Disqus - Latest Comments for fanuv24

Re: Eric Metaxas Predicts Bumpy Ride to Second Trump Inauguration; Bonhoeffer Partners with My Pillow

Byron — Thu, 24 Dec 2020 16:42:11 -0000

"Former Christian intellectual"...to which does the word "former" apply? Never mind...I think we know the answer to that.

Re: Eric Metaxas's American Apocalypse | The American Conservative

Byron — Fri, 11 Dec 2020 08:11:50 -0000

One beef, Rod: how can you be certain that a man who behaves as Metaxas has begun behaving still "loves God with all his heart"? We should be very slow to assign nefarious motives and attempt final judgments of people's interior thoughts in a "negative" way, but surely the same is true on the other hand of assuming the BEST about people who say the godless things Metaxas is now saying. You are absolutely correct to criticize the words and actions--they are there for everyone to see and hear--but maybe we should not be so quick to give a pass on what is really happening on the inside. Jesus talked about good fruit coming from good trees and bad fruit from bad; we should not rule out the possibility (maybe even the likelihood) that the tree has gone very, very bad.

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Thu, 21 May 2020 08:58:29 -0000

As I said, I do agree to a point with you, maybe to a significant point.

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Mon, 18 May 2020 10:14:19 -0000

We seem to be talking about two different things. This is the type of comment to which I was referring:

"To me it has become very clear over the last decade that church, as we call it, has been about having a good social club with a great deal of passivity, too much expected of the head pastor, and just generally about pleasing someone else who is definitely not God."

I'm not speaking of surviving financially, which is apparently what you understood me to be saying. No...I am rather concerned with the massive brush with which you paint "church" as being a "good social club", etc.

Now understand, I share some of your critique and concerns, but I react strongly against ascribing to (apparently) the totality of "church" such inferior and unworthy motives.

Re: Upheaval at First Things

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2020 16:45:56 -0000

Wow. Niehaus must be turning over in his grave.

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2020 16:43:51 -0000

One thing our church is planning is to go to a Zoom (or other similar setup) permanently. My guess is that a lot of churches will be doing this, so that those who don't feel comfortable getting out can at least have that experience. That's a good thing!

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2020 16:41:57 -0000

My educated guess is that a lot of that is what will be happening. Our church is going from one service to two, with chairs (thankfully we don't have pews) spaced a good bit apart; I imagine we will be taking some other steps beyond just re-doing the seating arrangements. And we aren't going back soon; haven't set a date yet. Yes, you will have some irresponsible people who care more about their rights than their responsibilities, the antithesis of a Christlike sentiment. But I do think a significant percentage, likely a strong majority, will take steps that they think necessary to ensure safety.

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2020 16:38:42 -0000

You do make some good points there, Mr Jesperson, but if that brush were any wider, it'd have to have a sign on the back and guide vehicles. It's a little tougher than you seem to make it, to characterize "church, the way we have traditionally been doing it", particularly that blanket characterization about who it is the "church" is trying to please. No doubt, there is truth in what you say, but perhaps a bit less sweeping an indictment is in order.

Re: Church is Different Than Shopping

Byron — Fri, 15 May 2020 16:34:21 -0000

"...having shorter sermons (finally)". Ouch, Throckmorton, that really stings. If your ivories were nearby, you can bet what I would do to them.

Your points are well-taken, though my suspicion is that many/most churches and churchgoers will take a lot of these factors into account. I don't expect many churches to go quickly back to "business as usual". The singing thing is what I expect to be most problematic, potentially.

Re: More Al Mohler on Bill Clinton and Public Morality

Byron — Tue, 21 Apr 2020 13:01:47 -0000

I call it "TIS": Trump Infallibility Syndrome. But I really like your TDS+ and TDS- explanation. Goodness knows there are plenty on both sides.

Re: More Al Mohler on Bill Clinton and Public Morality

Byron — Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:32:41 -0000

et tu, Mohlere?

I think this one is, for me, the saddest of all the sellouts.

Re: More Al Mohler on Bill Clinton and Public Morality

Byron — Tue, 21 Apr 2020 10:32:14 -0000

Not EVERY time, Tacitus. There are still some of us evangelicals who will never...NEVER...bow the knee to a person like Trump. NEVER, if that wasn't clear enough.

Re: Why Do Bernie’s Supporters Lack the Self-Respect to Call Him on This?

Byron — Tue, 18 Feb 2020 10:28:33 -0000

The answer is relatively simple, I think: the majority of people who passionately support any candidate extol their virtues and ignore/minimize their faults. Trumpists and Bernie Bros are simply two sides of the same coin. In an age in which critical thinking is devalued, and tribal identity takes first place, we dare not critique nor criticize our icon. Rather, we shut our ears--and minds--and scream louder for our team.

Silly people living in a silly, plastic age can do no other.

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:48:17 -0000

Yes, because it's right in the Bible that you have to trust in Jesus AND Trump. Interesting theology.

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:47:41 -0000

Hilarious. It's treason to not like the president? You supported Obama, then? Or were you treasonous yourself?

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:46:53 -0000

Well, I am breathing, and I am an American. I guess I am in those senses.

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:46:11 -0000

Ha! Funny guy! I am "espousing treason" because I am not a fan of Trump? So it's treasonous not to like a particular president. Interesting rationale.

And I'm a "false conservative"...why? I promise I am a lot more conservative than Trump. Promise.

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:44:19 -0000

I agree. Makes no sense. Which is why I couldn't do it.

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 10:13:18 -0000

Now that is a truly ridiculous comment. Truly. You should really get out more. Or listen more. There are plenty of us who are conservatives both in theology and politically, who nonetheless do not support this president (other than in the Biblical senses in which we are commanded to: submit, pray for, etc.).

Re: Anti-Trump Christians, Would You Prefer a President Who Supports Secular Social Agenda?

Byron — Fri, 27 Dec 2019 09:33:30 -0000

Seriously, Cal?

Can I speak for myself? I believe in Romans 13, and thus "submit" to the President, and I pray for him. I also "submit" to the Constitution--which is also an "authority", and one HIGHER than the President--and it prescribes circumstances in which a president can be removed. Now, people of good faith can differ as to whether or not these current circumstances warrant removal of Donald Trump, but it's UTTER NONSENSE to suggest that wanting this president removed entails a failure to submit to the authority established by God. I will submit, just as I did to Obama, until such time as, via Constitutional means (whether impeachment/removal, election, whatever) there is a new president.

Then there's your silly question about being "happy with a Democrat" blah blah blah. Of course NOT. I would, however, be reasonably happy with Mike Pence. What, is he chopped liver? Nope...he IS, however, the person who would be president were Trump to be removed. I have some issues with him, but he is a man of integrity, Christian character, and conservative chops, who would almost always be on the right side of the question, while having essentially none of the massive baggage attending this president.

Make your arguments, but don't devolve into such silliness.

Re: Move Along People, No Demons to See Here

Byron — Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:55:21 -0000

Just like a building is compromised when it is built on a poor foundation, so an argument is compromised when it is based on a faulty premise. But it is rare when such an incorrect premise is so clearly articulated in the very first line of an article. Mr. Zmirak has done us a great service by so transparently leading with his erroneous premise. I will ignore the laughable idea that Mr. Metaxas is an "admirable apostle" and instead focus on the idea that he and Graham were criticized by Pete Wehner because they "warn(ed) that we face spiritual warfare". To arrive at the conclusion that this was Mr. Wehner's premise is to either lack the ability to follow an argument, to blatantly lie, or to possess an imagination that would be the envy of any sci-fi writer. I will be charitable and assume the latter, but regardless, it astonishes me that this is what journalism has come to, and as a conservative evangelical Christian, it disheartens me as well.

But rather than curse the darkness and silliness, let me light a candle. The problem Mr. Wehner, myself, and many other evangelicals have with the comments of Mr. Metaxas and Mr. Graham is not that we disbelieve in spiritual warfare; it is that these men attribute opposition to Trump regime as "demonic". Mr. Wehner made abundantly clear some of the issues which many of us have with this president, but of course good people can disagree on whether or not Trump's peccadilloes should disqualify him from our vote; I have consistently defended Trump voters, understanding that the previous election offered two miserable choices, and having neither love nor respect for Hillary, I don't blame Trump voters, though I cannot be one myself.

Misters Graham and Metaxas, however, will brook no honest dissent; their explanation seems to begin and end with demons. This is what is so objectionable about their argument (and this article). It's a red herring to suggest that Wehner and people like myself deny the reality of spiritual warfare. What we don't appreciate, either from these evangelical "leaders" or from this author, is to have our legitimate concerns with this president attributed to our being the pawns of demons.

Re: Ma’am, This Is a Chicken Restaurant. Chick-fil-A Is Not The Boy Scouts, or Your Church.

Byron — Tue, 19 Nov 2019 20:17:01 -0000

I ordinarily agree with you, Mr. Berman, but this piece is a colossal exercise in missing the point.

Re: Mike Pence: ‘Conservative Principles Are Resurging’

Byron — Fri, 02 Aug 2019 13:28:09 -0000

Well, there's a nice selective list of conservative things done...I don't guess I would expect a toady like Pence to do anything else.

Re: Happy Anniversary to Me #12

Byron — Sun, 07 Jul 2019 22:27:32 -0000

I have created a monster.

Congratulations on 14 years. One of us is getting old.

Re: GOP lawmaker calls for Amash to leave Republican conference

Byron — Fri, 05 Jul 2019 22:04:30 -0000

Republicans like Mark Walker keep making idiotic statements like this, and we'll just see if some of us EVER vote Republican again.