In Defense of Marriage – Part III

Chris333 »

Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

feet,

where does Jesus say that He will not judge the ones who do not do what He says?

At the Democrats' Party, a Pentecostal Minister

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:35 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Such efforts come with challenges, including answering nonbelievers"

Why don't nonbelievers have to answer to believers? Nonbelievers of what? Christianity, religion in general, life? Everybody believes something, and there is no reason why "Believers" should have to answer to secularists anymore than the other way around, if they don't like it they can get over it.

This article was somewhat disturbing...

Professor Fired for Answering Question on Genetics, Homosexual Behavior

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 19, 2008 7:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Wow,

So we cannot even question this topic in a scientific format? That is really crazy.

"College officials have stripped a professor of the right to discuss competing theories and ideas in the classroom, something which represents the foundation of higher education."

Yeah... this seems to happen a lot in the scientific community...

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Tue Jul 08, 2008 10:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rollin4him,

I do not support Obama ;), but glad to see you are coming around.

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Tue Jul 08, 2008 2:15 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Rollin4him,

You asked:

Are you a Bush supporter? What does this mean? Are you asking me if I support everything that President Bush has done? Are you asking me if I put him on such a level that I am completely blind to what God calls me to? If this is what you mean by supporter then no. If you mean, do I support staying in Iraq? Then the answer would be yes. Do I support Bush's tax policies? Then in general yes, but this is a question of economics, not of the President. Let me ask you, "Do you support Bush and everything he does? Do you put Christ first or Bush first? Do you believe that everything Bush has done is in exact accord with the will of God?"

Are you a Obama Supporter? Again, what do you mean? Do you mean do I support his policies? Then the answer would be, in general no. Do I support abortion? Absolutely not. Do I support gay marriage? No but neither does Obama, and in general I do not care if non-Christians want to have "gay unions" or not, I am concerned about Christians. Do I support improving our image abroad and change in the political system? Then yes very much so. But let me ask you, "Do you deny everything that Obama stands for, and claim that nothing he says is in accord with a Christian message? Do you believe that helping the poor is against Christianity and reaching out to those that do not understand our faith is against the will of God?"

Are you a Christian? Alas, what do you mean? Do I consider myself to believe like you? Then based upon what you have said so far no. Do I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, co-eternal and equal to the Father and the Spirit, and that He is the only way to heaven? Then the answer would be an emphatic yes. Do I believe that I should strive to live more like Christ condemning evil while loving sinners and denying myself considering myself less than others? Then yes. If Christian means for you one who condemns others and blindly supports one political party regardless of what the candidate says, a person who confuses the will of God, with an earthly governmental power, one who makes fun of others who do not agree with me? Then no, I do not consider myself this, and I do not believe such a person should call him or herself a Christian. But let me ask you, "What do you consider a Christian? Do you think if a person is against Bush then they are against Christ? If a person supports Obama do they have to be against Christ?"

rollin, if you choose to criticize me based upon my committment to Christ over political parties, then by all means sling the mud, but I hope you see that this is not as simple as you like, and I pray that you will be wiser in choosing your words in the future (to both Christians and non-Christians, Christ never gave anyone a pass to spew venom on his enemies).

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oh and don't speak for all Christians you are one person, you don't have that right unless you are God.

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Rollin4who?,

The only intelligent thing I got out of you was that you think I said some ambiguous statement about Bush.

I said he deserves defense on some points and attacks on others, unless you worship him as god, and feel he must be perfect in all areas? Are you rollin4bush?

Obviously you cannot handle correction, and I have no desire to speak with someone who cannot speak (or think) decently.

May God be with you

Christians Decry Congressional 'Fairness Doctrine'

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 11:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Well, I think that the fairness doctrine is a ridiculous idea anyways, but if conservatives must show liberal views, then every single liberal talk show must show conservative views. And every single religious show must show opposing views. (Personally I would have no problem with this, indeed I would rather like to have opposing views presented so that they can be exposed for the garbage that they so often are).

If it is one sided, then it is not fairness, it is un-fairness.

Christians Decry Congressional 'Fairness Doctrine'

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:32 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Is this fairness bill going to force all media to devote a portion of time to opposing views? Will liberals have to give time to hear opposing points as well?

Personally, I think the proposal is ridiculous, but I don't see why it should be so bad. I would love to have the opposition come give a point for point argument for their side, and then blow it out of the water.

I don't see why anyone should worry. This sounds like a good chance to expose the lies for what they are.

Review of Book on Obama's Faith Puts Author in Hot Water

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:53 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

JHS,

Don't assume who I am. And I really do not care two cents about Rush Limbaugh, can't stand him myself.

This being said, your point was that evangelicals don't or cannot read. I said this was a joke (it is). Evangelicals do not equal "right wingers" anymore than they equal "left wingers". You dodged the point.

Blue,

"This is pure stupidity. Not EVERY Christian is against gay marriage or abortion."

The point is not about what some Christians say, it is about what the Bible says. Maybe half of the Christians believe that Christ is not the only way to heaven, does this make them right? No.

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Sun Jul 06, 2008 12:43 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

rollin4him,

"LOL!! I'm going to take a guess here (uummm let's see)"

It would be a good idea for you to not guess, you have no idea. By the way, who are you rolling for? If it is Christ then you better change your attitude, because I am just going to take a guess and say I believe he would be ashamed of your judgmental (and 100% wrong) attitude.

"1. you don't have a life ("hundreds of blogs" get a life)"

I didn't say this, don't lump me into things I didn't say (thinking before you post is a good idea that you may want to try though).

"2. you live sheltered lives ("first that defends Bush" - give me a break - )"

??? congratulations, you made me chuckle.

"3. You two are anti-war, Bush bashing lying lesbians liberals that go to Christian websites to spew your hate-filled venom on great Patriotic Christians."

Woah, way to pull that one out of no where (which is a third strike). And way to make your case in a loving way (assuming you are attempting to roll for Christ).

"UUMmmm, give me a moment and let me ponder this ..... LOL!!"

...ummm... so you wanted a moment to ponder your fabricated slandering (which the Bible is against all slandering) and then you laughed at how brilliant you thought you were? Wait, how old are you?

Let me give you some advice. Think before you speak, ask before you assume, and if you really think yourself a Christian, try to look a little more like the Christ of the Bible (again I don't know who you are trying to roll for, I would never guess Christ though, based upon what you have said).

Also if you are a Christian I would advise you to repent for falsely slandering another Christian, and for your callous attitude.

Review of Book on Obama's Faith Puts Author in Hot Water

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:17 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Believer,

It is true that Jefferson did that. Just google it. But it doesn't mean a whole lot, Jefferson and all of the other founders of the USA based their principles on a Biblical Christian model.

Review of Book on Obama's Faith Puts Author in Hot Water

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:13 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

JHS,

hahaha, funny... (sarcasm) No really, are you serious (just say it was some kind of attempt at a joke)?

Dr. Dobson was Right to Challenge Obama

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 05, 2008 10:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

hlerwin,

"It has a lot to do with it. Many evangelicals look to Colorado Springs, from whence cometh their help. There are signs everywhere that the young, 20&30-something Christians are losing interest in Dobson's "hot topics." These young are the future of the religion."

Regardless, if Dobson says that Obama is wrong on such and such points, then it is only by the merits of the argument that we should base our judgment, not on the popularity of Dobson.

Dr. Dobson was Right to Challenge Obama

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 05, 2008 5:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

hlerwin,

What does Dobson's popularity have to do with the argument? (Hint: nothing)

Americans Urged to Express Love for U.S. Through Service

Chris333 »

Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Linda,

Don't expect to hear much Christian responses here, people are to wrapped up in their "side" to think about how a Christian ought to act.

Regarding Bush, on some points he ought to be defended, on others he ought to be attacked.

La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

Chris333 »

Fri Jul 04, 2008 11:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Viking,

My responses are numbered the same as your conditions:

1. It is fine to have a solid grasp of the actual science and workings of evolution theory, but you have put a condition that is self defeating, you have said that this teacher must acknowledge the overwhelming validity of the theory. That would be like saying, "You can criticize communism if you demonstrate that you understand that it is the best ideology to govern people by" or if you like, "You can criticize the existence of God, if you have demonstrated that you understand that the existence of God is the best explanation for the universe"

If I could offer an alternative condition, I would leave it the same without insisting that the teacher must demonstrate that he understands that evolution is overwhelmingly valid.

2. No problems, except I do not fully understand the last point. Are you saying that the teacher should understand that the theory of evolution cannot explain all phenomena related to bio-diversity, and thus some apparent "gaps" would appear, or that the theory can explain all phenomena related to bio-diversity and that there may be some minor gaps that the teacher ought to understand? My point is that the teacher should understand what evolution says, how it explains nature, but that if the teacher or scientist finds some major gap or lacking point in the theory, that this ought to be discussed and challenged. (Knowing that the theory of evolution may be true and we do not have the correct information for these gaps, or that it may be that the theory is false).

3. Accepted, if you agree that some revisions may change the face of a theory radically, or that some theories appear true when we have a certain limited information, but then are later shown false when we have better information (all theories do not simply get reinforced, some get dropped, others change a good deal)

4. Agreed.

La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

Chris333 »

Fri Jul 04, 2008 1:01 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Agentorange,

Thanks for the reply, I am doing well, though I have taken some time off of Christian Post.

First, I would like to say that I am not at all against evolutionary theory taught at schools, and it is noted that an in depth explanation of the workings of the theory should not, and cannot, be discussed in a highschool setting.

That being said, it should be made open to children and teachers, to present valid arguments against evolution, and discuss weak points and possible alternate theories that might explain these weaknesses (within or outside of evolution theory).

In otherwords, if there is a question about the validity of evolutionary theory, by either the student or the teacher, then it should be allowed and considered within the classroom. This is true of virtually all other subjects (excepting possibly mathematics, and this is only because most questions can be answered with a readily made proof, but even in math methods can be challenged).

My only gripe is that critical thinking should be the most important thing we teach children in primary and secondary school, and in order to develop critical thinking skills we must be able to challenge everything (within reason).

Two further points:

1) Yes it is agreed that college is where a real working of evolutionary theory and what not can be discussed, but this shouldn't prevent us from allowing younger students to voice their ideas.

2) I also agree that religion should be kept separate from public schools, at least in the teaching material. This is not to say that God should not be discussed in classrooms (I am all for it, especially in philosophy or religions classes), but that no religion (or lack thereof) should be specificallyendorsed or spread within the school (this includes atheism).

Always a pleasure, agentorange

La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

Chris333 »

Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

viking,

So you are saying that is perfectly acceptable for a teacher to point out any weaknesses in Evolution Theory, and possible counter explanations?

The lawmakers who passed the bill said that it was for, "Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized."

In other words allow them to challenge Darwinism.

La. Governor Signs 'Science Education Act'

Chris333 »

Thu Jul 03, 2008 12:49 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Those challenging the institution of Evolutionary science are not always doing so because of fear that the Christian concept of God and the theory cannot coexist. Many of us are fed up with scientific ideas not being able to be challenged. All scientific theories are up for debate, I mean, what if someone had said that time cannot possibly be relative because overwhelming science at the time said that it was constant? Just because everyone believes something and it seems right now doesn't make it impervious, thus a bill allowing a scientific theory to be challenged should be extremely simple (unless we want to make our children into a bunch of mindless sheep who dare not question the institution).