ThirstyJon

ThirstyJon

22p

17 comments posted · 0 followers · following 3

12 years ago @ Godfather Politics - Zero Foreign Aid Reach... · 0 replies · +6 points

I thought Ron Paul already proposed this for years??

12 years ago @ Deep Thoughts - Youth pastor Barry Cau... · 0 replies · -2 points

Hmmmm...

Well, I feel that my point was sufficiently made. Any reader can make up their own mind based on the comments already posted.

:-)

12 years ago @ Deep Thoughts - Youth pastor Barry Cau... · 2 replies · -1 points

Of course, you can choose to believe the police and whatever other authorities have executed this operation. As a matter of principle I don't participate in any "armchair jury." I am unwilling to declare anyone guilty, nor am I willing to say someone is "probably" guilty solely based on the fact that the police or authorities say so.

You can write that off as a "mind-numbing mantra" if you would like. I only pray that if I am ever accused of a crime the people on the jury do not think according to the philosophy that you are presenting.

12 years ago @ Deep Thoughts - Youth pastor Barry Cau... · 4 replies · +1 points

I don't know if you will hear from me again. There are a lot of blogs out there. If you did hear from me again I would say "Ok, a jury of his peers has reviewed the accusation and the evidence and found him to be guilty as charged - it would appear that he did the deed."

Our whole society would do well to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty. My observation is that in the popular culture when the police arrest someone and drag them off the damage is already done. The general public assumption is "guilty." Everybody knows that OJ did it, even though the jury said otherwise. Everybody knows that Casey Anthony did it, even though the jury said otherwise. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If anyone wishes to assume a person is guilty or dumb just because the police arrest him/her... Well, that attitude gives great power to the police and the Attorney Generals and State's Attorneys of the world - a great power to destroy lives without even having a trial. I choose not to participate in that.

I presume that Barry Caudle is innocent until a jury of his peers can be persuaded otherwise. I choose to encourage and challenge my fellow human beings to look at things in a similar fashion. I don't want to live in a culture where most people tend to believe the worse about their fellow human beings and I am willing to work to encourage the culture to be something brighter than that.

12 years ago @ Deep Thoughts - Youth pastor Barry Cau... · 7 replies · -1 points

Innocent until proven guilty folks. Don't forget it.

12 years ago @ Vision to America - Who's the Real Tea Par... · 0 replies · +1 points

Link is Broken!!

12 years ago @ Godfather Politics - Ron Paul Denounces Kil... · 0 replies · +1 points

If a U.S. Citizen participates in active war against the United States he is a legitimate target. If the action was legit against a soldier in an enemy army than it is legit against a soldier in an enemy army even if that soldier is a U.S. Citizen.

If armed U.S. Citizens attacked the U.S. Capitol would the army capture them all and turn them over for a trial, or would the army kill and destroy them?

12 years ago @ Godfather Politics - America Assassinates i... · 0 replies · +1 points

Was al-Awlaki actively engaged in warfare against the United States?

That makes all the difference in the world. If a person actively joins the enemy in a war any action against him is authorized if it would generally be authorized against soldiers on the other side.

So the question that needs answering to decide this issue is this: Is the United States in a legitimate war against Al-Qaeda, and was al-Awaki engaged with Al-Qaeda in war against the United States. If those two questions are answered "yes" then the killing of al-Awaki is legit.

12 years ago @ About A Burning Fire - Avoiding Ministry Burn... · 0 replies · 0 points

Great Thoughts!

12 years ago @ lifeasmission - Bi-Vocational Ministry · 1 reply · +1 points

I would submit that there is heaps of evidence in the New Testament (and Old) of ministers being paid full-time. (Rusty and jrrosko, I said much more about this on the Rusty's facebook post.)

Paul refers to the "other apostles" as being paid full time. Jesus appeared to be paid full time.

Of course, in our culture "paid" means receiving a paycheck. Their pay may have been at least some in the form of "provision." (Resources)

I can see the strategic value in some contexts (as described in your article) of following different models, but I don't believe it is accurate to say that the Bible emphasizes part time or not getting paid. I would say that it actually very clearly teaches the opposite.

I would have to experiment with "bi vocational" church planters to find out if it would really work better, but I can see the reasoning in this article. We do live in a time where people need to be discipled "from scratch" and modeling "making a living" may be an important part of the church planting process. We also live in a time where popular Christian culture wants everyone to "get in line" with the "pastor's" vision and things become hierarchical . I can see the potential value of a "come along side" type church planter / church leader in this situation - a leader who is "one of us."