most basic principle of justice recognized in the ancient world, and it was generally recognized, was called (and still is thanks to the Romans) "Lex Talionis." This is the principle of reciprocal judgement, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life."
Now one can witness that HC #25 aims at this by refering to the "self-same fire." The idea intended is that if he has stolen from a man facing misfortune from a fire, who is his master, then he should receive punishment from the same fire which brought the misfortune he has tried unlawfully to exploit.
The simple problem with this prescription comes from the fact that the punishment does not fit the crime. In other words, the reciprocity (back and forth of mutual correspondence) cannot just come from any one part of the law, with any other part. This is a mismatch between several features of the crime in commision which must be studied separately to enjoin the proper response to this legal attempt as restitution.
First, this law involves an injustice in the form of a servant stealing from a master -- insubordination as well as theft.
These can and should be treated separately.
Second, There is the fact that this crime seeks to exploit one who has the right to trust his servant, who has secured his loyalty over the years. It involves a measure of the betrayal of trust.
Third, we have the simple fact of theft, without reference to the market value at all of what was in fact stolen. This is a crucial omission.
So here we can list then the four elements of the crime:
1. Exploiting a person at a disadvantage
2. The betrayal of trust (disloyalty)
3. Insubordination
4. The theft itself, meaning the unlawful taking of an item(s) of a certain market value
By ignoring the fourth, the law has implied that the first three elements require the death penalty regardless of the value of what is taken.
And finally, it seeks to make the method of execution (the judgment is death, its appointed means is fire) a reflection of element #1 ONLY, since the source of his disadvantage is in this case the fire. This could have required death by stoning instead, or by some other means. Fire is the method employed, and this can only be due to element #1 and the application of Lex Talionis to it exclusively.
Critical-Legal Analysis of this stricture:
1. It fails to take into account the very nature of the problem it seeks to address: the misfortune of the master on account of propery damage to his house and belongings therein.
For instance, in the ancient world of Hammurabi's time, a slave would cost about 15 pieces of silver. This was not cheap. To simply destroy the servant by fire would ONLY ADD to the master's property loss (slaves were reckoned as property then).
What good does it do, after losing your house to ruin what might be the one asset of real value you have left? Given their own assumptions, the Bablyonians ought never to have recommended this course of action, for it seeks to restore a loss by making it worse (why not shoot off your left foot while your at it?).
This shows that babylonian law was NOT restorative in character as is the Law of the Lord.
In contrast to this, the Bible would require two things for punishment and restoration. First, a certain number of stripes -- the sting of the whip on the back -- not facial beatings or some other cruel and unusual form of punishment. The maximum number allowed is forty, and the punishment in number would depend on circumstantial features like whether this was the first offense of theft by the servant, etc.
The second form of punishment would be restoration, whereas the first is both punitive and didactic. He is being taught not to steal again.
This means the servant would be put to work specifically earning wages double the amount of the value taken by what we call today "garnishing wages." The fact that in Babylonian society the man might have to do total slave work would remove this possibility. But in Hebrew society, slaves earned money for their masters AND themselves.
The slave's money was to be given him upon his release, with a liberal addition from a generous master. Slavery was not for life in biblical law either, as with other societies. The jubilee law guaranteed that most slaves would be freed in 7 years (slaves of war no more than 50, but often far less depending on when they became slaves relative to the next jubilee year) having learned a new marketable skill set from the master for whom he worked, and with sufficient money, some earned, some charitably given by the master.
If you were a slave, which society would you prefer? If you were the master, which legal code would you want -- the one that ruins your chance of recovery (along with your house), or the one that repays twice the value of the money stolen, and teaches the servant not to do it again?
The far better option -- the Law of the Lord -- aims at restoration as the primary object of its judgments in the case of non-capital crimes, and even then provides for the possibility of restoration in some cases. Not so with Babylonian law. Recall the biblical account of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego. If one failed to comply with Nebuchadnezzar's command to bow down to the idols he had created, he also would be thrown in the fire. Babylonians just had a thing for fire.
The Bible avoids this as a punishment except in very extreme cases (depending on one's interpretation, perhaps in all cases). The case of witch-burning seems clearly to be a command not to give a proper burial to the witch (after stoning), and then cremate the body instead. This was seen as an extreme denigration to the person so disposed of, as it symbolized hellfire in the afterworld. When even wicked king Saul's body was abused, some of the men of Israel valiantly recovered it so that it avoided leaving it to be eaten of animals in the open.
Burial after death stems from the Adamic curse, "from dust were you taken, and to dust shall you return." This implies that burial is an ordinary dignity to be afforded all men, so that we do not witness the unpleasantries above ground of what happens to our loved ones post-mortem. They are then hidden from sight so that the living, having grieved properly, can move on with their lives. Burning the most sinister aims to display damnation to come for the most hardened rebels against God, and for no others. These are highly exceptional.
Thus HC #25 fails to restore what injustice was perpetrated, and instead aggravates the condition of the impoverished man, and leaves no room for repentance of the man condemned to death in the most cruel and unusual fashion for a mere thief. It also allows for no mitigating circumstances, as with biblical law (which leaves the number of stripes up to the victim -- in this case, the master -- and the judges -- as the two parties shall agree.
Thus, for all the vainglorious praise the servant of Marduk receives from men for his unjust laws, the hamurrabic deficiencies show by way of contrast that much more is praise, glory and honor due the God of the Bible. For the law of the Lord is perfect, RESTORING the soul -- not tossing it in the flames for a potentially minor infraction -- and the judgements of the Lord are altogether righteous. They properly restore what is due the victim, promote the life and welfare (to whatever extent possible) even for the perpetrator, seeking his reformation and restitution, and they promote the greatest total productive and money value to the economy as a whole.
Every servant you kill is one laborer for a lifetime lost, who could have produced a large sum of economic value (shekels, minas, whatever) for both himself and others. Any king who deliberately decapitalizes his own economy tears his house down with his own hands. But the Lord is not like Hammurabi, nor any other king. Will not the judge of all the earth do what is right?
By way of sum then, the Bible handles the first three elements listed above as what one uses to calculate (with other features like repeated crimes or first time offenses) to figure the number of stripes to be administered to the man's back.
The fourth element is used to calculate the sum of twice the value of what was stolen, so that what the perpetrator intended to happen to the victim, first, does not happen to the victim (the money is restored to him) and then, second, what damage the perpetrator sought to inflict on the victim exactly comes upon the perpetrator instead. That is lex talionis in proper balance, only with respect to the market value of what was stolen, not the aggravating NON-economic factors and circumstances. That is called "justice."
It is victim oriented (seeks the good of the victim before that of the perp), and it is restorative in nature, not merely punitive without respect to the cost to everyone in society. The underlying principle then behind this is: you shall love your neighbor [just] AS yourself. For with the measure you use [against others] so will it be measured to you. The innocent must go free, and ONLY the guilty must pay. Society is not the perpetrator when a man steals. The man is.
Praise the Lord, for He is good -- even in justice and judgment -- for his mercy endures forever.
Marduk? Not so much. We can toss his images and legal code in the fire, and -- as demonstrated (granted, in brief only) society will be the better for it.
My utterly unscientific postscript.
Babylon is destroyed in fire, in the book of Revelation (see chapter 19). The probably reason for this is its UNJUST reliance on heavy-handed pseudo-justice for crimes better handled by far lesser punishments. Thus, in its overreliance on unjust methods, God chooses (again by Lex Talionis) to dissolve this false religion with its foolish legal principles in the fervent heat.
God is Just, and Wise beyond reckoning. You have His Word on it.
[But someone will say, of course He would. But the obvious answer is that since it is true, what else could He say since He cannot deny perfection? The final authority must testify of the final authority, else the testimony would be suspect and fallible].
But some people are.
Here is one regulation from Hammurabi's code, which highlights its clearly inferior status when compared with the Word of God, showing its man-made and flawed character.
[25] reads: "If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out cast his eye [looks] upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire."
The most basic principle of justice recognized in the ancient world, and it was generally recognized, was called (and still is thanks to the Romans) "Lex Talionis." This is the principle of reciprocal judgement, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life."
Now one can witness that HC #25 aims at this by refering to the "self-same fire." The idea intended is that if he has stolen from a man facing misfortune from a fire, who is his master, then he should receive punishment from the same fire which brought the misfortune he has tried unlawfully to exploit.
The simple problem with this prescription comes from the fact that the punishment does not fit the crime. In other words, the reciprocity (back and forth of mutual correspondence) cannot just come from any one part of the law, with any other part. This is a mismatch between several features of the crime in commision which must be studied separately to enjoin the proper response to this legal attempt as restitution.
First, this law involves an injustice in the form of a servant stealing from a master -- insubordination as well as theft.
These can and should be treated separately.
Second, There is the fact that this crime seeks to exploit one who has the right to trust his servant, who has secured his loyalty over the years. It involves a measure of the betrayal of trust.
Third, we have the simple fact of theft, without reference to the market value at all of what was in fact stolen. This is a crucial omission.
So here we can list then the four elements of the crime:
1. Exploiting a person at a disadvantage
2. The betrayal of trust (disloyalty)
3. Insubordination
4. The theft itself, meaning the unlawful taking of an item(s) of a certain market value
By ignoring the fourth, the law has implied that the first three elements require the death penalty regardless of the value of what is taken.
And finally, it seeks to make the method of execution (the judgment is death, its appointed means is fire) a reflection of element #1 ONLY, since the source of his disadvantage is in this case the fire. This could have required death by stoning instead, or by some other means. Fire is the method employed, and this can only be due to element #1 and the application of Lex Talionis to it exclusively.
Critical-Legal Analysis of this stricture:
1. It fails to take into account the very nature of the problem it seeks to address: the misfortune of the master on account of propery damage to his house and belongings therein.
For instance, in the ancient world of Hammurabi's time, a slave would cost about 15 pieces of silver. This was not cheap. To simply destroy the servant by fire would ONLY ADD to the master's property loss (slaves were reckoned as property then).
What good does it do, after losing your house to ruin what might be the one asset of real value you have left? Given their own assumptions, the Bablyonians ought never to have recommended this course of action, for it seeks to restore a loss by making it worse (why not shoot off your left foot while your at it?).
This shows that babylonian law was NOT restorative in character as is the Law of the Lord.
In contrast to this, the Bible would require two things for punishment and restoration. First, a certain number of stripes -- the sting of the whip on the back -- not facial beatings or some other cruel and unusual form of punishment. The maximum number allowed is forty, and the punishment in number would depend on circumstantial features like whether this was the first offense of theft by the servant, etc.
The second form of punishment would be restoration, whereas the first is both punitive and didactic. He is being taught not to steal again.
This means the servant would be put to work specifically earning wages double the amount of the value taken by what we call today "garnishing wages." The fact that in Babylonian society the man might have to do total slave work would remove this possibility. But in Hebrew society, slaves earned money for their masters AND themselves.
The slave's money was to be given him upon his release, with a liberal addition from a generous master. Slavery was not for life in biblical law either, as with other societies. The jubilee law guaranteed that most slaves would be freed in 7 years (slaves of war no more than 50, but often far less depending on when they became slaves relative to the next jubilee year) having learned a new marketable skill set from the master for whom he worked, and with sufficient money, some earned, some charitably given by the master.
If you were a slave, which society would you prefer? If you were the master, which legal code would you want -- the one that ruins your chance of recovery (along with your house), or the one that repays twice the value of the money stolen, and teaches the servant not to do it again?
The far better option -- the Law of the Lord -- aims at restoration as the primary object of its judgments in the case of non-capital crimes, and even then provides for the possibility of restoration in some cases. Not so with Babylonian law. Recall the biblical account of Shadrach, Meschach and Abednego. If one failed to comply with Nebuchadnezzar's command to bow down to the idols he had created, he also would be thrown in the fire. Babylonians just had a thing for fire.
The Bible avoids this as a punishment except in very extreme cases (depending on one's interpretation, perhaps in all cases). The case of witch-burning seems clearly to be a command not to give a proper burial to the witch (after stoning), and then cremate the body instead. This was seen as an extreme denigration to the person so disposed of, as it symbolized hellfire in the afterworld. When even wicked king Saul's body was abused, some of the men of Israel valiantly recovered it so that it avoided leaving it to be eaten of animals in the open.
Burial after death stems from the Adamic curse, "from dust were you taken, and to dust shall you return." This implies that burial is an ordinary dignity to be afforded all men, so that we do not witness the unpleasantries above ground of what happens to our loved ones post-mortem. They are then hidden from sight so that the living, having grieved properly, can move on with their lives. Burning the most sinister aims to display damnation to come for the most hardened rebels against God, and for no others. These are highly exceptional.
Thus HC #25 fails to restore what injustice was perpetrated, and instead aggravates the condition of the impoverished man, and leaves no room for repentance of the man condemned to death in the most cruel and unusual fashion for a mere thief. It also allows for no mitigating circumstances, as with biblical law (which leaves the number of stripes up to the victim -- in this case, the master -- and the judges -- as the two parties shall agree.
Thus, for all the vainglorious praise the servant of Marduk receives from men for his unjust laws, the hamurrabic deficiencies show by way of contrast that much more is praise, glory and honor due the God of the Bible. For the law of the Lord is perfect, RESTORING the soul -- not tossing it in the flames for a potentially minor infraction -- and the judgements of the Lord are altogether righteous. They properly restore what is due the victim, promote the life and welfare (to whatever extent possible) even for the perpetrator, seeking his reformation and restitution, and they promote the greatest total productive and money value to the economy as a whole.
Every servant you kill is one laborer for a lifetime lost, who could have produced a large sum of economic value (shekels, minas, whatever) for both himself and others. Any king who deliberately decapitalizes his own economy tears his house down with his own hands. But the Lord is not like Hammurabi, nor any other king. Will not the judge of all the earth do what is right?
By way of sum then, the Bible handles the first three elements listed above as what one uses to calculate (with other features like repeated crimes or first time offenses) to figure the number of stripes to be administered to the man's back.
The fourth element is used to calculate the sum of twice the value of what was stolen, so that what the perpetrator intended to happen to the victim, first, does not happen to the victim (the money is restored to him) and then, second, what damage the perpetrator sought to inflict on the victim exactly comes upon the perpetrator instead. That is lex talionis in proper balance, only with respect to the market value of what was stolen, not the aggravating NON-economic factors and circumstances. That is called "justice."
It is victim oriented (seeks the good of the victim before that of the perp), and it is restorative in nature, not merely punitive without respect to the cost to everyone in society. The underlying principle then behind this is: you shall love your neighbor [just] AS yourself. For with the measure you use [against others] so will it be measured to you. The innocent must go free, and ONLY the guilty must pay. Society is not the perpetrator when a man steals. The man is.
Praise the Lord, for He is good -- even in justice and judgment -- for his mercy endures forever.
Marduk? Not so much. We can toss his images and legal code in the fire, and -- as demonstrated (granted, in brief only) society will be the better for it.
My utterly unscientific postscript.
Babylon is destroyed in fire, in the book of Revelation (see chapter 19). The probably reason for this is its UNJUST reliance on heavy-handed pseudo-justice for crimes better handled by far lesser punishments. Thus, in its overreliance on unjust methods, God chooses (again by Lex Talionis) to dissolve this false religion with its foolish legal principles in the fervent heat.
God is Just, and Wise beyond reckoning. You have His Word on it.
[But someone will say, of course He would. But the obvious answer is that since it is true, what else could He say since He cannot deny perfection? The final authority must testify of the final authority, else the testimony would be suspect and fallible].
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Happy Birthday, Charissa. I Love You Sweetie.
Today is my daughter's birthday. And it only happens once a year. So a little flag-waving is the order of the day.
http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/holidays/birthday/birthday-cake2.png
http://www.webweaver.nu/clipart/img/holidays/birthday/birthday-cake2.png
O.J. Has Made The Headlines Again For Armed Robbery This Time
Who knew that a man both acquitted (of criminal charges regarding the murders of Nicole Simpson-Brown and Ron Goldman) and then convicted (of similar charges in civil court) would dare to engage in armed robbery.
The reading of this headline recalled the bad old days when Simpson drove down the Southern CA freeway with a gun he was pointing at himself, and a train of law enforcement officials followed shortly behind in a black and white caravan.
The rate of recidivism for violent felons is extremely high, though I do not at the moment have the exact figures in front of me. In many states, violent crime has taken a downturn recently and seems to have at least leveled off in others. O.J. appears to be bucking the trend.
Fox News has reported that "O.J. Simpson was arrested Sunday on charges related to the armed robbery of Simpson sports memorabilia from a Las Vegas hotel room, Las Vegas police said Sunday."
It would appear that O.J. believed he had a right to, or legal interest in, the sports memorabilia in question since it pertained to him. This is something of a stretch to put it mildly, but whatever the circumstances, the sports memorabilia collector whose stuff was targeted now wants the charges dropped against O.J. Perhaps he has been informed this would be the wisest course of action to safeguard his health.
Angering convicted killers most likely tends to shorten ones lifespan, and may be associated with unusual cases of blunt force trauma to the head. The man, Alfred Beardsley, originally told police he had seen O.J. and another man "[storm] a Las Vegas hotel room and [steal] memorabilia at gunpoint."
Now he doesn't want the hassle of traveling back and forth from his home to las Vegas to prosecute the case. The details of who said what and why are a bit murky, but chances are good if statistics are any guide, that we will be seeing O.J. in the headlines again sometime soon (or soon enough).
Personal comments: When the original O.J. trial debuted, famously attended by Johnny Cochran's "If the shoe does not fit, you must acquit," most people probably knew that O.J. was guilty as a sailor in a rum cellar. Few innocent people drive around in their vehicles with guns pointed at their own skulls if they have done nothing wrong.
This was the act of a man who knew he was guilty, and was taking desperate measures to find an oddball way of escaping the legal consequences of his murderous actions. I said as much on a blog I had back then (no longer in existence), and now I simply wish to add one comment.
"Told ya so."
The reading of this headline recalled the bad old days when Simpson drove down the Southern CA freeway with a gun he was pointing at himself, and a train of law enforcement officials followed shortly behind in a black and white caravan.
The rate of recidivism for violent felons is extremely high, though I do not at the moment have the exact figures in front of me. In many states, violent crime has taken a downturn recently and seems to have at least leveled off in others. O.J. appears to be bucking the trend.
Fox News has reported that "O.J. Simpson was arrested Sunday on charges related to the armed robbery of Simpson sports memorabilia from a Las Vegas hotel room, Las Vegas police said Sunday."
It would appear that O.J. believed he had a right to, or legal interest in, the sports memorabilia in question since it pertained to him. This is something of a stretch to put it mildly, but whatever the circumstances, the sports memorabilia collector whose stuff was targeted now wants the charges dropped against O.J. Perhaps he has been informed this would be the wisest course of action to safeguard his health.
Angering convicted killers most likely tends to shorten ones lifespan, and may be associated with unusual cases of blunt force trauma to the head. The man, Alfred Beardsley, originally told police he had seen O.J. and another man "[storm] a Las Vegas hotel room and [steal] memorabilia at gunpoint."
Now he doesn't want the hassle of traveling back and forth from his home to las Vegas to prosecute the case. The details of who said what and why are a bit murky, but chances are good if statistics are any guide, that we will be seeing O.J. in the headlines again sometime soon (or soon enough).
Personal comments: When the original O.J. trial debuted, famously attended by Johnny Cochran's "If the shoe does not fit, you must acquit," most people probably knew that O.J. was guilty as a sailor in a rum cellar. Few innocent people drive around in their vehicles with guns pointed at their own skulls if they have done nothing wrong.
This was the act of a man who knew he was guilty, and was taking desperate measures to find an oddball way of escaping the legal consequences of his murderous actions. I said as much on a blog I had back then (no longer in existence), and now I simply wish to add one comment.
"Told ya so."
Saturday, September 15, 2007
A Brief And Overdue Announcement
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thank you kindly for your attention. We, the information network for orthodox religion, find it necessary to inform you that we have just received an important newsflash from the research department. It would seem that Islam has, as of today, been canceled due to lack of interest by heaven. And Ramadan is right out. The five pillars just gave way, and will now be replaced by the 5 books of the Torah, as supplemented and explained by the other 61 canonical books of the Bible, and the worship practices commended therein.
Given the biblical teachings against false religion we have discovered in Colossians 2, and sundry other texts, condemning superstition, falsehood generally, blasphemy and idolatry, the Ramadan holiday has been postponed indefinitely, and the management requests you submit your copies of all Quranic and Hadithic teaching material for immediate mulching. You can shred them first if you like, but they must afterward still be mulched.
I repeat, Islam has been canceled and its doctrines are now plant-food. The annual Jihad has been re-scheduled never to be rescheduled, that off-white wardrobe is now obsolete (let us do be honest, it was rather gauche all along). And there is to be no more slapping, kicking, hitting or otherwise abusing of women in whatever manner you may have preferred, effectively immediately. Also, please turn in your RPG launchers, AK-47's and other automatic -- or else very long, curved and pointy -- weapons to the nearest civil authorities, since the Jihad is on hold til further notice. And scimatar-throwing has officially been omitted from the olympics. The good news is that you may exchange any weapon whose market value exceeds 50 dollars for a King James Bible, where the actual prophets speak -- clearly not obscurely -- without Suras.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, and the litigation department will be suing Satan and his malignants in a gargantuan class-action suit, who, having taught this stuff for 1,400 years now, decidedly owe humanity a hefty refund. We regret to inform you that we have been scammed, and apologize for not having clarified the confusion earlier, which may have misled several large people groups -- and many innocent camels -- for over a millenium.
We also have this helpful advice of like kind from the department designed to prevent future scams:
1. Never trust a man's religion who will not buy the beer
2. Do not EVER vote for Al Gore for any office whatsoever for which he may present himself a candidate
3. And do not relinquish your social security number to any used car salesman.
Sorry. sorry about that. SORRY. As you were. Carry on.
The INFOR management
Thank you kindly for your attention. We, the information network for orthodox religion, find it necessary to inform you that we have just received an important newsflash from the research department. It would seem that Islam has, as of today, been canceled due to lack of interest by heaven. And Ramadan is right out. The five pillars just gave way, and will now be replaced by the 5 books of the Torah, as supplemented and explained by the other 61 canonical books of the Bible, and the worship practices commended therein.
Given the biblical teachings against false religion we have discovered in Colossians 2, and sundry other texts, condemning superstition, falsehood generally, blasphemy and idolatry, the Ramadan holiday has been postponed indefinitely, and the management requests you submit your copies of all Quranic and Hadithic teaching material for immediate mulching. You can shred them first if you like, but they must afterward still be mulched.
I repeat, Islam has been canceled and its doctrines are now plant-food. The annual Jihad has been re-scheduled never to be rescheduled, that off-white wardrobe is now obsolete (let us do be honest, it was rather gauche all along). And there is to be no more slapping, kicking, hitting or otherwise abusing of women in whatever manner you may have preferred, effectively immediately. Also, please turn in your RPG launchers, AK-47's and other automatic -- or else very long, curved and pointy -- weapons to the nearest civil authorities, since the Jihad is on hold til further notice. And scimatar-throwing has officially been omitted from the olympics. The good news is that you may exchange any weapon whose market value exceeds 50 dollars for a King James Bible, where the actual prophets speak -- clearly not obscurely -- without Suras.
We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused, and the litigation department will be suing Satan and his malignants in a gargantuan class-action suit, who, having taught this stuff for 1,400 years now, decidedly owe humanity a hefty refund. We regret to inform you that we have been scammed, and apologize for not having clarified the confusion earlier, which may have misled several large people groups -- and many innocent camels -- for over a millenium.
We also have this helpful advice of like kind from the department designed to prevent future scams:
1. Never trust a man's religion who will not buy the beer
2. Do not EVER vote for Al Gore for any office whatsoever for which he may present himself a candidate
3. And do not relinquish your social security number to any used car salesman.
Sorry. sorry about that. SORRY. As you were. Carry on.
The INFOR management
Why Do People Hate to Hate?
Someone once told me, "Don't hate," when I aired one or more of my views, as I am wont to do on occasion. He did not seem to recognize the implied contradiction in his mandate.
Hate in the Bible is not only required, but the Bible has a very specific theology of it, just as it does of Love. King David contributed to the Psalter several of what are called "Imprecatory Psalms." These were given by God for the express purpose of cursing God's enemies in song. Psalm 109 forms the pre-eminent example of such a song. This was given by same Holy Spirit who inspired all the prophets who taught of love, of love for God and man.
The point here is that the Bible places qualifications on all its teachings, and thus to quote any one of its propositions in isolation from ALL the others forms an inherent exegetical fallacy (eisegesis by default). The Bible holds all of its individual propositions to be true ONLY in light of all the others. This is why Paul the apostle could command Christians to love one another deeply (from the heart) and also finish 1 Corinthians 16 with, "If any love not the Lord Jesus, let him be damned."
The idea of both love and hate in the Bible are to be understood covenantally, meaning in light of God's friends and enemies. The Proverbs (see 6:16-19) are plain enough that God HATES the wicked and abominable person, and decrees the death penalty in the Word of God for those who -- by their actions -- prove that the hate him. This includes about 30 different classes of people, including witches, murderers, and all sorts of biblically defined felons. Not all crimes in the Bible are capital offenses, and not all sins are even crimes. Some sins like coveting have no civil penalty attached to them at all, as God reserves the right to judge the heart on a Day he has appointed by the Man who he has ordained to that task, Jesus Christ the Lord.
So here are a few points one might wish to consider before he says to a Christian (most ignorantly) "Don't hate."
1. God commands the hatred of his most hardened enemies, and has imposed the death penalty to prove it. This was NOT a loving act, but a declaration of war on the gravest among the wicked.
2. God Himself hates, and he says so repeatedly in the Word of God -- ironically an act of grace to prevent us from becoming someone He wishes to put to death.
3. The primary defintion of hatred in the Bible -- which focues much more on the deeds associated with the emotion than the emotion itself - often simply means "to shun" or "to reject," as in "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated." This shows the acceptance and blessing bestowed upon the one, and the rejection and curse imposed upon the other.
4. No society tolerates, nor can it without destroying itself, ALL its members. The death penalty exists in almost every culture ever recorded, and civil punishments do exist in all of them. Thus, there is never a society where hate does not exist, and the person who refuses to hate the serial killer who brutally victimizes the most helpless is no better than the wicked he defends.
5. This shows that it is never a choice between hatred or no hatred, but only WHOM we must and will hate, and how we ought properly to express that hate, as God commands.
6. The one who rejects hatred (or feigns it rather) chooses to hate hatred. This is obviously self-contradictory and foolish. This demand, moreover is an implicit command to reject Christ and the Bible. Just say NO.
7. The command to love throughout the Bible implies the command to hate some. One cannot love both a man (victim), and the one who would put him to death at the same time. You must choose whom you are willing to shoot in some cases. And when you fire, there are times when you MUST shoot to kill. Ask any police officer or soldier who has seen real life combat with evil people.
8. Even the apostle Paul said [in front of a crowd accusing him of blasphemy falsely], "If I have done anything deserving of death, I do not protest my death..." He simply wanted a fair trial, but stood for the law, and was willing to, even if and when it accuses himself.
9. The Bible repeatedly refers to itself -- both in part -- this passage quoting that one -- or in whole -- where it discusses the "law of the Lord" -- a self-referential text. When it speaks of the penalties of the law in particular, it refers to them as the "judgments" of God. The Bible repeatedly praises and affirms the utter soundness and moral propriety of those features of His holy commandments. In the modern legal jargon, these are either "awards," (of both reward or relief) or else punitive measures including injunctions, fines, and degrees of negative sanctions (i.e. first or second degree murder) associated with the crimes and their several aggravations which might attend them. God does not have everyone whom He hates in the same degree, but judges them with the severity of which they judge Him and others. This principle of divine justice is called "Lex Talionis."
Therefore, God hates those who hate Him, and loves those who love him, just as the second commandment clearly specifies. God visits the evil of those who hate Him upon the wicked and their descendants to the third and fourth generations, but shows mercy to thousands of generations to those who love Him and keep his commandments. Both expressions of God's love and hatred he measures and carries out by the most meticulous adherence to the details of all His holy law. And he requires the civil authorities to do likewise.
This should suffice for now, though sound objections to this popular platitude could be mulitplied at length. So go ahead and hate, but do it properly. You must hate the right people, and do so according to your station and calling. The command to hate in the Bible never simply amounts to a command to do harm to anyone. This is the prerogative of those appointed to the task as civil authorities, and of God Himself when He so chooses to remove a man from the earth for the protection of His good name and, or His people.
This is why it says, "Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will call into JUDGMENT every deed, including every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil."
I strongly recommend that you take this passage to be the exact truth. For God will not deviate from His law in the least stroke of a pen, not a crossed T or dotted i. In Hebrew, this is the flourish of a horn. He will do all He has said and perform the thing that has come out of His mouth. For God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind when He has sworn an oath.
Thus it is written, "The Lord has sworn, AND WILL NOT change His mind ...." Thus, we must hate what God hates, in order to fear the Lord and shun evil. To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One [via His law] is true understanding."
Believe it and live, or pay the heaviest price, which you cannot yet fathom, though the Word of God tells of it in the plainest terms possible. God will not yield from His promises to bless the righteous and curse the wicked. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool of the first order.
And God has no love of folly, but of mercy, truth and humility. For that is what He is like. He is like -- exactly like -- Jesus Christ the Lord. For any more commentary on love and hate, I commit you to his excellent testimony in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
No one has said it better, neither has any ever spoken like this Man.
Hate in the Bible is not only required, but the Bible has a very specific theology of it, just as it does of Love. King David contributed to the Psalter several of what are called "Imprecatory Psalms." These were given by God for the express purpose of cursing God's enemies in song. Psalm 109 forms the pre-eminent example of such a song. This was given by same Holy Spirit who inspired all the prophets who taught of love, of love for God and man.
The point here is that the Bible places qualifications on all its teachings, and thus to quote any one of its propositions in isolation from ALL the others forms an inherent exegetical fallacy (eisegesis by default). The Bible holds all of its individual propositions to be true ONLY in light of all the others. This is why Paul the apostle could command Christians to love one another deeply (from the heart) and also finish 1 Corinthians 16 with, "If any love not the Lord Jesus, let him be damned."
The idea of both love and hate in the Bible are to be understood covenantally, meaning in light of God's friends and enemies. The Proverbs (see 6:16-19) are plain enough that God HATES the wicked and abominable person, and decrees the death penalty in the Word of God for those who -- by their actions -- prove that the hate him. This includes about 30 different classes of people, including witches, murderers, and all sorts of biblically defined felons. Not all crimes in the Bible are capital offenses, and not all sins are even crimes. Some sins like coveting have no civil penalty attached to them at all, as God reserves the right to judge the heart on a Day he has appointed by the Man who he has ordained to that task, Jesus Christ the Lord.
So here are a few points one might wish to consider before he says to a Christian (most ignorantly) "Don't hate."
1. God commands the hatred of his most hardened enemies, and has imposed the death penalty to prove it. This was NOT a loving act, but a declaration of war on the gravest among the wicked.
2. God Himself hates, and he says so repeatedly in the Word of God -- ironically an act of grace to prevent us from becoming someone He wishes to put to death.
3. The primary defintion of hatred in the Bible -- which focues much more on the deeds associated with the emotion than the emotion itself - often simply means "to shun" or "to reject," as in "Jacob have I loved, but Esau I hated." This shows the acceptance and blessing bestowed upon the one, and the rejection and curse imposed upon the other.
4. No society tolerates, nor can it without destroying itself, ALL its members. The death penalty exists in almost every culture ever recorded, and civil punishments do exist in all of them. Thus, there is never a society where hate does not exist, and the person who refuses to hate the serial killer who brutally victimizes the most helpless is no better than the wicked he defends.
5. This shows that it is never a choice between hatred or no hatred, but only WHOM we must and will hate, and how we ought properly to express that hate, as God commands.
6. The one who rejects hatred (or feigns it rather) chooses to hate hatred. This is obviously self-contradictory and foolish. This demand, moreover is an implicit command to reject Christ and the Bible. Just say NO.
7. The command to love throughout the Bible implies the command to hate some. One cannot love both a man (victim), and the one who would put him to death at the same time. You must choose whom you are willing to shoot in some cases. And when you fire, there are times when you MUST shoot to kill. Ask any police officer or soldier who has seen real life combat with evil people.
8. Even the apostle Paul said [in front of a crowd accusing him of blasphemy falsely], "If I have done anything deserving of death, I do not protest my death..." He simply wanted a fair trial, but stood for the law, and was willing to, even if and when it accuses himself.
9. The Bible repeatedly refers to itself -- both in part -- this passage quoting that one -- or in whole -- where it discusses the "law of the Lord" -- a self-referential text. When it speaks of the penalties of the law in particular, it refers to them as the "judgments" of God. The Bible repeatedly praises and affirms the utter soundness and moral propriety of those features of His holy commandments. In the modern legal jargon, these are either "awards," (of both reward or relief) or else punitive measures including injunctions, fines, and degrees of negative sanctions (i.e. first or second degree murder) associated with the crimes and their several aggravations which might attend them. God does not have everyone whom He hates in the same degree, but judges them with the severity of which they judge Him and others. This principle of divine justice is called "Lex Talionis."
Therefore, God hates those who hate Him, and loves those who love him, just as the second commandment clearly specifies. God visits the evil of those who hate Him upon the wicked and their descendants to the third and fourth generations, but shows mercy to thousands of generations to those who love Him and keep his commandments. Both expressions of God's love and hatred he measures and carries out by the most meticulous adherence to the details of all His holy law. And he requires the civil authorities to do likewise.
This should suffice for now, though sound objections to this popular platitude could be mulitplied at length. So go ahead and hate, but do it properly. You must hate the right people, and do so according to your station and calling. The command to hate in the Bible never simply amounts to a command to do harm to anyone. This is the prerogative of those appointed to the task as civil authorities, and of God Himself when He so chooses to remove a man from the earth for the protection of His good name and, or His people.
This is why it says, "Now all has been heard, here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will call into JUDGMENT every deed, including every hidden thing, whether it be good or evil."
I strongly recommend that you take this passage to be the exact truth. For God will not deviate from His law in the least stroke of a pen, not a crossed T or dotted i. In Hebrew, this is the flourish of a horn. He will do all He has said and perform the thing that has come out of His mouth. For God is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should change His mind when He has sworn an oath.
Thus it is written, "The Lord has sworn, AND WILL NOT change His mind ...." Thus, we must hate what God hates, in order to fear the Lord and shun evil. To fear the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One [via His law] is true understanding."
Believe it and live, or pay the heaviest price, which you cannot yet fathom, though the Word of God tells of it in the plainest terms possible. God will not yield from His promises to bless the righteous and curse the wicked. And anyone who says otherwise is a fool of the first order.
And God has no love of folly, but of mercy, truth and humility. For that is what He is like. He is like -- exactly like -- Jesus Christ the Lord. For any more commentary on love and hate, I commit you to his excellent testimony in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
No one has said it better, neither has any ever spoken like this Man.
The U.S. Ponders How To Invade Iran Properly
Chinaview has reported -- surprise (not) -- that... "Officials in Washington are developing potential scenarios for a military strike against Iran, local media reported Wednesday. The news comes after Germany announced last week that it no longer supports additional sanctions against Iran." The countless billions wasted in Iraq have made no impression on the Whitehouse. Neither have the thousands of U.S. soldiers lost to the conflict for no good reason. This is the greatest tragedy, lives thrown away with no just purpose. We never had then, and do not have now, any just cause for invading or (presently) being in Iraq. Saddam was a ruthless killer to be sure, but this list is extensive, and should the U.S. decide to abolish all such persons, we would simply victimize the entire U.S. populace to get it done. It simply is not our jurisdiction, unless and until such persons attack U.S. persons or property -- or present to its citizens a clear and present danger. You do not have to wait to fire at a man who is in the process of aiming his weapon at you. But you need EXTREMELY good evidence that such a danger ACTUALLY exists. The same rule applies to wars, and since the lives at risk occur there in much larger numbers -- not to mention whole economies and possibly the global economy -- the proof required is much the greater. Washington should be preparing an extended apology list, not a war-scenario options account against another wingnut dictator, who wants "Israel wiped off the map." Israel is quite capable. Let them try it if they have an appetite for suicide. If the U.S. decides to sell Israel whatever weapons the two wish to contract for, this is entirely lawful. The U.S. can even sell Israel shells with the name "Ahmedinajad" inscribed on the front if they wish. Or perhaps the would prefer "Happy Hannukah," depending on the manufacturer's sense of humor. But we are still not the world police. And pretending otherwise is much too expensive. U.S. citizens should be extremely concerned that the present administration remains wholly blind to this lesson recently history has so cleary taught us -- again. We need to recover and rewrite the classical "Monroe Doctrine," to specify -- in the U.S. Constitution -- exactly when, and under which conditions, the President may declare war, not simply that he has this power with the consent of Congress. The same goes for "police actions." The difficulty in this is two-fold. 1. We have already entangled ourselves so far in Iraq -- even to the point of nation-building as a programme, which is not, nor has it ever been, the job of the U.S. military. They are supposed to kill people and blow up stuff. 2. Iran has meddled almost as much as we have in Iraq's internal affairs, of which the U.S. has become part and parcel under less the ideal conditions. This means that the choice to attack Iran will greatly complicate the already unanswerable dilemmas raised there for the U.S., with other complications they do not now -- nor will until the problem is out of hand later -- understand. This happened in Iraq, and it will happen in Iran. This is partly because the U.S. -- even with fairly good intelligence -- simply does not grasp the mindset with which these people operate. This also has been demonstrated repeatedly in Iraq. Chances are good that if the U.S. chooses to invade Iran that a much larger wave of 'insurgents' than we can now imagine will join the side of Iran from multiple countries in the region embroiling us in an international fiasco of untold proportions with a price tag the size of New York state. The time is right to bow out gracefully -- as much as is possible -- apologize sincerely for our blunders, offer reparations to the Iraqi people, and LEARN the lesson we have not figured out since WW II, what historians generally (and accurately) regard as the last legitimate war fought by the United States in the past two centuries (this one being brand new). |
We have already lost far too many Americans and Iraqis to an unwarranted cause. If the Iraqis want to establish their own government, they have a much better start on it already than the U.S. did in its infancy, facing overwhelming odds in two wars (in 1776 and 1815) against the British. We can still pull out with some dignity on the international stage if we do it under no apparent compulsion from outside factors.
The recent cut in troops need to be expanded considerably into four or five large "waves," [divide and recall] of troops sent home until their entire number is recalled in proper order, after the mechanism for large scale redeployment is set in place.
The current trend is a good one. But we need to pick up the pace. Iran should simply be left to its own devices, and Israel to its own defense, and weapons purchases. How the U.S. can console the families of lost soldiers, I am at a complete loss. But restitution there is certainly in order as well. Sorry cannot ever be enough, but it must be said. And nothing says "I'm sorry" like a million dollars tax-free (unless it is paid in gold and silver). If we can afford billions for Iraq, we can afford this reparations suggestion.
Think on it.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
The Express Lane -- to Poor Grammar
You have seen the signs. They are supposed to read, "9 items or fewer," not "9 items or less." The term "less" compares two of the same substances in different quantities (as in "I have less sugar than you have"), and the term, "fewer" properly compares different quantities of various kinds of items, as in, "I have fewer camels than you do." Or else one might say, "I have fewer toys under the tree than you do."
The reason why people easily confuse these terms -- less and fewer -- is that both of them sit opposite the word "more" in different contexts. This might be similar to confusing the terms "heavy" and "dark." Fortunately, no one does this.
Now who wants the job of rewriting all those signs? Technically, the numeral "9" should be spelled out, but that is forgivable in McWorld. But "9 items or less" just reads awkwardly. Oh, I know this seems pedantic in a world where teens do not spray paint the buildings grammatically, and consumers just care how fast they get through the line. But English teachers, authors, editors, homeschoolers and publishers have to buy groceries too.
Is it really fair to torture ONLY the customers who actually understand a little about English grammar? We may soon be wearing T-shirts which read,
"9 items or less," "that is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
The reason why people easily confuse these terms -- less and fewer -- is that both of them sit opposite the word "more" in different contexts. This might be similar to confusing the terms "heavy" and "dark." Fortunately, no one does this.
Now who wants the job of rewriting all those signs? Technically, the numeral "9" should be spelled out, but that is forgivable in McWorld. But "9 items or less" just reads awkwardly. Oh, I know this seems pedantic in a world where teens do not spray paint the buildings grammatically, and consumers just care how fast they get through the line. But English teachers, authors, editors, homeschoolers and publishers have to buy groceries too.
Is it really fair to torture ONLY the customers who actually understand a little about English grammar? We may soon be wearing T-shirts which read,
"9 items or less," "that is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put."
Happy Rosh Hashana? I Don't Think So.
Today is the day that Jews of the more Orthodox stripe celebrate a Feast associated with the blowing of trumpets, or actually, its a curved -- quite twisty looking -- ram's horn. They call it a "shofar." They will celebrate it for 10 days, ending on Yom Kippur - the Day of Atonement, the highest of holy days on the Jewish calendar.
They believe that during this time, a time of repentance, God makes his final judgment regarding the person's deeds that year, for His well-being and prosperity in the coming New Year (They think of it like January 1 with the doctrines of divine providence and salvation -- or at least prosperity -- by works thrown in).
I know -- Providence forgive me -- I should not have done it, but I watched another episode (well, some of it) of the 700 Club today to see what they are up to these days. There I learned that many Jews are encouraging Christians to celebrate "The Blowing of the Shofar" with them. And the CBN report was favorable to the idea.
This is entirely backward. The entire Older Testament, of which Jesus said, "All the Law and the Prophets testify of Me," shows forth in pictorial form, in song, and in other manifold ways, that the Christ -- that would be the Lord Jesus -- must first suffer and then enter his glory. This happened, and was expounded upon at length downtown Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. If you would like to see the sermon snippets on this topic, read Acts 1-12.
Never have I seen so many "Christians," who have read so much of their Bibles and understood so little as these folks. The Christians -- in the case of Acts, the apostles, taught the Jewish people from the Older Testament, how it was that all the holidays (and all else) of the Word portrayed the incarnation, life, ministry, suffering and death, burial, resurrection, ascension and session of the Lord Jesus.
Now are Christians going to be taught of the Jews, who still have no idea of that which they read. But a veil is set over their hearts when the prophets are read, so that they cannot understand what they teach in their synagogues. And only in Christ is that veil removed.
Christians know that the holidays (Feasts), including Rosh Hashana, of the Older Testament all point to Christ, and that they as foreshadows of the good things to come have long passed away as binding ordinances for God's people as aspects of the ceremonial law.
To revert to their celebration is to pretend that the Messiah is yet to come, which implies that the Lord Jesus is not the Messiah -- precisely the position of the Jews inviting celebration of this holiday in common with them.
This is an extraordinary insult to the spirit of grace, and the glory of Christ. And it pretends as though the Newer Testament as an adequate explanation of the Older Testament (when studied alongside it) is either not yet written, or else is insufficient for the faith and life of the believer in Christ. Someone is not paying attention.
So whatever else this position (the advocacy of reverting to Judaic holidays) may be, it certainly is not Christian in any plain sense of the word. If the Jews are so anxious for conversions, then let them repent and believe the Gospel proclaimed at length to them for many centuries by the apostles of Christ and their disciples.
And for the record, I like the saxophone better than the trumpet anyway. Leviticus 23 on holidays (understood canonically) requires absolutely NOTHING of any person living today -- even of the Jew -- although I have nothing against a good bagel, and a decent cup of coffee on any day of the year.
I am therefore voting that CBN change their name to the Jewish Broadcasting Network, or else quit that nonsense, and get back to (at the very least) the basic doctrines of the Bible they should have known long ago. The only problem here is that the "Tulip Broadcasting Network" abbreviates as TBN. And the good name of this logo has already been destroyed by another popular (moderately) Christianized set of programs, where people hurl chairs and crutches to prove they have been HEEEEEEE aled -- yay-eh! Ahem. Not buying the showmanship.
A good surgeon could probably fix most of their injuries. Obtaining medical insurance that will cover this at a reasonable price, now THAT would take a miracle. Their theology, however, needs total reconstruction. But that is another post.
These ministries have so much money that they could easily purchase a bulk insurance plan and cover almost anyone who ever came to them for real help. Nuff said on this.
Happy Thursday.
They believe that during this time, a time of repentance, God makes his final judgment regarding the person's deeds that year, for His well-being and prosperity in the coming New Year (They think of it like January 1 with the doctrines of divine providence and salvation -- or at least prosperity -- by works thrown in).
I know -- Providence forgive me -- I should not have done it, but I watched another episode (well, some of it) of the 700 Club today to see what they are up to these days. There I learned that many Jews are encouraging Christians to celebrate "The Blowing of the Shofar" with them. And the CBN report was favorable to the idea.
This is entirely backward. The entire Older Testament, of which Jesus said, "All the Law and the Prophets testify of Me," shows forth in pictorial form, in song, and in other manifold ways, that the Christ -- that would be the Lord Jesus -- must first suffer and then enter his glory. This happened, and was expounded upon at length downtown Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago. If you would like to see the sermon snippets on this topic, read Acts 1-12.
Never have I seen so many "Christians," who have read so much of their Bibles and understood so little as these folks. The Christians -- in the case of Acts, the apostles, taught the Jewish people from the Older Testament, how it was that all the holidays (and all else) of the Word portrayed the incarnation, life, ministry, suffering and death, burial, resurrection, ascension and session of the Lord Jesus.
Now are Christians going to be taught of the Jews, who still have no idea of that which they read. But a veil is set over their hearts when the prophets are read, so that they cannot understand what they teach in their synagogues. And only in Christ is that veil removed.
Christians know that the holidays (Feasts), including Rosh Hashana, of the Older Testament all point to Christ, and that they as foreshadows of the good things to come have long passed away as binding ordinances for God's people as aspects of the ceremonial law.
To revert to their celebration is to pretend that the Messiah is yet to come, which implies that the Lord Jesus is not the Messiah -- precisely the position of the Jews inviting celebration of this holiday in common with them.
This is an extraordinary insult to the spirit of grace, and the glory of Christ. And it pretends as though the Newer Testament as an adequate explanation of the Older Testament (when studied alongside it) is either not yet written, or else is insufficient for the faith and life of the believer in Christ. Someone is not paying attention.
So whatever else this position (the advocacy of reverting to Judaic holidays) may be, it certainly is not Christian in any plain sense of the word. If the Jews are so anxious for conversions, then let them repent and believe the Gospel proclaimed at length to them for many centuries by the apostles of Christ and their disciples.
And for the record, I like the saxophone better than the trumpet anyway. Leviticus 23 on holidays (understood canonically) requires absolutely NOTHING of any person living today -- even of the Jew -- although I have nothing against a good bagel, and a decent cup of coffee on any day of the year.
I am therefore voting that CBN change their name to the Jewish Broadcasting Network, or else quit that nonsense, and get back to (at the very least) the basic doctrines of the Bible they should have known long ago. The only problem here is that the "Tulip Broadcasting Network" abbreviates as TBN. And the good name of this logo has already been destroyed by another popular (moderately) Christianized set of programs, where people hurl chairs and crutches to prove they have been HEEEEEEE aled -- yay-eh! Ahem. Not buying the showmanship.
A good surgeon could probably fix most of their injuries. Obtaining medical insurance that will cover this at a reasonable price, now THAT would take a miracle. Their theology, however, needs total reconstruction. But that is another post.
These ministries have so much money that they could easily purchase a bulk insurance plan and cover almost anyone who ever came to them for real help. Nuff said on this.
Happy Thursday.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Our Fumbling Legal Code: Is Football a "Sport"?
Somebody has dropped the ball.
What's wrong with this quote, "Here, you had better put these pads on because I -- and my very big friends --are about to beat the stuffing out of you, and dive on you, for money."? Is this -- if carried out -- criminal behavior?
The answer to the question above, of course, will depend on the legal code one uses to define "crime." The law of the Lord would surely forbid it. Ordinarily, actions taken on the part of one person which deliberately put another person in harm's way will be construed as at the least an act of "reckless endangerment," if not "assault with intent to do bodily harm."
The definition for "reckless endangerment" offered at lawyers.com reads this way:
"the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. Reckless endangerment is a misdemeanor but sometimes rises to a felony, as when a deadly weapon is involved."
I can hear the consenting adults argument coming a mile away, or in legal terms, a "civil [i.e. tort] assault" (Pardon me, while I pound on this fellow). This will do no good, since the U.S. outlaws all kinds of actions between consenting adults, including insurance fraud (I take out a sizeable policy from you, and I burn down my house, and we split the insurance money), dueling with pistols at dawn (this was considered socially acceptable in the early 1800's so long as both parties agreed), polygamy, and a host of other assorted mutually-contracted crimes.
The fact that our society cherry-picks some kinds of assault with intent to do bodily harm as "okay" (so long as you do it wearing the right jersey), and not others merely highlights the self-contradictory (hypocritical) nature of the legal code at present.
But do the actions of football players create a substantial risk to other plays in the playing of the game? In professional football athletes are paid to "do whatever it takes" to stop a man from advancing the football, sometimes even violating the rules of the game in order to prevent a loss. So not only is the game violent in the nature of the case, but it rewards, even requires and encourages, violence likely to injure another party. This happens all the time.
Knee injuries are extremely common, as are back and neck injuries, the latter of which has killed several players on the field over the years. This is a deadly sport because it is a professional sport. The money paid to athletes to "stop that man" increases the likelihood of severe injuries exponentially. Those who recall Jack Tatum's paralyzing of Darryl Stingley (who never recovered and never walked again) may also recall that not only was Tatum not charged with any crime for this incredibly vicious assault, but the referee didn't even call a foul on the play. Tatum walked. Stingley didn't.
Only a kind of blind socialization could possibly prevent our noticing that this is not a sport, but a crime in progress called a sport. The Bible says "It is a sport to fools to do mischief." Accidental injuries happen in any sport, but there is an important difference here.
**Professional** football players are encouraged to "hit 'em as hard as you can." College players face the same pressure to perform. High school football is not much different. What makes this doubly wicked is this: The pros celebrate this violence on the Lord's Day -- Sunday, where sins carry a double aggravation, because God has set this day apart from the others as holy, to celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
It goes without saying that boxing remains of like manner for its deliberate (paid) violence inflicted on others for personal profit. This is no different than the Roman gladiator games, except that the damage is usually -- though not always -- less severe. Death is not intended as a consequence of the game, but it does happen from time to time as a direct result of the injuries inflicted.
Countless others have been paralyzed, killed or severely injured playing a sport. Chris Canales' example is instructive, which mentions 12 high school football players paralyzed since 2003.
See short article http://www.cbc.ca/cp/football/070911/f091116A.html
The following list offers a shorter version of those killed in the NFL (and other football leagues) as a result of injuries due directly or indirectly to playing the "sport." In a recent interview I heard, John Madden refered to it (American football) as "a very violent sport." Statistics confirm Madden's warning.
Here are a few of the fatalaties who died for "entertainment."
- Howard Glenn, New York Titans, offensive tackle, neck injury
- Stone Johnson, NFL football, fractured vertebra in his neck
- Chucky Mullins, University of Mississippi, complications from a spinal cord injury suffered in an on-field collision
- Curtis Williams, University of Washington, complications from a spinal cord injury suffered in an on-field collision
Recently, a 25 year-old tight end for the Buffalo Bills, Kevin Everett, "sustained a 'catastrophic' and life-threatening spinal-cord injury and his chances of regaining a full range of body motion are very small, an orthopedic surgeon said Monday."
See the Everett account? http://www.realgmfootball.com/src_wiretap_archives/5728/20070910/paralysis_likely_for_everett/
The Bible would (more consistently) simply outlaw any actions taken to deliberately put others at risk, or which one could have taken precautions to help prevent (i.e. you must fence off swimming pools where infants live nearby, etc).
Isaiah 58:3-5 has God calling violence on the Lord's Day (the Christian Sabbath) "wickedness" -
Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high. Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
On no day should Christians (or anyone else) find violence-for-hire entertaining. And those who with wicked fists, or shoulders, or what have you, deliberately inflict injury should have to repay "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life," or else as the victim (or victim's next of kin) shall accept a payment in lieu thereof -- as the victim and judge determine. The Word of God accepts pecuniary commutation (a ransom paid to the victim instead of retaliatory injury of like kind inflicted on the perpetrator) of sentence in the case of noncapital offenses.
The fact rebuts the jab that "if everyone took eye for eye the whole world would go blind." in other words, "eye-for-eye" can also take the form of "$50,000 for eye," unless the victim declines the offer. And, for the record, the whole world is blind. Or they would not call football or boxing "a sport." And by way of counter-jab at the violence of pagan "sports," we can note the tongue in cheek report,
"Last week I went to a boxing match, and it got so bad a hockey game broke out." For those unfamiliar with hockey, this is basically football on the ice, only the frozen "football" moves really fast, and can do twice the damage (since not only body checks, but the puck itself can bring calamity -- and has on numerous occasions).
Many states in the U.S. have outlawed the death penalty, either in principle or simply by default (they no longer or rarely impose it) for its alleged "barbaric" character. But these same people will pay to go watch (subsidize) people beat the crud out of each other and hope no one dies in the course of it. Sometimes they do, and usually they just break an ankle or crush a knee. But man the pile drives, "helicopters," left hooks and body checks are spectacular. Go team. I mean the medical team.
Look on bright side -- sports medicine and therapy is booming. Scottish adults consenting to a good old-fashioned brawl at the local pub will, of course, continue to do time for their classless tackles, and ill-timed swings. These guys aren't pros, so off to jail they go. The charge? Assault with intent to play football badly, and battery without a helmet.
But if people simply did what the Bible says and dropped the violence altogether, calling it what it really is, then what would we do to fill up all that empty time slots on Sundays?
Now THAT is a puzzler.
What's wrong with this quote, "Here, you had better put these pads on because I -- and my very big friends --are about to beat the stuffing out of you, and dive on you, for money."? Is this -- if carried out -- criminal behavior?
The answer to the question above, of course, will depend on the legal code one uses to define "crime." The law of the Lord would surely forbid it. Ordinarily, actions taken on the part of one person which deliberately put another person in harm's way will be construed as at the least an act of "reckless endangerment," if not "assault with intent to do bodily harm."
The definition for "reckless endangerment" offered at lawyers.com reads this way:
"the offense of recklessly engaging in conduct that creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury or death to another person. Reckless endangerment is a misdemeanor but sometimes rises to a felony, as when a deadly weapon is involved."
I can hear the consenting adults argument coming a mile away, or in legal terms, a "civil [i.e. tort] assault" (Pardon me, while I pound on this fellow). This will do no good, since the U.S. outlaws all kinds of actions between consenting adults, including insurance fraud (I take out a sizeable policy from you, and I burn down my house, and we split the insurance money), dueling with pistols at dawn (this was considered socially acceptable in the early 1800's so long as both parties agreed), polygamy, and a host of other assorted mutually-contracted crimes.
The fact that our society cherry-picks some kinds of assault with intent to do bodily harm as "okay" (so long as you do it wearing the right jersey), and not others merely highlights the self-contradictory (hypocritical) nature of the legal code at present.
But do the actions of football players create a substantial risk to other plays in the playing of the game? In professional football athletes are paid to "do whatever it takes" to stop a man from advancing the football, sometimes even violating the rules of the game in order to prevent a loss. So not only is the game violent in the nature of the case, but it rewards, even requires and encourages, violence likely to injure another party. This happens all the time.
Knee injuries are extremely common, as are back and neck injuries, the latter of which has killed several players on the field over the years. This is a deadly sport because it is a professional sport. The money paid to athletes to "stop that man" increases the likelihood of severe injuries exponentially. Those who recall Jack Tatum's paralyzing of Darryl Stingley (who never recovered and never walked again) may also recall that not only was Tatum not charged with any crime for this incredibly vicious assault, but the referee didn't even call a foul on the play. Tatum walked. Stingley didn't.
Only a kind of blind socialization could possibly prevent our noticing that this is not a sport, but a crime in progress called a sport. The Bible says "It is a sport to fools to do mischief." Accidental injuries happen in any sport, but there is an important difference here.
**Professional** football players are encouraged to "hit 'em as hard as you can." College players face the same pressure to perform. High school football is not much different. What makes this doubly wicked is this: The pros celebrate this violence on the Lord's Day -- Sunday, where sins carry a double aggravation, because God has set this day apart from the others as holy, to celebrate the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus.
It goes without saying that boxing remains of like manner for its deliberate (paid) violence inflicted on others for personal profit. This is no different than the Roman gladiator games, except that the damage is usually -- though not always -- less severe. Death is not intended as a consequence of the game, but it does happen from time to time as a direct result of the injuries inflicted.
Countless others have been paralyzed, killed or severely injured playing a sport. Chris Canales' example is instructive, which mentions 12 high school football players paralyzed since 2003.
See short article http://www.cbc.ca/cp/football/070911/f091116A.html
The following list offers a shorter version of those killed in the NFL (and other football leagues) as a result of injuries due directly or indirectly to playing the "sport." In a recent interview I heard, John Madden refered to it (American football) as "a very violent sport." Statistics confirm Madden's warning.
Here are a few of the fatalaties who died for "entertainment."
- Howard Glenn, New York Titans, offensive tackle, neck injury
- Stone Johnson, NFL football, fractured vertebra in his neck
- Chucky Mullins, University of Mississippi, complications from a spinal cord injury suffered in an on-field collision
- Curtis Williams, University of Washington, complications from a spinal cord injury suffered in an on-field collision
Recently, a 25 year-old tight end for the Buffalo Bills, Kevin Everett, "sustained a 'catastrophic' and life-threatening spinal-cord injury and his chances of regaining a full range of body motion are very small, an orthopedic surgeon said Monday."
See the Everett account? http://www.realgmfootball.com/src_wiretap_archives/5728/20070910/paralysis_likely_for_everett/
The Bible would (more consistently) simply outlaw any actions taken to deliberately put others at risk, or which one could have taken precautions to help prevent (i.e. you must fence off swimming pools where infants live nearby, etc).
Isaiah 58:3-5 has God calling violence on the Lord's Day (the Christian Sabbath) "wickedness" -
Wherefore have we fasted, say they, and thou seest not? wherefore have we afflicted our soul, and thou takest no knowledge? Behold, in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labours. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high. Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD?
On no day should Christians (or anyone else) find violence-for-hire entertaining. And those who with wicked fists, or shoulders, or what have you, deliberately inflict injury should have to repay "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life for life," or else as the victim (or victim's next of kin) shall accept a payment in lieu thereof -- as the victim and judge determine. The Word of God accepts pecuniary commutation (a ransom paid to the victim instead of retaliatory injury of like kind inflicted on the perpetrator) of sentence in the case of noncapital offenses.
The fact rebuts the jab that "if everyone took eye for eye the whole world would go blind." in other words, "eye-for-eye" can also take the form of "$50,000 for eye," unless the victim declines the offer. And, for the record, the whole world is blind. Or they would not call football or boxing "a sport." And by way of counter-jab at the violence of pagan "sports," we can note the tongue in cheek report,
"Last week I went to a boxing match, and it got so bad a hockey game broke out." For those unfamiliar with hockey, this is basically football on the ice, only the frozen "football" moves really fast, and can do twice the damage (since not only body checks, but the puck itself can bring calamity -- and has on numerous occasions).
Many states in the U.S. have outlawed the death penalty, either in principle or simply by default (they no longer or rarely impose it) for its alleged "barbaric" character. But these same people will pay to go watch (subsidize) people beat the crud out of each other and hope no one dies in the course of it. Sometimes they do, and usually they just break an ankle or crush a knee. But man the pile drives, "helicopters," left hooks and body checks are spectacular. Go team. I mean the medical team.
Look on bright side -- sports medicine and therapy is booming. Scottish adults consenting to a good old-fashioned brawl at the local pub will, of course, continue to do time for their classless tackles, and ill-timed swings. These guys aren't pros, so off to jail they go. The charge? Assault with intent to play football badly, and battery without a helmet.
But if people simply did what the Bible says and dropped the violence altogether, calling it what it really is, then what would we do to fill up all that empty time slots on Sundays?
Now THAT is a puzzler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)