Sunday, October 30, 2011

On throwing stones

So, last Sunday we set the stage for why Jesus' statement "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" can't mean that we should never accuse anyone of sin because, truly, none of us is sinless. Madonna once tried to justify her sin, or at least escape being accused of sin, by invoking this verse once.

Did you do your homework as we asked? Did you search for Bible verses about rebuking or calling out sin? (Our favorite web portal, so far, for finding Bible passages is Bible Study Tools. Please leave a comment if you know of a better site.)

Let's begin by quoting a few verses, from both the Old and New Testament, which make it crystal clear that we ARE to rebuke others for sin. (At least "others" who claim to be believers.") These verses would make no sense if we could only rebuke if we ourselves were sinless first.

We acknowledge that one is supposed to check for logs in their own eye before attempting to "help" a brother. That is a check for hypocrisy. We will see how this applies to the lawyers and the Pharisees in Jesus' day when they accused the woman caught in adultery. Another hint to help you understand what Jesus meant when He told them "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her ."

From the Old Testament: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt." Leviticus 19:17 This is a command.

Strictly speaking, absent a similar verse in the New Testament, this is a command for Jews only. But, as we'll see, God echos it for Christians too. (We not Dispensationalist, be we believe in Dispensations.)

Note that, in addition to being commanded to do it, rebuking is supposed to be an act of love. ("Do not hate . . . ")

That's clear from Proverbs 27:5 "Better is open rebuke than hidden love."

That is, if you really love someone and see them sinning, you won't be "polite" and keep your mouth shut. In fact, if you keep your mouth shut, we call that "enabling." No, the loving thing to do is to confront the sinner. The prophets of old, and even the Apostles of new, often rebuked their listeners. (Unfortunately, with "shoot the messenger" results.)

In fact, jumping to the New Testament for a moment (you know, it's the same God who wrote the Old and New Testament), we read in Hebrews Chapter 12 that even God disciplines those He loves. If you're not disciplined, then you're a bastard child (some translations), not a legitimate child of God. In fact, isn't about 80% of the Bible rebuking?

The focus of the cite above is to prove that rebuking for sin should be a sign of love - as when parent's rebuke (spank) their children. It doesn't say that only a sinless God can rebuke, any more than God says you have to be a sinless parent to spank your children. More typically, God leaves it for us in the world to accomplish His will, and that included "casting stones."

Here is just one example in the Bible of the Israelites stoning someone to death.
Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite. The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.) They put him in custody until the will of the LORD should be made clear to them. Then the LORD said to Moses: "Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him."
If you know anything about the Israelites, they can hardly be said to be "without sin." Yet, God clearly commands them to stone the man to death.

Yikes! Why stone anyone to death anyway? Doesn't that sound harsh, like something only radical Muslims do today?

Well, like any punishment, lawyers and Pharisees (judges) can often abuse their authority. (Hint for the problem in this instant matter with the woman caught in adultery.) Truthfully, you've probably abused your authority as a parent once or twice, disciplining your children in anger. That is, with the wrong motive.

But, if you've been paying attention, you know God's motive behind stoning to death. He says it several times in the Old Testament. It has to do with love. From Dueteronomy 21:21,
Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you.
Consistent with God's love and desire to purge evil, consider what your attitude toward correction should be. Quoting one of our blogger's favorite verses: "Let a righteous man strike me--it is a kindness; let him rebuke me My head will not refuse it." This shows the humility of someone truly saved. They accept correction. We saw this in our jump ahead to Hebrews 12, above. There God states the obvious:
Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.
By way of contrast, if you consistently shun rebuke, you're not a child of God. As when one seeks an Injunction Against Harassment to avoid spiritual rebuke, as did the late Melody Bodine and now Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan. God says in the Bible that's the sign of a fool. Proverbs 9:8 seems on point here.

Now, in the New Testament, we have the example of the Apostle Paul rebuking the Apostle Peter—in public!—for Peter's sin. (See Galatians 2:11-14.) But Paul didn't think he was sinless.

There's nothing in the Bible about Peter running to Judge Kenton Jones to get an Injunction Against Harassment. When Paul "struck" him, Peter accepted the rebuke, abiding by Psalm 141:5, above.

Now, here's a command for true believers: "Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." Galatians 6:1 From other verses we know you start out gently, but if the "someone" is rebellious and will not be corrected gently, well then you elevate the harshness of the rebuke.

And here is Paul's command to Timothy: "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction."

Nothing about being without sin here.

There are more proof texts, but we'll end with this one which seems especially apropos. This the Apostle Paul's instructions to the church at Corinth, which we believe is appropriate for the Corinthians at the First Baptist Church of Prescott too. From 1 Corinthians 5:1-5,
It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife. And you are proud! Shouldn't you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.
So here the Apostle Paul commanding the believers at the church in Corinth (who, if you know anything about the Corinthians, could hardly be said to be "without sin,") to publicly cast the sinner out of their church - the New Testament equivalent of stoning. (Although, consistent with the New Testament economy, there is an opportunity to confess the sin and be restored, which the man above apparently did later.)

So are we agreed that Jesus was not saying that only people without sin can rebuke others for sin? If you're not doing it out of malice but rather in love, then you are commanded to point out someone's sin.

Next time we'll see what Jesus was talking about in John 8:7 when he told the teachers of the law and the Pharisees "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." We'll see it all has to do with "malicious prosecution," a problem still with us today with the Pharisees.

Sunday, October 23, 2011

On the woman caught in adultery

In his formal Cease & Desist letter to our blogger, Prescott attorney Jay R. Eaton formally asked for a post about John 8:7 and how our blogger "might somehow be exempt from this scripture."

That presumes Mr. Eaton knows what John 8:7 means and that our blogger is guilty of violating its meaning. Clearly, as we'll see, Mr. Eaton doesn't know what the verse means. (But he's in 'good' company. Madonna shares his understanding.)

And ironically, by his implied accusation against our blogger, if Mr. Eaton really believes what he implies, then he shows himself to be a hypocrite!

Now, the last half of John 8:7 is where Jesus tells the lawyers—ironically like Mr. Eaton—and the Pharisees, both who hated Jesus and His followers, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (This was where both wanted to stone a woman {but not the man} caught in adultery.)

Taken out of context, it sounds like Jesus is saying we should never punish anyone for sin because, truly, none of us is without sin. Any by implication, per Mr. Eaton, that we should never even accuse someone of sin. (Jesus never said that.) Which is Mr. Eaton's implication about our blogger, that our blogger is in sin for violating John 8:7 but "exempt."

Is that what Jesus is teaching here? That we should never accuse anyone of sin because we are sinners ourselves? Let's see.

First, just as you don't like to be quoted out of context, neither does God. So let's step back a moment and consider what the passage is about, to get some background.

The passage is a story you all probably know in passing. It's the story about the woman caught in adultery.

Which is ironic. And maybe telling. The woman caught in adultery? Is that what the late Melody Bodine's, and now the current Melody Thomas-Morgan's, harassing Injunctions Against Harassment are all about? (The late Mrs. Bodine mentioned adultery in court during when she got her first Injunction.)

Is Melody Thomas-Morgan's attorney confirming that the late Melody Bodine committed adultery on a wild, devil may care excursion to Scottsdale? Well why not just say so and get it over with? Hey, if no one can cast the first stone, then what's the big deal? I'm sure the good saints at the First Baptist Church of Prescott would give Melody a pass, just as they've given her a pass on everything else.)

As far as we know, no one has asked her, nor has she confirmed or denied. (We wonder if her former attorney, now Judge, Cele Hancock knows? It probably would have come up in preparation for the deposition during her divorce.)

But there's a lot more to the story than simple adultery, which we will develop later. (We hinted at it above. Who is missing from the picture of the woman caught in adultery? Hint: Read Leviticus 20:10. And think about how our legal system today is often misused for personal gain. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.)

But before we get too far into context, for completeness, we point out that this passage may not be Scripture. The story is not in the earliest Biblical manuscripts. And so, as attorneys often say, this may be assuming facts not entered into evidence. So there may not be any need to explain John 8:7, for it may not be something Jesus really said, making Mr. Eaton's accusation moot.

Nevertheless, when you understand the verse, we don't see anything that violates Scripture and, personally, we believe it is historically correct and fits in perfectly with the rest of Scripture. (We admit to not seeing that for many years as a baby Christian. But with study and time, it makes perfect sense now.) So on we go.

Now, this verse, that "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" is one of the few passages of Scripture that unbelievers seem to know. In fact, the slutty, fornicating singer Madonna knew the verse and used Jesus' words to shut down her critics.

That ought to tell you something right there. Do you think Madonna knows the Bible? Do you think Jesus would tell us that no one should call out her sin?

Well, before we tell you what Jesus was talking about in this unique case (as lawyers would say, "distinguished from others,") let's tell you what Jesus was NOT talking about.

Jesus was NOT telling the lawyers and the Pharisees that it was wrong to punish (or to accuse) anyone for (or of) sin. You'd think a lawyer, like Mr. Eaton, would know this. You don't even have to open the Bible. It's common sense.

Not to get ahead of ourselves, but Jesus green lighted the execution. He did NOT say "Do not stone her to death."

Our legal system is always accusing people of sin. And no one thinks that's wrong. But you know that no one in the legal system is without sin. Our blogger has seen cops lose their certification for stealing. But these same cops arrested people for stealing. Our blogger has seen prosecutors accuse people of knowingly violating law. But these same prosecutors knowingly violate law. And do we have to tell you about cheating judges?

In fact, not even Mr. Eaton seems to believe that Jesus was telling us not to accuse anyone of sin. because that's exactly what Mr. Eaton is implying in his C&D letter: that our blogger is in sin for calling out sin! We trust Mr. Eaton would admit that he is not without sin. So even if our blogger is in sin, how can Mr. Eaton accuse him of same?

Or, if he believes it, then Mr. Eaton is a hypocrite, which, Biblically, is more probable. Jesus called the lawyers and Pharisees of His day hypocrites. Read all of Matthew 23. And when you read it, remember that Jesus was angry at them, shouting at the top of His lungs. (Awww. how mean of a loving God.)


Well, we trust that Mr. Eaton will read this post, since he asked for it. (Hopefully he will not run to Judge Kenton Jones and ask for an Injunction Against Harassment as his client, Melody Thomas-Morgan did.)

We hope Mr. Eaton will repent and confess his sin and come to know Jesus and His words. (We wonder if he's Catholic? Or maybe he attends The First Baptist Church of Prescott? Hmmm... anyone know the latter? That would be an Ethics violation, a conflict of interest, wouldn't it?)

In the meantime, why not read the Bible for yourself to see if you can find instances where God clearly commands "sinners" to stone others for sin. Even in the New Testament we are commanded to call out sin and punish for it.

We'll plan to pick up this discussion later and show you what God says.

Friday, October 21, 2011

Melody v. Michelle on Ephesians 5:24. Mel wins!

A reminder for our blogger to report about something incorrect Michelle Bachman recently said. (Although she had it right at one time.)

Can you guess the pull quote?

Objecting to the C&D letter

Here's a letter our blogger just sent to Mr. Jay R. Eaton, Miss Thomas-Morgan's attorney, regarding the Cease & Desist letter.

October 20, 2011

Jay R. Eaton
O'leary Eaton, P.L.L.C.
115 N. Grove Avenue
Prescott, AZ 86301

Greetings Mr. Eaton:

Thank you very much for your C&D letter of September 16, 2011. (Courtesy copy enclosed.) It was quite a help at an opportune time.

At this point in time, I represent myself in this instant matter. A request for nominal documentation, please.

You allege in your letter that I am intentionally harming Miss Melody Thomas-Morgan's "right to earn a living" and that a specific blog entry on the blog That Woman Jezebel "constitutes tortious interference with her business relationships."

It occurs to me that this may be putting the cart before the horse. Or as you lawyers say, assuming facts not entered into evidence. Naturally, I object.

Before any discussion about my intentions (which you have already acknowledged are spiritual) and before any discussion about interfering with business relationships, is there any evidence to establish for a fact that Miss Thomas-Morgan is actually running a legitimate business?

In your C&D letter you refer to Miss Thomas-Morgan's business venture, "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors," and to her "senior care business" at the website. Aside from that, you do not reference any specifics pertaining to a business. According to your letter, you are simply representing a private individual, not a business.

As you know, and as TV comedian Craig Ferguson constantly jokes, anyone can post anything on the Internet. Doesn't make it true. Just because your client posts on that she's running a business, that does not make it true.

While I have not done an exhaustive background check, I have done some checking in good faith. Aside from one posting on (and ONLY a posting on, I cannot find any information proving there is a business called "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors." I cannot find a Yellow Page listing for her "business," as I can for yours. In fact, your client does not even supply a phone number on the website for "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors." (Screen shot attached.) Thus, it appears a critical element to running a going concern is lacking.

Is there any evidence that "Melody's Vital Living for Seniors" is actually a going concern? I trust that you would have performed due diligence before representing your client and representing to me that she runs a legitimate business. Therefore, I trust you already have copies of the necessary paperwork in your file.

Therefore, please send me copies of all your evidence that Miss Thomas-Morgan is actually running a senior care business venture. I would like copies of her business license, bond information, liability insurance and whatever other paperwork is required by various government agencies to run a "senior care business."

I presume from your letter that Miss Thomas-Morgan is a sole-proprietorship. In that case, per the IRS, I would like copies of her IRS Schedule C (Profit & Loss) paperwork or her IRS Schedule C-EZ (net profit from business) paperwork, her IRS 1040-ES (Estimated Tax) paperwork, her IRS 941, 943 & 944 forms (Social security and Medicare taxes and income tax withholding), etc. to show the business's revenue and income stream to establish a baseline. If she is a contractor, then, in addition to the above, I request copies of her 1099's. (Feel free to redact personal information such as SSN. But not EIN.)

This material would have to be provided as discovery material anyway if we go to trial, so I trust it is not a hardship to send me copies at this time, in good faith, so as to avoid the need for future, messy litigation.

Please send the material to me within ten business days. If I do not hear from you in that time, I will be forced to conclude that your client is perpetrating a fraud and, as a consequence, that your C&D letter is null and void.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

It could happen to you

Injunction Against Harassment page 1 courtesy of Melody Thomas-Morgan Bodine
Injunction Against Harassment page 2 courtesy of Melody Thomas-Morgan Bodine
Here are the documents our blogger was served with, unlawfully revoking his Second Amendment rights, all because of one crazy lady's ex parte (that is, one sided) petition.

Click on the images for full size images.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Thanks to Mike Broomhead (KFYI Radio)

KFYI radio's afternoon drive-time talk show host Mike Broomhead covers our blogger's story. (End of second hour, Thursday, October 6, 2011.)

Click here for the audio. About 9 minutes.

In the meantime, you can read the original complaint over at Michael's Law.

There, as well as here you can read some of the documented silly things someone can say in a petition, in your absence to a court that will get your gun rights revoked!

Monday, October 3, 2011

Karate Kid?

Here's another ridiculous accusation Miss Thomas-Morgan makes in her petition against harassment. "In the past, Mr. Palmer, when visiting our home (pre-[Divorce]), would oftentimes warn me not to make any fast moves around him, because he might 'accidentally' go into marital arts mode and do a quick chop to my neck and kill me."

Unbelievable. Literally. (Judge Jones, did you believe this?) This fantasy has its origin from a funny story from about ten years ago. (By law, you can only cite incidents a year old.) Look, even if Mr. Palmer said he might accidentally karate chop someone, exactly how is that harassment? It's not "an act directed at a person." And if this story were true, why would the late Mrs. Bodine invite him back numerous times, ask him to house sit, etc. ? Why would she let her oldest son go on a evening missionary journey with our blogger? And if he was so dangerous, why would she let him teach her daughter some martial art moves, training her what to do if someone grabbed her hair from behind. (That's how it's going to happen, ladies.)

We suppose our blogger should be flattered that Thomas-Morgan thinks his martial arts skill are so refined. At one time, they were fairly good, but, truth is, even before the punch to the eye by an angry Mormon gal on Christmas Eve 2005 (which almost blinded him), our blogger stopped training long ago. Look how unskilled he is in this attack on him in 2005! Totally flat footed instead of in a stable stance.

In any event, here's the real story: In happier times, when the Bodines were the Bodines and we enjoyed each others fellowship around the dinner table, their youngest, Johnny (six years old?), who was fascinated with a baton our blogger usually wore, sneaked around the table and, coming up from behind our blogger, touched the top of the baton.

Now, any of you who are police officers or any who carry have probably been trained with a reflex reaction to stop anyone from grabbing your weapon. (Gun takeaway training.) So, to our blogger's surprise, the muscle memory from training kicked in and, quite reflexively, his right elbow shot up in preparation for a rear elbow strike.

But he didn't strike because part of his training was also to look at your target before you strike. So it was a balk.

That brought out the story of how our blogger had just finished a training session about how to fend off someone coming up from behind you. He was at a Walgreen's, waiting in line at the cashier, when a friend came up and tapped him on the shoulder. Still in "training mode," our blogger's arm came up to sweep away the tap and his left loaded in preparation to throw a cross. But, as always, he looked before following through. His friend laughed and said, "Wow, I'm never going to do that again," and we all had a good laugh around the dinner table.

He never told Thomas-Morgan he might do a quick chop to her neck and kill her. Aside from being a ridiculous thing to say, and almost impossible to do, the style of self-defense our blogger took, Reality Defense Training, does not teach karate chops. (Probably because they don't work in real life situations. RDT teaches closed fist punches and open hand strikes.)

Hey, Bodine children. YOU were there that evening Johnny touched the baton. YOU know the truth. Your mom is delusional. She's paranoid. She's lying and in sin. She needs help.

Will you help her?

If you're afraid of her, then you've proved there's a problem. You shouldn't be afraid of your own mom. Speak the truth to her in love. It's the only antidote you have for her condition.

Sunday, October 2, 2011

Roseanne Barr harasses bankers?

Well this story seems kinda Providential.

In the WorldNetDaily story our blogger mused, "I bet if I were Muslim and writing about physical beheading on a blog, no judge would dare touch me with an injunction. Ironic."

So then Roseanne Barr comes along, calling for the beheading of bankers. Actual, physical beheading. Is anyone going to touch her?

Hey, any bankers in Yavapai County: Run to a judge and tell them you're being harassed by Roseanne Barr. Let's see what they'll do.