Free Republic

I am of the opinion that Ann raised a valid point.

It is only valid if you believe that humans are in charge of the spread of Christianity. They aren't. The Holy Spirit is.

There is no such thing as a "lay" missionary. Every single Christian is entrusted with the Great Commission, and MUST go where they are called.

I've been a medical missionary. Before I became a Christian as an adult, if you would have told me that I would have ended up where I did(literally at the end of the Earth),I would have laughed at you.

Ann Coulter judges Dr. Brantly's work by human standards because she has a frankly lousy grasp of Christianity. Under a Christian worldview, the only standard to judge Dr. Brantly is whether he was obedient to a call.

The greatest thing about this whole episode is that it gives American Christians a chance to look hard at their faith. Most of what I've seen posted on FR over the past week shows me that most Christians have a very, very poor grasp of their faith, and what is required of them.

Whatever good Dr. Kent Brantly did in Liberia has now been overwhelmed by the more than $2 million already paid by the Christian charities

Once again, Coulter displays an astonishing lack of knowledge about basic Christian doctrine. Obedience is what is demanded - not results. The Holy Spirit is responsible for results.

If Brantly prayed about his calling, and was still called, then it doesn't matter if it cost a TRILLION dollars. His obedience is all that counts. That's a Christian worldview, and Coulter doesn't have one.

I’ve been skeptical of these feel good lay person with a family missions for a long time particularly the weekend or two week vacation ones to Latin America.

That's probably because you have never been on one.

Missions do far more for the SENDING congregation than they do for the mission field. In particular, the people who go recognize just how fossilized and messed-up American Christianity has become.

For example, you are worried that a "young family man" is somehow dodging his responsibilities. Guess what - if he prayed about his calling, and was still called, then having a young family, or a pregnant wife, or a dying father is NO excuse not to go. And if you don't understand that, then you have muffed basic Christian doctrine.

Her point was simple. Charity begins at home. Help those close by before flying around the world. That is not anti-Christian.

Assuming that Dr. Brantly spent time in prayer before accepting a call to go to Liberia, then yes, it certainly is an anti-Christian statement.

Following where the Spirit leads is the heart of Christianity. Most Christians used to know that - it really is a pretty basic concept.

Your obsession with his “life being ruined” tells me that you aren’t a Christian, or at least not one who has a mature Christian worldview.

From a non-Christian perspective, though, your posts make sense.

So you’ll have to trust me- this guy will be rewarded. He’s not really worried about your perception of him in this life.

Frankly, you don’t have a clue as to what he feels about the situation.

I’m personally not sure that he should have been brought back. But the lack of understanding on this thread of what is required of a disciple of Christ, is nothing short of astonishing to me.

I am thankful that some “do-gooder” saved your life, though.

We can in fact debate whether their return is reasonable. That’s fine.

Maybe they will die like Christ. You are pretty ok with that, as long as they do it far away, and off your radar screen. Christian death and sacrifice is all so messy and 1st century, isn’t it?

BTW - what have YOU sacrificed for your faith?

Good grief. His kids were there before the outbreak.

Missionaries have their kids with them in places that make America suburbanites nervous. Hygiene is bad. Disease happens.

It is what they are called to do. Again, if you don’t know this, then your American sense if motherhood has trumped your faith, and you have missed some pretty basic stuff in your faith.

“Great to be a missionary, but do it somewhere else.”

Missionaries go where they are called by God. They don’t go where it is safe, or fun, or reasonable by the the standards of a 21st century American.

Most Christians used to know this - it is pretty basic stuff. Again, if this simple Christian concept eludes you, then you really, really need to re-examine your doctrine, and who you have been listening to on Sundays.

Is the debate over where or if to treat the guy legit? Sure. But asking a Christian who is called to a dangerous mission field to find somewhere safer? That is actually an attempt to thwart God, and you’ll have to answer for it some day. Good luck on that.

I have been a medical missionary. And I am somewhat familiar with this particular man.

This “nutcase” has treated thousands of people for other things while you were sitting at your keyboard . It was not a waste of anything.

He got Ebola. We can debate where he should be treated. That’s fine.

But if you are a fellow Christian, then you need to seek this man out if he recovers, and apologize for calling him a nutcase. He is a rational man, called by God to do what he does. If you cannot grasp the concept, then you need to revisit just about everything that you think that you know about Christ.

You shouldn’t use the NIV because it is corrupt.

Absolute rubbish. The KJV is a word-for-word translation, which sounds swell, but in reality, word-for-word translations distort an awful lot of stuff.

The NIV translates more conceptually, with more insight into what phrases mean in context. It is simply a more accurate way of translating things.

And yes, I do know enough Hebrew and Greek to make up my own mind. You can get the Truth from either translation, but to dote on word-for-word translations as being the gold standard, ignores how language works.

I hate to rain on the parade - I'm as fond of ridiculing goddess-worshiping pagans as anyone else.

But Diane Watson said "ad astra", not Ashteroth.

She was trying to quote Virgil, "sic itur ad astra", meaning, "thus you shall go to the stars". Rep. West predictably muffs not just the quote, but the pronunciation, as well.

1 Corinthians 9:5

"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Peter and the apostles were married. They had the right to take their wives with them. PETER DID SO.

You cannot read it any other way.

Your appeal to Luke is bizarre -Luke was saying that God comes first, not that you have to have no parents, no children, or no wife.

It is what it is - otherwise, you need to cut 1 Corinthians 9:5 out of your Bible.

1 Corinthians 9:5

"Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?"

Jesus wasn't married. Peter and many Apostles were. Paul was not married at the time of his missionary work, but had probably become a widower at some point.

The question should be why don't the other 21, as well as all of those "bible believing" protestant denominations, follow the discipline.

I dunno - because PETER WAS MARRIED, maybe? As well as some of the other apostles?

You might also reflect that Paul was probably married at some point as well, since he had been a member of the Sanhedrin. You might recall that marriage was mandatory for membership - it is an obscure point, not widely discussed, but true, nevertheless.

Look, I respect celibacy as a tradition, and the guy should have resigned before taking a wife. But if being married was o.k. for Peter, then it is o.k. for all those "Bible-believing Protestants", who apparently know the scriptures better than you do.

Millions of people who were raised in Christian households in the 60's and 70's, and then chose to lead secular lives, are shocked that their kids are amoral.

I guess, "well, as long as I'm a good person, I don't need to go to church, and my kids will be the same way", didn't really work out so swell.

Hopefully the Wall Street window jumpers will eventually emerge from their psychotic episodes and start acting rationally.

I don't want them to act rationally.

I want them to JUMP.

Like it or not, Sarkozy will be the de facto leader of the Free World, once Obama takes office.

We lost the culture war when we started concentrating on politics, instead of personal evangelism.

It was all a mistake. If we had used a fraction of the resources that we poured into politics, and instead used it for straight-up evangelism, in Blue states, then the culture would have taken care of itself.

And I say this as someone who once thought that Christian political activism was essential.

You might want to look at the abomination of a franchise tax that Gov. Rick inflicted on Texas small business.

It isn't based on profits. It is based on GROSS SALES.

That's right, gross sales. Last year, my business took in 500k. After expenses, I made 10K. Governor Perry took $1500. That's right, I was taxed 15 percent of my profit.

It is a tax so stupid, that no other state is idiotic enough to try it. And Perry is proud of it.