Rick Warren to moderate Presidential debate?

Is it true that pastor Rick Warren is going to be moderating a presidential debate in the near future? If so what's up with that? My choice would be John McArthur, he might actually get them discussing pressing issues..

Blessings Greg :-(

:-( This is a total misuse of the pulpit

Agreed brethren, this is grievous.

When I was growing up, it was the religious right that believed they could Constantinize America. Now it's the religious left making the very same mistake. Everyone seems to have a claim on righteousness, and justice.

None are repenting for their own sins.

Oh brethren, how little we hear Jesus among the clamor of bickering men. Let me come out from among them, and leave behind my own proud boastful heart. Let me find a quieted congregation, a gentle fellowship of brethren that lift up no name but Jesus saying "I will lift up my hands in thy name." Indeed, let me find a humble fellowship that knows how to say no more at all...one that knows how to listen to Jesus.

There was a small city with few men in it and a great king came to it, surrounded it and constructed large siegeworks against it. But there was found in it a poor wise man and he delivered the city by his wisdom. Yet no one remembered that poor man. So I said, “Wisdom is better than strength.”

But the wisdom of the poor man is despised and his words are not heeded. The words of the wise heard in quietness are better than the shouting of a ruler among fools. Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner destroys much good.

with sorrow,

MC

Actually, Rick Warren is NOT hosting a presidential debate (in a strict definition of a debate). Rather, he is hosting a [u]forum[/u] supposedly meant to help Evangelical voters become more aware of each candidate and his spiritual beliefs. They are supposed to touch on Biblical views, as well as issues like abortion, homosexuality, sex before marriage, whether or not America is (or was) a "Christian" nation, etc...

Yes, this is certainly strange and unprecedented! I've never understood the appeal of Rick Warren. His warped doctrinal views are often hidden behind his "megachurch-growth-at-all-cost" mentality. However, it might be interesting to watch or read about this forum -- even though I don't accept Rick Warren's beliefs. It might be interesting to learn of the candidates' positions answers to flat-out questions about things that are supposed to be important to "evangelicals."

Is this an attempt to scratch "itching ears?"

:-(

I wonder if Rick Warren will present the Gospel to those involved. Calling them to repentance?

In reality he will not. :-(

This past week I've been reminded once again how hurtful politics can be to the fellowship of Christians. I'm not talking about only hurt feelings, but ruining the trust that comes between sons and daughters of God.

I did not watch the program, but my guess is Rick Warren excelled as a host and a journalist tonight. In all likelihood he out performed the job the general media has done so far in getting to know the questions.

And in general, I wish him no ill will. In all honesty, the Purpose Driven Life didn't really bother me as it seems to for some. (I was mostly indifferent to it's opinions.) And it should be said that his financial generosity is commendable and even admirable. He is a decent fellow, more so then I.

So why do I feel estranged by such a fine man? It may be that the problem is my own. His friendliness with liberal and global leaders around the world stirs up deep seated mistrust in me. However, for many around the world, he is a credit to Christianity.

Yet, somehow, my heart is concerned about the lack of separation in all of this 'evangelical' influence. I am loathe to speak of the "America Church" as a monolithic entity, but I will this one time. By and large the American church does not simply ignore the command of separation, she argues with compelling socialistic sophistication against it. In the process, she has become a daughter of the world. She is a beautiful, educated and well spoken daughter of the world. She dances with princes and reasons with scholars. But can she, in the stillness of her own heart, be assured that she is God's child? (That is, without the humanistic sophistry that we are all, afterall, God's children...)I am talking about the Spirit of Jesus in our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba Father."

Some say there must be sifting in days ahead. I cannot say for sure. In any case, let's be patient and kind towards one another as the world shifts underneath our feet. Younger saints should not imitate the disrespect for older people as is found in this angry generation. Older saints should remember their own impetuous youth, and put aside pride to provide the shelter of wisdom and grace for young saints. The strongest saints should not use their strength to defeat or embarrass weaker saints, but to uphold them. God keep and protect his children, his household where there are no strangers. I pray with earnest hope, that he draws them to himself during the world's tremors and rumblings.

How shall I admonish you?
To what shall I compare you,
O daughter of Jerusalem?
To what shall I liken you as I comfort you,
O virgin daughter of Zion?
For your ruin is as vast as the sea;
Who can heal you?
Your prophets have seen for you
False and foolish visions;
And they have not exposed your iniquity
So as to restore you from captivity...

Blessings and strength in Christ brethren,

MC

[i]Here is the recap of the forum from REUTERS...[/i]

[b]Obama says pointed abortion query “above his pay grade”[/b]
by Ed Stoddard
REUTERS
17 August 2008

DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who followed Obama onto the stage of the nationally televised event, was more blunt and more emphatic.

He said a baby’s human rights began “at the moment of conception … I have a 25-year pro-life record.”

Both candidates were vying for the “faith vote,” in particular the one in four U.S. adults who count themselves as evangelical.

Obama took questions first from Warren and McCain followed. The two shared the stage together briefly.

Some centrist evangelicals have said they appreciate moves by the Democratic Party to “soften” the edges of its pro-choice stand by stressing the need to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions — and by also working harder in areas like adoption.

But for many conservative evangelicals — a key part of the evangelical base — life begins at conception and the argument ends there.

The issue remains one of the most divisive and partisan in America — as Obama and McCain highlighted on Warren’s stage.

(Additional reporting by Jeff Mason)

Hello...

Just reading over these words, I was struck by one of the roots of the issue. For so long, I have thought that the root sin of abortion was simply fornication. However, look at Obama's words. They mirror the words of other pro-abortion advocates:

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of [b]unwanted pregnancies[/b].

It is amazing that we live in a society that is so self-seeking! They want FAST food. They want HIGH PAYING jobs with little required work or responsibility. They want sex...without consequence. Sadly, they just don't want babies. They value trees, grass, and penguins more than viable human beings. The same liberals who were chaining themselves to trees last month at UC Berkeley are probably the ones filing legal papers to prevent anti-abortion protesters from standing on sidewalks outside of abortion "clinics."

The root seems so clear. It is selfishness. People are truly lovers of themselves! They would prefer to murder an unborn child than to be inconvenienced by a living, breathing human being taken from their own DNA! They would fly thousands of miles to protect a few Redwood trees...but could care less about an unborn child about to be sliced and suctioned by an abortion "doctor." Worse, they attempt to use the legal system to legislate such selfishness from the courts!

God help this nation! May we realize our selfish nature! It isn't confined to abortion. This selfish attitude invades our churches. We are willing to seperate or even vilify anyone who doesn't agree with our own particular doctrinal stands or theories (above those that are clearly outlined in the Word of God). The root is selfishness.

May God raise up a church that truly cares for strangers and those around us! May be exhibit the love of God for all...and become that shining "city on a hill" spoken of in Matthew chapter 6! May this world know that we are His because of our love for one another!

:-(

Must listen sermons, even if you disagree with them theologically, yet very worthy for consideration. Very timely since the election and so on, and also good to think about how involved we should be in the government and this worlds kingdoms. The line has to be drawn somewhere, the problem is to agree where it should be drawn....

anyway, take time for these

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=16164]A Holy Nation[/url]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=13193]A Spiritual Voting Booth[/url]

But for many conservative evangelicals — a key part of the evangelical base — life begins at conception and the argument ends there.

It is impossible to love God and abortion.

Hi appolus...

This is a point well worth pondering by all American Christians. I think even calling people "American Christians," could be part of the problem. Kinda like "African Americans," or Irish Americans." Assimilation does not mean that you forget where you came from, it simply means that you now identify yourself with where you are now, with where you have chosen to dwell.

Question for pondering? How many Christian brigades were formed to fight the destruction of Israel between 68-70ad? How many Biblical or extra biblical references do we have that would prove the early Christians banded together and fought for their country? Did they fight for their country, their culture? Or, were they so seperate in their identity, that they did not?........Frank

There are many mysteries in the Scripture regarding the extent of our involvement in this world. I think that it is a mistake to assume beyond all doubt that our relationship with God bans us from any earthly interaction. Remember, God did not take us out of this world. He simply preserves us while we are here -- and endeavors to take the world out of us. Our faith is still, first and foremost, the primary conditioning of our existence. However, the limits of our earthly participation is not completely spelled out by the Scriptures. Like an earthly soldier, we mustn't get "entangled" in the affairs of this world. However, the extent of such entanglement is open for debate. Does this mean that we should not vote? Does this mean that we should not serve in the military? Does this mean that we should not speak out against abortion or homosexual activism?

I've wrestled with this for quite some time. I hear and understand the arguments of those who preach utter non-involvement. However, I feel that it is a somewhat hypocritical argument -- because we [u]are[/u] involved. We participate in many of the perks of the government (government roads, taxes and tax refunds, garbage service, guaranteed medical care, and even the government-regulated internet). Utter non-involvement would mean to forsake all. But I would argue that even the Amish -- with all of their "separation" -- are not completely cut off from the citizenship that they do not acknowledge. I still see the Amish driving by with their horse-and-buggies on government-built roads near my parents home in Tennessee.

So where does this leave us? I guess we are back to the point where we should pray about the extent of our involvement. We should certainly share our perspectives without fearing that others might disagree or disapprove with the extent of our freedom. Yet we should always keep an open ear to the work of the Lord upon our hearts and mind through His Word. To this extent, I feel the liberty (and even a responsibility) to vote. Rather than "bowing my knee" to the powers of this world (as I have been accused in the past), I feel that I am bowing my knees to the Creator, and asking Him to direct my votes.

But, yes, I do agree that we it would be interesting to search for any sort of early Christian history in this situation. I fear that we might find very little -- since we might not have much outside of the written Word.

:-)

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Just an aside here in this conversation...

Unwanted pregnancies: something to get rid of??? Are you kidding??!!! Come on, bet most of us wouldn't be here if all pregnancies were wanted. And planned...

This is dumber then dumb.

Now that I have expressed my disgust with this phrase, I will shut up.

ginnyrose

To rely upon the power of the State is to forsake the power of God.

i encourage all to take time for the two sermons i gave earlier on page one. They show clearly from scripture we as followers of Jesus should not be involved in politics or this worlds affairs.

For those who interpret scripture differently, its good to get challenged sometimes on our beliefs, whatever they may be.

God bless

Hi ejg…

Our founding fathers were apart of secret societies and a lot of other corruption, and this can be found in many text. Religious or Christian founders? I think not!

We need to be careful about all of such claims. I recently purchased and read a book by a professor who tries to expose certain “myths” about our nation’s founding. However, the “myths” in his book are mostly conjecture. His “evidence” neither disproves of any of the information…but it does expose a predetermined end for which the humanist author was trying to arrive. It seems that there truly is a movement by secular humanists to rewrite our history. For instance, this author tried to claim that Patrick Henry never truly uttered his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech. Although it was acknowledged, supported by first-hand accounts and collected from first-hand notes shortly after the speech, the author claims that those who took notes might have added some of the words. His “evidence” is that we don’t have Patrick Henry’s own copy of this speech. This is “proof” that the speech was never uttered?

While there are texts that say so much, many of them come from an entirely slanted perspective. They are written by secular humanists who want to make it seem like our history was written by men who were entirely secular. Benjamin Franklin, if you would believe these new secular historians, was an avid womanizer who thought of nothing else than women. You would wonder where he had the time to work as an inventor, ambassador, historian, librarian, scientist, and statesman! If he was such an “agnostic” man – why does his own autobiography mention his faith in Christ?!? Why does he have such a deep-seeded respect for revivalists like George Whitefield (as mentioned in his own autobiography)? Instead of painting George Washington as a moral believer in Christ and a brilliant strategist, inventor, architect and surveyor, secular humanists attempt to paint him as a “lucky” bootlegger who just happened upon his reputation due to his height (he was tall).

The truth of the matter is that all men must work out their salvation with fear and trembling. There is no exception. I rejoice in the fact that this nation was created in a manner that we did not have a state-sanctioned denomination. But contrary to what Barack Obama recently claimed, America [u]was[/u] created as an emphatically Christian nation. While their denomination and specific beliefs are less established and left for opinionated historians to sort out, we can easily determine that they were men who stood for entirely Biblical themes regarding morality and reverence for the Word of God.

In one of my Critical Thinking classes as an undergraduate student, I was forced to take part in a debate regarding the question of whether our nation was founded upon Christian principles. As part of my debate, I acknowledged that there is some evidence that some of the founding fathers could have participated in questionable behavior. I knew that my opponents in the debate were going to use their “secular” claims to justify immoral behavior that is legislated by the far left (such as abortion, homosexual marriage, etc…). So I prepared a list of “evidence” that showed just what the founding fathers felt about such things. I included all of the laws that I could find pertaining to abortion (it was 100% illegal in every circumstance). Some of our founding fathers implemented stiff sentences and rigid penalties for anyone who harmed an unborn child! I also included evidence in which homosexuality was considered a “devilish disease” and “demon possession” by some of our founding fathers. Not only was “gay marriage” illegal – but a parade demanding such a “right” would have caused a riot!

An acknowledgement of our godly heritage in this nation does not mean that all of our founders were perfect men. We all know that Washington and Jefferson owned slaves (although they claimed that they “owned” them in order to protect them from other brutish slave owners). We know that some of them were involved with the Masons (hardly considered “ungodly” before the 19th Century, and the extent of 18th Century involvement is debatable – and the “diabolic” nature and practice of the supporting conspiracy theories are far less credible than some would suggest). However, can someone with all spiritual integrity point to these men and claim that they were NOT Christians? That is a bold accusation to make – and I feel that you would be hard-pressed to find credible evidence that would cement such a claim. Why? The heart of men who lived over 200 years ago cannot be adequately judged – even if you are basing your judgment upon the writings of men who wish it were so. Modern secular humanists attempt to explain away the writings of such men. The writings of the founders of this nation display either a strong faith in Christ – or an attempt to look like they had a strong faith in Christ. Either way, they were unapologetic for their positions.

In my Critical Thinking debate, I asked my opponent just what our founding fathers would think about some of the legislation attempting to be passed by the far left. What would they think about men who claimed that they had a fundamental American right to enter into holy matrimony with another man? What would Washington, Adams or Jefferson think about women who felt they had a right to murder an unborn baby? What would those founders think about attempts by the far left to remove any reference to God from public and national life? I explained in the closing of my debate that if our nation was not emphatically a Christian nation, we would not have it in their writings. Accusations can be hurled at the lifestyles by individuals who have an end that they are trying to achieve. However, the in depth writings that exposes at least an apparent faith in Christ within these men deems greater weight than mere conjecture offered by such humanists.

I think that Barack Obama for instance was not at all pandering, he was stating how he felt and believed from the get go, and it makes much sense in light of the world we live in,
I argue with anyone that believes or thinks that we should have a president that will rule this country like a high priest or king of Israel.

I agree with our brother who mentioned that there are issues other than abortion. However, abortion is effectively allowing the murder of nearly 1 Million babies a year in this nation. This number constitutes the description of “genocide” by international organizations! In fact, even though abortion numbers have decreased over the past eight years, more people will die from abortion in this nation over the next year than from deaths accrued by this nation in EVERY WAR for which this nation has ever participated! More babies died last month from abortion than from all of the US casualties for 5+ years in Iraq. I find it hard to just ignore this issue. Yes, it is a moral issue…and a spiritual issue. But I reserve the right to speak out against it! While those on the Left fight hard to save Redwood trees, whales and penguins, I think that we have a responsibility to speak out against this slaughter!

What would our founders think of the abortion industry? Would they agree that these are not babies – but “unwanted pregnancies?” Or would they have prosecuted such individuals? You can claim that this nation was not a “Christian” nation when it was founded – but that is, in my opinion, straining a gnat to swallow a camel. When every founder mentions their faith and/or respect for the preeminence of Jesus Christ, why should we call it a secular nation? When our laws were admittedly founded upon Christian principle, why should we call this a secular nation? Yes, it may not have been a perfect nation – but it was a MORE perfect nation than what had existed before it. And it did pretty well. We still have the freedom to write these things in such a public forum for all to see.

:-)

Hi Natan...

I did notice the way you gave the issue of slavery very short rhetorical shrift in your long post.

that did not escape my eye, curious, are you a Dominionist? I know you're a follower of Jesus, but do you ascribe to the tenets of Dominionism?

It is interesting, however, that someone could assume as much (Dominionism) simply based upon the post that I wrote. I have actually had a few believers ask this question simply due to my liberty to vote. It is difficult for me to understand just how this could be construed as an embrace of "Dominionism" without a very vivid imagination that reads between a very small amount of lines.

No dominionism here, though. A strong belief that this nation was founded upon Christian ideas and principles? Without a question!

:-)

Krispy,

Your tone seems very soulish and earthly. Your words may have truth to them but the way you express your views to other members of His Royal Family have saddened me and brought grief to the heart of Christ as well I believe.

How is it that you have the stregnth in you to speak in such a way as to diminish your brother or sister. Having knowledge many times puts you at a disadvantage because you are ready to express the superiority of your knowledge at the expense of a brother or sister who may not be as knowledgeable.

Natan4Truth's words should have caused you to ask the Lord if there was any Truth to them. It takes maturity to drink the cup of humility that the Lord will offer you through the hand of your brother or sister.

If we are going to be True then we need to be able to give and recieve correction from the source God has ordained, namely one another.

'let the newbies havae this forum. Not much room for dinosaurs like me around here anymore.'

After expressing that statement you should have been hearing multiple alarms sounding in your spirit saying, "warning, warning, superiority spirit attempting to express itself through me, warning, warning".

If we are going to be True then we must not run away when we are confronted with differences that are inherent with different peoples with different view points.

Maybe you have an agitation even as you are reading this post. And you are readying your amunition. If you do have an agitation what might be its source. Consider this as you seem to be one who the Lord may use in this end of the age era to bring His counsel to others within the body.

Grace, Grace to you.

Natan,

I would like to challenge you a tad bit on your take of abortion, weaponry, health insurance for children, unclean drinking water, caring for the poor.

When I took classes to teach one how to counsel clients at a CPC, we were instructed to discern between social/political/spiritual/Biblical issues. Some issues are worth 'fighting' for and others are worth discussing but not fighting about.

Consider abortion: it is murder, no question, the Scriptures inform us of such.

Weapons: these are used by men or governments of this world to either defend their rights or grab them from someone else. Paul informs us the state does not bear the sword in vain, so I must conclude the government has the approval of God to use those weapons. But this has nothing to do with my salvation or anyone elses'.

Health insurance: This is a personal issue. No Biblical principle involved here. Some consider the medicine industry as a big racket out to fleece people. Yet, if you really are needy and want medical assistance, most will qualify.

Clean water: there are Christian well drillers who go to foreign countries and dig wells. I do wonder how often dirty water is the result of spurning God's Word? Again, this is not a "thus saith the LORD"? issue but a humanitarian one.

Feeding the poor: even Judas was concerned about feeding the poor, going so far as to use dubious mean to collect funds to do so. Christians have a long track record of rendering assistance to the poor. Governments do a lousy job of sending assistance to the poor. So much is hijacked by opportunists who steal donated grains and resell it for a profit. It would be very interesting to know how much of the famine in the world is caused by 'sin' or idolatry. I would guess it would be a whole lot more then we think it is.

In conclusion, one could go crazy thinking about all the needs out there and knowing how limited I am in rendering assistance to alleviate the dire situations. But let us bring this closer home: how do I respond when needs of those in my brotherhood become known? Now this is revealing. A poor brother one time told us how people get so disturbed about the poor in foreign countries but ignore the ones in their own church. On the other hand how often does our charity create a dependency among the poor instead of helping then to learn to work for their ownselves? We see this all around us in Mississippi....

Just my opinion ...based on a reality check,

ginnyrose

you need to get to know people here.

This is always a good idea friends. The lazy stereotypes of conservatives or liberals we pick up from the world, shouldn't be brought in here. Many times they are used in the world as rhetorical weapons to self-righteously shame the other fella. Racism, poverty, patriotism...all these become rhetorical weapons not out of concern for people, but out of self-righteousness.

We here are not of the world; divisive, angry and entitled to what we want...we are not angry over other peoples sins, but sorrowful over our own. That is what binds us in humility and love for one another.

This other high minded stuff sounds smart and righteous, but it will only harden our hearts and fill us with unrepentant self-importance. If we can't love one another when it costs us nothing but humility, then how can we say our hearts are really motivated by a selfless desire to feed the hungry or defend the weak? We are demonstrating we are still controlled not by the Spirit, but by our passions, and as such can not deliver others, because we are ourselves still captives.

I speak from experience. ;-)

MC

This other high minded stuff sounds smart and righteous, but it will only harden our hearts and fill us with unrepentant self-importance

Stop and assess the situation. Stop and think about how you will invariably regret what you're about to say. Stop and think about how it may harm your reputation in the eyes of those that may be reading something under your avatar for the first time. Stop and think about the other person, and how they will receive what you are about to say. If you are honest with yourself, you may see that you are, in fact, not at all concerned about how they will interpret your words; after all, it is their problem and not yours because they are wrong and you are right.

Brethren, this is the wrong attitude to have here. It often accomplishes nothing but regret, shame and humiliation on both sides - not to mention anger, frustration, grudges and a wounded conscience. When will we learn the lesson of peace in keeping still and self-restraint? There comes a time when you must make a decision about what you want more: your opinions and voice to be projected regardless of the repurcussions, or to preserve your dignity and godly integrity at the cost of silence. Would you rather be known for your quick witt and verve and knowledge like a Christian Bill O'Reily, or as a quiet, peaceable and wise godly man or woman who weighs each word with a rare seriousness?

The immature way to approach this forum is to utilize it like Christian talk radio; a better and more mature way is to use it for ministry and a chamber for personal growth. If you decide to opt for the latter, the quantity of your posts will go down drastically, but the quality will rise exponentially - if you opt for the former the exact opposite will happen.

Don't you think its time you made a choice? This post is not directed at any one individual. It is for anyone with ears to hear.

Brother Paul

It is interesting to note that Natan4truth had several snide comments of his own to make, yet I seem to be the one that you (and others) want to criticize.

My brother,

Do you think that what I have shared with you is critism. I certainly have no place to criticize. If I have spoken boastfully or judgementally, may the Lord forgive me. Yet I consider what I shared with you to be along the lines of, 'encouraging each other while it is yet the day', not criticism. I can only trust that what I wrote was directed at you because you were the one who needed to hear. I could be wrong but I have to rely upon the belief that Christ who is both your Lord and my Lord is indeed Lord over the posts given. That may sound presumptious I know, but I try to do what I do based on that conviction.

If you feel that you were wrong in how you expressed yourself, then it is good to acknowledge that without adding anything else like reasons why you. This is a sort of 'getting the last word'. Let your soul be afflicted by not allowing it the opportunity for a kind of one-upmanship. It will definately be harder to do but it will show forth your nobility to the powers of the air who want you to have a sence of coming out on top even when confessing to having done something wrong.

I have been and ever shall be your friend. And remember, Faithful are the wounds of a friend.

Grace, Grace to you and may we meet on the Sea of Glass.

[i]"The world has become so extremely critical and censorious that in many places the chief employment of men, and the main body of conversation is, if we mark it, taken up in judging; every company is a court of justice, every seat becomes a tribunal, at every table stands a bar, whereunto all men are cited—whereat every man is arraigned and sentenced. Where no sublimity or sacredness of dignity—no integrity or innocence of life—no prudence or circumspection of demeanor—can exempt any person from it. Not one escapes being taxed under some odious name, or scandalous character or other. Not only the outward actions and visible practices of men are judged—but their secret sentiments are brought under review—their inward dispositions have a verdict passed upon them—and their final states are determined.

Whole bodies of men are thus judged at once! And it is easy in one breath—to damn whole churches—at one push to throw down whole nations into the bottomless pit! Yes, God himself is hardly spared, his providence coming under the bold ridicule of those who—as the Psalmist speaks of some in his time, whose race does yet survive—"speak loftily, and set their mouth against the heavens."

Barrow, in order to denounce this censoriousness temper, gives the following QUALIFICATIONS OF A JUDGE. He should be appointed by competent authority, and not intrude himself into office. To how many censors may we say, "Who made you a judge?" He should be free from all prejudice and partiality. Is this the case with the censorious? He should never proceed to judgment, without a careful examination of the case, so as well to understand it. Let the private self-appointed judges remember this, and act upon the principle of Solomon—"He who answers a matter before he hears it—it is a folly and a shame to him."[/i]

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24894&forum=34&0]whole article here[/url]

My goodness. If am guilty of this because of what I shared with Krispy I am flabbergasted. If someone sees or hears me say or do something in error I want them to bring it to my attention and if this latest post is hmmmhmmm's attempt to do that I will graciously consider what was posted.

As far as I can tell there was not any holier than though in my posts to Krispy. Yet the heart can be a tricky device. This is the beauty of community, even if it a cyber-community. You can grow and learn through the insight of others who are also envdeavoring to learn and grow. Thanks. Be well.

Dear elanham, i did not post "at" you, or anyone in particular, but from my own mistakes at this forum i know it can be good when someone post something to make us back up a bit.

I for my self has the beliefs christians should not be involved in politics, i do not even believe we can have christian nations ect.

But :-) thats my opinion

God bless you all

Has anyone else ever wondered how different we would act if we were in person? Would our words be more carefully chosen? Would we be as quick to speak?

Is the way we act on here the same way we would act if we were to meet a stranger on the street and then find out they are a believer? If we act different when we are online than we do in person, why? And is it a good different?

I'm sure there are several factors that play in why people do seem to act different online than in person. It's just hard to imagine if we were all sitting around doing a Bible study and this topic came up that the discussion would be just like it is now.

I'm sure many of us are desiring reality in the Christian life. One place it has to start is with what comes out of our tongues (and fingers!). Sometimes when we are just wanting to be "real" we end up being real dumb. That's something I've learned with dealing with myself, but I bet other can relate. I know that with me, I can talk to a Christian in person and it's not hard to just overlook a questionable statement and just give them the benefit of assuming they are just wording it differently than I would. Or if I would correct them I would be so gentle about it. But on here it's nothing but a flick of the wrist to practically crucify someone for everyone to see their "folly." We need to consider our actions. If you have a conversation with someone that ends up in a fight or you say something that is of the wrong spirit, doesn't it effect your walk with God? We shouldn't ever imagine that a bad post doesn't either.

It is somewhat tempting to just quietly lock this post and have it go away ... There is a mention about politics and the level of tolerance here in this forum;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&order=0&topic_id=14144&forum=13&post_id=&refresh=Go]MUST READ: SermonIndex Forum Disclaimer / Community Rules[/url]

A different tack though seems more worth mentioning. It seems there is often two equal and startling items that result at times here;

One is being offended, the other, defending ones self. Bluntly, it is childish. To read through many of the replies here and notice the abundance of personal pronouns and self describing adjectives in those contexts is to truly wonder. There are enough scriptural admonishens and to reprint them here might only lend to even more of an argument. As a counter to all this would propose a slow, pondering of a very good series that our sister has been quietly contributing;

[url=https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=24710&forum=45&21] Jeremiah Burroughs ~ The Rare Jewel of Christian Contentment[/url]

A fitting excerpt;

[i]IT IS A WORK OF THE SPIRIT INDOORS.

It is not only that we do not seek to help ourselves by outward violence, or that we forbear from discontented and murmuring expressions with perverse words and bearing against God and others. But it is the inward submission of the heart. 'Truly, my soul waiteth upon God' (Psalm 62:1) and 'My soul, wait thou only upon God' (verse 5)-so it is in your Bibles, but the words may be translated as correctly: 'My soul, be thou silent unto God. Holy thy peace, O my soul.' Not only must the tongue hold its peace; the soul must be silent. Many may sit silently, refraining from discontented expressions, yet inwardly they are bursting with discontented expressions, yet inwardly they are bursting with discontent.

This shows a complicated disorder and great perversity in their hearts. And notwithstanding their outward silence, God hears the peevish, fretful language of their souls. A shoe may be smooth and neat outside, while inside it pinches the flesh. Outwardly there may be great calmness and stillness, yet within amazing confusion, bitterness, disturbance and vexation.

Some people are so weak that they cannot restrain the unrest of their spirits, but in words and behavior they reveal what woeful disturbances there are within. Their spirits are like the raging sea, casting forth nothing but mire and dirt, and are troublesome not only to themselves but also to all with whom they live. Others, however, are able to restrain such disorders of heart, as Judas did when he betrayed Christ with a kiss, but even so they boil inwardly and eat away like a canker. So David speaks of some whose words are sweeter than honey and butter, and yet have war in their hearts.

In another place, he says, 'While I kept silence my bones waxed old'. In the same way these people, while there is a serene calm upon their tongues, have blustering storms upon their spirits, and while they keep silence their hearts are troubled and even worn away with anguish and vexation. They have peace and quiet outwardly, but within war from the unruly and turbulent workings of their heart.

If the attainment of true contentment were as easy as keeping quiet outwardly, it would not need much learning. It might be had with less strength and skill than an Apostle possessed, yea, less than an ordinary Christian has or may have. Therefore, there is certainly more to it than can be attained by common gifts and the ordinary power of reason, which often bridle nature. It is a business of the heart.[/i]