ORIGINAL SIN PROOF-TEXT - BY STEVE FINNELL

Found here.
--------------------------------------

The author once again is completely reluctant to enter into discussion, preferring to either ignore those who comment on his site, or to create entirely new posts which simply restate his original opinion. He never responds directly to anyone.

In addition, I note there is an alarming paucity of "redeeming" topics on his site. You will find many posts about water baptism, original sin, cessationism, and other nit-picky doctrinal issues, but precious little about leading a Christian life, worship, or prayer, for example. 

So this latest post is simply a rehash of his objections to original sin, complete with the same misunderstandings, unsupported assertions, and misinterpretations. Read on:

--------------------------------------
To prove that all men are guilty of sin at conception and therefore born as sinners; original sin proponents quote David in Psalm 51:5. (Which is not the only verse available to quote.)

David Quote: Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. (NKJV)

Was David born into a sinful world? Yes. Was David's mother guilty of sin? Yes. Was David guilty of his mother's sin. No. Was David spiritually condemned because of the sin of Adam and Eve? No. David died physically because of Adam's sin. Men die spiritually because of sins they themselves commit. (This is typical rhetoric from the author. He begins by subtly twisting the position of those he disagrees with, then comes a summary denial with no proof or evidence offered. 

His error is his view of sin. He defines it as "bad things people do" as opposed to the biblical teaching that sin is the state of fallen man. He further errs by his supposition that God is incapable of causing bad things. But we read in Ps. 119:75" "I know, O LORD, that your laws are righteous, and in faithfulness you have afflicted me." God causes calamity, he hardened Pharaoh's heart, and He "causes men to stumble..." Is. 8:14. God is so much more than the binary creature envisioned by the author.)

DOES GOD CREATE SINNERS IN THE WOMB? (The author proceeds to conflate "create" with "born.")

An Alternative Vision of Church

A brainstorm essay of systemic changes needed in churches.

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

Current conditions

Imagine you are a Martian visiting the earth, and you decide to attend a church service. What will you find? Typically, you would find a church organized around a large weekly meeting with a full-time paid pastor. Generally, this pastor functions as a sort of CEO. In addition, often there is a selected group of sub-leaders, commonly called elders or perhaps deacons. Depending on the church, there may also be a paid support staff.

The pastor presides over nearly every meeting, particularly Sunday services. Generally, the pastor is usually a credentialed clergy, a gifted speaker and/or a strong, charismatic personality that attracts attendees and financial support.

Typically, the children and/or youth are separated into a service of their own so the adults can be relieved of distraction, a musical group performs some songs (which may or may not require the participation of the attendees), one or two prayers are said, probably by the pastor, and an offering is taken. The pastor then delivers a message in a lecture format, offering his insights into the meaning of biblical passages and/or cultural issues while the attendees take notes.

The service concludes with more music, a perfunctory prayer, and announcements regarding special events or activities. The people are then dismissed. This happens pretty much every Sunday, perhaps in different order, but generally following the same pattern.

As a Martian seeing this for the first time, you probably wonder why church is this way. There might be something that attracts you, but in the final analysis you don’t find much reason to be there.

Constitutional horror: Clarence Thomas argues states can establish official religion - by Michael Stone

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

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

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues states may establish an official state religion, and sees no problem with an individual state making Christianity the official state religion.

Thomas believes the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states. The Establishment Clause is that part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

The Establishment Clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another, or none. (Well, no. Here's the text: 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

Do you see the phrase "unduly favor?" Do you see any hint that Congress is allowed in any way address religion, or to pass ANY law regarding religion? Neither do I.

But this is the Leftist template, that nothing religious [or actually, nothing Christian] is allowed to happen in government. Despite the depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. Despite "In God we trust" being engraved in the House chamber. And the many other Christian references found all around the capitol area.)  

How to end boom and bust: make cash illegal - By Jim Leaviss

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

(This approving article, containing not a single detraction or critical statement, fully embraces the idea of more government economic involvement.

Lest you think that this is Denmark and therefore irrelevant, may I remind you of how the Left values the European ways of doing things? They are always comparing us to Germany's health plan or the Belgium's infant mortality rates or how many days off of work they get in France. So these ideas are soon to be floated in the US, I guarantee it.

Crucial understanding: Money is a proxy for your labor. That is, your work has value, which you exchange for your pay. So your money is a meter of sorts that represents how much of your labor you are able to exchange for cash. Then, when you buy something, you are in fact trading a valuation of your labor for those goods or services.

So what happens when government assumes the power to dictate where you spend your cash, in the form of mandates, or how much of your cash you are allowed to keep, in the form of net income after taxes? Well, what happens is the government has in essence allocated your labor to serve the interests of some other party, and not you. 

So what has happened is you are working for someone else's benefit. Your labor, and/or its cash proxy, ends up in someone else's pocket. And that, my friends, is slavery.

So now to the root of the article. The author believes that government can and should lay additional claim to your labor proxy, and render its value as zero. Because if the government can tax your cash accounts to manipulate your behavior in order to serve the aims of society, the money is no longer yours, and the value of your labor is zero.  

Read on:
------------------------------

Forbidden Data - Wyoming just criminalized citizen science - by Justin Pidot

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

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

"Just criminalized science." Well, actually, not. Leftists, quick to jump on the bandwagon at the slightest sniff of a buzzword or slogan, happily run with the latest in "anti-science" examples.

Below the article I have posted the relevant portions of the actual legislation. As you read the article, compare the claims the author makes with the language of the legislation. You will quickly discover that the author's characterizations bear no resemblance to the law.

Read on.

------------------------
Imagine visiting Yellowstone this summer. You wake up before dawn to take a picture of the sunrise over the mists emanating from Yellowstone hot springs. A thunderhead towers above the rising sun, and the picture turns out beautifully. You submit the photo to a contest sponsored by the National Weather Service. Under a statute signed into law by the Wyoming governor this spring, you have just committed a crime and could face up to one year in prison. (The law contains no mention of Yellowstone. Nor would it, since Yellowstone does not belong to Wyoming. But Yellowstone certainly makes for good story telling. Nor is there any reference regarding any protected area or federal government-owned land. Thus, the first paragraph is nothing more than a pretty lie.)

Wyoming doesn’t, of course, care about pictures of geysers or photo competitions. But photos are a type of data, and the new law makes it a crime to gather data about the condition of the environment across most of the state if you plan to share that data with the state or federal government. (Well, no. It doesn't. It makes trespassing illegal. You know, entering a place without permission? The law requires that you have permission to be on someone's land!) 

The reason? The state wants to conceal the fact that many of its streams are contaminated by E. coli bacteria, strains of which can cause serious health problems, even death. (Document the claim, sir. An unsupported assertion is worth nothing more than a summary dismissal.)

A small organization called Western Watersheds Project (which I represent pro bono in an unrelated lawsuit) has found the bacteria in a number of streams crossing federal land in concentrations that violate water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. Rather than engaging in an honest public debate about the cause or extent of the problem, Wyoming prefers to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. (Another unsupported assertion.) 

And under the new law, the state threatens anyone who would challenge that belief by producing information to the contrary with a term in jail. (No, the state will jail trespassers.)

Why the desire for ignorance rather than informed discussion? (The author now makes a logical leap, that the reason for the law is a preference for ignorance. This is known as a false choice. There are more than two possibilities, but the author is attempting to construct a scenario that pushes the buttons of the environmental Left. He needs the Pavlovian response of outrage, cloaked in a veneer of "scientific-ness." This is nothing more than rhetorical manipulation.)

The reason is pure politics. The source of E. coli is clear. (The author has yet to demonstrate that this is the reason for the legislation.) It comes from cows spending too much time in and next to streams. Acknowledging that fact could result in rules requiring ranchers who graze their cows on public lands to better manage their herds. The ranching community in Wyoming wields considerable political power and has no interest in such obligations, so the state is trying to stop the flow of information rather than forthrightly address the problem. (The legislation doesn't mention the environment. Or cows. Or e coli. Or pollution. Or ranches. The author has offered nothing but supposition. He doesn't know any of this.)

The Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws recognize that government officials lack the resources and sometimes the political will to address every environmental problem. Ordinary citizens therefore play an integral role in carrying out these laws. The statutes authorize citizens to bring lawsuits against polluters and recalcitrant government agencies, and citizen scientists have long played an important role in gathering information to support better regulations.

The Wyoming law transforms a good Samaritan who volunteers her time to monitor our shared environment into a criminal. (Yup, if the "Samaritan" is trespassing.) 

Idaho and Utah, as well as other states, have also enacted laws designed to conceal information that could damage their agricultural industries—laws currently being challenged in federal court. But Wyoming is the first state to enact a law so expansive that it criminalizes taking a picture on public land. (The law does not criminalize any such thing.)

The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. (No, one would have to be on the land without permission. But the issue remains open what constitutes "open land." At this point, I am reluctant to take anything the author says as true.)

The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself. (No, if you're traipsing around on someone's land without permission and poking your nose into peoples' business, you're breaking the law.)

By enacting this law, the Wyoming legislature has expressed its disdain for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment and the environmental protections enshrined in federal statutes. Today, environmentally conscious citizens face a stark choice: They can abandon efforts to protect the lands they love or face potential criminal charges. The United States government should not sit idly by. It should plainly express its disapproval of this law. Ideally, this would entail the U.S. Department of Justice filing a lawsuit to invalidate the Wyoming law, much as it did when it challenged Arizona’s state immigration law as unconstitutional. At the very least, the federal agencies that manage public lands should issue written statements providing express permission for citizen scientists to continue their efforts to protect our shared environment. (Obviously the law doesn't come to bear on federal land.)

Anyone with a passing familiarity with our Constitution (That is aptly phrased. A "passing familiarity" is about as much knowledge the typical leftist has regarding the Constitution.) 

will recognize that the Wyoming law is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of the supremacy clause (Let's quote the relevant provision of Article VI: 

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

There's that one little word that voids the author's entire argument: "Pursuance." Federal laws are only supreme above the states if they are made in "pursuance" to the Constitution.) because it interferes with the purposes of federal environmental statutes by making it impossible for citizens to collect the information necessary to bring an enforcement lawsuit. The Wyoming law also violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech because it singles out speech about natural resources for burdensome regulation and makes it a crime to engage in a variety of expressive and artistic activities. And finally, it specifically criminalizes public engagement with federal and state agencies and therefore violates another right guaranteed by the First Amendment: the right to petition the government. (Whew. Quite a litany. None of it true or accurate based on the overlooking of single concept: Trespass. You just can't waltz onto someone's land without permission and start poking around. How simple is that?)

Justin Pidot is an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Follow him on Twitter.

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

And now for the bill's text:

AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; creating the crimes of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawful collection of resource data; limiting use of unlawfully collected data; providing for expungement; providing definitions; and providing for an effective date. 

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Section 1. W.S. 6-3-414 is created to read: 6-3-414. Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data; unlawful collection of resource data. 

(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he: 

(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and (ii) Does not have: 

(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data; or (B) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter or access the land to collect the specified resource data. 

(b) A person is guilty of unlawfully collecting resource data if he enters onto private open land and collects resource data without: ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 2 

(i) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter the private land to collect the specified resource data; or (ii) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter the land to collect the specified resource data. 

(c) Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawfully collecting resource data are punishable as follows: 

(i) By imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both; (ii) By imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both, if the person has previously been convicted of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data or unlawfully collecting resource data. 

(d) As used in this section: 

(i) "Collect" means to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government; (ii) "Open land" means land outside the exterior boundaries of any incorporated city, town, subdivision ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 3 approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-308 or development approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-403; (iii) "Peace officer" means as defined by W.S. 7-2-101; (iv) "Resource data" means data relating to land or land use, including but not limited to data regarding agriculture, minerals, geology, history, cultural artifacts, archeology, air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species. "Resource data" does not include data: 

(A) For surveying to determine property boundaries or the location of survey monuments; (B) Used by a state or local governmental entity to assess property values; (C) Collected or intended to be collected by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties. 

(e) No resource data collected in violation of this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator. 

(f) Resource data collected in violation of this section in the possession of any governmental entity as defined by W.S. 1-39-103(a)(i) shall be expunged by the entity from all files and data bases, and it shall not be considered in determining any agency action. ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING

Scalia and Roberts Don’t Know Best - by Jamie Raskin

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. This post first appeared at Salon. My comments in bold.

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

If you take away Prohibition (the 18th Amendment) and its repeal (the 21st), most of our constitutional amendments since the original Bill of Rights have expanded the voting rights and political equality of the people. (No, most of the amendments and the Bill of Rights have further restricted government.)

Our post-Reconstruction amendments have abolished slavery (the 13th), provided for equal protection of the laws and required reduction of states’ congressional delegations if they disenfranchise eligible voters (the 14th), denied states the power to discriminate in voting based on race (the 15th) and shifted the mode of election of US Senators from the legislatures to the people (the 17th). They have passed woman suffrage (the 19th), given residents of the federal district the right to vote and participate in presidential elections by casting electors (the 23rd), abolished poll taxes in federal elections (the 24th) and lowered the voting age to 18 (the 26th).

Moreover, many of these amendments have directly responded to Supreme Court decisions denying the political rights of the people. For example, the 19th Amendment overturned the Court’s decision in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which held that Equal Protection did not protect the right of women to vote, affirming precedents finding that women’s proper place is in the domestic sphere. Similarly, the 24th Amendment banning poll taxes in federal elections overturned the Court’s 1937 decision in Breedlove v. Suttles upholding such taxes. (My point made. Intrusions into the liberty of Americans by government were overturned by the amendments.)

But if you listened only to some of my colleagues in the legal establishment, you might never know that our unfolding Bill of Rights ("Unfolding?" The Bill of Rights, passed in 1789, has not been changed since. It isn't "unfolding."

is a dynamic chronicle of the democratic struggles of the people for participatory political equality (No, it is part of the highest law of the land, its self described purpose is "...that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..." Restrictive clauses upon government power.)

nor would you know that the people have often had to override reactionary decisions of the Supreme Court in the process. (It's odd to me how the Left is so interested in the courts overturning the democratic will of the people on one hand, yet here this author thinks the Supreme court is acting improperly. You see, the problem here is the excessive power that the court, and all government, wields. The Left loves government power, but sometimes it acts in a way you agree, sometimes not. Thus the Left is very happy when it goes their way and unhappy when it doesn't. The fact that government has assumed the power to act according to any political or social agenda is the issue.)

A lot of lawyers today react with horror to US Reps. Marc Pocan (D-WI) and Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) excellent push for a constitutional amendment to establish an affirmative and universal right to vote against recurring state efforts to disenfranchise people. And a lot of academics were aghast last summer when every Democratic United States senator supported a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United, McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011). (So the author has her agenda and advocates constitutional amendments to further that agenda. But should the people actually choose to pass a state constitutional amendment (as Montana voters did with the definition of marriage), well, we can't have that, can we? Thus all her arguments in favor of amendments are supplanted by the agenda. 

She doesn't want amendments when she gets a court ruling. She doesn't want a court ruling if she can get a law passed. She doesn't want a law if she can get an protest. Any or all of these are fine if they further the objective. No holds barred for the sake of the agenda.)

The Tabernacle - sermon text

Introduction
There are three manifestations of the tabernacle.

1) a physical dwelling place constructed by the Hebrew people. It is a representation of the heavenly tabernacle. Have them make a sanctuary for me

2) Today’s tabernacle, the body of Christ, made of living stones 1Pe. 2:5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house (tabernacle) to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

3) The heavenly tabernacle. Heb 9:11 When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation.

From the human perspective, a past, present, and future manifestation of His Presence.

The Tabernacle of Moses
After God delivered Israel from Pharaoh, He began leading them with the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night as they wandered the desert.

God commanded Moses to build Him a tabernacle (The Hebrew word translated “tabernacle” isohel, means “a tent, a dwelling place, a home.”). This Tabernacle would be where the Glory of God dwells. Ex. 25:8-9 “…Have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them. Make this tabernacle and all its furnishings exactly like the pattern I will show you.”

It was a tent that was set up outside of the camp, (Exodus 33:7) which Moses called the tent of meeting, where he would go to inquire of God. He and God would speak face to face! Whenever Moses went there, the pillar of cloud would descend in front of the door, and the people would worship. The purpose of the tabernacle of Moses was to provide a place where the people could go to worship God.

The tent was divided into two rooms: the Holy Place, where the table of showbread, the golden lampstand, and the altar of incense sat; and the Most Holy Place (Holy of Holies), where the Ark of the Covenant (Testimony) was placed. The ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant.