John 16

This keeps me writing- good!

After having the Bible study last week, which surprisingly went for about an hour and a half, the main thing we talked about was how to communicate the Gospel with unchurched friends. The biggest barrier to that message, we felt, was apathy, and a denial of the existence of sin. It's hard to get people worked up for salvation from something they don't think exists, or is not important.

Why is it that, when asked to put the teachings of Christianity succinctly, people will say, "Be a good person and you get to go to Heaven"? Why isn't the first thing people say, "Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God and that he died sacrificially so believers in him get to go to Heaven"? Last week a woman asked me if Lutherans thought that Jews would go to Hell and seemed genuinely surprised when I (uncomfortably) said yes. I'm not mad at the woman- it was an honest and important question- but I am a little frustrated in myself and other Christians if the most basic parts of Christianity aren't communicated well.

This also implies that perhaps I don't know much about other world religions. Is the teaching of Islam really obedience to Five Pillars (Charity, going to Mecca on a pilgrimage, obedience to moral teachings, believing that there is one God and Mohammed is His Prophet, and one more)? Has my public education failed me?

Anyway, on to John 16, which begins with some leftovers from last week about persecution. Whoever divided up John screwed up that part, so I'll begin at the fifth verse:

The Work of the Holy Spirit

5"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt^[a] in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. 14He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. 15All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you.

16"In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me."

So it appears the world is guilty on three charges: sin, righteousness, and judgment. Sin is 'missing the mark' of perfection that God has for us. The world stands guilty of sin because 'men do not believe in [Jesus]', which I take to mean that they cannot even see the target to shoot straight at it. The world stands guilty of not being righteous as well. This is proven by Jesus going to the Father; Jesus is the only righteous person, so his absence from the world highlights the absence of righteousness in the world. How 'not being righteous' is different from 'being sinful' is a little unclear. Does this just mean that we haven't done things that are good, in addition to doing things that are bad?

In any event, Jesus concludes with passing judgment on the world. It's a bit like a courtroom trial: The World has done wrong, it has not done right, and it is condemned as a result of this. The sentence, according to Paul, is physical (and spiritual) death. Good thing Jesus goes on:

The Disciples' Grief Will Turn to Joy

17Some of his disciples said to one another, "What does he mean by saying, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me,' and 'Because I am going to the Father'?" 18They kept asking, "What does he mean by 'a little while'? We don't understand what he is saying."

19Jesus saw that they wanted to ask him about this, so he said to them, "Are you asking one another what I meant when I said, 'In a little while you will see me no more, and then after a little while you will see me'? 20I tell you the truth, you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. 21A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world. 22So with you: Now is your time of grief, but I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. 23In that day you will no longer ask me anything. I tell you the truth, my Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 24Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete.

25"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."

29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."

31"You believe at last!"^[b] Jesus answered. 32"But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.

33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."

Just when this condemnation stuff was getting everyone a little down, Jesus comes back by saying that he has overcome the world. It will look like Jesus has lost-- didn't it look like that on Good Friday and Saturday and the first part of Easter Sunday?-- but this grief will turn to joy. The disciples finally seem to get it: Jesus is the Son of God, he will go away (die), but he will come back (the Resurrection), and this will somehow connect God to people once again. Attaboy, disciples.

One nitpick: the disciples say, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech." I think that this is one of the more difficult sections to understand, at least compared to other sections of John, where Jesus says stuff like, "Whoever believes in me will never die" or when he physically hands some bread to his betrayer, or when he predicts his death and then says the Son of God must be 'lifted up'. Use any and all to get the message across.

I know that my Redeemer lives. What comfort this sweet sentence gives.

John 15

On to John 15, perhaps with a nod to something I didn't talk about in John 14 with Jesus being the Way, Truth, and Life.

he Vine and the Branches

1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes^[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. 8This is to my Father's glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

9"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. 11I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. 12My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. 13Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. 17This is my command: Love each other.

I feel like there are so many different definitions of love out there, that the term 'love' has almost become meaningless. Does love mean never having to say you're sorry? Is it as simple as just enjoying being around a person a lot? Maybe it's how multiple people can join forces to form something that none of them could ever be without the others. Is it giving of yourself without expecting anything in return? I'm more convinced that Jesus is talking about the latter. This is not a mushy kind of love, the kind that tells you your poetry is the best ever or that your song sounded swell. It's the kind of love that pushes you out of the way of a speeding bus. It's the kind that sternly says to go outside. Amy Adams has no place in this love.

One other motif on this section is bearing fruit: you're supposed to get something out of this Christianity thing. There's supposed to be a change in behavior. This is not an obligation, simply a description of the process. The things that I do come as a response to Christ's love, not as a payment for it. This fruit section has in it the seeds of some of the biggest divisions in Christianity. Surely, some would argue, if Jesus says that good branches and bad branches can be operationally identified by their fruit, Christians can be operationally identified by their good actions. Therefore, the good actions are what some would have you focus on. This is a mistake. Fruit is the proof of a good vine, an outside proxy that is easy to measure when you cannot look inside the vine itself. The vine should be the focal point.

The World Hates the Disciples

18"If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.'^[b] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin. But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me and my Father. 25But this is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason.'^[c]

26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. 27And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

Not a super-cheery section, either. Jesus is saying to expect persecution in his name. This brings up a point discussed in a Bible study between services on Sunday about Truth. It's very chic and postmodern to deny the existence of truth. We could all be brains in jars, man. Perception is reality. This went over into a discussion of persecution that people face when they try to say that there is real religious truth: Jesus Christ. And what persecution did people list? Would it be the martyrs of the faith? The men and women around the world who are killed for their faith? No. It's being greeted at Wal-mart with a 'happy holidays' instead of 'merry Christmas'. It's those nasty Democrats who want to take In God We Trust off our money.

Sidenote: How completely ticked will Jesus be when he comes back and finds God written on our money and not on our hearts? What was the point of him driving out moneychangers from the temple again?

If I go through life as a Christian, and the only persecution I have to deal with is people in class thinking I'm a moron for believing in Creationism, I'll consider myself incredibly lucky.

One last thought on this section is Jesus saying how people have no excuse for not knowing that he was the son of God. No one gets to go before God on Judgment Day and say they never knew they were breaking any rules. No one gets to say that it's not fair. In fact, Jesus is being more charitable than he has the need to be. That's what grace is.

John 14

I've been leading a Bible Study this semester on the Gospel of St. John, and as a little writing exercise, I'd like to go through this kinda chapter by chapter, with my thoughts. Who knows? If I keep this blog for five years, I could do the whole new testament. Or at least the Gospels.

As we've been going through this week by week, I've come to remember why I like reading John more than any other book of the Bible: it reads as narrative and theological lesson. These are stories with characters, irony, purpose, as well as actual flesh and blood historical people. John does an excellent job of always showing Jesus as both Man and God, and the story as both History and Theological Study. Take Jesus weeping in John 11: a simple act that plays as history (it isn't hard to imagine a real flesh and blood guy named Jesus crying at his friend's funeral) and teaching (Jesus is true man that he should cry, Jesus must love us if he cries when his friend dies, Jesus never intended for us to die).

A little exposition for John 14: this is during Holy Week. Jesus has just come into Jerusalem, he's instituted the Lord's Supper, he's sent his betrayer packing, and he's predicted Peter's disowning him. This after Peter says, "Lord, I will lay down my life for you!" Exactly the opposite proves true. So this takes place in the upper room, still.

John 14

Jesus Comforts His Disciples

1"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. 2In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. 3And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. 4You know the way to the place where I am going."

A very comforting section. Christ often says, "Don't be afraid!" Sometimes everyone questions whether they are Christian enough- how could God save me, I try to be a Christian and I suck at it! Let there be no doubt as to the power of God's grace.

Jesus the Way to the Father

5Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him."

8Philip said, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us."

9Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. 11Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. 12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.

In this section, John again hammers home a lesson found throughout his Gospel: the Disciples were pretty dumb. They didn't get this stuff. They didn't understand it. Even after Jesus tells them to not be afraid, they'll scatter latter in the evening and hide behind locked doors.

Before it was called Christianity, some people called the new religion The Way. In contrast to an empty ceremonial ritual (spin in a circle three times, hop on one foot, and your sins are forgiven), men weren't given a method; they were given a man. Jesus is the conduit through which we see God, and through which we are put at peace with God. Nothing we do (not even very very nice things we do) can do the same. This is a statement of the exclusivity of Jesus Christ.

It reminds me of just a few chapters ago, John 10, where Jesus describes himself as both Good Shepard and gate: "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved." Not only is he the one we need to be reconciled to, he is also the mechanism of that reconciliation. It's a hard metaphor to explain, and perhaps Jesus is mixing metaphors here.

Jesus Promises the Holy Spirit

15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. 21Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

22Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, "But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?"

23Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me.

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

28"You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you will believe. 30I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me, 31but the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
"Come now; let us leave.

Jesus sometimes does this in John: someone will ask him something, and it's like he doesn't really answer the question. I read the question as, "What do you mean we'll be able to see you but others won't? Why not have everyone see you? That way, no one can deny that you don't exist, Richard Dawkins will be out of a job, and everything will be grand."

Jesus seems to say that he's not talking about "that kind of seeing". We will "see" Christ in the actions and faith of people around us; it won't be like Jesus doing a concert at Shea Stadium so we can go or watch it on TV. It's a bit like how we see bits of other people in ourselves- I grimace and kind of stick my tongue out just like my dad does when we try to open pickle jars. I spell out my last name the same way my mother does, even though it's a really common one. I even say "dogs will be dogs" because my friends do.

If you have never met my father, and you have never seen him battle pickle jars, you wouldn't see him in me. If you don't know who Jesus is, you won't see him in others. So that's how I read that. I know it's kinda cheating when Jesus says stuff about swords and kingdoms and temples and rocks and it's all metaphorical. It's not the answer we want, but it's the answer we'll get.

This other bit about the Holy Spirit is important, too. The Holy Spirit isn't just some relic of the past that taught St. Peter and St. Paul all they knew. The Holy Spirit was present at my baptism, at my confirmation. The Holy Spirit is with us whenever we study God's Word. Whenever Jesus promises the Holy Spirit, he doesn't give an expiration date. Jesus doesn't say, "I'm sending the Holy Spirit to you guys on Pentecost, you'll speak in lots of different languages and it'll be cool, but THAT'S IT. ONE TIME DEAL."

This chapter also contains the central message of Christianity and Easter: Because I live, you also will live.

Agnsty McAgnstPants

I hate Jack Johnson. I hate that I hate Jack Johnson.

I hate my peers' popular culture. I hate that I hate my peers' popular culture. An aspect of said culture is that you are required to hate anything that other people like or enjoy, including hating on other people.

When other people say that television is shallow, I don't think they mean what I do. They're just saying that to impress the chicks. Or themselves. I am immune from all self-flattery. Or irony.

When other people say that empty sexuality is used like an electrode in your head to make you buy products from The Man on the basest of all levels, they don't mean it like I mean it. Do frat boys hate frat boy culture? I'm convinced they hate it more than anyone else.

Everyone wants to feel connected to others. Everyone wants to feel unique. Everyone wants to feel connected to other unique people and have that not be ironic or self-referential or oxymoronic.

I just want to feel connected to people who see that.

Kyle Klubertanz

What a horrible game all around. Ugh.

Recent Political Thoughts

Politics have been heating up recently, with Iowa's caucuses over and New Hampshire's primary today. I'd like to weigh in on each of the candidates.

The Democrats

Obama
Fresh off his win in Iowa, he'll probably take New Hampshire as well. I haven't really been a fan of Obama because his health plan doesn't cover all Americans, and his attacks of other's plans has been from the right. Not only is this a bit against the interests of the Democratic Party (Dems get criticized enough by the Republicans, no use adding to it), but it also opens Obama up to attack should he ever win the nomination. "If forcing people to purchase health insurance is bad, Barack, why do you support Socialized Medicine?"


Edwards
He lost in Iowa when he really needed to win it. He's been a little slick in attributing support for Obama as support for "change" and hence a support for himself. I think he wants to be vice president really badly. His worst moment was at the NH debate when he was asked what was the best thing he had accomplished in the Senate. He said the Patient's Bill of Rights. Which passed the Senate, got stuck in the House, and wasn't signed into law.

Hillary Clinton
I've begun to warm to Hillary Clinton. I find her rhetoric convincing regarding change. Obama says he represents a new take on Washington, that he is Change and Hope incarnate. I've heard that before from a man who wanted to "change the culture of Washington" and be a "uniter, not a divider." Bill Clinton ran on the same message, everyone runs on that message. Perhaps the only person ever to run as a Washington Outsider that actually WAS one was Jimmy Carter, a President I have enormous respect for, but also one widely considered a weak and ineffectual leader because he alienated the Washington establishment and couldn't get stuff through.

This is not to say that an Outsider would be weak now. The standoff between congressional Democrats and Carter has been resolved by changes in the party and nation: the Dems have mostly eliminated the Dixiecrats from within their ranks. However, the other things hurting Carter, OPEC and stagflation, could just be getting in gear.

Clinton makes the argument that she can work within the system, using those patented Clintonian smarts, to at least get SOMETHING through. To get his agenda past congress, Obama plans to use his ability as a uniter. Unless Republicans get significantly less pig-headed, that won't work.

***
The Republicans

Mike Huckabee
He plays the guitar and has a hamburger named after him. Surely those are good qualifications to be President, right? Maybe. He's made an effort to portray himself as a compassionate conservative, and I find him more convincing than Bush in that respect. It always seemed a convenient way to get votes for Bush, but surely Huckabee means what he says.

As for his policies, I'm sure to disagree with most of them as I'm more liberal than he is. I like his stance on immigration, but his tax reform is really really scary. The Fair Tax is not fair at all. Any way you want to slice it, people making more than $200,000 a year will pay less in taxes. That means to be revenue-neutral, that money has to be made up somewhere. That means the middle class.

Mitt Romney
Why he would run away from his Moderate Republican past that got pretty good results, I don't know. "A man with executive experience and business experience who looks beyond ideology to get results" works for me, but it doesn't work for Republican primary voters, I guess. If he wins the nomination, he'll tack back to the center, and eventually we'll have an overeager candidate who states, "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others."

Rudy
Thank goodness this guy has fallen off! You can't ride September 11 forever. If you thought Bush was autocratic, caustic, unwilling to compromise, secretive, and in love with military force, you'll love Rudy.

Ron Paul
I was initially attracted to Ron Paul. He had the guts to criticize Republicans over the war in Iraq, and talked so fiercely about balancing the budget that I thought he just might do it.

Of course, those traits have become cartoonishly distorted, now. Not only does he want us out of Iraq (good!), he wants us out of Saudi Arabia, Germany, South Korea, and everywhere (ummmm). Not only does he want to balance the budget (yes!), he wants to do it by slashing military spending (cool!) and basically all spending everywhere (not cool).

Add in his absolutely goofy statements about race, civil war revisionism, property rights, and private discrimination, you have a frightening man.

McCain
I've always been suspicious of McCain, because he has this habit of being known as a Maverick, but when he votes, it's really conservative. That said, I think he'd be a little less bad a President than Romney or Rudy. He's staged a bit of a comeback, which is cool. His stance on immigration is practical. He still supports the war, though, and that's too bad. But I haven't heard anything about the war for a while, which makes me think it's going better. Still, there is nothing to change my fears that Iraq is not worth what we put into it.

Fred Thompson is a joke. Richardson has been bad in debates. Did I miss anyone?

Random Mutterings on Liberty

Elsewhere, I've discussed my problems with J.S. Mill's views regarding the interaction between the state and personal liberty. I'd like to use this first post to crystallize these thoughts and to articulate a positive vision.

As I have a habit both in written and oral debate of being tangential and nonspecific, I'd like to limit this treatment only to my problems with J.S. Mill's "harm principle."

Let's get to some definitions. Mill's harm principle is stated thus:

"...the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

I feel that this principle is based on a faulty premise: that adults who have the ability and the will to act in their own self-interest will do so.

Take note that I do not at this time seek to squabble over the definition of self-interest. I argue that individuals will knowingly take actions against their own self-interest.

These actions can be taken for good or bad ends. We call the good ones, 'altruism'. We call the bad ones, 'self-destruction'. Some quick examples of altruism: the impulse of a soldier to fall on a grenade to save the lives of her comrades, or the donation of time and money to a charity that feeds children a continent away.

Some people would argue that altruism doesn't exist, that what you give (your life, time, or money) is equaled by what you gain (the knowledge and pleasure that you've done something noble or meaningful). Those people are poopheads.

What about actions taken against ones' own self-interest that do not benefit society either? One example would be hard drug use. People know that it is not in their self-interest to do drugs- they are very destructive to one's health and wellbeing- yet they do them anyway. Despair, depression, alcoholism, self-abuse are other examples.

Let's resist another false argument similar to the altruism-denial above: that people feel that the initial benefit of their actions outweigh or equal the later incredibly harsh consequences. Self-mutilation can be a form of taking control when an individual feels they have none, but I've always felt Dostoevsky's notion of a "laceration" in The Brothers Karamazov was as accurate an explanation as any.

Acting against ones' own self-interest and to the detriment of society is, ultimately, a product of sin. People are not the rational actors Mill supposes them to be: they are morally flawed. In the words of St. Paul, "I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do."

At the risk of getting a little unfocused, I'd like to take issue with the following idea, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Hopefully, this will help me articulate a positive vision, rather than nitpick another's.

This isn't true, of course. Some scriptural evidence, again from Paul: "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

So, argument one: Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is NOT sovereign, but rather subject to God.

Here comes argument two: The government is a legitimate tool of God's Will.

For the scriptural evidence of this, I again turn to Paul:

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

If you think I'm overloading on St. Paul today, I can direct you to the old testament prophets Jonah and Daniel. The Babylonian captivity is another example of God working through states. Jesus also says that we should, "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

I include this quote from Christ as a defense against what I imagine will be a popular criticism: this is the ultimate form of state oppression! How do we functionally decide which claims over our bodies the government can rightfully preside over, and which ones are our own choice? As this is the central question that "On Liberty" purports to answer, it would seem that we haven't made much progress at all.

Jesus' answer gives a good directive: the government cannot have authority over one's religious duty to God. Stated succinctly elsewhere:

"Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 'We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,' he said. 'Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood.'

Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men!'"

So there's that. If you follow some thinkers of the Enlightenment (our Founding Fathers among them), the government can morally be rebelled against when they have violated "inalienable rights" that their Creator has given them. These rights are an extension of those religious ones shown above. In most cases, they are legitimate extensions, though I'm stopping short of saying that God made our Constitution or that the LORD wants you to have an AK-47. According to our Declaration of Independence, "that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." We've even gone so far as to codify these rights in our Bill of Rights. Note that none of them include the right to commit suicide, nor the right to self-destructive behavior.

In fact, a responsible government must prohibit these activities, if it is to "promote the general welfare". It's a matter of public health.

I have more to say later on Government and vaccinations, seatbelts, the environment, and other stuff, but I'll leave my criticism here. Pretty long for a first post.