Crusader War College

Another masterful piece by Steven den Beste.

=> Read more!

A lot of people cling to the belief that God is inherently unfair and not good given the following threat from Exodus 20:

4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: 5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

It is, of course, ignored that the punishment of the fathers falls on the children to the third and fourth generation, while mercy is shown to thousands of generations that love him.

This threat is repeated in Exodus 34:7, with some clarification that is often ignored deliberately:

5 And the LORD descended in the cloud, and stood with him there, and proclaimed the name of the LORD. 6 And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, 7 Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation. (Ex. 34:5-7)

What is the purpose of these threats? The first thing to recognize is that these indeed are threats, but they are plainly directed to the descendants of the guilty. Secondly, it should be recognized that, in those days, it was customary for marriages to be very early and with the goal of having children as soon as possible. Thus, it was very much possible for the guilty one who worshipped idols to see their great grand children (the fourth generation).

I believe the way to look at these verses is to realize that when religious men and women knowingly commit evil, they will justify the sin or the attempt to manage the consequences of their sin by a seeming "selfless" appeal. "It's for the children!" is the cry being given today for government mandated health care, one world government, pacifism, abortion, environmentalism, the war on terrorism, and destruction of the economy in the name of controlling "man originated global warming". "Certainly what we are doing is not good right now," they say, "but it is okay because I am not doing it for myself, but for those who will come after me." It is said that the wealthy tend to look 100 years down the line while the poor don't look past the next paycheck. Thus, this threat is directed to those who claim to have a "long term vision" that mandates their "evil" actions today in the name of averting some future threat or gaining some future benefit.

Whether this is what they honestly believe or is merely a pretext is irrelevant: the intent is to disarm opponents that would keep them from performing those actions or who would punish them as part of a process to derail what they set into motion. In a sense, these people are employing virtual human shields. Like cowardly terrorists who flee to civilian areas knowing that Western forces will not chase them down if there is a good chance of civilian casualties resulting from it, these appeal to the threat to current children or children not yet born that would result from executing justice on them and undoing their acts.

What must be kept in mind when dealing with such people is that such behavior is calculated. That is, they have not only meticulously planned out what they were going to do, but engaged in a cost/benefit calculation that was used to come up with contingency plans to mitigate the costs: "IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN" is the implementation of a contingency plan born of a mitigation strategy. The argument against government intrusion into economic affairs is based on the fact that government aid and restrictions affect the cost/benefit analysis, and thus affects the actions of those making those calculations.

What is God doing in these passages? He is acting to counter-mitigate this argument! "If you truly CARED for future generations, know that what I am requiring will truly benefit thousands of future generations if you obey my commandments today. Thus, because those future generations are what you purport to value, I will not only threaten them for what you do, but I will make sure that that punishment falls on the generations that you do see."

That God takes into account the perverse calculations of the human heart is seen when this commandment is seemingly reversed in Ezekiel 18. In that chapter, the parents believe that these verses imply that the children totally bear the parents sins, while beliving that they are suffering the consequences of the sins of their parents. Rather than repent and count on the Lord's word that he would have mercy on thousands of generations that love and obey him, they decide that the best way to mitigate the pain they are suffering is to indulge the sins of pleasure, reasoning that the pain from THOSE sins will be shifted off of them to their children. It is even more perverse behavior if their fathers were righteous so the suffering they are enduring is due to the natural consequences of the sins of their neighbors splashing over onto them because they didn't want to "rock the boat" or "cause trouble" by holding their sinning neighbors to account: Rather than execute true justice on the ones causing corporate suffering, they start this inter-generational pissing contest by their sins. God "messes" things up by negating the inter-generational threat and declares he would judge people by what they do, rather than what their fathers did.

Those who complain about God's justice should note Ezekiel 18:25-29:

25 Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? 26 When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die. 27 Again, when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness that he hath committed, and doeth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive. 28 Because he considereth, and turneth away from all his transgressions that he hath committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 29 Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

We may laugh today at what we see as the obvious perversity of that generation who complained of God's ways "not being equal" when it was obvious that "their ways were unequal"! In the same way, future generations will look back at the fools of our day and laugh at them for their belief that God would be blamed for their use of human shields! Men's moralities may not change as often as the spring clothing styles, but change they do. God's morality never changes and is always beneficial, regardless of the time or the foolish beliefs of men.

Wow.

Like WOW.

THAT is who I REALLY am.

THAT is what I REALLY BELIEVE.

And THERE ARE OTHERS who believe as I do!

I once joked that I was a Pentecostal Free-will Baptist, but I had no idea that what I thought was "off-the-wall" was actually held by others.

Like WOW.

Thanks be to God!!!!

[The Jansenists were seen as calvinists because they held to total depravity. So does Reformed Arminianism.]

Godspeed to you, Major.

The link is to a post at Belmont Club in which one of the commenters noted that some believe that God's actions during the first day of creation was fundamentally different from his actions on the other days, going so far as to say that some see God as "a passive actor" on the first day. I have to disagree with that, mainly because I see God having considerably more options for action than we do.

If we want something done, we either do it ourselves or get others to do it for us. God has the same options, but has, in his "getting it done" arsenal, His own Word. I.e. The Word of God, when uttered, has a generative/constructive power that our words do not. We see our words as having power only if someone else hears them, understands them, and decides to obey. Stuff just doesn't happen because we "say" what we want. In contrast, God's Word, as illustrated in the first day, does not even require a recipient, having within itself the power to create the direct object of any utterance of God.

=> Read more!

Spengler does a fantastic job ripping into the pretensions of the admirers of modern art:

After I wrote Admit it - you really hate modern art (January 30), many readers assured me that I was quite mistaken about them. Especially among the educated elites there are many who will go to their graves proclaiming their love for modern art, and I owe them an explanation of sorts. At the cost of most of few remaining friends, I will provide it.

You pretend to like modern art because you want to be creative. In fact, you are not creative, not in the least. In all of human history we know of only a few hundred truly creative men and women. It saddens me to break the news, but you aren't one of them. By insisting that you are not creative, you think I am saying that you are not important. I do not mean that, but will have to return to the topic later.

You have your heart set on being creative because you want to worship yourself, your children, or some pretentious impostor, rather than the god of the Bible. Absence of faith has not made you more rational. On the contrary, it has made you ridiculous in your adoration of clownish little deities, of whom the silliest is yourself. G K Chesterton said that if you stop believing in God, you will believe in anything.

There is so much goodness, I would be violating his copyrights if I cited what I liked about it.

I think he is spot-on in pinpointing the problem in people wanting to feel indispensable by being creative. And his prescription is highly recommended: Substitute true acts of service to others as a means to become indispensable. My only proviso is that no Christian is truly indispensable: rather one's service should be such that they should be considered irreplaceable. When viewed in that light, the list of the Christian irreplaceable grows considerably larger than Spengler's list of the truly creative.

Go read the whole thing. Highly recommended as a stimulant to further thought. And DO follow the link to his article that he cited.

=> Read more!

"America Alone" is Mark Steyn's most recent book regarding the war on terror that examines the course of the war from the point of view of demographics. Chuck Colson, founder of Prison Fellowship, one of the major Christian prison ministries going, has a review at the link. He notes that

Radical Islam is not luring Europeans away from a solid belief system; it’s providing many of them with the first real belief system they have ever had. It’s filling a void for people who have nothing else to believe in or hold on to.

Secularists in Europe—and in America as well—do not understand this. As Steyn writes, “One reason why the developed world has a difficult job grappling with the Islamist threat is that it doesn’t take religion seriously. It condescends to it.” That condescension makes secularists unable to see what’s going on right under their noses.

It’s similar to the situation that’s been going on in our prisons for years now, which I’ve talked about several times on “BreakPoint.” Prisoners all share one thing: a need for something to fill the emptiness in their lives. We have seen this in the thousands of prisons we work in. Radical Islamists know this, and they have made a point of targeting prisoners for conversion. Their brand of religion offers people that sense of belonging, of something worth living and dying for, that people need—the very thing that postmodern secular societies do not offer. And that’s a big part of what makes radical Islam so dangerous.

As Steyn put it in a recent interview for our “BreakPoint” website, “[Radical] Islam is a weak enemy, and its strength is determined by what it’s pushing against.” The problem is that Europe and, increasingly, America are putting up very little resistance. If Christians won’t stand up for our worldview, and secularists won’t stand up for anything, one day we may have no one but ourselves to blame for the triumph of radical Islam. The greatest offense against aggressive Islam is a strong, vibrant Christian faith, which, of course, comes right down to you and me.

I agree with the psychological analysis, and the links at the end of the article point to good resources. However, I think there's a bit more to the issue than Mr. Colson states.

I do not regard Islam, much less radical Islam, as being up to the same moral level as Buddhism, Judaism, or Christianity. Muslim Imams actively preach with the intent to incite hatred and violence in their believers, while preachers of the latter three religions more often counsel peace and non-violence. Imams demand of infidels that they change their behavior to pacify hot-headed young muslims, while preachers of the latter three religions tell their hot-headed youths to cool it. In short, Islam would do well in a prison environment because it gives a justification of the behavior of the inmates, while the latter three religions openly disapprove of the behavior of the inmates that put them in the prison in the first place. The demanded change in the behavior and beliefs that Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity requires of people is tougher to meet than the relatively shallow and simple requirements of Islam. Remember, the only people to have encountered Islam who willingly, eagerly, and whole-heartedly embraced it when they beat it militarily in the field were the Mongols. If a new religion arose that led every Bhuddist, Quaker, and Amish to abandon their native religion and embrace it with enthusiasm, one would have to conclude it offered something that better met the pacifistic tendencies of these types of people.

[edit: I found a marvelous Mark Steyn quote from "America alone" that I found at his website that better illustrates the point I am trying to make this:

The salient feature about Islamism is that, if you’re a violent thug, embracing this particular religion doesn’t mean having to do anything icky like help with the church bazaar or be nice to gay people. As an Islamist, you can pretty much carrying on doing all the things you like doing and the only difference is you’ll be doing them for your new religion: you can lie, cheat, steal, rape, kill women and children, and as long as you’re doing it for Allah and his victory over the infidels it’s cool. So we have not just a global terrorist movement and a global political project but a global gang culture insulated within the west’s fastest-growing demographic.

]]

In short, one would expect Islam to appeal to people given to violent behavior because it encourages and approves of their violent behavior if directed against non-muslims who do not agree with Islam. Where it preaches peace and tolerance is when it is in the extreme minority, where the Imams counsel prudence and patience because the conditions are not right: every criminal will respect the law when there are a lot of cops around with guns, and he doesn't have one. It has nothing to do with religious scruples, but everything to do with playing smart in order to win.

But there is a caveat that has to be made to Mr. Colson's comment that "The greatest offense against aggressive Islam is a strong, vibrant Christian faith, which, of course, comes right down to you and me." It is true that a strong, vibrant, Christian faith is offensive to an aggressive Islam. It is equally offensive to aggressive multiculturalism, atheism, and secularism (but I repeat myself). However, the latter three are currently held in check from going further than an intellectual opposition to Christianity as a religion, although there are as many efforts to legislate/ajudicate Christianity into obscurity as there are efforts to legislate/ajudicate Christian principles into law: they're just spun differently by a media that has taken sides in the issue. The argument being made by Islamists (an aggressive Islam), is that they have been given permission by Allah to impose Islamic laws (Sharia Law) by ANY means necessary, including force. They take this mandate as seriously as Christians take the Great Commission.

However, the Great Commission states that we are to preach the Gospel, baptize those who believe, and teach the believers to keep the commandments Jesus taught his disciples. The entire enterprise from start to finish was to be an educational effort, and the command to teach converts to keep Jesus' commands restricts Christian missionaries, evangelists, and pastors to not only the content of the faith, but also the method of the faith. Anyone advocating the use of force to make people believe Christianity would be confronted with the logical question "Did Jesus command THAT?"

Mr. Colson is proposing that the best way to oppose a religion that believes that using force against ones enemies is an acceptable option if success is assured is a more vigorous adherence to a religion that forbids its adherents to respond to physical threats, and to forgive their enemies. The the murderer of the Amish schoolchildren would have been equally successful against their parents, and he murdered for personal reasons. Every Christian who doubts the determination of Islamists to follow their religion should use, as a reference, THEIR own determination to follow Christianity to judge how the Islamists will feel and react. Those who hold Christianity as only one choice among a set of equally viable alternatives are projecting.

Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna, addresses the following problem:

This morning I received an email from a friend of ours who has noticed the nuke-the-ragheads mentality which so often rears its head in Gates of Vienna comments:

A couple of your commenters have got Islam so deeply on the brain, they think the only good ay-rab is a dead ay-rab. People who can’t distinguish individuals from groups are by definition prejudiced.

And indeed they are.

In fact, what they are doing is arguing for the assignment of collective guilt. They believe that innocent people within a group defined as “the enemy” should not be spared the fate of the group, deserve no sympathy, and should be disregarded.

The Baron goes on to cite the passage in Genesis 18:20-33, where Abraham bargains with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. Baron Bodissey argues from this the principle that the presence of some Muslim Moderates should moderate our response. He finishes by saying:

We can chew gum and walk. We can fight the vampires of Islamic fascism while supporting those Muslims who have the courage to speak out on behalf of values we share. Both jobs can be done.

If there be but ten righteous, let the city be spared.

Unfortunately, the problem of quoting the scriptures to support one's position is that ALL the scriptures relating to the issue at hand should be addressed.

=> Read more!

Bruce Thornton notes the following in his article at Dr. Hanson's website:

The West’s condemnation of Israel’s accidental shelling of two Palestinian Arab houses that killed 18 people once more reveals the bizarre incoherence that addles our thinking. The jihadists for years have purposely used their own families as cover for attacks in order to create exactly what we are seeing now: Israel’s accidental killing of women and children while attempting to protect their own elicits from the West vehement condemnations that ignore the jihadists’ culpability in putting their own people at risk. Meanwhile, deliberate killing and shelling of Israelis is met with generic condemnations of the “cycle of violence,” usually delivered with an accusatory finger pointed at Israel.

The moral principle involved isn’t hard to understand. If I shoot at your wife and child while standing behind mine, it is my fault if my wife and child are killed when you try to defend yourself. There is no moral imperative that says I must value the lives of your family more than the lives of my own. Except for Israel, apparently. Only the Jews are required year after year to sacrifice their citizens and show “restraint” as the necessary preconditions for some mythic “peaceful solution.” Meanwhile there is no evidence that this “solution” is really what the majority of Palestinian Arabs and Muslim nations want more than they want the destruction of Israel.

The failure of the West to understand this moral calculus is perfectly understood by the jihadist terrorists. Indeed, that failure is precisely why terrorism is used.

An excellent read. This is most telling:

In other words, the jihadists are winning the psychological war because they know well the West’s core weakness: believing only in material life as the highest good, the West finds suffering intolerable, even that of an enemy who wants to destroy us.

Exactly. Only religion gives a human, and a society, the power to see beyond suffering to a greater good, while a materialist one possesses a stunted vision that cannot see beyond its own pain and discomfort. The west cannot "understand this moral calculus", because it has neutered morality to give the answers it wants to maximise its own comfort. This behavior is exemplified in Isaiah 30:8-11"

8 Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: 9 That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.

And in 2 Timothy 4:3-4:

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

The article is worth a mention here as a defense of Israel in its own right. However, wihile I did not need Mr. Thornton to point out that the core belief of our current society is materialism, I have him to thank for pointing out, in passing and probably inadvertently, the logical consequences of such a belief on one's capability to morally reason. If the current world is all that there is, then pleasure is indeed the highest value, and anything that remotely indicates discomfort, pain, or difficulty, is thus logically viewed as evil. Just as the materialists in Ancient Judah demanded that the seers and prophets cease from prophesying that which was right, demanding that THEY, the seers and prophets, abandon the right way and participate in the erasure of God from their culture, so do the materialists in our culture, in the name of their highest value: pleasing themselves. As Paul predicted, they will not endure sound doctrine. In that maddened pursuit, morality ceases to be something that calls them to account, for that would be unpleasurable. Therefore, it MUST be rechanneled, reinterpreted, perverted, into something that DOES give pleasure.

Now, that last sentence does not mean that the secular hedonist/narcissist will have a morality that never condemns anything and anyone. The key thing to realize is that these people are demanding that morality give them pleasure. If that means being merciful and understanding to one's compatriots or some other designated "good guys", then the pronouncements will be correspondingly merciful and indulgent, and the resulting adulation from the spared and the approval of those sharing one's sentiments, will give the pleasure that is required. If that means denouncing, condemning, criticising, and demonising one's opponents, giving one pleasure in the process of tearing down the other while receiving applause from one's compatriot-hedonists, then the output of the morality will be adjusted to suit the circumstances.

What gives people pleasure is probably unknowable: observation of people's behavior seem to lead to the conclusion that the individuals themselves don't act as if they know what would really give them pleasure. However, unbound by an objective morality that would call them to account, they WILL act and moralize in such a manner as to maximize their pleasure. The relationship can obviously be indirect and obscure: if winning or victory gives one pleasure, the moralizing could be used to justify behaviours that would maximize one's chances of winning, as well as jusitfy why such behaviour should not lead to disqualification or condemnation, or does not merit disqualification or condemnation. If one loses, the moralizing would be pressed into the service of providing solace and comfort, justifying unsportsmanlike behaviour after the contest or leading someone to justify any attempt to reverse the results: There were no questions or lawsuits about the results of the 2006 election coming from the Democrats, or querelous and specious arguments against electronic voting THIS TIME AROUND. After all, the results were to their liking. It gave them pleasure, so no questions need be raised.

This is one of those bursts of insight provided by the commentary of another that makes the Internet the tremendous resource that it is. Again, my thanks to Mr. Thornton for an illuminating article that shed light on more than the author thought it would.

I am going to juxtaposition two passages from the Sermon on the Mount that are conventionally not put side by side. The first is known and loved by Liberals: to quote to OTHERS of course:
The first is Matthew 5:38-48:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

The second is Matthew 7:7-11

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

=> Read more!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

From First Chronicles 21:

1 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

2 And David said to Joab and to the rulers of the people, Go, number Israel from Beersheba even to Dan; and bring the number of them to me, that I may know it.

3 And Joab answered, The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? why then doth my lord require this thing? why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?

4 Nevertheless the king's word prevailed against Joab. Wherefore Joab departed, and went throughout all Israel, and came to Jerusalem.

...

7 And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel.

8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

God gave David a choice of punishment:

12 Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

13 And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let me fall now into the hand of the LORD; for very great are his mercies: but let me not fall into the hand of man.

He chooses door number three...

14 So the LORD sent pestilence upon Israel: and there fell of Israel seventy thousand men.

15 And God sent an angel unto Jerusalem to destroy it: and as he was destroying, the LORD beheld, and he repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed, It is enough, stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD stood by the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

16 And David lifted up his eyes, and saw the angel of the LORD stand between the earth and the heaven, having a drawn sword in his hand stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.

17 And David said unto God, Is it not I that commanded the people to be numbered? even I it is that have sinned and done evil indeed; but as for these sheep, what have they done? let thine hand, I pray thee, O LORD my God, be on me, and on my father's house; but not on thy people, that they should be plagued.

It seemed a good idea, but it turned out that David realized that his "choice" involved making other people pay for his own sin. The best and most moral choice was #2, being chased by his enemies for three months.

18 Then the angel of the LORD commanded Gad to say to David, that David should go up, and set up an altar unto the LORD in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite.

19 And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spake in the name of the LORD.

20 And Ornan turned back, and saw the angel; and his four sons with him hid themselves. Now Ornan was threshing wheat.

Seeing an angel ready to destroy the capital city definitely isn't the sort of thing one sees every day.

21 And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and went out of the threshingfloor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground.

22 Then David said to Ornan, Grant me the place of this threshingfloor, that I may build an altar therein unto the LORD: thou shalt grant it me for the full price: that the plague may be stayed from the people.

Ornan was a Jebusite, an original inhabitant of Jebus, the city David captured at the beginning of his monarchy. From 1 Chronicles 11:

4 And David and all Israel went to Jerusalem, which is Jebus; where the Jebusites were, the inhabitants of the land.

5 And the inhabitants of Jebus said to David, Thou shalt not come hither. Nevertheless David took the castle of Zion, which is the city of David.

6 And David said, Whosoever smiteth the Jebusites first shall be chief and captain. So Joab the son of Zeruiah went first up, and was chief.

7 And David dwelt in the castle; therefore they called it the city of David.

What an opportunity! By saying "no", Ornan, a Jebusite, could get even with the man, and the people, who conquered his home city decades ago!

23 And Ornan said unto David, Take it to thee, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes: lo, I give thee the oxen also for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meat offering; I give it all.

What would David do if Ornan had said "No way"? Kill him and his sons, take the place by force, and THEN offer to the Lord that which had been stolen?

Don't think Ornan was intimidated: There was a huge, honking Angel of the Lord, with one huge sword, standing right there, watching what was happening.

24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.

25 So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

The REAL crisis started when David made the children of Israel pay for his, David's, own sin. Having learned his lesson of taking PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, David refused to make Ornan pay for what it took to undo David's poor choice of punishment. He paid about 240 ounces of gold for everything.

26 And David built there an altar unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and called upon the LORD; and he answered him from heaven by fire upon the altar of burnt offering.

27 And the LORD commanded the angel; and he put up his sword again into the sheath thereof.

28 At that time when David saw that the LORD had answered him in the threshingfloor of Ornan the Jebusite, then he sacrificed there.

29 For the tabernacle of the LORD, which Moses made in the wilderness, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that season in the high place at Gibeon.

This site later became the site for Solomon's temple.

The lesson, Senator Kerry for you to take from this scripture, since you seem to think highly of the Bible enough to apply it to everyone else, is this:

24 And king David said to Ornan, Nay; but I will verily buy it for the full price: for I will not take that which is thine for the LORD, nor offer burnt offerings without cost.

How much does it COST YOU, Senator, to shove a gun in the faces of employers and make them create the 10 million jobs you promise and for which you will take credit?

How much does it COST YOU, Senator, to shove a gun in MY FACE and make me pay taxes so you can give welfare to some lazy bums and pretend that is a "good work" pleasing to God?

Where the FUCK are your Income Tax Returns, so we can see how PERSONALLY GENEROUS you and your wife have been? With all her millions, certainly you can AFFORD to be CHARITABLE and GENEROUS, no? Certainly you and your wife have topped Dubya's and Laura's 10.2% of income?)

Another lesson, from Scripture, this time from First Chronicles 11. This is after David's "successful" coverup of his Adultry with Bathsheba and the subsequent murder by proxy of her husband, Uriah:

1 And the LORD sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor.

2 The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds:

3 But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter.

4 And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him.

How much, Senator Kerry, did YOU give? Not how much you MADE OTHER PEOPLE GIVE, but how much have YOU given? Sitting in a padded chair and voting for the IRS goons to extract even more money from hard working citizens to give to those you feel are "worthy" doesn't count.

5 And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, As the LORD liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: 6 And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.

Guess what, Senator Kerry?

Thou art the man.

What does King David, A man after God's own heart, think about you practicing charity with tax money taken by force from someone else? He thinks you should go

fuck off and DIE.