good discussion all this coronavirus mess started from one man. everybody is potentially a virus carrier. skipping church may not be out of fear of getting ourselves infected only, it could also be out of love, to minimize the risk of spreading the virus to brothers and sisters in church.
doctors are not dumb, they are in full protection gears when dealing with coronavirus patients for reasons. they don't do that with flu patients.
my real fear is that people learn the wrong lessons from this disaster.
looking forward to hearing your take on what message God is telling us from all this.
interesting I was a bit annoyed by the host's tone, I felt it was arrogant and resentful.
You handled it well.
I didn't hear anything new from him.
I don't think you challenged him on the source of morality point, he makes a lot of moral accusations against God, he assumes moral laws. I would be interested to see how he counters that.
thank you I have been following pastor Jim's sermons for couple of years. I'm very grateful. it seems pastor Jim's voice gets weak towards the end of this sermon. I pray God will use you many more years to teach the Bible.
thank you thank you so much for addressing my question posted on the sermon Secrets#7 Science & Bible Facts.
I did not mean to challenge your teaching on creation, I was interested in hearing your explanation.
I like your teaching style, which is very personal and interactive in a small class setting. I see consistency in the way you see your life and in what you teach.
May you keep being a blessing to many.
the saving boat analogy is not a good one Many people have pointed this out all along: Evangelicals have put too much hope in politicians to save America, the reality is, politicians are not the saving boat, they are merely one of the products of the culture.
I don't know how well it goes when
Christians bring up the topic of morality. Non believers may ask: if Trump is good enough to be president in your sight, why doing some drug or porn is so bad?
Let's be pragmatic, if people accept a candidate this low, I won't be surprised next time the candidate is going to be lower. It's just like government spending, this years overspending becomes next year's baseline.
I can see it has been a real struggle for you, pastor Sean. One positive thing with Trump is, it clarifies a little bit.
interesting this interview talks a lot about how Hitler deceived the German population from a populist, nationalist angle.
Right now, Eric Metaxas supports Trump.
I wonder how would he choose if he were in the 1920-1930 era, keep in mind the socialists and communists were a big force in Germany. Hitler did not sound like the scariest guy back then.
Trump is a gift to Christians, so now we see what 1) The theory of picking the lesser of two evils may not always be the only way to look at elections. There should be a fairly stable standard, as opposed to ever changing standards by comparing to the other side. Here is an extreme example, Hitler and Mao, by applying the lesser of two evils formula, Hitler wins, you can argue you save millions of lives by voting for Hitler, since Mao kills many many more people in peace time. There is always a worse candidate if you compare closely. Isn't that the reason RINOes are RINOes? They are always more conservative than the other side.
2) The short term outcome is not always the biggest incentive for picking the candidate. I would think that leaving the outcome to the Lord is more biblical. David should kill Saul when he has the opportunity, if the short term outcome is the main consideration. The only reason David does the opposite is not a worldly one, he respects God's anointing.
Is it good to keep Israel ruled by a demon possessed evil king?
I think leaving the outcome to the Lord is liberating.
3) even from the worldly short term outcome's perspective, voting for Trump has some negatives, like the damage for the reputation of Christianity, the damage for the conservative brand.
not sure the reason christian professors talk about Cruz's theology is that the Bible is a big part of his platform, other candidates care little about that old book. Cruz is the closest to my worldview by far.
The carpet bombing thing is kind of like using atomic bombs, Cruz is not talking about population centers like Truman did in 1945, and I don't think what Truman did is necessarily totally unbiblical. I don't know. I'd love to have someone pointing me to some verses on that. Anyway, if there are no viable alternatives on the table, what's the point to say his option is not so good? everybody knows that.
I agree with your Daniel living in exile analogy.