Comments on: Clash: Young evangelicals

By: John Denney

John Denney — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:47:46 +0000

BTW, Eusebius notes that the different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke are because of that passage in Deuteronomy.

Joseph had two Fathers: “Jacob begat Joseph” in Matthew, while Luke says Joseph was “the son of” Heli. Jacob and Heli were half-brothers with the same Mother, and Heli died leaving his wife childless, so his brother (half-brother) Jacob “begat” Joseph, who was then considered to be Heli’s son.

Report comment to moderator

By: John Denney

John Denney — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 06:38:24 +0000

re:#30

SteveG,

I’ve explained this to you before. Maybe you’ll “get it” this time.

“The Law” was given to Moses for the Israelites to live by.

More than 400 years before that, God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for their evil deeds.

Long after God gave The Law to the Israelites, God intended to destroy the city of Nineveh for the evil deeds of its inhabitants, but when they heard Jonah’s proclamation of doom, they turned from their evil deeds, and God spared them. They were not Israelites and knew nothing of the Law of Moses.

There are deeds that have always been evil, even apart from “The Law of Moses”.

Report comment to moderator

By: SteveG

SteveG — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:34:52 +0000

Lutheran1983: Jesus never mentioned “homosexuality”?? Do Christians worship many gods? I thought there was only one God: Jesus Christ. Wasn’t He present in the OT times? Hmm…. By the way, no where in Scripture is arson mention, nor is it even alluded to…Does this mean I can burn someone’s house down?…Hmmmmm

Hmmmmmm … no. And what a silly thing to say.

Arson is theft. When you burn down someone’s house you are taking it from him. So it’s wrong according to the Bible, unambiguously.

You also invoke Jesus being God in the OT, so we’re back to that issue of what commandments of God in the OT still apply to Christians today. Is homosexuality wrong because Leviticus says so? If so, then why do we not also follow Deuteronomy 25:5-10. And if Deuteronomy 25:5-10 doesn’t apply anymore because “Jesus fulfilled the Law,” then why do you insist that other parts of the Law still do apply?

Go hmmmmmm some more and let us know.

Report comment to moderator

By: Caddyluck

Caddyluck — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:31:54 +0000

To support Michael Martin’s view. In one of his speeches Obama said: “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth” Period. What other evidence we need? This is a 100%-communist thinking.

Report comment to moderator

By: Caddyluck

Caddyluck — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:29:31 +0000

test

Report comment to moderator

By: Caddyluck

Caddyluck — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:17:21 +0000

Bravo Michael Martin!
To support your view (the ending esp.) In one of his speeches Obama said: “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth” http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/ Period. What other evidence we need? This is a 100%-communist thinking.

Report comment to moderator

By: Lutheran1983

Lutheran1983 — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 22:50:51 +0000

Hmmm…let me see if I get this one…it’s wrong but the government shouldn’t step in? Should child molestation be legal? Hmmmm..

Jesus never mentioned “homosexuality”?? Do Christians worship many gods? I thought there was only one God: Jesus Christ. Wasn’t He present in the OT times? Hmm…. By the way, no where in Scripture is arson mention, nor is it even alluded to…Does this mean I can burn someone’s house down?…Hmmmmm

I pray that Americans will begin to put some more thought in their religion beliefs and study Scriptures and theology a little bit more. I believe eternity is worth it, don’t you??

By the way…where in Scripture does Jesus say to take from the rich and give to the poor? Wasn’t that Robin Hood who said that? Hmmm….

Report comment to moderator

By: outkast

outkast — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:06:24 +0000

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state
governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

– James Madison (speech in the House of Representatives, 10 January 1794)

These so-called “young evangelicals” need to be told that it is primarily the duty of individuals and churches to care for the needy, NOT the government. Of course, if they read their Bibles they were already know this.

Report comment to moderator

By: knowsbolos

knowsbolos — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:01:15 +0000

“The crusty old guard is slowly fading into their much-deserved irrelevance”
Come on, STEVEG,(#20&21)…your statement quoted above betrays your own hypocritical attitude against the “older generation” of Evangelicals!!
I have suddenly found myself to be the age known as your “crusty old guard”…but the mistake young Evangelicals are making is that they do not realize that just 40 years ago …I WAS YOU! My crowd “ushered in” moral decline in the US like had never been experienced before. Is it possible that the “crusty old guard” has made all the mistakes, and are simply trying to “sound the trumpet in Zion”??
Yes, we need to drop the “Christianese” language which is absolutely wasted on the “younger genration”…but NO…we must never stop reminding
an ambitious,yet inexperienced 15 to 30 yr. olds that we have BEEN THERE, done THAT already…and it doesn’t work, and indeed slowly erodes the moral fiber of our society!

Report comment to moderator

By: Yeah

Yeah — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 14:40:00 +0000

SteveG,

I understand what you and Kiyoshi are saying; some criticism is deserved, sure. But, when given the chance to articulate the outworkings of their Weltanschauung, they tripped out of the gate. Really, I haven’t heard the “single issue” thing since the early nineties, your attempt to apply it notwithstanding. I could go with them when they state a few of their broader ideas: “Watch how I live,” one of them said–what really matters is when the rubber meets the road. Fine. Let me point to the ubiquitous crisis pregnancy centers and Christian charity groups who would care for any and every individual Mr. Stafford has in mind but about which he seems to be entirely ignorant.

Ms. Smith dismisses the balance of Scripture because, supposedly, “Jesus never mentioned” some stuff. It would be “condescending” to excuse that kind of trivial dismissal simply because she is “only” 27 years old. It probably says nothing to you, but I think there’s a good chance Ms. Smith would have a hard time explaining the Biblical doctrines of, say, justification or atonement. It’s far more important that Christians, young or old, be able to apply Scripture to all of life than to merely spout platitudes regarding a few ethical concerns of modern political culture.

Report comment to moderator