'Minor sins' ... and Judgment

Alan Roebuck (in a comment made in his 'Defining Christianity: Why Be a Christian? Part II' thread) -- "Yes, modern man does not believe in sin, except for spectacular cases such as mass murder. But we have to acknowledge the biblical testimony, that what seem to us minor sins are not inconsequential, but are both offenses against a holy God and, as you say, indications of a radical disorder within us."

A few years ago, a wrote a parable that is about exactly this false idea (and idol) that one can be morally good without being morally pure (Miss Grundy warning: I openly use a certain naughty Anglo-Saxon word many times, which, by the way, one may find used in the Bible) -- Noìli's Custom Ice Cream Shoppe

The modern man, he who denies the reality of sin and the reality of objective moral standards, is always willing to "compromise" thusly: "Well, sure, I guess I'm sort of like a gallon of delicious ice cream which has a teaspoon of dog-doo mixed into it. But that guy over there has a whole pint mixed in. THEREFORE, God has no right to judge/condemn me."

But, of course, God has the right to judge-and-reject the person who is not morally pure, just as anyone has the right to judge-and-reject a serving a ice cream with a smidgen of doggie-doo mixed into it. Not one of us is morally pure -- and God has the right to reject all of us: you/I have no ground upon which to stand to judge God.

Moreover, God has offered you a way to be freed of your impurity, he has offered you a way to be made acceptable in his sight. But you, O Modern Man, will not humble yourself before a loving God, and admit your sinfulness and inability to make yourself morally pure, will not trust in him to make you pure ... however much that you will abase yourself in all ways before a mere human and vicious tyrant.

And, do not think that God will "send you to Hell", as people incorrectly say, because he's anal-retentinve about sin, as moderns like to condem those have not quite so relaxed an attitude toward sin as they themselves. The reason God will "send you to Hell" is that since you will not repent of your sinfulness and allow him to burn the sin out of you, you cannot even continue to live/exist were you to come into his direct presence (that is, were you to "go to Heaven"). You clutch your sin to you bosom, as though it were the most precious part of you, and you will not let it go, you will not let it be burned out of you -- thus, you become sin. "Sending you to Hell" is a mercy, for all that is it also judgment (*).

Those who will not be purified of their sinfulness cannot "go to Heaven" -- they cannot see God face-to-face -- for, having become sin, they would be wholly burned-up in his direct presence, there would be nothing left of them.

All sin, even the most 'petty', as we view the seriousness of these things, must destroy he who will not let go of it. Clutch any sin to your bosom, and it will devour you.

(*) Furthermore, there can be no mercy if there not first judgment-and-condemnation. Mercy just is the setting aside of the full weight of condemnation one deserves. Mercy just is a special form of injustice.

Edit 2012/11/20:
Kristor seems to be having as much trouble posting comments on this (Google/Blogger) blog as I am on The Orthosphere (WordPress) blog. Following is a comment from him --

Well done. I loved this

And, do not think that God will "send you to Hell", as people incorrectly say, because he's anal-retentinve about sin, as moderns like to condem those have not quite so relaxed an attitude toward sin as they themselves. The reason God will "send you to Hell" is that since you will not repent of your sinfulness and allow him to burn the sin out of you, you cannot even continue to live/exist were you to come into his direct presence (that is, were you to "go to Heaven"). You clutch your sin to you bosom, as though it were the most precious part of you, and you will not let it go, you will not let it be burned out of you -- thus, you become sin. "Sending you to Hell" is a mercy, for all that is it also judgment (*).

I’ve been making that argument for years to people who object to the notion of a wrathful God. To the sinner, the fire of God’s love is as a wrathful burning; to the saint, it is recognized as the very basis of his life, even when he was a sinner.

Sin is essentially a disagreement with reality. Lydia McGrew made this point a couple years ago, hammering it into me. As disagreeing with the very foundation of his own life, the sinner cannot but aim at the extinction thereof; the wages of sin is death, and people keep signing up for the gig - because, as sinners, they disagree with existence, and want those lethal wages.
Kristor

Yes, this is what I was getting at -- "To the sinner, the fire of God’s love is as a wrathful burning; to the saint, it is recognized as the very basis of his life, even when he was a sinner."

Now, the sort of Internet Atheist with whom anyone has far too much experience -- you know, the old Village Atheist With Ehternet -- is going to scoff at that statement, as, indeed, they mindlessly scoff at everything.

But, consider, they themselves frequently believe something roughly analogous; though, in their case, what they believe tends to be pointless (and even mindless) navel-gazing and self-worshiping woo-woo. In have in mind certain wide-spread ideas that now seem to be free-floating in popular-and-materialistic culture (such as it is) --

In the movies of popular culture -- informed, as they are, by materialism/naturalism -- the human characters, sometimes even the main characters with whom we are meant to identify, may encounter some "Entity of Light" ... which tends to burn them up; which is to say, given the materialistic or naturalistic presuppositions of the movie, the characters are annihilated by the Light.

Sometimes, as with Nazi soldiers encountering face-to-face the "supernatural" (as that term is misused in materialistic though) Ark of the Covenant in an Indiana Jones movie, this personal annihilation is presented as a horror.

Sometimes, as with a face-to-face encounter with a "higher being" (which is, nonetheless, as fully a natural-and-contingent being in the physical universe as we are), or as with a face-to-face encounter the sun, this personal annihilation is presented as a mystical/spiritual event regarding which the audience is intended to have “woo-woo” feelings.

It's always someone else

Legal Insurrection: 'The (EVIL) Rich' is always that other guy

But, an acorn is an oak tree

But, in fact, an acorn is an oak tree. It is not a potential oak tree, but an actual oak tree.

Or, if one wants to scientifically pedantic about it, an acorn is two sibling (*) individual organisms of some particular species of oak.

(*) They are not actually the children of the oak tree on which the acorn grew, but are rather its grandchildren.

As I asked

As I asked a few days ago, over at Bob Parks' blog, 'So, will the hot toy for this Christmas be the “Down Low Elmo”?'

I hear that the “Down Low Elmo” is facing stiff competition from the “Don't Tickle Me, Elmo”.

Kathy Shaidle: If only Romney had gone after Elmo instead of Big Bird

When are 'vegetables' not?

Shadow to Light: Maybe she felt it -- One may recall that one of the rationalizations for judicially murdering Terri Schiavo was the assertion that she'd not feel anything while dying a slow death of thirst ... as though pain were the criterion of moral determinations.

Michael Egnor: Man in Persistent Vegetative State answers questions via fMRI -- In the comments section, the God-denialists who infest Egnor's blog play to type.

'All In' ... but crickets for Benghazi

Via Bob Parks: Glenn Beck on the Petraeus distraction

Translating old Soviet jokes into American

Old Soviet jokes become the new American reality

An example:

...
Let's see how an old Soviet joke can be rewritten into a new American joke. The six contradictions of socialism in the United States of America:

* America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.

* Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.

* They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.

* Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.

* The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.

* They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

There's more where it came from - or where we're going, whichever the case may be.

19,605 to 0

Bob Parks: "19,605 to 0. Seriously, not one…?"

Mr Parks' incredulity is sparked by this news item: In 59 Philadelphia voting wards, Mitt Romney got zero votes

Obviously, this is just a textbook case ... of Party Discipline.

Blog Traffic

Goodness me! Whoever could be monitoring (for I've noticed this before) my little blog using searches such as the following? --

"lawrence auster" -site:http://amnation.com -thewhitenetwork -robertlindsay -usapartisan -oogenhand -burketobristol -diaryofdaedalus -occidentaldissent -majorityrights.com -halfsigma.com -viagra -age-of-treason -ringtone -downwithjugears -hesperado -amerika.org -chechar -washingtonreb -diaryofdaedalus -news-cottage -bclaym -oldatlanticlighthouse

Welcome to your first few weeks of the next four years, America

Laura Rosen Cohen: "It's been cold. Lord, have mercy." -- "Welcome to your first few weeks of the next four years, America. The President may need an even spiffier bomber jacket when he pays his next visit to the area.

And he should also bring a giant drool bucket for Gov. Christie as well if he goes to NJ. I think they sell those at the Obama On Line store."

Of course, if the nation does come to its senses, it can impeach and remove from office both the Constitutionally ineligible Obama and his criminally complicit buffoon, Biden.

Isn't it so odd?

With Katrina:
1) President Bush had to beg the Democratic buffoons running Louisiana to order an evacuation of New Orleans (*), which those same Democratic buffoons then proceeded to thoroughly bungle;
2) President Bush had to beg the Democratic buffoons running Louisiana to invite the Federal government to come into the State and assist with the cleanup and recovery;
3) even with that late start, it went fairly well … not that lying “liberal” media ever admitted that, and not that it did “Brownie” any good.

(*) Of which evacuation, when they did finally order it, they made sure to make sure that everyone knew it was only to humor that “idiot” in the White House. They didn’t believe New Orleans *could* be hit by a hurricane, and they wanted to make sure that no one blamed them for a few days of inconvenience caused by a “false alarm” evacuation.

On the other hand, with Sandy:
1) two weeks later, and people are still dying due to the damage caused by the storm;
2) not that lying “liberal” media will ever admit that, lest Teh Won’s halo be besmirched.

Now, the point here is not to fault Obama for "not doing enough" -- hell! do you think I'm a "liberal". The point here is to highlight, once again, "liberal" hypocrisy.