Galatians 6:1-5

I was so caught up in this passage, I felt compelled to share the thoughts racing around my head...

"Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, for each one should carry his own load." ~Galatians 6:1-5

The first verse makes the point, and verses 2 through 5 elaborate. As to the first sentence, he who should "restore him gently" is "you who are spiritual". But does this mean all of "you" because you are spiritual or does it mean only those of "you" who are spiritual? Verse 2 expands the idea with direction that clearly applies to everyone. Obviously, it is not only important for those "who are spiritual" to fulfill the law of Christ! Therefore, it must be concluded that "who are spiritual" is used as a counterpoint and describes all of those who are not "caught in sin".

Of course, also worthy of note is that someone "caught in a sin" should be restored gently. This alone is worth considerable meditation. Certainly soft words alone are not at all gently restorative. We must be guided by following the recent verse 5:14, which refers to Leviticus 19:18, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

When hearing "But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted", I used to imagine a person entering a bar to find his friend who was indulging in alcohol only to find himself swilling beer. But the temptation referred to here is toward pride of being "you who are spiritual". For, "if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself wihtout comparing himself to somebody else". This is quite plain. But merely connecting verses 3 and 4 with the second part of verse 1 is revelatory for me. The temptation we face when gently restoring our brothers is less in being caught in the same sin, but more in being tangled in pride.

An apparent contradiction lies between verses 2 and 5. How can it be that we should "Carry each other's burdens" when "each one should carry his own load". Upon brief reflection, it must be recognized that while each should carry his own load, verse 1 makes clear it does not always happen. Sometimes, "someone is caught in a sin", not carrying his own load. We must always endeavor to carry our own load and, when necessary, fulfill the law of Christ to "love your neighbor as yourself" by carrying "each other's burdens".

Against Civil Debate

When you and I seek to achieve the same goal, yet disagree about the best manner by which our shared goal might be obtained, then we are likely to benefit by sharing our points of view and seeking to learn from each other and to persuade each other. In addition, civil society survives only when we peacefully resolve such conflicts.

As another example, if I have concluded that, for your own good, your home must be burned to the ground with all your possessions and family inside, you might find it more difficult to civilly discuss my solution. Such a solution would be a violation of your right and those of your family members. If I, nevertheless, consider burning down your house with your family inside to be a necessary part of making your life better, how much patience could you muster for civilly discussing the validity of such a proposal? Should it be considered rude or uncivil of you to object so vigorously as to preclude thoughtful debate? Of course not. In fact, if I were to then begin to implement my plan in spite of your objections, one should reasonably expect you to not only take exception, but also to raise your hand against my efforts in order to save your family and your property. And you would be right to do so.

Those persistent, disruptive, sign-carrying, slogan-yelling, camera-wielding citizens who attend town-hall meetings to object to the subjugation of American citizens to government dictates regarding health care have made themselves objects of ridicule and violence by standing strongly for liberty and against tyranny and corruption. They are American heroes and are to be applauded, celebrated, and revered!

Incontinent

I have always thought of incontinence as the inability to control one's bladder. This is the only manner in which I've heard the word used. But it has come to my attention through the King James Version of the Bible and subsequent research that the definition covers a other realms of behavior as well.

1 Corinthians 7:5

Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. ~KJV

Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ~NIV

The same word or words are translated "incontinency" and "lack of self-control".
The definitions I find for incontinent include:

in⋅con⋅ti⋅nent  [in-kon-tn-uhnt]
–adjective
1. unable to restrain natural discharges or evacuations of urine or feces.
2. unable to contain or retain (usually fol. by of): incontinent of temper.
3. lacking in moderation or self-control, esp. of sexual desire.
4. unceasing or unrestrained: an incontinent flow of talk.

And the following from a medical dictionary:

Main Entry: in·con·ti·nence
Function: noun
1 : inability or failureto restrain sexual appetite
2 : inability of the body to control the evacuative functions

Also very interesting are the related words that are given:

Related Words for : incontinence
incontinency, dissoluteness, self-gratification

Clearly, there is an aspect of incontinence that relates to sexual desire and the inability, or unwillingness, to control that desire.
Now, you have encountered puppies that urinate on themselves (or on you) because they get so excited. We could consider those puppies to be incontinent. Don't forget that they will also hump your leg with no provocation.

Given these things to consider, it seems entirely reasonable for us to conclude that temptations to lust or sloth or gluttony or any other activity of over-indulgent self-gratification are temptations to behave like pitiful little puppies who can't help peeing on ourselves.

The Power of Jesus

Can you save your own life? Is there any potential circumstance in this world from which your abilities are insufficient for protecting yourself? Of course, there are. You and I are imperfect and less than expert at so many skills that might be relevant in a given situation wherein our lives might be in danger.

But, can you imagine a hypothetical individual who is supremely adept physically, athletically, intellectually, emotionally, and academically? What if there were someone who had all the knowledge and all the skills and all the physical abilities that are possible for any human being to have? Would he always be able to save his own life? Well.. the answer has to be "no". But, here's why. While such a person might successfully face every challenge the world can throw at him, there is still Jesus. Such an individual might land safely from a leap from an airplane without a parachute. He might be able to instantly calculate the speed and trajectory of a bullet and apply his strength and dexterity with perfect precision in order to avoid being touched by said bullet. He may "McGuyver" his way out of any number of technically challenging situations. Such a person would be capable of avoiding every danger there is in this world.

But such a person would still be a human being. That is, he would remain less than God. Not only so, but all of his skills, abilities, and mental faculties were given and are maintained by Jesus. It is only by the will of Jesus that such a person (as well as you and I) continues to exist. Jesus holds together this person's body parts, the cells, the molecules, the atoms, even the subatomic particles. Such a powerful and capable person would cease to exist at the merest thought of Jesus. At the slightest whim of Jesus, such a person would never have existed. There would be no written record or memory of him because there would be nothing to record or remember. All the history of his own life and the lives and events he impacted would be changed, not because of his departure, but because he never arrived! That is the truly awesome power of Jesus.

Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ~Matthew 28:18

And we pray this in order that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and may please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God, being strengthened with all power according to his glorious might so that you may have great endurance and patience, and joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you[a] to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light. ~Colossians 1:10-12

Federal Agency Promotes Gender Confusion

The Environmental Protection Agency facility in Durham, North Carolina displayed this approximately 25 foot high banner and several much smaller signs in celebration of "Gay Pride" month in June 2009. It's interesting to note the tactic used by excluding the words "gay" and "homosexual" from the banner. However, the elements in the banner such as the flag, the verbiage of the poem "Equality", as well as the absence of specificity and the fact that the advertisements were displayed during "Gay Pride Month", all serve more than sufficiently to make clear the "pride" to which the title refers is pride in sexual perversion born of gender confusion.

"Who watches the Watchmen?"

I did. I had read the comics years ago and anticipated the ridiculous plot resolution. Still, I was so very disappointed. I suppose that's because the movie touches on issues that I care about, like peace and liberty among others, yet responds to real challenges with only absurdities. In fact, it goes so far as to punctuate its absurd fantasies about human nature by mocking the best provision of peace and liberty that actually was offered and proven in the world during the time period of the film. (I'm trying to avoid spoilers in case you'd like to be disappointed, too.) THUMBS DOWN!

A "Defense of Marriage" Amendment is Gay

The proposal to add an amendment to the United States Constitution is driven by a desire to protect marriage because it is the foundation of society and necessary for its continued existence. Note that I am careful NOT to say marriage is merely the foundation of our society, as if marriage were an American institution. The life of all human society depends on husbands and wives committed to life-long union.

A Constitutional amendment defining marriage appropriately might not be the worst thing to ever happen. However, it would be a violation of the Conservative principles, particularly that of limited government, that have served to make the United States of America history's strongest most prosperous nation and to enable the U.S.A. to export desire for liberty, as well as its reality, around the world.

Conservatives, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others, rightly understood that people can only possess liberty when the government is restricted as our Constitution was designed to do. So-called 'Liberals' disagree. Communists, Atheists, Homosexuals, and others, have repeatedly applied methods to use the government, both in legal and illegal ways, to force tyrannical, unconstitutional policies onto our people.

I'm not at all comfortable with government at any level requiring me to be licensed in order to marry the woman of my dreams. When a marriage covenant is enacted between a man, a woman, and God, an oath has been taken. Two people are married. What has government to do with it? Who is some bureaucrat to tell me, my wife, and my God whether or not we are really married and our vow is legitimate?

It does occur to me that, in its appropriate role to protect us from each other when necessary, some level of government may need to know who is married in order to prevent and/or punish bigamy, for example. But, can you see that allowing marriage to be defined by government gives it too much power over our personal lives?

Because of its profound significance, defense of marriage is not only good, but also necessary! But, like flying planes into buildings full of innocent Muslim civilians in order to defeat Islamic Fascists, to propose a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is to adopt and condone the tactics of the tyrannical homosexual agenda.