Search results

Yep, that only leads to the worst of the worst dictating what is acceptable behavior.

Voting for the lesser of two evils instead of a 3rd party because the 3rd party has no chance of winning.

Sub lets principle guide his vote. You let pragmatism guide yours. I'm not sure why you get so upset at sub for that.

So what is the limit on someone's past prior to following Christ before he is disqualified?

Being concerned about optics is why so many churches sweep sin under the rug and shuffle offenders off to other churches.

Here's how it might reflect on the church: one bad dude heard and believed the gospel message that the church preaches. The dude was radically transformed. Do you need deliverance from your sins? Come hear the message that delivered this bad dude. Now, if he was a pastor first and then engaged...

It's quiet because everyone is out working their bus routes to get the numbers up! Merry Christmas!

And each time someone throws it in his face, he can tell how God rescued him and can do the same for others.

No, but he was an apostle and the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets.

My wife asked why I never buy her flowers. I didn't even know she sold flowers!

I disagree. How he responds to the trouble could be an issue, though. Paul had to deal with his well-known past. If this pastor handles his past wisely, I don't see his past disqualifying him from the office.