More Non-Natalee News
Was Srebrenica a Hoax?
London police trained in Israel, learn to gun down unarmed Brazilians.
Did delegates at this Disciples of Christ hoedown all forget their Bibles? Oh yeah, they don't really believe in that "doctrine" stuff anyway. It's waaayyyy too divisive. They merely believe in "unity" and "Jesus." In other words, typical lawless Christians.
Speaking of lawless Christianity, here is a piece originally published in the NY Times spotlighting "ministries" by tattoo-laden Christian punk rockers. In his commentary on the Sixth Commandment, Rushdoony said, "The personal application includes markings, cuttings, and tattoos of the body, for the body must be used under God's law, and all such acts are forbidden in the law, whether for mourning, as religious marks, or for ornamental or other uses (Lev. 19:28, 21:5). Tattooing was practiced religiously to indicate that one adhered to or belonged to a god; it also indicated that a man was a slave, that he belonged to lord or owner. The believer, as a free man in Christ, indicates, Christ's lordship by obedience, not be servile markings: the body is kept holy and clean unto the Lord. The persistence of a mark of slavery among men is indicative of man's perversity."
More lawless Christianity. A reader tells Gary DeMar that the NT abrogates the death penalty. DeMar responds. In the incident with the women taken in adultery, there needs to be a distinction between civil and juridicial forgiveness. In the civil sphere, there must be restitution. Likewise, religious forgiveness presupposes civil forgiveness. In this case, Jesus is asked to make to make a pronouncement regarding civil law with respect to adultery. However, the witnesses withdrew their accusation, so there was no civil case to be sustained. In short, there is no condemnation of the death penalty here by Jesus.
In 2004, the Border Patrol undertook a survey asking detained illegals if they had heard of a U.S. government amnesty plan for illegal aliens (61 percent had) and whether the amnesty plan influenced their decision to cross the border (45 percent answered that it did). Naturally, the Border Patrol ceased the survey and attempted to cover up the results. Quite typical of this administration.
Good stuff from Joe Sobran, who says that neither side in the "terror war" has an incentive to stop:
We should stop talking about it as if it were a war. It’s a clash of wills. The enemy is obscure, but can’t be fought or defeated as if he were a state. He has no vital secrets or single mastermind that can be found by, say, taking, questioning, and torturing captives.
“He,” in fact, is a loose federation, not a centralized power. His numbers aren’t huge, but he has millions of sympathizers who share his hatred of us. He has no ambition to conquer us or destroy our freedoms; such talk is foolish. “Democracy,” if that’s what you want to call it, isn’t at stake. The enemy merely wants to harass and shock us until we stop irritating him.
And our government has no intention of doing that. It will keep doing what it does, and he will keep retaliating. This will go on indefinitely, since neither side can force the other to do what it wants. What costs can random acts of terrorism against a few civilians impose on the politicians who make the decisions? Don’t such acts in fact reward and encourage them?
What incentive could cause President Bush to change his course? Every new terrorist act fortifies his determination not to change. Nothing he does gives the enemy any reason to change, either. He even profits by the stalemate. From his point of view, the Iraq war isn’t futile.
Phil Johnson with a nice post on Evangelical faddishness.