8 Responses to “April 22, 2009”

1. min.r.g.Askew
   April 23rd, 2009 @ 6:38 am

   From the responses of the hollywood stars evidently their definition of a christian is entirely different than what the holy bible teaches. From what I heard on the show yesterday they (hollywood ) dont have a clue about being a christian, never the less a committed one. No wonder this world is going to hell in a hand basket. People need to know something about what they claim be before they air it. Well I’m just a littlle ole christian that understood when I asked Jesus in my heart that commitment was already in place.You can live any kind of lifestyle you are a hollywood commited cristian , I spelled it right because its not the same as Christian meaning Christ-like. Dr. Brown its good to know that there are still brethen that share the suffering of people that are being destroyed for the lack of biblical knowledge. I pray that all that claim to be “commited christian truely get saved.

2. Konstantin
   April 24th, 2009 @ 4:07 am

   “is the life on other planets armed”?

   Guns and church is an interesting topic. However, I find it to be exceptionally American question. From my narow understanding of an issue, Christians traditionally in other places of the world avoided guns/violence.

   By, the way, speaking of ‘man is not alone, and there is a government coverup for life on other planets”, what do you think about posibility of aliens being demonic beings – the idea is not alien among some Christians. This if course deals with general perception whether all alien thing is a fake or not…

   When it comes to homosexual agenda, I think they simply carefuly choose strategic terms, as in crafted marketing… for instance they are – “tolerant”, “accepting”, etc. But more you think, you start to recognize that it is not possible. As Aristotle said – “friend to all is a friend to none”, in a same manner one can not be tolerant to everything and accepting of everything.
   So, if miss CA would say she approves gay marriage, would she be liked by conservative Christians? Not likely. There is theoretically not possible to affirm both contradicting statements. You simply have to take stand, or not answer the question.
   This is why Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. ["Perez Hilton"] specifically choose to ask this question while many Americans was watching this show [I didn't know it was on TV at that time]. He, in my opinion, was expecting her to say what he wanted to hear. But since she didn’t, he was surprised, which led to shamefula actions on his part.
   Mario Lavandeira is true servant to his homosexual agenda. He used his chance to draw public attention to the issue. Except it didn’t work for him. In the end it showed that miss USA actually behaved more civil than the judge(!?).

3. Konstantin
   April 24th, 2009 @ 4:11 am

   I’m sorry I ment miss CA in previous post, not miss USA.
   It’s all the same to me…

4. Bill Fawcett
   April 27th, 2009 @ 1:07 pm

   Konstantin said:

   >However, I find it to be exceptionally American question.

   The example given on the program took place in South Africa.

   It is a universal question.

5. Bill Fawcett
   April 27th, 2009 @ 1:49 pm

   Dr. Brown,

   Well a great show topic but apparently of little interest to your listeners. I’m sorry I missed the live program. I do agree with your concluding statement.

   I grappled with this very issue (guns in church) over the weekend. Without conciously thinking about the scripture that you cited (“worse than an infidel”), I came to the conclusion that my first responsibility is to provide (protection) for my wife. She was concerned about an allegedly violent person who may be upset with the church for providing care for a young mother.

   So I’d have to answer this question with another question: How does CHURCH (our society’s name for the Sunday Gathering of Believers) differ from life in general? If it is morally acceptable for a Chrisitian to own (and use) firearms for personal protection then why make an artificial distinction based on venue?

   But let’s not get on a tangent about guns in general. My question is what makes a so-called “church” service unique? Isn’t part of the real message of the gospel is that we need to rise above 1-hour a week Chrstianity? Is a “church building” even a new-testament concept?

   By the way, if you come to a home group meeting at my house, you will find no need to carry concealed. We don’t ship the guns away to another location on Tuesday nights.

   My point – the question “guns in church” is brought forth by an artifical distinction fostered by contemporary religion about the nature of “church.” And probably a perverted understanding of the term “sanctuary.”

   Thanks for bringing the issue up on your program.

   Don’t have to ask about your church. Anyone who would meet next to a NASCAR track…..

   -Bill

6. Dr Michael Brown
   April 27th, 2009 @ 4:17 pm

   Hey, we may meet near NASCAR, but we’re not rednecks!

7. Bill Fawcett
   April 27th, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

   new outreach to unserved peoples?

8. mwiya
   April 28th, 2009 @ 6:32 am

   I think for the purpose of self defense buying a taser or some non-lethal weapon works fine. However my parents both have guns and living in areas where we’ve been held up before…firing warning shots is usually a way to get people to leave you alone. but it also sometimes makes criminals all the more violent. It takes wisdom to come out of a dangerous situation like that safely. Take David for example, he pretended to be mad to get out of a tough situation once.

   Even when one has a gun and is attacked, one should shoot to immobolise, not to kill. Showing mercy is always better than killing. Even better is using wisdom to escape the traps of the criminal.

   My mom was once attacked and had her car stolen, she played dead to get out of the situation alive. As soon as the theives left with the car she ran off and got help.

Leave a Reply