Performance Chevy LS Engine Comparison - LS Motors Decoded - by Stephen Kim

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes.

-----------------------------

Some hot rodders are reluctant to embrace the indisputable virtues of technology. Let's call them traditionalists. Others would rather push a Ford than drive a Chevy. Let's call them victims of brand loyalty. Then there are those who are more impressed by the number of valves an engine has, and the rpm it turns, than the tally it posts in the hp column. Now they're just out of their mind. In just a little over a decade, GM's LS engine platform has converted hoards of traditionalists and even Ford loyalists alike. These days, Gen III and IV small-blocks are popping up in everything from Chevelles to Mustangs, to BMWs, to Mazdas, to Jaguars, to Hondas, to Datsuns, and even Porsches. Staggering power, low mass, compact external dimensions, and excellent fuel mileage have made the Gen III/IV small-block the new King of engine swaps. Perhaps the most significant factor is the sheer number of LS motors now piling up in boneyards-which translates to cheap cores-and the constant influx of affordable aftermarket parts. Some of the cheapest and most potent hardware of all comes straight from the factory, as GM has continually updated the platform since its inception. There are now more than two dozen Gen III and IV variants in existence, so we've set up this guide to explain the differences between them to help you decide which is most appealing for your project car.

Much like the Gen I and II small-blocks, almost all the hardware amongst the different LS variants are interchangeable. In fact, except for the smallest (4.8L) and largest (7.0L) motors in the LS lineup, all share the same 3.622-inch stroke. In most instances, the cylinder heads, camshafts, crankshafts, and intake manifolds can all be mixed between different LS motors. Furthermore, while Gen III and IV truck motors are usually labeled "Vortec," they share the exact same architecture and many of the same parts as their "LS" designated counterparts. Vortecs were once distinguishable by their iron blocks and heads, but that's no longer the case since many trucks now come equipped with all-aluminum engines. Interestingly, only minor differences distinguish Gen III from Gen IV small-blocks. Gen IVs feature provisions for variable valve timing, active cylinder deactivation, and a revised camshaft position sensor location. Otherwise, both generations of motors are very similar.

The engines outlined in this guide represent every Gen III and IV small-block ever installed by GM in a production car or truck. Whenever possible, or relevant, we've included cam specs. At the current rate of LS engine development, it's quite possible that we'll need to add an appendix to this story in a couple of years. Happy swapping!

Quick Notes
What We Did
Compile descriptions and vital stats of every production Gen III/IV small-block in existence

Bottom Line
LS motors are cheaper, more plentiful, and more powerful than ever

Cost (APPROX)
$500-$22,000 here.

LS1

Although the one that started it all is already considered relatively old, no one could have predicted the impact the original Gen III LS1 would have on the hot rodding public. The LS1's greatest asset is its revolutionary 15-degree cylinder heads, which are capable of flowing over 320 cfm in the hands of a skilled porter. So good were these castings, in fact, that it took the aftermarket over five years to even attempt to top the factory design. Simply massaging the stock heads and swapping in a larger cam had LS1s easily approaching the 550hp mark in no time. Furthermore, bone stock LS1s routinely pushed F-bodies into the 12s. While LS1 F-bodies were rated at 40 hp less than their Corvette-spec brethren, they essentially produced the same power despite minute differences in cam specs. Likewise, all '01-04 LS1s were upgraded from the factory with the same valvesprings and high-flow intake manifold as found in the LS6. One of the biggest drawbacks of the LS1 are its thin iron cylinder liners that can only be bored about 0.010 over. Anything larger requires re-sleeving the block with aftermarket liners, which isn't cheap, but doing so enables displacement figures well in excess of 400 ci. Likewise, the standard 3.900-inch bore isn't compatible with the latest and greatest GM L92 cylinder heads. Nonetheless, the original LS1 provides more than enough power potential for the vast majority of hot rods, and there are still a ton of them available in salvage yards ready for plucking.

Time is overdue to repeal the Second Amendment - by Tom H. Hastings

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------------------
This is embarrassingly immature writing from a supposed professional. Here's a man who clearly did no research, who gave no thought to presentation or a logical procession of ideas, who seems content to simply engage in verbal diarrhea. He doesn't even get the most basic of concepts right. Read on:
--------------------------------

What country fetishizes, lionizes, valorizes, idolizes, and sacralizes guns as much as does our United States? OK, possibly Mozambique — the only country with an AK47 on its flag, but really, it's long past time to end this obsessive "My Precious" attachment of Americans to instruments of death. (Sir, the attachment is with liberty, which is a founding principle of this country. No other country has ever been premised on the idea that government ought to be restrained, limited, and diffuse, and that the liberty resulting from this is ensured for its citizens as their rights are acknowledged as unalienable. Those rights are a check on the power of government. An armed citizenry can defend its rights from oppressive government.)

This morning of Dec. 25, 2014, of the nine top stories from US Reuters, six were about shootings — four new ones and two about the national movement against shootings of citizens by police. This pandemic of sick violence, punctuated by mass killings of children, has gone on far, far too long. It is long past time to repeal the stupid Second Amendment. (Unfortunately for the author, gun deaths are trending downward. This of course means that the sensationalist reporting of the news has skewed perceptions with anecdotal evidence and emotionalized reporting, and thus is not based on fact. Here are the real statistics:

The fate of the Second Amendment should have been sealed when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that past rulings by their predecessors were wrong, (The Left is never troubled by the overturning of precedent when it comes to their issues. However, even here the author is wrong, since the Supreme Court was overturning lower courts and not itself.)

that in fact the amendment that provided for a "well regulated militia" really guaranteed every individual the right to own a gun. Wow. That is an interesting reading of the English language. (Using his warped language to describe the court decision is ironic indeed. The decision was not to interpret the meaning of "well regulated militia." The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes." 

Legally speaking, the militia consists of "...of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...", and can be either in the National Guard or separate from it. The People can be called upon to defend the country, even if they're not in the military. The militia, then, is the citizenry, who come when called to serve, with their weapons in hand. They are already armed! )

What the Supremes have done is to not only warp the meaning and make it into twisted law, but to further prohibit states and local governments from declaring their places free of legal guns.  The conservative court once again rules against the power of states, a principle that used to be associated with darn liberals who wanted to make sure everyone had the right to vote, for example, even though they weren't properly white enough. Now when a city or state wants to outlaw firearms, too bad. The conservatives took away their powers and rights in favor of Big Brother. (Indeed, the court has been rather consistent violators of the Tenth Amendment. Ironically, this may be the only instance of states' rights being an issue for the Left.)

The only logical path, given the clearly decided role of the Second Amendment, is to repeal it. American people are tired of mass shootings and police shootings and family feud shootings and sibling shootings and accidental toddler shootings and teen suicide by gun (highly popular).We are exhausted by the proliferation of death, of threats, of bloodshed, and by the NRA/gun industry moral garbage spewing forth every time someone challenges the ubiquity of guns. (And all this has happened despite a plethora of laws already on the books. On what planet does one have to live on to think that more gun restrictions will have any effect?) 

Repeal the Stupid Second Amendment. Surround it, grab it, bring it in the back room, pull down the shades, and end it. OK, petition for it, get it on the ballot, and get it done by enough of the US populace, by enough people in enough states, to get it consigned to the dustbin of history. (And here's the final nail driven into the coffin of stupidity being spouted by the author. The Second Amendment, like all provisions of the Constitution, defines and limits the power of government, the repeal of the Second Amendment will reduce government power. The Constitution will then fall silent on granting any power at all to government to regulate guns.

I can only attribute this level of ignorance to maleducation.)

Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University in Oregon.

On Leaving Church - by Bill Muehlenberg

Found here. Excellent article.

----------------------------------------------

There are many Christians who have stopped going to church. They have not given up on God, have not renounced their faith, have not denied Christ, and have not become pagans. They simply are no longer going to church. That this is happening is not a matter of doubt, but why this is happening is in fact a difficult question to answer.

One recent article spoke about this trend. Entitled “The Rise of the ‘Done With Church’ Population,” it looks at this scene – primarily in America – but does not offer us any clear indications as to why this is becoming such a problem. The article begins:

John is every pastor’s dream member. He’s a life-long believer, well-studied in the Bible, gives generously and leads others passionately. But last year he dropped out of church. He didn’t switch to the other church down the road. He dropped out completely. His departure wasn’t the result of an ugly encounter with a staff person or another member. It wasn’t triggered by any single event. 

THE ONE BAPTISM -BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. My comments in bold.

-------------------------------------

Mr. Finnell persists in his claim that one needs to be baptized in water to be saved: 
--------------------------------------

THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID THERE IS ONE BAPTISM. WHAT IS THAT BAPTISM? (EPHESIANS 4:5 ONE LORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM,) WHAT IS THAT ONE BAPTISM?

There is one baptism. Is it water baptism or baptism with the Holy Spirit? (Granting for a moment that there is only a singular baptism, which I would dispute, then what does Mr. Finnell do with the baptism of the Holy Spirit? I'm going to surmise that Mr. Finnell believes the baptism of the Holy Spirit has ceased. This would conveniently allow him to claim there is only one baptism, water baptism.)

The 12 apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost. What was the purpose of their baptism? (Notice that Mr. Finnell will restrict his discussion to the apostles, which suggests he believes that only the Apostles received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Most certainly he believes the Apostles received a "special" amount of Holy Spirit not available to us today.)

A market-based method to deal with warming - letter by Dr. Kenneth Pierce

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Dr. Pierce apparently does not understand the concept of free markets, because "putting a fee" on carbon content has nothing to do with the free market. A "fee" (that is, a tax) is a government intervention into the free market, not an activity of the free market. And this particular tax is not for the purpose of generating revenue for the operation of government, it is a manipulation designed to alter peoples' behavior to certain desired outcomes. This is known as social engineering, which is about as far from the free market as one can get.

Citizens' Climate Lobby is an advocacy organization attempting to persuade people to consent to taxing themselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend is intended to be given to people to mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice they want an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point, which will be transferred to you and me. This tax will be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy," but each household will receive a dividend from a "trust fund," which supposedly covers the increased cost of goods and services resulting from the tax. 

The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. Therefore, it seems that their intent is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies. for that is the only substantial place where carbon enters the economy.  "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Atheists Rewrite Ten Commandments, MythBusters’ Adam Savage Judged New Commands

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------

Anyone catch the colossal, stark irony here? Atheists, who bristle at the idea of absolute truth, wrote their own list of do nots. The very same people who don't want religion telling them what's moral are perfectly fine authoritatively telling us what's moral.

Our question is this: In a world without objective morality, on what basis do these atheists offer us commandments about anything? If truth is relative, then each person chooses for himself what to believe, and there is no imperative. However, each of their "commandments" is a moral principle, offered as self-evident truth to be embraced and promulgated. Each assumes the moral stature to apply universally. 

Sounds like what a church would do, right? 

Further, the final commandment, "there is no one right way to live," is self contradicting. Aside from the fact that there are nine previous commandments telling us how we must live, the statement asserts an absolute. That is, there is a right way to live, and that way is to live as if there is no right way to live.

There's a lot more that can be said about each one from a logical and moral perspective, but I'll leave you with a final comment about #7, "Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective." Have you heard that before? "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12

---------------------------------

Atheists have written their own version of the ten commandments. These commandments were chosen from submissions to Atheist Mind Humanist Heart’s (AMHH) Re-Think Prize, a crowdsourcing project.

Previously reported by the Inquisitr, in November Adam Savage announced he would be a judge in the ReThink Project, the host of MythBusters (one of only two, these days), caused a new surge of interest and awareness for the contest — so much that the contest website crashed shortly after his tweet.

THE COMMANDMENTS OF MEN? - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

Mr. Finnell asks how being born of water can be anything but water baptism. He would find the answer by actually reading the Scripture in question to determine context. Here is the passage, only a part of which, verse 5, seems to interest Mr. Finnell:

Jn. 3:3-8 In reply Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth, no-one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.” 4 “How can a man be born when he is old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb to be born!” 5 Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, `You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” 9 “How can this be?” Nicodemus asked. 10 “You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand these things?

Notice what Jesus says in verse 6, as he amplifies verse 5: "Flesh gives birth to flesh (first birth), and "Spirit gives birth to spirit" (i.e., born again). Jesus is telling Nicodemus that the natural birth is is not enough to "see the kingdom of God" (vs. 5). Something else is required, to be "born of the Spirit" (vs. 8). In fact, Jesus suggests that this is simple, and that Nicodemus as a teacher of Israel should understand these things (vs. 10).

Jesus is speaking also to arrogant attitude of the Jews regarding their status as the chosen nation. This is a critical understanding, for remember that Nicodemus was a teacher of the law, and believed that being a Jew and keeping the law was sufficient. Jesus is not teaching Nicodemus that he had to be baptized.

Let's go to the account of John the Baptist. He is baptizing in the River Jordan when he has an encounter with the teachers of the law:

"But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: 'You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not think you can say to yourselves, `We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.'" Mt. 3:7-11

Notice John the Baptist condemned the teachers of the law for their smug nationalism, as if that were enough. Remember that John the Baptist was a forerunner (Matt 3:3). He was preparing the way by using water baptism for repentance. But he knew that such a baptism was inferior to the one Jesus would bring, that is, the baptism of the "Holy Spirit and with fire." 

This old order, the external regulations, have passed away, and John the Baptist's ministry was transitory. It is not enough to be born a Jew. It is not enough to be baptized in water and repent. The new way cleanses the conscience. He. 9:8-10: 

"The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings — external regulations applying until the time of the new order."

Jesus is intent on telling Nicodemus that his genetics isn't enough. He wants Nicodemus to know that salvation comes in a way Nicodemus had not considered. Jesus is teaching the teacher spiritual things, the true way of salvation. Being born of the Spirit is the issue, not the water. Tit. 3:5-6: 

"He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior..."

Peter reinforces the idea: 1Pe. 1:23: 

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God."

There is the natural birth, which is perishable, and the spiritual birth, which is imperishable. Being born again is a supernatural occurrence,  here brought about by the Word, the word that washes us per Ep. 5:25: 

"...Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless."

The testimony of Scripture is that we need to be washed by the Word and the Holy Spirit. Water does nothing for us.
-------------------------------

The scribes and Pharisees had a spiritual problem, they liked man-made doctrine better than God's commandments.

Matthew 15:1-9 ....3..."Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?.....9 And in vain they do worship Me, Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (NKJV)

When Jesus said unless one is born of water he cannot enter the kingdom of God; was he expressing God's commandment? (John 3:5)

When men say you have to be born of amniotic fluid to enter the kingdom of God; it that a doctrine of God or a teaching of men?(John 3:5)

How could born of water be anything but water baptism?

When Jesus said unless one is born of water and the Spirit, He was giving requirements in order to enter the kingdom of God.

Being born of water does not mean you have to exist in order to enter the kingdom of God. The existence of men is obvious. Existence is not a term for pardon.


When Jesus said "he who believes will be saved," was He stating a commandment of God? (Mark 16:16)

When Jesus said he said " is baptized will be saved," was He stating a commandment of God? (Mark 16:16)

When men say "men are baptized after they are saved." is that a commandment of God?

When men say " men are baptized as an act of obedience and it is not essential for the forgiveness of sins", is that a doctrine of God or doctrine of men?

WATER BAPTISM OR HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM? By Steve Finnell

Found here. My comments in bold.

------------------------------------

Mr. Finnell must be responding to those of us who are challenging his position on water baptism. Reluctant to enter into a dialogue, he simply creates new posts on his blog where he restates his position, emphatically, without offering anything new. 

I suppose this is easier and safer than actually debating with one's interlocutors. It relieves him of the necessity of the give and take of intellectual exchange. 

I posted an extensive discussion of baptism here, the points of which I shall try to avoid repeating.

-----------------------------------

Did Jesus command water baptism or Holy Spirit baptism? There is just one baptism; which did Jesus command? Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, (NASB) (Indeed there is one baptism we are called to. Was it water baptism?)

Matthew 28:16-19 But the eleven disciples...18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (NASB) (The reader will note that Jesus did not say, "baptizing them in water." One would think that if Jesus was requiring water baptism, He would have been baptizing thousands himself. In fact, Jesus was not a baptizer. "The Pharisees heard that Jesus was gaining and baptizing more disciples than John, although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." Jn 4:1-2  

Jesus did not baptize anyone, nor is there any record of Him commanding His disciples to baptize with water. 

Helpfully, John the Baptist tells us what Jesus would do: "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." [Mt. 3:11] This is John the Baptist minimizing his own baptisms and pointing to a better one.

Jesus frequently referred to the Holy Spirit, even indicating that it was better He should go so that the Holy Spirit could come. And, we see the Holy Spirit is important to Jesus, even to the point of Him imparting the Holy Spirit to the disciples: "And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit." Jn. 20:22  

You would have thought he would have baptized them if water baptism was so important, but He didn't. Instead, he pointed to the One he would send. That's where we should look as well.)

The 7 biggest economic lies - Robert Reich

Found here. My comments in bold. I have previously commented on Dr. Reich here and here.
--------------------------

Dr. Reich, a Rhodes Scholar, sets out to refute big lies told about economics. Read on:

"Big lies are to be believed unless they're refuted with the truth. Here are the seven biggest economic whoppers and facts in two minutes thirty seconds."

1) Tax cuts to the rich trickle down to the rest of us. Wrong. Both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush cut taxes on the rich and nothing trickled down. In fact, adjusted for inflation the median hour wage stagnated and dropped. (Neither Reagan nor Bush cut taxes on the rich. Only Congress can appropriate and spend money. And the statement is cleverly phrased to allow Dr. Reich to refute a claim no one has made. No one has advocated tax cuts on the rich. But many have advocated tax cuts.

In addition, it is incorrect to claim that nothing trickled down. Wages did indeed stagnate, but we could just as easily blame the national debt for this. Government takes a huge share of the production of the economy and wastes it. It shifts whole industries, obsoletes others, and forces the economy to adjust and compensate. It's no wonder the worker has suffered, because business simply cannot account for what the fickle government will do next.

PROPHECY-TONGUES-KNOWLEDGE - BY STEVE FINNELL

Avowed cessationist Steve Finnell makes an attempt to explain away the supernatural gifts of the Spirit by using but a single word of Scripture. We chronicle these attempts to defend cessationism from a variety of sources on a regular basis, because we are genuinely seeking a defense of the cessationist view that relies firmly upon Scripture.

So Mr. Finnell takes one word, "perfect," and builds a doctrine that the gifts have ceased because the perfect has come, and this based on what he infers Paul is "likely" talking about. This is thin evidence, indeed, to extrapolate on a word in order to bolster his preconceptions.

That word, "perfect, "teleion, is found 19 times in the N.T., and no instance is the word referring to Scripture:

If you make $50,000 per year, you pay....

This was posted by a FB friend.

Let's look at the real numbers. Please note that the above post is calculating the allocation of taxes paid for wage earners at a specific level of income, while I am calculating the burden of government for the entire population. Of course, my method makes it even worse for the those who are making these claims.

First claim, that it costs $247.75/yr for defense. Actual budget for defense is $839.9 billion (shown below). With a population of 322.4 million, that works out to about $2605 for every person in the US, per year.

Second claim, $3.98 for FEMA. FEMA's budget request for 2015 is $10.38 billion, which works out to $32 per person, per year. 

Third claim, $22.88 for unemployment insurance. Montana unemployment tax rates are found here on page 16. The average tax rate is 1.92%, which for a $50,000 wage is $960. Federal spending on unemployment insurance was $93 billion in 2012, which equals $288 per person, per year.

Fourth claim, $36.82 for SNAP. Total federal spending for SNAP in 2011 was $78 billion, which is $241 per person, per year.

Fifth claim, $6.96 for welfare. According to the below pie chart, 10% ($390 billion) is spent on welfare, which equals $1209 per person, per year.

Sixth claim, $43.78 for government pensions. From the chart below, that amount is $969.7 billion, which is $3007 per person, per year.

Seventh claim, $235.81 for Medicare. Planned spending for 2015 is $530 billion, which equals
$1645 per person.

For the eighth claim, it's difficult to know what is being measured. I presume it is tax breaks for corporations. We need to note that every tax dollar paid by corporations filter down to the end user, you and I. Taxes are simply another expense included in the price of the products and services you and I purchase. All taxes are paid by people. Nothing is or can be paid by corporations.

One final note. The total planned spending for 2015 is $3.901 trillion. That is $12,100 per person, per year. If the point of the post was to point out how cheap government is and how evil corporations are, well, we can see that this is just not the case.

-----------------------------

GDP: $18,219.4 bln GO: $32,178.5 bln	United States Federal State and Local Government Spending	US CA > Pop: 322.4 million
-5yr -1yr   Fiscal Year 2015 in $ billion   +1yr +4yr

View: people old default radical census programsaltprog COFOG				Fed	Gov. Xfer	State	Local	Total
[+]	Pensions			969.7	0.0	221.2	47.1	1,238.0
[+]	Health Care			1,044.5	-358.1	499.5	146.4	1,332.4
[+]	Education			130.7	-69.3	301.0	692.7	1,055.1
[+]	Defense			839.9	0.0	0.7	-0.1	840.6
[+]	Welfare			385.8	-113.2	142.8	80.5	495.9
[+]	Protection			34.1	-5.1	70.2	165.4	264.6
[+]	Transportation			97.8	-67.0	127.2	162.2	320.2
[+]	General Government			49.7	-4.1	52.9	71.3	169.7
[+]	Other Spending			97.0	-16.3	70.6	326.7	478.1
[+]	Interest			251.9	0.0	50.7	66.9	369.4
[+]	Balance			0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
[+]	Total Spending:  Start chart			3,901.0	-633.1	1,536.8	1,759.1	6,563.8
[+]	Federal Deficit			563.6	0.0	0.0	0.0	563.6
[+]	Gross Public Debt			18,713.5	0.0	1,227.7	1,956.2	21,897.3

No, Your Ancestors Didn’t Come Here Legally - by Ben Railton

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. FB friend S.B. posted a link to this article.

First my comment, then the article, followed by the FB conversation.
--------------------------

This is a case of using an innocuous phrase (“My ancestors came here legally”) to divert the conversation to impugning an idea not presented rather than evaluating the issue at hand, illegal immigration. The objective is to suggest a group of people are stupid for having the idea. The author does this by imposing an implication not warranted by the statement in question.

The author asserts that absent a law, your behavior is neither legal nor illegal. However, laws always restrict the range of what is available. Laws never, ever broaden available choices, unless they modify an existing, more restrictive law. 

The total absence of law means nothing is restricted, aka anarchy. The first law passed necessarily limits unrestricted choices to "everything minus this one thing."

Illegality does not define legality, because legality is the default state. If the body of law is silent, that is, it hasn't restricted a range of choices, then every choice is definitionally legal. 

Laws make us conscious of what is wrong to do. Interestingly, the Bible makes this very point: "Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20)

Here's the article:
------------------------------

I guarantee you’ll hear the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” in the aftermath of President Obama’s immigration address. It’s almost impossible to find any conversation about immigration—between elected officials, pundits, online commenters—in which at least one participant doesn’t use the phrase. It’s an understandable position, through which the speaker can both defend his or her family history and critique current illegal immigrants who choose to do things differently. It helps deflect charges of hypocrisy (since most Americans are descended from immigrants). It’s hard to argue with. And it’s also, in nearly every case, entirely inaccurate.

Prior to 1875’s Page Act and 1882’s Chinese Exclusion Act, there were no national immigration laws. None. There were laws related to naturalization and citizenship, to how vessels reported their passengers, to banning the slave trade. Once New York’s Castle Garden Immigration Station opened in 1855, arrivals there reported names and origins before entering the U.S. But for all pre-1875 immigrants, no laws applied to their arrival. They weren’t legal or illegal; they were just immigrants.

Moreover, those two laws and their extensions affected only very specific immigrant communities: suspected prostitutes and criminals (the Page Act); Chinese arrivals (the Exclusion Act); immigrants from a few other Asian nations (the extensions). So if your ancestors came before the 1920s and weren’t prostitutes, criminals, or from one of those Asian nations, they remained unaffected by any laws, and so were still neither legal nor illegal. This might seem like a semantic distinction, but it’s much more; the phrase “My ancestors came here legally” implies that they “chose to follow the law,” yet none of these unaffected immigrants had to make any such choice, nor had any laws to follow.

The 1892 opening of Ellis Island didn’t change these fundamental realities. Ellis arrivals had to wait in line and answer a list of questions, and could be quarantined if they had a communicable disease or were visibly insane. But if they weren’t in those aforementioned few illegal categories, they still weren’t affected by any law, made no choice of how to immigrate. Moreover, many arrivals during this period came not through Ellis but across the borders, which were unpatrolled and open.

Only with the 1920s Quota Acts did Congress establish national immigration laws encompassing most arrivals. But those acts were overtly discriminatory, extending the Exclusion Act’s principles by categorizing arrivals by nationality and drastically limiting certain groups; South Carolina Senator Ellison Smith put it bluntly: “It seems to me the point as to this measure is that the time has arrived when we should shut the door.” Since immigrants had no control over their nationality, it’s difficult to argue that post-1920s arrivals “chose” to immigrate legally or illegally. And since the borders remained largely open and there were multiple entry points, it’s hard to say that any individual arrival was under the quota and thus legal or illegal.

The 1965 Immigration Act ended national quotas, instituting preferences based on less overtly discriminatory categories such as family connections and educational/professional training. Subsequent laws (such as the 1986 IRCA) further adjusted national policy. But as the ubiquitous “my ancestors” phrase proves, current immigration debates aren’t just about present policies—they’re always informed by ideas about history, and specifically about legal and illegal immigration in our past. So it’s vitally important that we begin to use those terms accurately—to recognize that for so many of us, our ancestors were neither legal nor illegal immigrants. That they came in the same way contemporary undocumented immigrants do: by crossing a border.

Ben Railton is an Associate Professor of English at Fitchburg State University and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.
---------------------------
And here's the FB conversation:

Me: "... the phrase 'My ancestors came here legally' implies that they 'chose to follow the law...'” No, it implies no such thing. It implies they violated no laws when they came.

C.K.: But there were no laws to follow. So it is still hypocritical.

Me: No, there were no laws to violate. Definitionally, violating no laws means legal. A law creates illegality, not legality.

C.K.: So maybe we should go back to the way things were when your family arrived so that we all get treated the same. The point is that at no point did you family jump through the same hoops today's immigrants have to go through so you are in no position to judge them.

Me: Agreed. However, in the meantime, let's just continue to ignore existing law as it suits us.

Me: And no one has issued any judgments.

SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION? BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here. Our comments in bold.
--------------------------------------

The author recycles his arguments periodically, presumably because he needs to have something to post. Thus, we have already dealt with his arguments elsewhere.

However, there is a persistent misapprehension present here that is worth discussing. We shall attempt to explore that. 
--------------------------------------

Is God supplying additional revelation to express His commands for mankind? No He is not. God has not been adding to His word since the Bible was completed. All of the Scriptures found in Bible were written by 100 A.D.. All that men need to know in order to receive salvation and live the Christian life is found in the Bible. There is no need of SUPPLEMENTARY REVELATION! (The author helpfully includes most every misstatement, non sequitur, and failure of logic in one paragraph. Those are:

1) additional revelation = adding to His word

2) additional revelation = adding to the Bible

3) Bible compiled = revelation ceased

4) additional revelation = additional requirements

It is clear to us that the author is unacquainted with what the charismatics actually believe and teach about the prophetic gift in the modern church. He prefers to discuss characterizations that have nothing to do with the subject in order to vilify those with whom he disagrees.)

An analysis of church leadership - a pastor's teaching on having a head pastor

This was written by someone as a teaching for the local church. We think it is flawed, so we're offering this rather long analysis. Our comments in bold.

---------------------------------

Local Church Leadership

By Pastor Bob

1. Purpose of an Elder

• Care and protection of the flock.

1 Peter 5:2 (AMP) Tend (nurture, guard, guide, and fold) the flock of God that is [your responsibility), not by coercion or constraint, but willingly; not dishonorably motivated by the advantages and profits [belonging to the office], but eagerly and cheerfully;

• To alleviate the burden of the leader of the flock so that they might be cared for more effectively. Ex 18:13-27
***
Here’s a quote from that passage: 

Ex. 18:19-21 “Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. But select capable men from all the people — men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain — and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.”

This is a specific corrective action that was taken because Moses’ father in law noticed a problem. It is not prescriptive to how the Church leadership should be organized. It is not a model of leadership to be implemented by the Church. Moses, a workaholic, had to be told that governing a entire nation by himself was not possible.

In addition, Moses' position over the nation was typical for the ancient world, one man over a kingdom. And importantly, the biblical role of elder does not describe it as alleviating the burden of a singular leader.

Thus, this account does not presume to instruct us about anything other than Moses’ flaw.
***

2. Leadership structure

a. "Appoint a man over this community!"

Numbers 27:16-17 (NIV) "May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd."
***
Here’s a more extended quote so we can get the context: 

Nu. 27:15-23 “Moses said to the LORD, ‘May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all mankind, appoint a man over this community to go out and come in before them, one who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.’ So the LORD said to Moses, ‘Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay your hand on him. 19 Make him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. Give him some of your authority so that the whole Israelite community will obey him. He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by enquiring of the Urim before the LORD.

“’At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.’ Moses did as the LORD commanded him. He took Joshua and made him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the LORD instructed through Moses.”

The first thing to note is that this was a prayer of Moses (“Moses said to the LORD…”), and the purpose was to ask God to choose Moses’ successor. God responded by telling Moses to commission Joshua. This method of succession is not prescriptive; it is not the way leaders are chosen in the church, and it does not tell us how the Church should be structured. Also note Moses’ reason: “…so that the LORD’s people will not be like sheep without a shepherd.” Jesus echoed this language in Mk. 6:34: 

“When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.” 

We must note that the elders in the church are to be the shepherds, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd: 

1Pe. 5:1-4 “To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers… And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”

Therefore, the elders (plural) are to shepherd  and oversee the flock, and Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. There is no leadership position between Jesus and the elders of the church. In fact, as we will read later, Paul writes to Timothy to tell how an elder is to be chosen, and it’s not like this passage in Numbers at all.

***

• There is ultimately one man over the local church - the angelos, Rev 2-3

In Re. 2:1 we read: “To the angel of the church in Ephesus…”
***
Seven churches are mentioned, and each has a letter addressed to the “angel of the church.” We need to do two things. One, we need to know how the angel is related to the specific church; and two, we need to know what is meant by “angel.”

First, angel (Angelos, a messenger, envoy, one who is sent, an angel, a messenger from God) is used 181 times in the NT, like Mat. 4:11 (“Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold , angels came and ministered…”) and Mat 11:10 (“For this is he, of whom it is written , Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.”). There is only one time in the N.T. where “angel” ever refers to anything other than a celestial being, and that is John the Baptist.

So who are these angels? Re. 1:20 informs us: “The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.”

It seems pretty clear that these angels are of special note, for ”one like the Son of Man” holds them in his hand. He also walks among the seven lampstands, the seven churches. This is a picture of the Supernatural presence in the Church of the One with the two edged sword (the Word) coming from His mouth.

These seven churches were literal churches who were appointed to receive a message from the Alpha and Omega. Indeed, we find John telling us in Re. 1:4 that he is writing to the seven churches. John then proceeds to tell us the story of how the message came to him. He then tells each of them the message, which continues to the end of chapter 3. The message is delivered to the messengers (angels) of each church. These angels were told the message and they were to tell these churches.

Various angels continue to appear throughout Revelation. When we get to Re. 21:12 we find this: “It had a great, high wall with twelve gates, and with twelve angels at the gates. On the gates were written the names of the twelve tribes of Israel.” So not only are there angels who represent the seven churches, there are angels who stand for the twelve tribes. 

God uses angels to do a variety of things, including, I believe, watching over churches. And we who believe have angels as well, who minister God’s grace to his people: He. 1:14 “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” Apparently we even meet them from time to time: He. 13:2 “Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” 

The conclusion is these seven angels are ministering spirits to those churches, and clearly not the pastors of those churches.
***
• First and Second Timothy were written to one man (Timothy) giving him instructions about elders, deacons, and church life.
***
Timothy indeed was dealing with a group of believers. But Scripture does not tell us that Timothy was a pastor! Timothy was actually a valued associate of Paul, who labored alongside him, went to various churches on assignments, and generally did his bidding.

Paul and Barnabas was one such partnering in this work:

Ac. 14:23 “Paul and Barnabas appointed elders for them in each church and, with prayer and fasting, committed them to the Lord, in whom they had put their trust.”

And Timothy also worked with Paul:

Ac. 17:15: “The men who escorted Paul brought him to Athens and then left with instructions for Silas and Timothy to join him as soon as possible.”

Timothy was sent to various places at Paul’s behest:

1Co. 4:17: “For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

In fact, at one point Paul told him to stay in Ephesus and correct some errant believers:

1Ti. 1:3 “As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer…"

Some of Paul’s epistles were co-written with Timothy:

Ph. 1:1 “Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi…”

Paul commends Timothy to the Philippian church:

Ph. 2:22 “But you know that Timothy has proved himself, because as a son with his father he has served with me in the work of the gospel.”

Paul tells us why he was writing to Timothy:

1Ti. 3:14-15 “Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

Paul was planning to come himself, and the purpose of his instructions was to help Timothy deal with this particular church until Paul arrived. 

1Ti. 4:13: “ Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching.”

Paul points out to Timothy that it is the elders who lead the church:

1Ti. 5:17 “The elders who direct the affairs of the church well are worthy of double honour, especially those whose work is preaching and teaching.”

And lastly, Paul counsels Timothy that Paul has trusted him with the assignment. Paul wants Timothy to keep the church intact and on the right path.

1 Ti. 6:20 “Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.” 

In sum, there isn’t a single passage that indicates that Timothy was pastor or head of this particular church. Rather, it is reasonable to conclude that Timothy was on assignment from Paul as a young church planter charged with setting up elders and correcting doctrine in this church, and Paul was advising him how to do it.
***
b. Decision making process in the early church: Acts 15:1-29

• 15:5, Apostles and Elders meet to discuss.
• 15:7 -11, Peter shares his revelation.
• 15:12, Barnabas and Paul share their experience.
• 15:13, James brings it to conclusion by summing up and relating it to scripture, (15:13-18)
• 15:19, James makes a final judgment. (19-21)
• 15:22, The apostles, elders, and the whole church make application.
• 15:23, a letter is unanimously sent.
• 15:28, This was the leading of the Holy Spirit!
***
In this account we find that there was a problem in the church in Antioch. This church decided to send Paul, Barnabas, and some other believers to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders.

Ac. 15:1-2 “Some men came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the brothers: ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.’ This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.”

So they arrived and described the problem to the apostles and elders:

Vs 4-6 ” When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them. Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, ‘The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses.’ The apostles and elders met to consider this question.”

Peter has some input to the apostles and elders:

Vs 7 “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them…”

Then Barnabas and Paul started telling stories about the great things God was doing among the gentiles:

Vs 12 “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.”

Then it was James’ turn:

Vs 13-18 "When they finished, James spoke up: ‘Brothers, listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: `After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ [Amos 9:11,12] that have been known for ages.”

James then expresses his insight and opinion:

vs 19-21 “‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.’”

Then the apostles and elders consult with each other to render their decision:

Vs 22-25 “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers. With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul…”

Clearly, James did not make the decision. A reading of the passage indicates a plurality of leadership listening to the evidence brought by various parties, then rendering a decision, which was communicated back to the Antioch church. There is no singular leader in any part of this text.

To conclude, in my opinion this teaching offered by Pastor Bob does not demonstrate its intended thesis, that a single leader is a scriptural position.

The Case Against Liberal Compassion - by William Voegeli

This is good stuff, from Imprimis, Hillsdale College.
----------------------------

WILLIAM VOEGELI is a senior editor of the Claremont Review of Books and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College’s Henry Salvatori Center. After receiving a Ph.D. in political science from Loyola University in Chicago, he served as a program officer for the John M. Olin Foundation. He has written for numerous publications, including the Christian Science Monitor, City Journal, Commentary, First Things, the Los Angeles Times, National Review, and the New Criterion. He is the author of two books, Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State and The Pity Party: A Mean-Spirited Diatribe Against Liberal Compassion.

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on October 9, 2014, sponsored by the College’s Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship.
**

Four years ago I wrote a book about modern American liberalism:Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State. It addressed the fact that America’s welfare state has been growing steadily for almost a century, and is now much bigger than it was at the start of the New Deal in 1932, or at the beginning of the Great Society in 1964. In 2013 the federal government spent $2.279 trillion—$7,200 per American, two-thirds of all federal outlays, and 14 percent of the Gross Domestic Product—on the five big program areas that make up our welfare state: 1. Social Security; 2. All other income support programs, such as disability insurance or unemployment compensation; 3. Medicare; 4. All other health programs, such as Medicaid; and 5. All programs for education, job training, and social services.

That amount has increased steadily, under Democrats and Republicans, during booms and recessions. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, federal welfare state spending was 58 percent larger in 1993 when Bill Clinton became president than it had been 16 years before when Jimmy Carter took the oath of office. By 2009, when Barack Obama was inaugurated, it was 59 percent larger than it had been in 1993. Overall, the outlays were more than two-and-a-half times as large in 2013 as they had been in 1977. The latest Census Bureau data, from 2011, regarding state and local programs for “social services and income maintenance,” show additional spending of $728 billion beyond the federal amount. Thus the total works out to some $3 trillion for all government welfare state expenditures in the U.S., or just under $10,000 per American. That figure does not include the cost, considerable but harder to reckon, of the policies meant to enhance welfare without the government first borrowing or taxing money and then spending it. I refer to laws and regulations that require some citizens to help others directly, such as minimum wages, maximum hours, and mandatory benefits for employees, or rent control for tenants.

All along, while the welfare state was growing constantly, liberals were insisting constantly it wasn’t big enough or growing fast enough. So I wondered, five years ago, whether there is a Platonic ideal when it comes to the size of the welfare state—whether there is a point at which the welfare state has all the money, programs, personnel, and political support it needs, thereby rendering any further additions pointless. The answer, I concluded, is that there is no answer—the welfare state is a permanent work-in-progress, and its liberal advocates believe that however many resources it has, it always needs a great deal more.

The argument of Never Enough was correct as far as it went, but it was incomplete. It offered an answer to two of the journalist’s standard questions: What is the liberal disposition regarding the growth of the welfare state? And How does that outlook affect politics and policy? But it did not answer another question: Why do liberals feel that no matter how much we’re doing through government programs to alleviate and prevent poverty, whatever we are doing is shamefully inadequate?

Baptism - is it required for salvation?

I’ve been thinking about the doctrine of baptism. we tend to think that we understand what the Bible teaches because we've thought it out, studied, and researched. But that isn't necessarily so. So much of what I thought I believed was simply because someone told me so. A sermon is too often substituted for personal study.

The doctrine of baptism is one such thing. What does the Bible teach about baptism? Perhaps not what we think. Baptism has a long tradition, including among the Jews, who ritually washed themselves. The practice of water baptism continued into the church as a ordinance or sacrament of the faith. Importantly, the idea of being washed in both blood and water has both natural and spiritual implications.

So, I'm going to explore some of the ideas surrounding baptism. This is by no means a thorough exposition, nor is it necessarily scholarly. I am not a Bible scholar.

The Old Testament

We well know that the offering of blood for the remission of sins is a crucial part of Jewish understanding. Large portions of the O.T. are instructions and references to blood sacrifice. All of this, of course, was pointing to the ultimate sacrifice for sin, given once for all in the person of Jesus Christ. But not as clear to me was how baptism connects to this.

The earliest biblical mention I could find regarding something akin to baptism is Num. 19:20-21:

"But if a person who is unclean does not purify himself, he must be cut off from the community, because he has defiled the sanctuary of the LORD. The water of cleansing has not been sprinkled on him, and he is unclean. This is a lasting ordinance for them. The man who sprinkles the water of cleansing must also wash his clothes, and anyone who touches the water of cleansing will be unclean till evening."

Like the blood sacrifices, this "water of cleansing" was a carefully described ritual act. Someone who was not clean could not enter the Temple to worship, and was actually an outcast, not part of the people. Of course, such a person could be restored to the community by becoming ceremonially clean, but until then they were unfit for worship and unfit to be part of the people.

David's famous statement in Ps. 51:7, "Cleanse me with hyssop, and I shall be clean; wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow" ties in here as well. Hyssop was used to place blood on the doorframe so as to be passed over. Moses sprinkled the people with blood at the giving of the commandments. Hyssop also was used to sprinkle water for ceremonial cleanness. Nu. 19:18: "Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there."

And as an interesting aside, a hyssop branch was what carried the sponge with sour wine to Jesus' lips as He hung on the cross.

This "sprinkling,"is a physical representation of the spiritual cleansing God intends. The Messiah, the Lamb of God, is offered for the sins of the world, and His blood washes those who are unclean because of sin. That sin prevented us from coming in worship, and also separated us from the Body of Christ. What is particular to the Jews in a physical manifestation is a picture of what God intends for all men, both Jew and Gentile. Is. 52:15:

"... so will he sprinkle many nations, so will many nations marvel at him and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand."

I like that this shown as a revelation, that those with spiritual eyes and ears will discern the glory of God as He offers His son as one sacrifice for all.

Ez. 36:25-27 continues this theme:

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws."

This is a greater act than ritual cleansing, it's a change in the inner man, where we receive a tender heart and a new spirit. This washing is supernatural, transformative, and it is so thorough and efficacious that God's own Spirit can take up residence in us. Now we can truly keep the law, be worshipers in Spirit and truth, and take our place in the Body as one of the living stones. That law, the law of Christ, is grace imparted to us, not by virtue of how well we clean ourselves, but by how completely we have been washed by the blood of Jesus and thence filled by His Holy Spirit.