Some more thoughts on the Pragmatism:leagalism issue

It is easier to set up an endless list of rules and regulations than it is to begin to understand the will of God.

something i'm realizing as time drags by

life is meaningless trying to figure things out is meaningless everything is amazingly confusing and contradictory. that is without God nothing makes sense. you could try to prove something but without God it is contradicted by something else. If morality is just a matter of one mans opinion against anothers then there is no morality. If the matter of somethings usefulness is just an opion of one man against another then it is rendered completely and uterly worthless. Man has been trying make himself meaningful and worthy since the day Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit.

What is hypocrisy?

I'm gonna start a search to figure out the answer to this question. I want to know what people think hypocrisy is. i want to know from all aspects the political the religious and i'd even like to know what God says it is. The past few days i've started to pay a bit more attention to current events and things surrounding the race for the '08 pres. election. It's kinda funny to watch and listen as the pundits get all fired up about things. We have everything from people fainting at Obama rallies to Clinton Tactics, to Liberal Republicans and talk about how the democrat party is aiming at making this country a communist one. This fires up the radio shows and they talk and talk and talk likes its the most important thing in the world and i can't help but laugh at them. I laugh because i know that God says we are like grass we grow and then we wither and fade. Now why does this have anything to do with hypocrisy well in the midst of all the pundits flinging words around and all this political hoohaw jibber jabber i saw a video of Charles Barkley talking to one guy and Barkley said that conservatives are fake christians with their moral absolutes and then he mentions the Verse about how christians aren't supposed to judge people. So apparently in Barkley's mind, and that in line with the liberal train of thought, it is wrong for anyone to judge anybody elses actions thus meaning there are no moral absolutes meaning i can do what ever i want and you can't say anything about it. People today call this post modernism people in the 60's and 70's called it existentialism and i'm sure it went by many other names in every decade past dating back to the time when Adam and Eve first ate of the fruit thinking that there would be no consequence for their actions, back when God called it Sin.
This name of hypocrit has been used as a weapon agaisnt many a christian it is intended to draw the attention off of the guilty party and put it on the christian. As Christians we often forget when we are being attacked that Christ has forgiven us our sins and we do not need to justify what we have done. This is what happens though when this flaming ball of pitch is thrown at us. We let down the Armor of God and the ball of pitch lands on us burning us alive. We Forget to often, especially in a country that has been at peace for 60+ years, we are in a battle against sin. But God hasn't left us to our own demises, He provides us with his unfallible word and in Ephesians 6 Paul reminds us that there is an armor that God provided for us that we must wear into battle. That armor is the belt of truth, the breastplate of righteousness, the boots/shoes of readiness, the gospel of peace, the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the spirit. And this is not the workmanship of man it is the workmanship of God it is the perfect battle gear. You must remember each one of these virtues does not come from the will or power of man but from God's and so think of each one being God's. So we have God's belt of truth, God's breastplate of righteousness, God's boots/shoes of readiness, God's gospel of peace, God's shield of faith, God's helmet of salvation, and God's sword of the spirit. Our truthfulness comes from God, our righteousness comes from God and so on down the line. So when the flaming ball of pitch, the hypocrit line, is thrown at us we need sheild our self with God's armor and when the flaming ball of pitch has been extiguished by God's goodness we can stand there and say to the hypocrit "I am not accountable to you i am accountable to God and so with you, you are not accountable to me but accountable to God. And if i say nothing to you what am i to say on the day of Judgement when i stand before God and he asks me why i never said anything to you about your sin? Well God i knew that he would call me a hypocrit and that he would throw all my sins in my face and i just couldn't deal with it." No God wont accept that he will hold me accountable for not doing as i should. Part of christian love is helping people to not sin.
my train of thought is jumping all over the place keep in mind this is only a first draft and i want to organize it better later. Now back to the Charles Barkley video i saw i read a comment by another viewer that went something like this "Conservatives can not say that abortion and gay marriage are immoral because this would be judgemental? SO in other words we can never call an immoral act immoral because we always need to forgive. What if I chose to force a person into slavery could noone challenge me because they would need to forgive me therefore never question my actions??? "

In this type of ideology its all about a persons rights and entitlements. and what they would have you believe is they will fight for you but when it comes down to it truly this is an every man for himself i get to define my own morality. it becomes an extremely selfish line to walk because a person only begins to think about morality in terms of what suits him best. It's ok to kill someone else because i say it is but if someone tries to kill me that's immoral we can't have that. So would a man like Barkley fight for my right to hold him as a slave if i felt that it was my right to have slaves? Of course not he would tell me that this argument is a bogus one because what he is doing is nothing near the level of what i'm suggesting. but in saying that he has affirmed there is a such thing as a moral absolute and that there is a difference between what is right and wrong. Its absolutely morally wrong to enslave someone. But isn't he a bad man for judging between right and wrong. Of course not that would be ridiculous. its nothing more than a cover for mans guilty conscience. for more on the judgement thing see a sermon by john piper http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Sermons/ByDate/2008/2577_Probability_Prejudice_and_Christ/