Covering All The Bases

Geez, did I say bases? I'm sorry, I meant crosses! Yes, we must cover all the crosses, what will people think?

I mentioned that I was going to go searching in the Mojave Desert to find a small cross that I’d read about that had been ordered removed by a federal judge after the ACLU sued. Jay mentioned that he’d like to see a picture of it, so here it is.

We build monuments to 9/11 in the shape of a sickle and we cover up crosses with plywood so as not to offend. How special is that?

Comments

[micah]

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THESE PEOPLE?!
If they don't like Christianity - then get ready for a fight! They misunderstand us for wimps because we don't riot in the streets and kill innocent people! Well, we'll fight this legally, fair and square, AND WE WILL WIN!!!!!

[longtom]

Merry Christmas to the ACLU. These folks would really like to do away with Christmas as a national holiday, but they just don't have the guts right now, but they are working on it. I look upon the Cross as a symbol of Christmas, the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. Merry Christmas ACLU, Merry Christmas ACLU, the Anti Christ Lawyers Union.

[jaime]

American Christian persecution is a myth. It is a lie told by the insecure and fearful. There is a church on every other block in this country. And Christianity pervades every corner of American life. To believe Christmas or Christianity is under attack is false victimhood. Jesus was persecuted. Early Christians were persecuted. Christians in the Middle East, Asia, and Africa are persecuted. "Christians" (Not all Christians, just the ones bitching) in America are fat, lazy, irresponsible with power, and paranoid.

[jaime]

And the 9/11 monument in Shanksville was in the shape of a crescent because it accentuated THE PHYSICAL LANDSCAPE OF THE AREA, you delusional retard.

[red]

And the 9/11 monument in Shanksville was in the shape of a crescent because

.. of the glorious martyrs to Allah that were bringing destruction to the capital of the Great Satan...

Allauhu Akbar you delusional infidel

[Seekeronos]

Obviously Jaime (and his alter ego of Red the Mullah) is either an atheist, or is simply ignorant about Christianity. Or perhaps you are just a heathen with an axe to grind.

It seems that Jaime doesn't know the first thing about *true* Christianity in this country.

*True* Christianity...? There are plenty of people who *say* that they are Christian, but thier faith, and the actions they do based upon their supposed faith, is really only skin deep. Let us call it... for lack of a better term... "Hollywood" Christianity. Or "Xtianity", since it replaces Christ with some other thing.

Having traveled widely and lived in diverse places in this nation, I see that most of those churches on every street corner do not preach the gospel of salvation, nor do they focus on winning souls for Christ, much less obey Christ's commandements to love one another as He has loved us.

I'd hardly touch on the numerous violations of Pauline doctrine (female priestesses, ministers and bishopesses, open homosexuality in both clergy and laity).

And before you raise the expected stink about "excluding the LGBTs" - note that I am not saying "Let's chase them out of our churches..." True Christianity is not Fred Phelps any more than it is that female presiding bishop of the US Episcopal Church.

It is about Christ, and the Word of God.

I have no problem with any sinners being in church... the Lord knows that if being a Christian meant being inherently and originally sin-free, nobody would get in the door. Which was the whole point of dying on the cross - that symbol of unwavering and unconditional LOVE that Jaime hates so much.

We are all sinners before God (Romans 3:23) but if you profess to be a saved Christian, and you are chasing after strange flesh... well, you've got a problem to sort out with God. Furthermore, that Christian church is by no means obligated to coddle sin and say that it is alright. Point out the sin, and prayerfully lead the sinners to repentance.

Now as for the covering up of crosses... it is "just a symbol", as others have observed. There is nothing particularly "mystical" about two planks of wood affixed to each other at right angles.

However, the assault on the symbol is tantamount to an assault on the faith which it represents... and since at least early 1960s, if not earlier, *true* Bible-believing, fundamental Christianity has been under attack by secular humanists, atheists, pagans, heathens, the MSM, and more recently, an renewed attack by that ancient satanic foe of Islam.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. " Psalm 14:1-2

You tell me, Jaime... are you a fool? Because if you so vehemently reject God as is indicated by the tone of your posts here... then by God's word... "thou fool!"

Do you doubt it? Don't take my word for it. Know for certain that it is God who will have the last laugh.

Read Psalm 2 sometime.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=23&chapter=2&version=9

[ZZMike]

If anyone thinks that America isn't/wasn't a Christian country, they're just dead wrong. We are - and have been - a nations of Christians with a secular government.

Anyone who doesn't believe that only has to look at the Founding Fathers documents. Start with George Washington's Thanksgiving declaration.

Not only that, but read the inaugural addresses of the Presidents from Washington on; the inaugural and farewell addresses - like Washington's.

The term "separation of church and state" occurrs only once in all the Founding Fathers' writings. And that once isn't the Constitution.

De Tocqueville, writing about America as an outsider, in 1835, said

"On my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country."

Ignorance of history is no excuse for boorish behavior.

Seekeronos: "I'd hardly touch on the numerous violations of Pauline doctrine (female priestesses, ministers and bishopesses...."

That's wrong. In the early church, there were female deacons. Lydia, Chloe, Prisca, Phoebe, Martha, Mary Magdalene - all get prominent mention. Even Paul, in 1 Corinthinans, says it's OK for women to preach and prophesy in church - just so long as they have their head covered.

The only place (that I know of) is the infamous 1 Timothy 2:12 - and many agree the 1 Timothy is not really by Paul.

The whole question of women in the hierarchy is competently covered by Kenneth E. Bailey:

http://www.theologymatters.com/TMIssues/JanFeb00.pdf

He renders that verse as

"I permit none of these theologically ignorant women (in Ephesus) to teach, because they have brough their syncretistic religious beliefs with them into the church." [p.8]

Jesus had nothing against women. The longest recorded conversation in the Bible between Jesus and another person is the one with the woman at the well.

Bailey cites Luke 8:1-3:

1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with him, 2 And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils, 3 And Joanna the wife of Chuza Herod's steward, and Susanna, and many others, which ministered unto him of their substance.

Bailey says that for women to travel with men not of their family was unheard of. Also, those women were paying their way - and "ministering to them" - out of their own pocketbooks.

One of the clinchers is Romans 16:1-2:

Rom 16:1 I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: That ye receive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you: for she hath been a succourer of many, and of myself also.

The Greek word for "servant" in Paul's letter is "diakonos". The Greek word for "succorer" is "prostatis", which means

"1) a woman set over others

2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources"

In short, there are hundreds of verses that accept women as equals in the church, and only the one in 1 Timothy, which we now understand as not an exception at all.

[jaime]

What my religious beliefs are are none of your damn business. I'm secure enough in my beliefs that I don't feel the need to engage in a deity cock off.

Jesus loves you more. Bully for you. You get the gold Jesus star. Now you get the right to sneer at all the heathens because when He assumes you bodily into heaven next week, you'll be greeted with Brandy and a cigar while the Jews, Mormons, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus, convert or burn in hell.

[Seekeronos]

Jaime, it really does not rub me one way or another what your beliefs are. But if you come into a discussion bashing something and presenting yourself in a manner less than knowledgeably about a matter in a reasonably public forum such as this, you should expect to have your toes thoroughly stepped on.

Not to mention that your snarkiness "Gold Jesus star" and etc. along with your blind assumptions that I sneer at the unbelief and disobedience of others are exactly that: assumptions. And you probably know well the old adage about what happens when you assume.

If anything, sneering at the lost souls of men (and women) is not a Christian attitude as you seem to think it is. Preaching the gospel and reaching them in Christ is.

@ ZZMike:

Far be it for me to dispute that female disciples had an important place in Jesus' ministry, as well as importance places in the early churches. My conviction on the matter though, is founded upon the general model of the local church being lead by a mature, married Christian per the example of Christ, who is the head and Bridegroom of the Church (the greater community of the redeemed).

1 Tim. 2:12 may well have applied to these women, who may have been spreading strange doctrines brough in from thier previous pagan experience, but it also applies well today. Not to disparage the God-given intelligence of women, but God in his wisdom has provided that man be the head of woman in this fallen age. She is given unto man as a helpmeet. Fully complementary to a man, especially in the service of the Lord.

Please tell me that what the Most Rev. Dr. Katharine Jefferts Schori (current head bishopess of the Episcopal Church, USA) stands for (gay clergy, open endorsement and validation of homesexuality in the church, gay marriage to name a few) is of sound doctrine based upon the Holy Writ...?

May God forbid! The Holy Spirit itself aggrees with my soul that three is something amiss with that particular arrangement, and the Word of God is clear on it.

Don't get me wrong: a mature Christian woman would be certainly expected to be more knowledgeable on the things of the Lord than a new male convert; in such a way, she is an elder sister in the Lord. For example, my pastor's wife. She could well be serving in the capacity of "prostatis", especially with the women's ministry in our church, giving much of her time and resource to the households of the saints...

I would give thought to something wisely spoken by my pastor's wife over a much younger sister in the Lord, but at the same time, I do not go to her for counsel when the pastor himself, or even one of the deacons (who are male only) - they much more qualified in the Lord to give counsel in matters regarding my walk with Christ, discipleship, or bringing up my family in the admonition of the Lord.

But to place her at the head of a church of mature Christian men with families who might otherwise be qualified to serve as deacons and pastors (much less bishops) seems to be slighting God's word.

As luck would have it, I have to hustle out the office now... so if you wish, we could pick this up in the future. :)

[larry]

atheists - and retarded nitwits like jamey - try & make the argument that their opposition to public crosses, nativity scenes, and the like is entirely motivated by a sense of fair play: can't send any messages favoring one religion over another; besides, the jews & moslems & wiccans & buddhists might get their feelings hurt at having to (gasp) having to look at a display honoring another religion: christianity. and everyone knows that a non-christian getting his/her feelings hurt is The Worst Thing In The World.

that's what they tell us.

of course, a close look at this shows its all a load of horseshit. i can recall no instance in which the aclu or similar organizations have ever filed suit to remove a display of any religion OTHER than christianity. menorahs? crescents? black-mass tableaux? ok by them! its only CHRISTIANITY that has to be fought; only crosses and baby jesuses that must be covered.

now why is that, i wonder? might - just might - there be a political motive behind all this? one hates to be all cynical and stuff, or assume that 'just because the left-wing retard's lips are moving, he must be lying', but.... what else can it be?

[jaime]

I'm not opposed to public crosses and I'm not atheist. Shows what you know.

I'm opposed to paranoid asshole rightwing evangelicals inventing a fake war on Christmas to be attacked by. I'm opposed to the least victimized people in the history of the planet earth, white middle class Christian Republicans, acting like they were Jews in the 1930's. You're not victims. Shut the Fuck up already.

Wake me when there's Christ-alnacht. Then I'll believe you.

[Seekeronos]

Christ-alnacht? I suppose if the radical Dawkinsians have thier way, it will happen as soon as they can maneuver the ACLU and other moonbat groups to forge judicial review against the display of Christian symbols.

But true Christians are in fact, a minority that is easily victimized. Yes, even in the good ol' US of A.

I concede that nobody is throwing us to pits of lions, or impaling us on the roadside, or forcing us to acknowledge pagan gods on pain of death... but we are being forced to yield our right to observe and commemorat Christian holy days as we see fit.

America has been a largely "religious" nation with a particularly large Christian basis. If anything, other religions should be given second place to Christianity as our heritage. If soeone else wants to put up a menorah display for Hannukah, or a Kwanzzaa display, or behave themselves during Ramadan, fine.

Or closer to home: not being able to share the message of God's salvation because someone might get offended by it, and take me to court.

But don't tell me that we can't have our own symbols and worship here just to make everyone else and thier religions happy. I refuse to see my faith sacrificed upon the upon the altar of political correctness.

Buuuuut... Jaime may very well get his wish. If indeed we roll over and obediently expose our throats like dogs to the merciless sword of Allah, then not only I, but you too, will know true persecution as Dhimmi slaves.

[jaime]

"along with your blind assumptions that I sneer at the unbelief and disobedience of others are exactly that: assumptions."

Blind assumptions? You proclaimed yourself a vanguard of what and what isn't True Christianity and assumed I'm a muslim or ignorant or a heathen. Yes. Yes. YOU know Jesus and everyone else who doubts you are ignorant heathens or not TRUE christians. Marvel as you spout out shit I cut and pasted from biblegateway. Stand in awe of how scholarly you can be.

I feel sorry for you in '08 when you have to chose between a Democrat, a New York gay loving abortionist mayor, a Mormon, and that guy with the black baby and druggie wife who went crazy in the Hanoi Hilton who refuses to kiss the king's ring.

[jaime]

"But don't tell me that we can't have our own symbols and worship here just to make everyone else and thier religions happy."

I have no problem with religious symbols in the public square. But imagine if the Menorah got a more prominent spot there than the cross? Your head would explode. You might have to go take solace in the one of a dozen churches neighboring the square and brood about what a victim you are.

"I refuse to see my faith sacrificed upon the upon the altar of political correctness."

Praying to idols in a public square bolsters your faith? Weak. Real weak.

[Seekeronos]

Huh? Praying to idols? Whatever are you talking about?

Huge menorahs are fine. Secular displays are fine. Christian oriented displays, even better. My point is, don't expect folks not to get a tad uncomfortable when they are forced to watch thier display get covered up, removed or torn down. Since the overwhelming majority of Americans are "Christian", yes, some folks get very irate when some yahoo liberal judge gets a hair up her nose about the Ten Commandments display (common to both Jews and Christians) or students gathering for prayer, or other forced political correctness and "affirmative action" based policies that legislate the "rights" of a minority popualtion against those of the majority. Notwithstanding my earlier discussion about "Xtians" and Christians, together, they are the religious majority by far in this country.

It isn't just for some judge with an agenda to legislate on behalf of some whiny intolerant who just has a conniption when God is brought into the public forum.

Oh, and as far as my "assumptions" about your possible affiliations - they were more like wide guesses than anything. Usually ranters like yourself tend to fall into the Richard Dawkins group of atheists so consumed by thier hatred of God it is almost funny to watch them come unglued when God comes into the discussion. Barring that you were such an athiest, the only other reasonable guesses were that you were a heathen (quite literally, a believer in a non-Christian religion) some of whom are quite vociferous in defense of thier particular beliefs. Barring that too, I would logically be left with you being an Xtian, or a very, very, very, weak and misinformed true Christian. But please forgive me if I keep the opinion that you are closer to being a heathen based upon your words.... because not even the most liberal Xtians swear and get as bent out of shape as you have in your replies here.

And last note:

As for the Republican ticket in 2008, don't you think it is still a bit early to be making definitive statements as to who the available candidates will be? No less than having to pick a Democrat contender from a pool of miscreants no less interesting? Give it another 12-18 months and then we shall make a more informed guess, no?

[larry]

2008 dem presidential candidte chosen from a "pool of miscreants". heh.

very nice, seeker. i shall, of course, be stealing it and use it shamelessly. isn't there something in the bible.....no, wait, mustn't say "bible" in front of the LW idiots....in the 'koran' about plaigarism being the highest form of flattery?

[Seekeronos]

The Bible doesn't have much to say on plagiarism as we know it... but I've no problem with it. :)

As for the Koran, judging from my readings of it, it is much more worried about how to kill off folks or otherwise make thier lives miserable, so as not to be much concerned with who is copying whom.

[jaime]

"pool of miscreants".

Is that some kind of gay Evangelical Leader Meth Addict Orgy?

[jaime]

"Usually ranters like yourself tend to fall into the Richard Dawkins group of atheists so consumed by thier hatred of God"

No. I pray to God on a daily basis. I love Christ, but many Christians make my skin crawl; People like you who cover up their blantant anger and fear and hatred with a passage or two from the bible. Andrew Sullivan, you know teh gay, calls you Christianists. The pharisees who think they have a bead on what "true" belief is. You're a mullah with 2 cars and a wide screen TV.

And most of the country rejected you this November. You ruined the Republican party and this country. Hopefully sensible, sane Christians can clean up your mess.

[seekeronos]

Touché, one sweeping generalization met with another. But I think mine (the Dawkins comment) has some substance. Since you have excused yourself from that particular camp, then I will address you prospectively as a fellow Christian.

Let me examine your remark more closely, about "People like you who cover up their blantant anger and fear and hatred with a passage or two from the bible."

First, I do tend to refer to my King James Authorized Version of the Holy Bible, since it is God's preserved Word in my mother tongue. God's words are so much more important and powerful than anything I have to say, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

So to be blunt, I make no apology for, and will continue to use God's word in my discussions.

Anger?

Honestly, I do have anger, just like anyone else. But Jesus's example is to "be angry, but sin not". I do base my antipathy toward Islamism upon Biblical precepts; it is a pagan, satanic religion devoid of any sort of love.

Do I feel anger of Islam's encroachment onto American political life? Perhaps I do, for I see no good coming from it. I've tender to the oft-misrepresented "unscalable wall of separation between Church and State" to the point where the affairs of government run without submission to any ecclesiastical authorities... although I am not ashamed to admit that this country might have functioned better had it constitutionally enshrined not any specific denomination of Christianity, but rather, limited access to the stewardship of government to saved individuals who know Christ Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Yes, I realize that the Constitution prohibits tests of religion... but the perhaps the Founding Fathers can be forgiven if they did not foresee the violent and evil religion of The Great Pedophile (Mohammad) one day gaining root in this beautiful country. The Founding Fathers' guidance in framing that particular clause was addressed toward existing divisions between various state and extra-national churches (esp. the Church of England, by which British authority might be re-asserted... or other overseas national churches, or the Roman Catholic church which at that time still had considerable political clout in Europe).

Coming back to Islamist encroachment... a more constructive work for me is to work in the "court of mass opinion" in the hope that some may wake them up to the Jihadist threat at our gates...

Ezekiel 33:6
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

Truly, the sword of "Allah" is actively planning our nation's demise. The clamour of one noisy muslim congressman from Minnesota is but one stage in the Islamic invasion in progress. What is happening in Eurabia and the declining United Kingdom of Great Britian will be repeated here, if we choose to timidly pander to the demands of massed angry muslims who promise to riot whenever we fail to meet their slightest demands.

And at the far end of the Islamic lunacy (how apropos for a religion that worships an ancient Mesopotamian moon god)... one only need listen to the rantings of Ahmadinejad and some of his supporting Mullahs who want to rain nuclear destruction on our cities.

Fear? I have little to fear, aside from the prospect of the Donkey Kongress unravelling this country to twist it to thier own perverse ends; but even that is a minor concern" in the context of eternity.

But God teaches about godly fear as well"Fear Him who is able to destroy not only the body, but both body and soul in fiery hell"; and "the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom".

Hate? I fall short here, but by God's grace, I am learning to love other people in Christ. God first, then my family, my fellow Christians (my local church in particular), the world at large, and lastly, myself. Or the JOY (Jesus, Others, Yourself) principle.

Godly Hate should be directed at sin, just as God hates sin. I don't necessarily hate muslims, or any other non-Christians. I would much rather see them be saved and come to know Christ. But, I also claim my biblical right (and duty) to protect my family from dangerous and evil men.

Islam is by virtue of its institutionalized hatred of the dar-al-harb (non-muslim world) compels its followers to put them to forced conversion at sword point, or a life of virtual slavery (dhimmi status)... or death. If and when we arrive at a point where America is so overrun by Islamists that I must act to protect my family from harm, I have no reservation about doing all in my power to prevent someone from harming them. That M-16 marksman qualification actually has some value after all.

As regarding our military activities overseas, or my willingness to see the most radical Islamist power centers reduced by disproportionate means... that is a matter for the state to decide. The state is also an institution founded by God, and it enjoys certain extraordinary powers such as bearing a sword to protect its people from enemies foreign and domestic. The use of nuclear weaponry is but an extension of that, and I consider it a mistake to take that off of our table of options, especially in the face of Iran getting the bomb.

You see, the days of restricting an army to its nations borders, and a navy to its territorial waters etc. is much negated by modern missilery and aerospace-borne weaponry. It is no longer sufficient to engage a deterrent armed force at home, because our enemies endeavor to strike at us from afar, and by nefarious means. Thus, we must engage our enemies away from our homeland as needed.

Finally, do I think I "have a bead on what 'true' belief is" ?

Jaime, if indeed you are a Christian, you would not need to even ask that.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not as a result of works, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9)

The "bead" is not something I arrived at; it was God working and convicting me of my sins and someone sharing the gospel with me that lead to my salvation. My confidence is in God, and His inerrant word.

And unlike those pharisees, I don't plan on locking up the gates to the Kingdom of God and forbidding entry therein... Jesus is the source of my belief.

Now, I will put the ball back in your side of the court Jaime... and I ask this only because your earlier conversations elsewhere on this site generally do not leave an imprint of the fruits of the Holy Spirit working through you. All that swearing and sexual innuendo... can you say that is from Jesus dwelling in you, or are you walking according to the flesh?

"Abstain from all appearance of evil." (1 Thessalonians 5:22)

It can be troublesome, I know. Walking in the flesh for me has often been a testimony-wrecker.

More to the point, Jaime, since you claim to be a Christian:

If you died in the next few minutes, where would you spend eternity?

Are you truly saved?

Just consider the question carefully, you need not answer in this forum...

Because when this game is all wrapped up, that really is the only question that matters.

PS: I have only one old beater of a car, and a cranky old Magnavox that is on the fritz.... so if you wish for me to live up to that 2-car, wide screen TV standard of Christian mullah-dom, feel free to make a donation of car or TV... not that there is much worth watching on the telly these days. :)

[jaime]

Are you truly saved?

Are you? Really?

If hell is populated by unbelievers like John Lennon and Ghandi. I'd prefer to be there. I have doubts as to what happens in the end as everyone should. Jesus' last word's were of doubt.

Any man who speaks of eternity without doubt is arrogant, delusional and seriously misguided.

"All that swearing and sexual innuendo..."

I am a common man. I speak in the common tongue. Especially on a blog where I am greeted with hostility (sometimes deservedly so)

"The state is also an institution founded by God, and it enjoys certain extraordinary powers such as bearing a sword to protect its people from enemies foreign and domestic"

"For what does a man profit, if he should gain the whole world and suffer the loss of his soul?" We have lost our souls because of this war. We have been proven willing to give up our morality and freedom out of a place of fear. Torture, the devaluing of civilian life and self-surveillance is not the path to victory and it is certainly not the path that Jesus would have set out for us.

[seekeronos]

"Any man who speaks of eternity without doubt is arrogant, delusional and seriously misguided."

Wow, you've written off most Christians, and indeed, the Lord Himself then. Jesus Himself said that He is "the Alpha and Omega", (Rev. 22:13) which is the very essence of eternity.

"Jesus' last word's were of doubt."

Actually, they weren't. They were:

"He which testifieth these things saith, 'Surely I come quickly'. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus". Rev. 22:20

"Surely I come quickly" does not sound like words of doubt to me.

"Are you truly saved? Are you? Really?"

Yes, I can say without slightest doubt that I am a saved sinner by the grace of God.

1 John 5:11-13 explains the surety of my salvation:

11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12. He that hath the Son hath life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Am I really saved? You bet I am, and thanks be to my Lord Jesus Christ for that!

Romans 10:9 - "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."

And verse 13 is even more succinct: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

As for Ghandi or John Lennon or Ivan Boesky or any other person... God is their judge, not I. Based upon what I know about those individuals, I can say that it is quite likely that none of them knew Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour. I could be wrong though, if one or more of them made a deathbed confession, but that would be speculation on my part.

They all did some nice things Ghandi worked toward Indian national independence and promoted "passive resistance". John Lennon .... erm, he did much research on himself and the effects of psychotropic drugs... and wrote songs. Boesky... heh. I am hard pressed to think of any lasting contribution to society he made.

The point is, you could do all kinds of good works, but it will not get you very far in God's sight. Our righteousness apart from Christ is like filthy rags.

Coming back to the use of vulgarity in conversation, please let me exhort you in Christ not to continue in it:

"Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." 1 Peter 3:16

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment." Matt. 12:36

These are good biblical guidelines for Godly speech. Surely, this blog and so many others are immersed in worldly topics and are visited by worldly men, but that is hardly license to let our tongues hijack our minds.

Finally, I still stand by my earlier statement that states are an institution given power by God. He sets up kings and rulers and such as He sees fit, and these are responsible for the well being of their citizens. Kings and Presidents and Congresspersons and Parliament members will give extra account of their stewardship of government to God in their day of judgment.

Now as for the right of states to wage war, God judges nations in a manner somewhat different from people. In the days that we were not threatened from afar by a determined group of people at enmity with us (namely, the Islamists) it was not reasonable to point nukes or guns in their direction; now it is.

Should the state have the right to preventive strikes? This is debatable. If the USA were to exercise its nuclear power, or if it were to use some other means to either depopulate or severely restrain the traffic of Islamists which threaten us with war, I would say that the USA would be within its rights to do so. Deporting a resident enemy alien population is also a reasonable measure in a time of war.

Of course, I would much rather see things calmed down, the Islamists pull back from terrorizing others to get their way, and our troops rotated home, but as long as the threat to our security is present, the nation must do what is necessary to ensure its survival. And tortures and waterboarding and the like? I don't particularly endorse it, but it is a tool of unsaved men to extract information from an unwilling enemy. Thus far, I'd say that we Americans do not go to the same extremes in our conduct of non-Geneva convention captives as some states might. Nor are we in the practice of sawing off peoples' heads with bread knives for the sake of terrorizing the enemy.

We are at war (albeit an "undeclared war", but no nation has effectively made a formal declaration since WW2. Even the Korean war was a civil war writ large with multinational involvement).

Well over a million Japanese souls perished or were terrbly afflicted between the Lemay bombing raids and the only nukes we have ever used in warfare; several hundred thousand Germans were displaced during the "Bomber Harris" raids against the major cities of the Reich like Dresden.

War is never kind to civilian populaces; even we who endured the least hardship of WW2 in our civilian populations, were subject to severe rationing, and had order and inconvenience visited upon us.

And yet, I say again, that we are effectively at war for the survival of our civilization, against an ideology disguised as a religion, which seeks our enslavement at best, and our extinction at worst. It is not unreasonable to expect that we will need to learn to endure hardships and privation, much less restrictions of certain civil liberties.

Can we/could we have done things better? By all means. But we live in a lost world from the beginning. The souls are lost from the word "go", and men by default seek after useless profits while ignoring their souls' dire straits. It is not a perfect world, nor is our country a perfect government... but we are far and away much better off in the USA than with almost any other government on this earth.

And through all of this, God is still Sovereign, and Jesus sits as King at the right hand of the Father. He is the path, and one day He will return and judge this world with His righteous judgment.

[jaime]

Seek...you bore the hell out of me.

Do you spend this much time condescending to the heathens in your real life?

2 of the 4 Gospels say Jesus's last words...BEFORE THE RESURRECTION were "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani" or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Even if these were his NEXT to last words as Luke and John proclaim, they are pretty doubtful.

"If the USA were to exercise its nuclear power, or if it were to use some other means to either depopulate or severely restrain the traffic of Islamists which threaten us with war, I would say that the USA would be within its rights to do so."

"If (ISLAM)were to exercise its nuclear power, or if it were to use some other means to either depopulate or severely restrain the traffic of (CHRISTIANS/JEWS) which threaten us with war, I would say that the (ISLAM) would be within its rights to do so."

You are no different than Bin Laden, Mullah Omar and the other Muslim nuts. Exceptthe fact that you have f16's and Cruise Missles to do your religious cleansing. They have to resort to suicide bombing and Hijackings.

Thank God you psychos got whupped this November. Holy Heck, do you know how fanatical you sound? So cavalier with life and death. But whatever, they're just Camel Jockeys right?

[seekeronos]

OK, two things on the "Eloi, Eloi..." etc.

1) Unless you are willing to deny the resurrection of Christ, his last words were to the disciple John on the isle of Patmos. And his last words while in his ressurected, but pre-ascent were speaking to the eleven disciples and a number of other believers over a period of time. Most of which was to resassure, and not cast doubt, for the disciples to continue in the teachings of Jesus.

2) The "Why hast thou forsaken me..." etc. was something prophesied by King David in the Psalms, to foreshadow the face of God the Father, who will not look upon sin in His absolute holiness... upon the Christ who became the ultimate sin offering, taking on Himself all of the sins of the world.

I am somewhat surprised that you even question this, as it is the core doctrine upon which Christianity rests.

Coming back to the issue of nukes... no... I do not think I am cavalier with life and death. Certainly not so with other civilized folk.

On the other hand, it is better to destroy a rabid beast than to try and pick it up and give it a big wet, sloppy kiss and a hug, as seems to be the desire of CAIR and most liberals at large.

Rabid dogs are quite threatening, and can be very dangerous. "Cujo" is quite a bit different from "Hello Kitty". Germany and the UK are learning this now, as roving packs of muslim hoodlums prey upon white women, calling them "whores and sluts" and beating them up and stealing from them.... and full aware that they won't be touched, because they can create a riot for being "discriminated against".

I'd like to prevent that sort of disgrace from being planted here.

So whether the Islamists have nukes now, or are on the very cusp of having a testable nuke... don't be too surprised if you hear a newscast in the very near future with Iran testing a nuke somewhere.

This is why I support a preventive nuclear doctrine. Even if they acquire one primitive Hiroshima type weapon, it doesn't take much after that to make many many more. And a weapon with several times the lethality of the 1945 weapon can be packaged into a device far smaller than "Fat Boy" or "Little Man".

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has said the he aims to wipe out Israel, the first of the two Satans (the other being the USA).

In case you totally miss the obvious, Islamism... as backed by the likes of Iran, Syria, and most other Islamic nations... want to destroy the Western culture.

I hate to so easily reduce it down to a "better them than us" approach, but yeah. Our culture is worth much more, and is pre-eminently superior to Islam. In a raw value judgment, I say that Western culture, buttressed by a strong identity with Judeo-Christian spiritual values, and Greco-Roman legal systems, Anglo-American industrial ethics is the very light to Islam's pit of darkness, ignorance, envy, and general malice.

700-800 years ago in the days of Ibn Batuta when the Islamic world was the world leader in trade, crafting, sciences, and technologies, I might have said differently. Then, the general level of barbarism that is engendered in Islam was held in check somewhat by something which is lacking today: activity in the ranks of "moderate" Muslims.

But today, only two major exports come from Islam: enslavement and death.

In my view, we fight wars to remove war making power from our enemies. And against fanatical, Islamist enemies that seek our annihilation, we must be ready to employ weaponry that will probably have very unpleasant results. Ahamdinejad has calculated that 12 million Iranians is well worth an equivalent number of Western lives; but if he knows that his nation has absolutely zero chance of surviving a nuclear exchange resulting from an Iranian-sponsored terror attack on the USA or its allies... he might have to rethink his policies.

[Seekeronos]

I am almost afraid to know what your "brand of Christianity" might be... some sort of gnostic "Gospel of Judas" loving affair, or the UUs who believe in the trinity of Holy Mother, Daughter and Some Other Spirit?
Actually, I am not at all enthused about the destruction of billions of lives. I'd rather they mind their own business - but they are sworn to bring jihad to all four corners of the world, and have specially appointed American unto destruction. What Darfur is today, the Islamists wish for Western civilization tomorrow.

You are a pretty harsh guy, Jaime... really lacking in any evidence of the Lord working through you by your speech.

Or perhaps you are just an unreasonable heretick that refuses all sound doctrine.

When faced with an implacable enemy that would kill you, rape your wife and children and then sell them off to the highest bidder - you sound like you'd play the part of a good Frenchman and scurry on over to the Mullahs to get your "mark" and pay your Dhimmi tax.

[bryan, aka point b]

That looks like a damn billboard. Personally I am offended by the offended people. http://point-b.blogs.com