Comments on: Joseph Is a Single-Issue Evangelical

By: Darius

Darius — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 14:06:02 +0000

For Ryan and Kyle… http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

By: Brian (Another)

Brian (Another) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 13:15:39 +0000

Not sure if anyone (‘specially Dr. Burk) comes back to these comments or not, but I finally got to listen to the audio. A few clarifications that I thought I might offer:

1) About card playing and movie-going (to further Nathan’s comment), I think Dr. Moore’s point was to say that Christians (then) were concerning themselves with trying to eliminate (the immoralities of) card-playing and movie going. Looking into his statement more, it means the people were up in arms about the immoralities of and surrounding card playing and movie-going. My assumption is that means gambling and immoral films. The point behind it is that we were preaching about those items, speaking out against them, probably even demonstrating by bustin’ up a card game or two (non-violently, of course . While people poured their effort into those things (which were moral concerns for a Christian in the same way environment and economics are to us today), men and women were swinging from the trees. Something (lynching) that should have been taking front and center (as it robs the dignity from those men and women, dignity given by God) was put aside and counted as “one issue among many” that was to be discussed (preached about, etc.).
2) Dr. Moore is a country fan (sorry, Paul!).
3) Dr. Burk apparently owns all of the Hannah Montana cd’s.*

* – The veracity of this statement is suspect.

By: smithbaptist

smithbaptist — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:49:57 +0000

The “disqualifer” point make sense for those evangelicals who would have refused to vote back when many thought the choice would have been between Hillary and Rudy Guliani.

The evangelicals that refuse to vote for any pro-choice candidate (regardless) can make this argument. However, I heard a lot of hedging back when the choices looked different. Ah, the thin line between one’s religion and one’s politics.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:14:11 +0000

That was a good article by Piper, on disqualifiers. That is the way I vote, I vote AGAINST the worst candidate of the 2 most likely. And their stance on abortion is a factor, as it is a matter of life. There does seem to be an amazing amount of sophistry claiming that one can be against abortion yet vote for “the One”.

By: Derek

Derek — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:50:24 +0000

Gim,
If Christians would vote for pro-life candidates, both parties would be more pro-life than they are. It is because so many Christians (and Catholics) vote for pro-choice politicians that we aren’t making significant enough progress on the abortion issue.

You probably weren’t tuned into the news when Alito and Roberts were nominated, Gim, but I can tell you that the battle to get them on the court was absolutely fierce. Pro abortion groups spent millions of dollars trying to derail their nominations.

Unfortunately, the balance on the Supreme Court is at least 5-4 in favor of Roe v. Wade.

The abortion groups are breathing a huge sigh of relief now that virtually all of their pro-life opposition is about to get wiped out in the coming election. And they love it when Christians are divided on abortion, because that means they win. That is no exaggeration.

By: Gim Anderson

Gim Anderson — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:55:19 +0000

Of course patience is required. If they actually did ANYTHING to reduce the number of terminations, or to terminate terminations, then you wouldn’t have to vote for them anymore.

By: Darius

Darius — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:35:29 +0000

Gim, patience is required.

By: Denny Burk

Denny Burk — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:52:20 +0000

Gim,

Alito and Roberts voted with the majority that upheld the partial-birth abortion ban. This was a huge victory for the cause of life.

Even Barack Obama agrees that the balance of the Supreme Court is why the Presidency is so important in this debate.

Denny

By: Gim Anderson

Gim Anderson — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:24:46 +0000

Thanks Darius. Key point: “Sure, they haven’t done a whole lot… yet.”

By: Darius

Darius — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:35:29 +0000

Umm, Gim, are you serious? Do the names Alito and Roberts ring a bell? Sure, they haven’t done a whole lot… yet. Their hands are tied since the Court is still moderate left. That’s why this next election is so important, because there should be at least one seat to be filled by the next President, and more than likely it will be a liberal vacating it. So to fill that with a conservative strict constitutionalist could make all the difference in the world.