John-William Noble is a husband, father, pastor, and one of the precious, precious few Scots that refused to close the doors of his church on his congregation during the so-called 'pandemic'. He took the Scottish government to court to prevent them from making worship illegal, and he won! Pastor of Grace Baptist Church in Aberdeen, John-William is also director of a school: Melville-Knox, Scotland. He is a fearsome warrior for truth, joy, scripture, and light.
I'm soooooo glad I managed to get a pastor for this episode... I had to very carefully consider episode #33 (I did think about leaving the number out! 🤣🤣🤣). Wasn't he great though!
A mixed bag. Some good points. Some error. But a good listen.
What is funny to me is that some time ago, one guest on the show calls the bible a bunch of fairytales unchallenged, and now here's a pastor full on accepts the christian bible as true and is preaching Paul's gospel. I understand this could just be allowing a variety of views and the allowance of free speech. But I guess one cannot serve multiple masters/principles and be faithful to each one.
A christian, a follower of Jesus with no master? Isn't that an oxymoron? A theist, a person who knows God not only exists but made and therefore owns everything, claiming to have no master? Someone who keeps mentioning "the 10 commandments" and therefore believes oneself to have been commanded, having no master? Again, isn't that self-contradiction?
Being a free speech platform doesn't necessarily imply no pushback, no challenge. If your comments section had the same principle as your podcast, then I would have given my view and you would have either said nothing or just agreed with me. I'm getting more pushback than any guest or group member that calls the basis of biblical revelation fictitious. Amazing.
Again, the "free speech" doctrine. You may claim to have no masters, but I also mentioned principles, meaning governing moral principles you hold yourself to. To have many such governing principles may mean that one is compromised for another; you can't be faithful to all. Here you are supposed to be a devotee of Jesus who you should see as "christ." And then you have a manmade doctrine of "free speech," elevated to being God-given (with no evidence) or intrinsic to humanity as an inseparable right (which has no basis in fact), where you, in practice, allow someone to verbally crap on something you're supposed to be devoted to without challenge and still respect the person. Two "masters" or governing principles. Can't be faithful to both. As your own new testament says, you'll love one and despise the other. I don't even accept the veracity of the new testament and still see truths in it borne out.
Now, if this comments section is a free speech platform like your podcast is, I should expect silence in response or agreement, right?
And to comment on that last paragraph, why on earth would I approach someone I have no relationship with at all, an utter stranger, and just start offering corrections, especially about something he's devoted to? That's crazy. I can note the errors in his views, even publicise my dissent on a free speech platform, without approaching his person. As Solomon taught, to a person already full, even honey is disgusting. If someone asks, meaning there's a potential open door of interest towards dialogue, then I can say. If not, then we just carry on about our business.
Episode 33!! Illuminati confirmed.
I'm soooooo glad I managed to get a pastor for this episode... I had to very carefully consider episode #33 (I did think about leaving the number out! 🤣🤣🤣). Wasn't he great though!
Very interesting.
"Scientific discoveries" are just are arrogant realisations of the glory of the Creator's incredible creation in absence of humility.
A mixed bag. Some good points. Some error. But a good listen.
What is funny to me is that some time ago, one guest on the show calls the bible a bunch of fairytales unchallenged, and now here's a pastor full on accepts the christian bible as true and is preaching Paul's gospel. I understand this could just be allowing a variety of views and the allowance of free speech. But I guess one cannot serve multiple masters/principles and be faithful to each one.
Perhaps you forget that my podcast is a free speech platform, Roger?
I don't have any masters, thank you - I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.
Perhaps you'd like to offer your 'corrections' to the good pastor? He might listen to you...
A christian, a follower of Jesus with no master? Isn't that an oxymoron? A theist, a person who knows God not only exists but made and therefore owns everything, claiming to have no master? Someone who keeps mentioning "the 10 commandments" and therefore believes oneself to have been commanded, having no master? Again, isn't that self-contradiction?
Being a free speech platform doesn't necessarily imply no pushback, no challenge. If your comments section had the same principle as your podcast, then I would have given my view and you would have either said nothing or just agreed with me. I'm getting more pushback than any guest or group member that calls the basis of biblical revelation fictitious. Amazing.
Again, the "free speech" doctrine. You may claim to have no masters, but I also mentioned principles, meaning governing moral principles you hold yourself to. To have many such governing principles may mean that one is compromised for another; you can't be faithful to all. Here you are supposed to be a devotee of Jesus who you should see as "christ." And then you have a manmade doctrine of "free speech," elevated to being God-given (with no evidence) or intrinsic to humanity as an inseparable right (which has no basis in fact), where you, in practice, allow someone to verbally crap on something you're supposed to be devoted to without challenge and still respect the person. Two "masters" or governing principles. Can't be faithful to both. As your own new testament says, you'll love one and despise the other. I don't even accept the veracity of the new testament and still see truths in it borne out.
Now, if this comments section is a free speech platform like your podcast is, I should expect silence in response or agreement, right?
And to comment on that last paragraph, why on earth would I approach someone I have no relationship with at all, an utter stranger, and just start offering corrections, especially about something he's devoted to? That's crazy. I can note the errors in his views, even publicise my dissent on a free speech platform, without approaching his person. As Solomon taught, to a person already full, even honey is disgusting. If someone asks, meaning there's a potential open door of interest towards dialogue, then I can say. If not, then we just carry on about our business.