From 1970 – 1975/6 I helped run and ran some Christian (for lack of a better phrase) halfway homes. We’d take pretty much anyone in who indicated a willingness to change their lives. Naturally, given the nature of things this included regular attendance at church, Bible studies, commitment to work, pay off any debts, clean up inside & out and so forth. After the first three days we’d know how things were going to go.
The things is is that anyone who has been on the street for the amount of time to truly qualify as homeless has a particular odor about them. They STINK! And the smell is pervasive. Had one fellow who showed up one day when we were having breakfast. Given the prevailing wind we literally could smell him at 20 yards away.. I gave him a complete new set of clothing, a brand new bar of soap, threw his old stuff away afterward and told him to go take a shower, the bathroom was all his, and to NOT come out until the bar of soap was gone. He did as I asked, put on the new clothing and still smelled.
It takes a good week to go away for most.
The policemen spend their days on the street and (pun intended) something just didn’t smell right. *s*
I think you have a good point in bringing this up. No one should mindlessly obey. And, on the other hand, I would assert that we American Christians are pretty soft and could stand a little more intellectual rigor.
 July 13, 2015 at 9:22am
I’d be interested in your suggestion(s). Who you think nails it. I’d agree there are boundaries (one of my sources would be John Locke) and there certainly many ethicists (pseudo or otherwise) who have thoughts on these issues. The statement referenced by pastor Jeffress probably sounded simplistic due to the constraints of television and the generally merciless nature of having to speak in soundbite (a language and secret code used by members of the fourth estate to maintain their perceived hegemony over the minds of their subj… viewers *g*)
It is generally accepted philosophically that Jesus’ statement is the basis of the notion of separation of powers and church and state. Islam has no such separation – witness the religious brutality in the name of the Islamic State.
My primary reason in asking, candidly, is to “fish out” whether you are just griping or actually have something to offer.
Sorry if that sounds harsh – not meant in that fashion, but after almost 35 years online (yes, I started in 1980 +/-) I’ve found this sort of question has the potential of either elevating the conversation (my desire) or weeding the knuckleheads out more quickly (also my desire). Not that you are one but that’s your choice.
Would love an intelligent respectful conversation on these issues.
No offense. But my computer degree is dated 1981. TRUST ME, there was NO INTERNET (especially as we know it now) in1980. There were a few DARPA NET type of groups of email listings. BUT NO INTERNET. That took another five to ten years to see it's birth and growth.
Were you 'online' by using Bulletin Boards (the only thing available at that time)? To access one of them you had to DIAL IN to a specific board. You didn't 'surf' into it on 'THE NET'. Sorry, but there was no net at that time. And I just don't think being able to dial into one board or another - remember, we are talking 300 BAUD at this time frame qualifies as anything more than a 'chat room'. You had to BUILD THE COMPUTER YOU USED by hand, by yourself. At that time ALTAIR was a popular build, but I KNOW that they sold less than 1000 in the first three years they were in production. And operating systems? PHHHFFFTTTTT! NO APPLE. NO MICROSOFT. Remember those days of coding what you wanted your machine to do?
Please stop making it sound like the 'net' has been around a lot longer than it has. No disrespect, but the net didn't truly come out of academia/military nets until the LATE 1980's, early 1990. Computers were NOT AVAILABLE to the general public in a 'open the box and it works' idea. The first Apple 1 recently tossed out was worth $200k in todays market - without monitor - you used a TELEVISON screen.
Thank you for pointing out the likelihood that the media had it's role in altering the spirit if not the content of Mr. Jeffress statement. Despite being misquoted, maligned and generally misunderstood by the media in the past I sometimes forget how quickly a "journalist" can sway a story.
Are Christians called to submit fully to the Government? I think that is the underlying question. We are called do pray for our leaders (1 Tim. 2ff). King David showed us an example of how a man who had the heart of Jesus would treat the leader God had put in place. We also have other examples of civil disobedience from Daniel and his vegan friends. Were our founding fathers foolishly sinning when they instigated a war that birthed our nation?
In Lockes second treatise he presents the argument that the only legitimate government is the one that has the consent of the governed. I concur and say that as a Christian I have not just the motivation, but the duty, to disobey a government that sets itself in opposition to the Father. I am a free man. I can choose how to live, (and live with the consequences). I will not submit myself to evil.
Jesus saying, give what is Caesars unto Caesar is kind of humorous to me because the reality is that Caesar owns nothing. The government owns nothing. Hillary Clinton owns nothing, even when she's not dirt poor. The Zero, and all his followers really own nothing because God owns it all. It's all His.
July 13, 2015 at 9:09am
“I think we’re confusing realms here…”
Bingo! Read John Locke again people!
 July 12, 2015 at 9:35pm
He doesn’t need high end donors. Between his own pockets and what I’d think would be a flood of small ($25-$50 donors +/-) he’d be OK.
Then, if he actually did get the nomination, after the RINOs had done all their dirty deeds to smear, lie and defame him they’d start kissing his backside for a very simple reason – their own self interest. Like Eli Turnbull in Coneheads, they’ll suck up to anyone to stay close to power.
We have LONG AGO established that actual character is only a prop in DC.
No opinion on Trump’s actual qualifications for the office as NO ONE, perhaps other than George Washington, is ever really qualified. But, he does know how to get things done. I thought Romney led with his emotions and that wasn’t the best approach. He had a real track record as a turnaround guy, kicked Obama’s butt in the first debate – and then the “leaders” and consultants got to him. His mistake – he listened. I do not yet have the impression Trump would do that.
Speak the truth Mr. Trump. Let the chips fall where they may and let the cockroaches run where they may. Jesus sure did die for all of these folks but, man, are they disgusting at times. Their word is a lie and worthless. Time for someone to kick their butt regardless of intent.
July 10, 2015 at 12:05am
Rws197, I think you are presuming the conclusion. That is inductive, not deductive, reasoning. If God is outside of space & time then He can insinuate Himself into it at will. We call it ‘miracle’ when it’s business as usual actually. In fact, miracles *should* happen if there is a god if you will.
Basing one’s faith on miracles or ‘events’ that are essentially existential in nature is inductive as well. Feelings are fine but are trailing indicators, not predicate logic. “Faith by feelings” is irrational to me. Christianity provides proof when asked. On the ground, verifiable, fact-based and beyond doubt. The “trick” is not that people CAN NOT believe but they WILL NOT believe the evidence as given (with all challengers welcomed). At that point it’s a moral choice, not one born of reason; irrational. One can be morally dishonest as well as intellectually dishonest. I assert there are more facts FOR the claims of Christ than against. That is my assertion and should also be equally suspect until proven.
I can show you a 45+ year old crocheted cross on my desk. I went to toss a closed box from one dumpster to another, heard a clear voice; “Open up the box.” I did and the cross was inside. The most reasonable and rational conclusion? God knew it was inside and told me. I sure didn’t. You now have a moral choice; am I telling you a fact? What does reason tell you is the most rational conclusion, presuming the facts I provided are genuine?
[-1] July 9, 2015 at 11:06pm
Tornado311, Well, I’ve never had anyone promise to send me a message; I feel left out. *s* As far as the “know for sure” angle I won’t give you the standard ‘Christian echo chamber’ response that “Jesus did”. From my point of view I believe He did rise from the dead; from yours I suspect not. I won’t insult you by insinuating my point of view into your head – it’s your head.
Now, as to how you use that head I would suggest (assert?) a couple of things. One is that there is more factual evidence to conclude the claims of the Bible are true than not. Sadly, there are also a LOT of knuckleheads with agendas as well and some well-meaning folks who, well, talk at non-believers in a demeaning manner. In my thinking it’s just as dumb to close one’s mind to challenges FOR the claims of Christ as AGAINST them. Both are equally close-minded and mentally unhealthy.
Secondly, I’d recommend asking the very hardest questions you can come up with. If you actually care to look I’d recommend Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For A Creator’. I just picked up a copy of “Rational Conclusions” by James D Agresti. And the final individual I’d recommend would be the late A. E. Wilder-Smith (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._Wilder-Smith) who had, for example, three EARNED doctorates.
If you’re up to the challenge, that is; *g* your choice and responsibility. I respect that. Paul said, ‘we seek to persuade.’ (not harangue as some do)
[-3] July 9, 2015 at 4:08pm
rws97, As a Christian I would tend to agree that, of all reported experiences, many could be the result of a chemical release as you suggest. Particularly in the sense that experiences do not, by themselves, constitute “fact”. Experiences, by nature are by nature ‘ex post facto’ That is the experience is a response to **something**. I find it most unfortunate that many Christians use their emotional responses to their experiences as ‘proof’ of the truth. It is no such thing.
Experience does not prove fact but one ALSO must be honest and say that experience does not disprove fact either. There’s the rub – many people use the (correct) notion of experience being existential in nature (it is – even for the Christian) but the corollary is NOT automatically true. Those Christians I mentioned may well have had a legitimate experience.
To suggest that the pastor’s experiences were NOT true because some people’s experiences are untrue as suggested (at least as I read your post) is just not the case.
I have had some vivid experiences, both visual and audible, over the last 45+ years as a Christian. I have physical proof sitting on my desk of one of them. The other SO vivid that 45 years later I am still overwhelmed. How do you describe clear colored substance light love joy to anyone? I believe the pastor. I’ve seen that light. Stinking cool actually.
 July 9, 2015 at 9:20am
“Kumar!, You idiot” We don’t need to give up bombs for Ramadan!”