The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper


Yes, that’s the same distinction I was pointing to, and we share your main affirmation. When I kept saying that good brothers read it differently about Christians killing to defend themselves, that certainly leaves no room to claim non-pacifists can’t be “witnesses for Christ,” much less to make it an altar call test for salvation.

Our difference may be that you experience being pounded on by pacifists, whereas in my fundamentalist Baptist roots, it’s regularly the few minority pacifists who are ridiculed as loveless heretical cowards who have no Scripture support. And I may have a thing for underdogs, since I see anabaptists as sincerely trying to take Jesus’ teaching seriously, to the best of their understanding of course.


Thank you. I understand.
I was so shocked when I read your comment as a serious accusation - very unlike you. Thanks so much for the clarification.
Onward and upward!


How about a little social justice therapy?


I prefer a bit of “wrestling” myself! :wink:


Gutfeld: "The British paper The Daily Telegraph issued a humiliating apology Saturday, admitting an article titled “The Mystery of Melania,” was full of fake news about the first lady. They took it all back and paid her “substantial damages.”

There’s no point in recounting the story’s lies. They’re the same stuff you’ve heard many times before, part of a larger industry built on unknown sources and bitter bias.

And it shows you the kind of year the media is having – and it’s only been three weeks:
But you have BuzzFeed’s debacle; the Covington smear; layoffs at clickbait mills like BuzzFeed and the Huffington Post; CNN mocked for pretending they stumbled onto Roger Stone’s arrest … And now this brutal Telegraph humbling.
These events have one thing in common: accountability. It’s new and it’s good for everyone. Especially you.
Because - you may not know how false the Melania coverage is - but you can bet she does.
And that’s the point: you never know what fake news is, until it’s about you.
Ask anyone who’s ever been the subject of a story. Unless they’re vacuous actors pumping a socially conscious film, it’s never good.
It’s why, love him or hate him, Trump’s war with fake news makes the past two years worth it. His disruption has exposed the hidden levers in so many dark arts - from trade to immigration to copy-editing and fact-checking.
So if only one result from the Trump era is a media that thinks twice before destroying someone for fun and profit - then I’d call that a win.
Wouldn’t you?"


This came from today’s BBC news:


Thanks but no thanks. I don’t waste my time reading anything that “comes from today’s BBC news”.


It’s your choice.

Besides. Since they don’t cater to American politics (i.e. Fox News - Republican, CNN - Democrats, etc.)…They have the least vested, in American politics.

And when the tribulation and Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) finally arrives…they will probably have, the most objective coverage - IMHO.


Please don’t misunderstand me, HF, I really like you and enjoy your input. :smile: It’s just that … well, having spent the first 35 years of my life subjected to the left-wing commentary from the BBC, I am naturally suspicious of anything and everything it says.


BBC did run the totally false story of the Covington boy and the Indian man. But then so did everyone else, without fact checking at all. Trump hatred and knee-jerk ‘journalism’ at its finest.
So BBC is not infallible, who is? - but like the rest, their bias led them to sloppy work.
Overall I suspect it’s a pretty good source, just not the benchmark for great journalism.


You gentlemen do realize, there is a Wiki article - on the BBC news - with scholarly footnotes!

Of course, I’ll be open to reading…any objective stories, by “objective” groups like Fox News… discussing left-wing bias, by the BBC News.


I’ve read that. It’s a nice article.


Bahaha… you mean Faux News!!


If there is another large American TV news service that gets closer to the truth more often, I am currently unaware of it.

And thankfully, in the internet age we can prayerfully seek out many alternatives besides, in our quest to arrive at the truth of any news story.


Looks like Trump’s tax cut for billionaires isn’t paying for itself. Not surprised. I’ll never forget how Republicans fought so hard against deficit spending when Obama was trying to stimulate the country out of a recession. Shameless.


Any newscast that does not depict Trump as a wonderful leader is “false news.” Is that your position?


Since you ask, no I do not think Donald Trump is wonderful. He has his faults, just as the great wartime leader Winston Churchill had his faults and every man who has ever been a leader. King David was a leader of men but carried an abundance of faults. Despite his shortcomings, Trump is working very hard to follow through on his election promises even in the absence of any meaningful support from Democrats and the liberal media who both apparently would prefer him to fail than to succeed.

Presumably, you compare President Trump with his predecessor Obama. Was Obama “wonderful”, however you intended that description should be defined in posing the question? I happen to think that history will rate Obama’s performance as president as less than wonderful but I suspect you will hold a different position.

No offence taken, nor intended. :blush:






Thoughtful short essay on guns.
" When I read progressive arguments for gun control, I’m struck by how often I’ll see a truly strange line of thought. “If only,” they argue, “you really knew what guns do, then you’d favor greater limits on gun rights.” For example, after a the Parkland shooting, a doctor vividly described the lethality of the AR-15 in the pages of The Atlantic . Her reason for writing? To tell the public what “assault weapons” were really like:

As a doctor, I feel I have a duty to inform the public of what I have learned as I have observed these wounds and cared for these patients. It’s clear to me that AR-15 and other high-velocity weapons, especially when outfitted with a high-capacity magazine, have no place in a civilian’s gun cabinet.

Yesterday, Senator Kamala Harris added her own twist — force politicians to see autopsy photos of dead children:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris, the California Democrat and presidential aspirant, lamented on Monday the lack of congressional action on gun control, saying a solution would have been possible after the 2012 massacre of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., if only lawmakers had been placed in “a locked room, no press, no one, nobody else” and required to examine “the autopsy photographs of those babies.”

“And then,” she said, “you vote your conscience.”

When you read statements like these, it strikes me that there are some people who apparently genuinely believe gun owners are not only ignorant about the lethality of their own guns, they are indifferent to the suffering of their fellow citizens. This is a fundamental and important misunderstanding.

We know what our guns can do, and we zealously protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns precisely because we want to prevent or stop tragedies like Parkland or Sandy Hook. A law-abiding gun owner won’t look at autopsy photos and think, “I have to give up my weapon.” Instead, he’s more likely to grieve that he wasn’t there to try and stop the atrocity. He’ll lament that no armed citizen had the capability or (in the case of the deputy tasked with defending the Parkland kids) the courage to intervene.


America’s gun owners don’t purchase guns for self-defense because we care so little about our families and neighbors. We purchase guns and train ourselves to use them because we care so much. When I served in Iraq, I saw horrifying sights. Modern weapons can do terrifying things to the human body. I do not understand why a person would think that my natural and logical response to seeing those sights would include a burning desire to leave myself defenseless against threats or to further limit the freedom of my family, friends, and neighbors to defend themselves against threats.

If we want to stop mass shootings — and we all do — we should know two things. First, we know that the popular gun-control proposals almost certainly wouldn’t have stopped a single recent mass shooting. Second, we also know that armed citizens have stopped active shooters time and again. Given these realities, I wonder if Senator Harris gets things exactly backwards. Exposure to the effects of gun crime could well increase our national commitment to gun rights. The desire for self-defense is a reasonable and moral response to the evil men in our midst." -