Thinking about the thieves

My church had a guest speaker this past Sunday.  David Nasser has a powerful testimony and I urge my Christian friends out there to listen to it.  There is plenty for all of us to learn.  At any rate, while he was inspiring, that's not why I'm writing this post.  Our church is going through a series on the last saying of Christ.  Those sayings from the cross.  This week, the topic was "Surely I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise".  This is what Jesus said to one of the thieves after he defended Him and asked Him to "remember me when you come into your kingdom".

This is a powerful passage of the Bible for many reasons.  It tells us that only faith is needed to enter heaven.  That it is because of God's mercy, not any works we do, that we are saved.  It puts on vibrant display the power of the cross and the path that each Christian goes through in their journey to being saved.  See, Nasser pointed out in his sermon something I knew, but had never really thought about.  He stated that the Bible doesn't really reveal to us what the two thieves were guilty of.  This is certainly true.  Most translations say thieves or criminals, but beyond that generic statement, there is no specificity.  Obviously, even thieves is too simplistic.  After all, a simple thief caught red handed would have had his hand removed from his arm.  This hardly rose to the level of crucifixion.  The point is that the Bible is intentionally vague about what these two men did.  Nasser stated that he believes this is intentional.  Very little in the Bible could be described otherwise, I think.  Regardless, by omitting the sin of the criminals, it allows us to fill in the blanks.

Two men died with Jesus that day, one mocked Him while the other defended Him.  Jesus, who was in great pain, thirsty, abused, ashamed, mocked, suffocating, bleeding out, and more, took the time to acknowledge the second criminal who simply asked Jesus to remember him.  This immediately following asking God to forgive all those responsible for putting Jesus where he was.  Jesus had a sign above his head that stated his crime.  This was not an uncommon event so it is likely that the criminals also had their crimes spelled out above them.  Jesus' crime was nothing more than claiming to be the King of the Jews, which was a power threat to the Romans, but wasn't really the point.  The Jews would have understood his claim was really of being the Messiah.  So, Jesus was put to death for claiming to be God.  The criminals were put to death for what?  Fill in the blank with your own crimes, sins, misdeeds and you reveal what was really happening.  As with all of us, Jesus died to wash away all sin...from the past, the present and the future.  Jesus died for the people killing Him, the people who followed Him, and for the criminals who died with Him.  He died for everyone past and future.  So, the criminals crime is left blank because Jesus died for them.  We can place our sins on our own signs and know that faith in Jesus will result in the cleansing of those signs.  It is really that simple.

See, the story really illustrates a truth I'd never thought of before.  Sure, Jesus died for us all and the criminal who showed faith rather than scorn ended up having his faith credited to him.  However, when looking at the two thieves on the cross, I realized that this really represents the world.  In the end, there are only two possible responses to what Jesus did for us on the cross.  We can mock and scorn Him and ask Him to prove himself, or, we can praise Him and ask Him to remember us/to forgive us.  These are really the only two options available to the world.  Accept Him or reject Him.  This story powerfully illustrates that truth as Jesus reached out to the one who accepted Him and provided him with hope and assurance.  This is what Christian "faith" is about.  To accept Jesus and follow Him.  It is never too late.  The thief proves this point as well.  He had no way to ask forgiveness of those he harmed or to do good works in the name of Christ.  He was literally on his deathbed.  In the end, all he had was his faith and Jesus' response to him was "today you will be with me in paradise".  Today you will.  Now...immediately...when this is over...TODAY!  That is the comfort that all Christians cling to.  We aren't perfect, we don't always do like we should, but we are forgiven through the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross and His resurrection.

Humorous political quotations

 I received the below quotations in an email.  They are very funny, I think.  No, I have not checked the veracity of the attributions because I don't care.  The quotes are funny regardless of who said them and I just don't want to take the time to check each of them.  So, enjoy!

The problem with political jokes is they get elected. ~Henry Cate, VII

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ~Aesop

If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven. ~Will Rogers

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. ~Nikita Khrushchev

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. ~Clarence Darrow

Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Stan Morgenbesser

If God wanted us to vote, she would have given us candidates. ~Jay Leno

Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel. ~John Quinton

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. ~P.J. O'Rourke

I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. ~Adlai Stevenson, 1952

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country. ~Texas Guinan

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. ~Gore Vidal

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. ~Charles de Gaulle

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. ~Ronald Reagan

Politics: [Poly "many" + tics "blood-sucking parasites"] ~Larry Hardiman

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~Doug Larson

Don't vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown

The U.S. Constitution -- part 10 (Article 7)

This is the easiest part of the Constitution. Nobody ever talks about it because it was sort of a one time thing. In essence, it was only controversial at the time. We'll get to that in a minute, but here's the text:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. Note Go Washington - President and deputy from Virginia New Hampshire - John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman Massachusetts - Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King Connecticut - Wm Saml Johnson, Roger Sherman New York - Alexander Hamilton New Jersey - Wil Livingston, David Brearley, Wm Paterson, Jona. Dayton Pensylvania - B Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robt Morris, Geo. Clymer, Thos FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Gouv Morris Delaware - Geo. Read, Gunning Bedford jun, John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jaco. Broom Maryland - James McHenry, Dan of St Tho Jenifer, Danl Carroll Virginia - John Blair, James Madison Jr. North Carolina - Wm Blount, Richd Dobbs Spaight, Hu Williamson South Carolina - J. Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler Georgia - William Few, Abr Baldwin Attest: William Jackson, Secretary

You'll note that it doesn't really say much. It gives instructions that 9 of the 13 states had to ratify it and it explains when it was agreed upon and finally, who signed off on it (witnessed it), also known as who were the ones taking responsibility for it.

We take the Constitution largely for granted today, but the ratification of this document was extremely controversial in our beginnings. This is largely why the famous Federalist Papers came about. They were basically propaganda in favor of the new Constitution. It is also why it is very disingenuous for anyone to claim they can't know the original intent of the framers of the document. Each state argued this document within their own legislatures so much that there is plenty of documentation to glean intent on almost every issue, if you bother to look for it. Nonetheless, one of the most controversial aspects of this document has absolutely nothing to do with the document itself. Rather, it had to do with the Articles of Confederation, the document it was supposed to replace.

When the Articles of Confederation were setup, they were designed to be a very weak central government because the founders didn't want another strong and powerful central government. However, it proved to be too weak and so they brought together a group to propose amendments to the Articles. This was the reason the Constitutional Convention that drafter our constitution was brought together, not to create an entirely new document. They ignored their charge. The Articles of Confederation were too weak to "fix" in their opinion and almost impossible to amend because it required agreement of ALL the states. Not 2/3s agreement like we have now, but every state had to agree. So, it is interesting that they simply ignored the existing Constitution in setting up the ratification process for the new one. They were basically carrying out a revolution against the government they themselves had created. This is really what makes this controversial and interesting.

Planned Parenthood vs. Susan G. Komen

I admit, I don't have a dog in this race...so to speak. For the purposes of full disclosure, I've never really cared much for Planned Parenthood. I'm sure they've done a lot to help poor women out. That was never really the point for me. I don't support abortion on demand for perfectly healthy fetuses and Planned Parenthood, by their own admission, perform 300,000 of these per year, on average. That's about 1/4 of all abortions performed per year in the United States, give or take. As for Susan G. Komen, I always found them to be a pretty non-offensive charity that found pragmatic and positive ways to raise money. I never directly supported them though, not because of their support for Planned Parenthood (I didn't even know they sent them any money) but just because I've already chosen where my charitable giving goes.

So, all that said, when I saw this, my first response was...that's probably a good thing. After all, as a charitable organization, SGK is answerable only to their donors. Planned Parenthood receives 46 percent of their budget from the federal government, so they are also answerable to taxpayers, but this isn't true for SGK, as far as I know. Nonetheless, I really didn't think this to be a big deal when I saw it. Organizations donate and don't donate to different groups all the time. In politics, it is common to donate to both sides, just to cover your bases. So, withdrawing funds didn't seem like such a big deal. The idea that it might have been motivated by political reasons even less of a big deal because most things at that level are motivated by political considerations (anyone who says otherwise is either a liar or has never worked in administration).

Therefore, I was shocked by the circling of the wagons that occurred. Okay, so a lot of people support Planned Parenthood. This isn't particularly shocking or surprising, but it was disappointing. Nonetheless, it seemed Planned Parenthood had generated an obvious political response to the political action taken by Susan G. Komen. That also seemed fine. Then the attacks from PP continued for three days. It is one thing to express your displeasure and ask for additional supporters to make up for the shortfall, it is something else entirely to go on a full blown political attack of someone, which is what I think PP was orchestrating. You had Senators signing support statements, a Congresswoman from California saying it would hurt women's health and a variety of other statements. The media also wouldn't let it go. Once they grabbed it, it was like they couldn't fathom that there would be any opposition to PP, so every article came across as being shocked at SGK. After three days of the political attacks from the supporters of Planned Parenthood, I decided to actually look into the numbers. This is what I found.

According to PP, they have an annual budget of 1.04 BILLION dollars. They state that they spend 16 percent of that budget on cancer screening which means they spend 166 MILLION dollars a year on cancer screening and prevention. Now, SG Komen provided an annual donation of 700,000 dollars. That's .07% of the total budget of PP. Even assuming PP actually spent it only on what it was earmarked for (that's a big if, imo), then it was only .4% of the total cancer screening budget. That's it! This is a statistically insignificant number. In fact, it is such a small number that it wouldn't likely hurt the health of any women, at all. Therefore, the Congresswoman from California was either knowingly lying or just emotionally responding based on the fact that 700,000 dollars is a really big amount. Most people can't think about numbers this large and make since of them. So, let's try to do just that. In fact, PP can't lie about simple math...therefore, I submit that the MATH clearly supports my assertion that SGK's action had no statistical impact on the budget of PP and therefore on the health of women. So, who's being political?

Is it SGK, an organization that fights to cure a horrible disease who's political action had little if any real impact on PP? Or, is it PP, one of the largest political activist lobbying groups in the country who seemed intent on making SGK look bad even though the amount of money involved was minimally significant? I submit that SGK's motives were irrelevant and it was PP who was playing politics. After all, their actions made them seem like they were crying because someone took a penny out of their piggy bank. Actually, that's generous, if you say that the 1.04 billion is equivalent to 1 dollar in the piggy bank, than this equates to crying over taking .002 cents from the piggy bank. How's that for number we CAN relate to?