Comments for Yoder's List http://yoderslist.com Yoder's list of conservative opinions, unbiased news, and personal views. Fri, 11 May 2012 20:45:48 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on New Duds by Gil Yoder http://yoderslist.com/2012/05/09/new-duds/#comment-9 Gil Yoder Fri, 11 May 2012 20:45:48 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=1239#comment-9 We worked a good long time with the update we mentioned in this article, but opted instead to buy a configurable WordPress theme from <a href="http://www.dev4press.com/" rel="nofollow">dev4press</a> called <a href="http://www.dev4press.com/themes/newsscape/" rel="nofollow">newsScape</a>. This theme has a lot of configuration options, so it is a little daunting to tweak all of the settings to make a site look the way you want, but it is still a lot easier than trying to build a theme from scratch. I will be working to configure the theme for Yoder's List over the next several days, so you could see a number of site changes during that time. We worked a good long time with the update we mentioned in this article, but opted instead to buy a configurable WordPress theme from dev4press called newsScape. This theme has a lot of configuration options, so it is a little daunting to tweak all of the settings to make a site look the way you want, but it is still a lot easier than trying to build a theme from scratch.

I will be working to configure the theme for Yoder’s List over the next several days, so you could see a number of site changes during that time.

]]> Comment on Ron Paul vs. Rick Perry by nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan http://yoderslist.com/2011/09/07/ron-paul-vs-rick-perry/#comment-7 nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan Wed, 07 Sep 2011 03:30:20 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=995#comment-7 Al Gore tried to give us Joe Lieberman as V.P. Al Gore tried to give us Joe Lieberman as V.P.

]]> Comment on Debate Thursday Night by Roger Genung http://yoderslist.com/2011/08/09/debate-thursday-night/#comment-6 Roger Genung Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:29:50 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=906#comment-6 Thanks for hosting this chat during the debate. Thanks for hosting this chat during the debate.

]]> Comment on Christian Terrorism in Norway? by Gil Yoder http://yoderslist.com/2011/07/23/christian-terrorism-norway/#comment-5 Gil Yoder Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:40:56 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=859#comment-5 Marcus, I appreciate your comments. I know nothing about your friends, or how they might try to justify actions like the Crusades. It could be that the friends you speak of have a jaundiced view of the world, but in my 40 years as a Christian I have never heard or read anyone offering a biblical justification for the Crusades. There are times that wars are justifiable for defense, but wars should never be fought to spread a religion. The religion of the Bible is now and has always been spread through persuasion, rather than force, and it must be accepted by a free will, if it is to be of any value. There is no difference between what the Old Testament teaches on this subject and what the New Testament teaches. The main difference between the two is that the Old Testament was national in its scope, being a law only for the descendants of Israel, and the New Testament is universal, that is, a law intended for all nations. In neither do you find support for Jihad. Because of the national character of the Old Testament, there are occasions where God commanded the Israelites to fight their enemies, but that was only when the sinfulness of their enemies reached such a level of iniquity that God's judgment upon them was due (Gen. 15:16). The Canaanites for example were worshiping Moloch, and offering to him human sacrifices before God commanded Israel to fight against them. They never used force as a means of evangelism. The New Testament is the same as the Old Testament in that regard. Jesus expressly said that because his kingdom was spiritual rather than a physical kingdom, that his disciples would not bear arms to spread the kingdom (John 18:36). There are times in which it is right to bare and use arms (Rom. 13:1-4), but never has it be right to use force to spread religious views whether those views are right or wrong. Marcus, I appreciate your comments. I know nothing about your friends, or how they might try to justify actions like the Crusades. It could be that the friends you speak of have a jaundiced view of the world, but in my 40 years as a Christian I have never heard or read anyone offering a biblical justification for the Crusades. There are times that wars are justifiable for defense, but wars should never be fought to spread a religion. The religion of the Bible is now and has always been spread through persuasion, rather than force, and it must be accepted by a free will, if it is to be of any value.

There is no difference between what the Old Testament teaches on this subject and what the New Testament teaches. The main difference between the two is that the Old Testament was national in its scope, being a law only for the descendants of Israel, and the New Testament is universal, that is, a law intended for all nations. In neither do you find support for Jihad. Because of the national character of the Old Testament, there are occasions where God commanded the Israelites to fight their enemies, but that was only when the sinfulness of their enemies reached such a level of iniquity that God’s judgment upon them was due (Gen. 15:16). The Canaanites for example were worshiping Moloch, and offering to him human sacrifices before God commanded Israel to fight against them. They never used force as a means of evangelism.

The New Testament is the same as the Old Testament in that regard. Jesus expressly said that because his kingdom was spiritual rather than a physical kingdom, that his disciples would not bear arms to spread the kingdom (John 18:36). There are times in which it is right to bare and use arms (Rom. 13:1–4), but never has it be right to use force to spread religious views whether those views are right or wrong.

]]> Comment on Christian Terrorism in Norway? by marcus http://yoderslist.com/2011/07/23/christian-terrorism-norway/#comment-4 marcus Sat, 23 Jul 2011 22:33:17 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=859#comment-4 I enjoy your posts; thanks. To the contrary of what you've found, most of my Christian friends whom I've spoken with about the Crusades defend those wars passionately. Another aspect people bring up is the Old Testament God (in Christianity) and other passages after the Gospels... I must admit, I don't know how a lot of people justify their "religious" decisions... But usually that's a decision between them and their God. I enjoy your posts; thanks.

To the contrary of what you’ve found, most of my Christian friends whom I’ve spoken with about the Crusades defend those wars passionately.

Another aspect people bring up is the Old Testament God (in Christianity) and other passages after the Gospels… I must admit, I don’t know how a lot of people justify their “religious” decisions… But usually that’s a decision between them and their God.

]]> Comment on Everything Gives You Cancer? by Gil http://yoderslist.com/2010/05/07/everything-gives-you-cancer/#comment-3 Gil Mon, 10 May 2010 02:41:44 +0000 http://yoderslist.com/?p=187#comment-3 I sent a note to Mr. Taranto and asked him to read my reply to his article. He replied that he did not say that evolution was a fact. I have corrected that misrepresentation in my article above. However that fails to correct the logical error that Mr. Taranto has committed in which he treats creationism and evolution theory as two different kinds of things. He views evolution as science (belonging in the science classroom), and creationism as religion or philosophy. If evolution is science, creationism is too, because both are only explanations of events supposed to have occurred in the past. The truth is that neither are science, and both are philosophy. I sent a note to Mr. Taranto and asked him to read my reply to his article. He replied that he did not say that evolution was a fact. I have corrected that misrepresentation in my article above.

However that fails to correct the logical error that Mr. Taranto has committed in which he treats creationism and evolution theory as two different kinds of things. He views evolution as science (belonging in the science classroom), and creationism as religion or philosophy. If evolution is science, creationism is too, because both are only explanations of events supposed to have occurred in the past.

The truth is that neither are science, and both are philosophy.

]]>