You may also like...

48 Responses

  1. Nonnie says:

    I just scratch my head when I meet Christians who find out they are part Jewish (due to great grandmother or??). They are so excited and one would almost think they believe that is making some sort of difference as to their standing in Christ. I just don’t get it.

  2. Ian Elsasser says:


    It just shows they are part of the remnant who are being saved per Romans 9-11.

  3. Just the fact that 68% of jews think you can deny the existence of god and still be jewish speaks volumes – or if true speaks of the invalidity of today’s jewish faith..

    Hey, I think you can believe in Mohammed as Allah and still be a christian.

  4. Jim says:

    The pot conversation is ludicrous as long as booze is legal and socially acceptable. Sell the stuff where beer is sold so people don’t have to interact with criminals to buy it, and enforce the law regarding minors and driving while impaired.

  5. WenatcheeTheHatchet says:

    Weird how in 2012 Evans was speaking up about Driscoll being a bully when she had a book to promote that was published through Thomas Nelson just like Mark and Grace Driscoll did. That Evans and Driscoll were both published through the same publisher and that both seem perfectly content to traffic in lazy polemics is starting to feel like it says something about Thomas Nelson more generally. 🙁

  6. Papias says:

    That is a good peice by Trueman.

    Rachel Held Evans on the other hand…..

  7. covered says:

    MLD, can you expand on your #3?

  8. covered,
    Most jews are dumb as rocks when it comes to what they believe about God – almost as bad a christians.
    Actually, the one who can accept other jews believing in Jesus are just trying to stay out of the gas chambers.

  9. I think RHE was on target to use the comments of others.
    The point was not WHAT the Duck guy said, but it was what people heard in what Evangelicals were saying in support of Duck man.

  10. I agree with Jim’s number 4

  11. Chile says:

    Jim, they are not enforcing the law in Colorado with minors. Many of my students are 18 and older but haven’t graduated high school yet. The police don’t have time to sort out who is actually of age and who isn’t. The net result is no one gets in trouble, anyone can toke.

  12. Neo says:

    Hatchet Man. good observation.

  13. Chile says:

    I’d like to say that the same kids smoking pot recognize that driving while drunk can kill, do not recognize that driving while high affects them at all. They also realize that being drunk kills brain cells, but think that pot highs do not harm. We need a serious educational indoctrination at the youngest levels if we are going to allow legal pot smoking. The amount of schizophrenia induced by early and often pot smoking is a serious issue in my sphere of people. Watching as an outsider, you know when it hits … their brain is altered, relationships are never the same, they are entrapped in poverty … even if they didn’t start out that way. I see it in the inner city poor kids and the uber wealthy suburban kids.

  14. Chile says:

    In Colorado, there are a lot of people who voted for the legalization of marijuana who are now saying, “Ooops!”

  15. gomergirl says:

    Nonnie, I only want to find out my family has Jewish roots, because as a child I read (and re-read) a series of books about a Jewish family in New York in the 30’s, and they had such great traditions and holy days. I loved it and wanted to be Jewish. I has stuck with me. I hold no illusion that it changes my standing with God, it would just be cool.

  16. Gomergirl,
    Here’s something you might enjoy.

    I have the privilege of doing the podcasts for, which are free for download on iTunes.

    If you’re in Southern California you can look into attending the events as well.

    Here’s the site:

  17. Xenia says:

    The Link to “Nikolai the Serb” doesn’t work. Are you talking about St. Nikolai Velimrovich?

    If so, here’s an article about him.

    What article did you originally have in mind, Michael?

  18. Michael says:


    Thank you for catching that!
    I fixed it and it’s a worthwhile link to peruse in my opinion.

  19. My take on pot, minus any moral talk.
    Not aiming to say yea or nay with this talk, just say the direction the wind seems to be blowing to me.

    Sooner than anyone thinks it will be legal, I think just about everywhere in the US.


    The ravenous monster that is big government must be fed.
    It is quickly devouring money in it’s quest to grow.
    Pot is the new revenue on the block.
    As soon as they could Colorado made sure to get a referendum passed to tax it at a high rate.
    Other states, and the Feds too I’ll bet, are watching Colorado and wondering how much money is to be gained for their coffers.
    There are a lot of people in Mississippi that smoke on the sly, I am sure they would love to be able to do it legally. This was true in South Dakota also.
    The movement will be growing and government will not stand in it’s way, because money will be gained on the other side.

  20. Mark says:

    I have no problem with pot being legal. I smoked it every day for 20 years and graduated college, raised three kids, landed a great job (which I still have) and had alot of fun. It was the cocaine, quaaludes, meth, angel dust, dilaudid, ectasy, LSD, heroin and (did I mention) cocaine that did me in. Course I probably never would have found those other drugs if I wasnt smoking pot in 8th grade!!

  21. Gonna share this here real quick. Saw it free on Amazon. Have no idea if it is any good or not. But, hey, it’s free right now.
    Speaking Truth in Love: Counsel in Community by David Powlison

  22. WTH’s #5 was right on the money.

  23. Dude says:

    I have little use for Duck Dynasty.I thought Phils coments were crude.He could have used some tact over the gay question.He still would have been attact by the left any way.

    Rachel Held Evans
    Read her blog and she is in my op ed simply propogating sin in the Body of Christ.She is simply picking and choosing what she wants to believe in the bible.I think she is mostly internet driven for the most part………

  24. The Duck guy’s issue was not the homosexual comments – we can fight over that.

    What he said about black people being better off before the civil rights era is absolutely total racism. No getting around that and how Christians can defend him is unreal.

    Christians should have been calling for him to be kicked off the show.

  25. Xenia says:

    I understand why blacks would be be offended by Phil’s remarks. I think he was giving an honest account of how he perceived the lives of blacks at that time in history but that was the whole problem. Many southern white people, such as my parents and other relatives, thought blacks should have been content living 2nd class lives and that Phil apparently saw their cheerful demeanor as a sign that all was well is a little depressing.

    I also think Mrs. Phil should feel embarrassed by some of the things Phil said.

    I’ve done some reflecting on the whole silly episode and I am not as enthusiastic about Phil’s comments as I was at first.

  26. Xenia says:

    The DD episode reminds me a little of Sarah Palin. When fundamentalist/ evangelical Christian women first became aware of her, they were very enthusiastic, thinking “She’s one of us!” But she wasn’t one of us, because she didn’t model the family values right-leaning Christian women said they valued. Think about it: Here’s a woman with a large family that includes a pregnant teenager and a Down’s syndrome baby. This is a family in crisis, a family that needs its mother. Yet what does Sarah do? She gleefully agrees to run for vice president and embarks on that whole circus. In my world of right-leaning Christian woman, if someone in our church or parish had behaved like this we would not have called her “a model of Christian womanhood” as people hailed Sarah. Nope, we would have felt she should have stayed home with her family. Yet almost no one saw this. They just saw a good-looking, sassy woman who seemed to enjoy mocking the liberals, a self-proclaimed maverick who said she championed family values but did so in word and not deed.

    Likewise Phil. I was at first tickled that took such joy in being so politically incorrect. Ha, take that, you liberals! But the things he actually did say were pretty awful. They were racist and disrespectful to his wife.

    All to say, this might be the first time ever I have actually agreed with RHE.

  27. The Rev. Patrick Mahoney makes me wish I lived closer to Washington DC so I could go to jail with him.

  28. Go here for ways other than being arrested to support him.

    “The Hebrews 13:3 Project.” Prayer and Public Witness for Pastor Saeed at the White House

  29. dusty says:

    #13 Chile

    I think the fact that so many low income people use pot is because they can not afford the medication to help them. I was diagnosed with many things and my medication bill alone came to over $800…that does not include the cost to see a doctor that takes months to get an appointment with.

    On top of that have you read the pages of risks that come along with using gov. approved meds? which tell us not to drive but its ok cuz the gov dont test for that in our systems when pulled over or in an accident.

    Once I got sick….my whole prospective on self medication has changed

  30. Jim says:


    None of my three kids drank when they were minors. I didn’t expect the local police to do my job for me. I haven’t had a beer in three or four years, but I’m not opposed to it, in moderation. As in one or two. I lived like a mormon for 25 years, because “do what I say, not what I do” doesn’t work. It made our “house rules” easier to sell. No profanity, R rated movies, or booze. Very limited secular music. My kids got the message and appreciated the sacrifice, as it was clearly communicated to them that they could make adult decisions when they were adults.

    Booze and pot are adult issues, and adult parents need to die to themselves and do their freakin’ jobs. This whole fox news “what about the kids” crap shouldn’t even be a part of the conversation.

  31. Think I may exercise some moderation tomorrow, Jim.

  32. Steve Wright says:

    Jim, I have a relevant question and am curious your take. Since pot is legal, there are stores that sell pot ‘goodies’ like brownies and such. A few kids already are showing up in the ER with overdoses from such products. This isn’t like some kid drinking something because a bottle was lying around. (And like you said, once kids get to a certain age they know that such bottles are not for them).

    Now, I hear the argument about parenting and so forth, but one thing that is fairly easy to do today is see when adults might be consuming booze when kids are around – and one can keep an eye on the kids or choose not to have your kids at that sort of gathering.

    But what do you do when you have a product like brownies that is certainly aimed at children as much as anyone else, and where the drug is hidden and unknown?

    I think the kids are part of the conversation. And I know it was lots easier to score booze when underage than it was weed…at least in the 80s. Not that weed was not prevalent at parties, but basically everyone would get their own booze on their own somehow and then one or maybe two guys would be the source for weed. If weed was legal..I’m sure that would have been different.

  33. Jim says:


    I guess a good pot using parent would keep the brownies away from the kids. We don’t outlaw drano because it’ll kill a toddler. We lock it up.

  34. Jim says:


    I believe pot is a gateway drug because of the drug culture. You go to a house to buy weed, and there’s other “goodies” for sale. Sell it in liquor stores.

  35. Steve Wright says:

    Sell the brownies in liquor stores too?

    My point was that any sick twisted person could put pot-brownies at some kids function and there really is no way to know that. When we were in high school someone made a plate of ex-lax brownies for a fundraiser as a prank.

    It just seems like an unintended consequence not fully thought out.

    As far as gateway drug and the culture, I’m sure a lot of that is true…but a lot of it is that it just takes more and stronger pot to get high, so eventually one moves on to something harder.

  36. Jim says:


    I smoked dope every day for a decade and didn’t experience the “more and stronger to get high” thing.

    A sick person could put anything in kids brownies.

  37. Steve Wright says:

    Jim, do you believe all drugs should be legal? (As long as the various caveats you cite are followed) If not, what is your reasoning?

    Anecdotal drug stories are all over the map. Almost my whole high school class smoked pot at least once before graduation. Some probably their only time in life. Some never tried anything harder but pot. Many tried harder drugs. A few became addicts.

    We’ll learn more in about five years.

  38. Steve Wright says:

    I’ll try and catch you tomorrow. To me this is a little like arguments about raising the federal minimum wage (something, Jim, I assume you are not a big fan of)

    If we need to raise it a dollar, why not two, why not five, why not ten. Why not mandate $20 an hour (I think a couple cities have this…but cities can do what they want)

    If we legalize pot, why not coke or any other drug. Is there a difference in the arguments? Of course, lot of libertarians do want all drugs legal (which is why my question is sincere, Jim, since I do not know your leanings on this)

    The alcohol thing is unrelated. Booze was legal, socially acceptable, enjoyed by huge numbers, and of course capable of being consumed without significant impairment….and then it was made illegal. Of course a huge black market developed and the law was scoffed at. I imagine the same would happen if cigarettes were outlawed, and they don’t even enjoy the privilege today of social acceptance.

    Taking pot or other drugs that are illegal and making them legal is different than what was done with alcohol at prohibition. I just don’t see any argument for pot that would not apply to something harder.

  39. Jim says:


    To answer the big question, I think that there should be no Federal drug laws (CSA) and no DEA. I personally believe that activities that don’t infringe upon the rights of others are not crimes. Having said that, there is no constitutional right to bear drugs, so maybe hyper-local legislation by voter choice is the answer.

    Although their use was not as popular as Alcohol, I believe everything covered under the CSA was at one time legal.

  40. Steve Wright says:

    Thanks for your take, Jim

  41. Jim says:


    I’d like to see the other side of the issue. I used to be a religious right republican. My rationale was, “of course we should legislate morality”.

    Could you explain to me why drugs should be illegal? I won’t argue, I’d just like to hear a reasonable defense.

    BTW, I hate to do it, but it seems necessary. Let it be known that I hate drugs. I pretty much hate booze. Personal consumption of beer or wine, I can take or leave, but on holiday weekends at my condo, I’d like to close the pool.

  42. CrucifiED says:

    There is nothing true anymore about the arguments made against MJ by Pathoes, Charisma, or John Piper this week. Not only has the research being done now since it has been legalized in various places proving our fears to be based in lies and misinformation…the research is showing MJ to be good for both your mind and body, especially as you get into your 40’s and begin dealing with the ailments of getting older.

    Our government even gave a patent to a pharmaceutical company last year to use cannibis in the treatment of cancer. The same institutions that have been feeding us so much fear mongering propaganda is now going to support the use of MJ for a reason they have long preached had no purpose at all except to ruin your life and kill you.

    As usual it’s all only been about their own control and profits. They could care less about our own health.

  43. Steve Wright says:


    I’ll start by saying I never understood the simplistic “you can’t legislate morality” argument. Aren’t murder, theft, rape and a host of other crimes also immoral acts? At the same time I also understand there are a host of other things that would be considered immoral that the law has no business legislating against. I think abortion is certainly immoral, but because I also believe it is the murder of a baby then I definitely think the state has the right and duty to outlaw it’s practice. Yet people will say in opposition “You can’t legislate morality” – well then why have any murder laws. The argument should not be about legislating morality but about whether abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.

    As to your question about drugs and their legality. Here is also the problem as I see it. We have to first look at what our government actually is today, and not what would be ideal if we had our way. Example – I think social security should be eliminated. It never should have been enacted. However, I would not support the immediate elimination of social security. Too many people have paid into it and are counting on it as part (or all) of their retirement. A gradual elimination of the program, yes, but not immediate.

    When you talk about personal responsibility as to drugs and the federal government having no right to legislate in such matters, we also have to look at the real world of today. I think I am correct that you are against the current state of affairs when it comes to unemployment benefits, medical care, rehab benefits, disability benefits, sentencing laws and a host of other things that have direct connection to drug use and abuse. Not trying to put words in your mouth, or even argue that you would be against various safety nets in society.

    But I’m sure we all agree that if we legalized all drugs, including heroin, meth, coke and the like – that there will be an increase in the number of citizens abusing these things.

    Who pays? You have written that we punish people who commit crimes while on drugs. OK, so we fill the prisons with even more addicts than we already have in there now? Who pays those costs? Do we rehab addicts instead of incarcerating them? Who pays? Do we deny unemployment benefits for the abuser who loses his job? Do we deny medical care when someone OD’s or gets hepatitis or otherwise needs medical care directly because of their drug usage? Do we deny disability benefits for someone who makes the mistake of getting loaded and falling down, driving into a tree, or otherwise breaking their neck?

    So I’m actually not against legalizing drugs theoretically, but in the real world of America, 2014, I am most definitely against it.

  44. Steve Wright says:

    Not only has the research being done now since it has been legalized in various places proving our fears to be based in lies and misinformation
    There is a difference between what has been done in Colorado (and Washington soon to come) and places around the world that mostly ignore criminalizing but still make pot illegal. Colorado is the only place in the world where there is a specific legal ‘right” to purchase and possess pot for recreational use. Like I said, Washington is working out some things and is on board next.

    And like I also said, let’s see where these states are in five years.

  45. CrucifiED says:

    Steve, you are correct, it isn’t legal yet in most places. I am though, referring to the great amount of new research that has been done the last 10 – 20 years mainly due to the greater freedoms there have been in many areas to use and study MJ and its affects on peoples physical and mental health.

    I’m not suggesting that Colorado’s few days of legalization is any kind of proof yet of what the social consequences will be although they should be far less than living with alcohol sales. Not much to worry about in my opinion.

    I do agree with you though, that we can always let history teach us how things will fare and in five years we will have greater knowledge of the consequences good or bad.

  46. Jim says:

    Thanks Steve.

  47. gomergirl says:

    LOL… If you really want to know what it will be like if legal pot is available? Come to Portland and just get a job in some kind of service industry. Then, you will be able to see whether or not you can agree with legalization. most every job that I have had (restaurant, grocery store, gas stations) I would venture to guess that the majority or more are regular users of pot. I am usually one of just a few no-partakers, and honestly, it really is not an issue, unless they come to work just totally baked. But it is the same if they were to come drunk. I don’t do it, not my thing. I prefer a good scotch. But I am not against it either. I think the government needs to allow testing for medical uses as there is too much evidence that it is helpful and useful. I think of it as the same as alcohol.

    just my 2 cents.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Phoenix Preacher

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading