Why Become Christian?

bcoontz »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I would guess that what he is referring to is found in Romans 1:18-20, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

High Court Refuses to Revive Battle Over Religious Graduation Speech

bcoontz »

Tue Nov 17, 2009 8:53 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

It seems odd that the Supreme Court should even be allowed to refuse to hear a case that so obviously relates to an explicit right granted by the Constitution. It was deemed important enough that the founders placed it first on our list of rights.

Atheist Faith-Heads, Naturally

bcoontz »

Sat Oct 24, 2009 4:05 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 1

Salvage, while you are correct that you cannot prove a negative (that is without being omniscient), the rest of your argument is assertion only. It is typical then with that type of argument to lump God with something that is usually considered mythical, but it hardly constitutes proof of the original thesis(that God does not exist).

While naturalism appeals to scientific inquiry as the ultimate authority of determining reality, it is scientific priniples that speak eloquently against naturalism. For instance the first law of thermondynamics says that matter and energy cannot be created (that is from nothing) or destroyed. Therefore there is no known natural mechanism that can create energy or matter from nothing. A quantum fluctuation is the naturalistic explanation, but that phenomena has not been observed and would create equal amounts of antimatter as matter, which also is not observed.

For natuarlism to be true then, the universe would have to either be eternally existant (disproven by the second law of thermodynamics) or the matter and energy would have to come from an unobserved source, ie. a parallel universe or God. If from a parallel universe, it begs the question as to where that energy an matter originated. In the case of either, they are unobserved and unobservable, that is, taken on faith.

The fact that the God of the Bible makes no sense to you is not evidence either. Does that mean anything that you can't make sense of cannot exist? The God of the Bible is based on historical events that, as time goes by and more research is conducted, are shown to be true. That Jesus existed, the things that he taught and did and the teaching and experience of the early church are evidence that the God of the Bible is God. In addition to this, the experience of believers all over the world today and their relationship to the risen Christ are evidence as well, whether you accept it or not.

A House Divided?

bcoontz »

Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:53 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Below I am reprinting something I wrote in an earlier post

Some of the questions for the Church to consider when trying to apply a Biblical standard to homosexuality are these:

1) What is sexual immorality? It is defined in Leviticus 18.
2) Are homosexual acts listed among them? Yes, verse 22.
3) Do those standards remain in effect in the New Testament? Yes. When the apostles were coming to grips with what Levitical laws were to remain effect, they came to the conclusion that sexual immorality, eating the meat of strangled animals, eating food sacrificed to idols and blood (that is the consumption of blood) should be abstained from. Acts 15:20 & 29.
4) Does Jesus comment on sexual immorality? Yes. "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, . . . ." (Mark 7:21)
Jesus also comments extensively in the book of Revelation and mentioning sexual immorality in the last two chapters as being rewarded with "the fiery lake" (Rev. 21:8) and those who are "Outside" the kingdom of heaven (Rev. 22:15).
As Christians, we are rightly concerned with the eternal estate of the sexually immoral and pray for them to repent. Making laws that encourage their lifestyle (and therefore, their eternal condemnation) should always be resisted by the Christian community, out of love and concern.

A House Divided?

bcoontz »

Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:47 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

danpat1 2000, in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican, the problem that the Pharisee had was that he thought he was without sin and didn't need to repent. The publican never denied that he was sinful. If a person doesn't believe their actions are sinful, will they be likely to repent? This is exactly what the pro homosexual Episcopal church is doing. They are denying that their actions are sinful, therefore no repentance is required. So who is the Pharisee and who is the publican?

Climate Change and Hubris

bcoontz »

Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

CO2 is what we exhale, so I'm not sure that qualifies as actual pollution, particularly when vegetation breathes it in. Secondly, energy companies are in a position to make a great deal of money from things like cap and trade. And guess who will being paying more for everything, with no evidence that anything will be accomplished in regard to environmental quality?

Huckabee, Jon Stewart Face Off on Abortion

bcoontz »

Sat Jun 20, 2009 9:41 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

People in general see more gray than black or white. In areas where we are at a loss, the word of God gives us the guidance that we need to understand and define the territory that we find ourselves upon. An extremely small number of abortions performed in the world have anything to do with the health of the mother and even in those cases there are usually alternatives. The only ones that don't fall into that category, from what I can tell, are ectopic and toxic shock pregnancies. So when I hear people defend abortion on the most extreme cases, it sounds disingenuous, because they are willing to throw out the lives of millions of people to save the lives of a relative few. Logic alone would dictate the opposite.

Our household has quite a bit of experience with this issue. My wife, many years before we met, was forced by her parents to have an abortion when she was 16. In her most honest moments, she still wonders about that child, even over 30 years later. Our daughter when she was 16, despite using contraception, became pregnant. Despite all of us being distraught by the situation, and without pressure from me at that time (she already knew my position, I didn't feel I needed to repeat it) decided to keep the child. We raised this child as a family and as difficult as it has been, I can't imagine life without him. He is now eleven.

Many years later, this same daughter was ordered off of birth control by the gynecologist to perform some procedure, I'm not sure what, and she became pregnant again. Again, though distraught, she knew what the right thing to do was and now we have a 2 year old granddaughter that all of us love and enjoy very much. My daughter recently married a great guy, who loves her and her children very much.

Though we made many mistakes as parents and she made many mistakes, we lived with the consequences, respecting the life that had been given to us as a trust, and we are now truly blessed. I hope this helps someone wrestling with a decision only made harder by the fact that abortion is legal.

Catholic, Hindu Leaders Promote Harmony in Wake of Anti-Christian Violence

bcoontz »

Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:06 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Indo, with that kind of diversity family gatherings must be very interesting. From reading the article we get an idea of why it will be hard for this to happen. Instead of siding with the missionary effort in India, the Catholic Church is siding with the Hindus, even complimenting them, though they are the ones that are inciting violence against Christians. A large part of the reason for this is that Catholics have a different agenda than Protestants. I am not speaking of individual Catholics, but rather the leaders of Catholicism. I hope you are not advocating uniting for violence against your oppressors, it is not what those who are in Christ are called to. I will continue to pray for my persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ in India.

Catholic, Hindu Leaders Promote Harmony in Wake of Anti-Christian Violence

bcoontz »

Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:47 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Indochristian, Catholics and Protestants are divided and have been since the Reformation and rightly so. There are significant doctrinal points that can't be reconciled or compromised on, not the least of which is the doctrine of the Real Presense. So the Hindus are not the ones dividing us, we already are.

In terms of the last statement, it would be easier for me to give you a link than to lay out all the reasons I believe this to be true.

http://understandthetimes.org

Catholic, Hindu Leaders Promote Harmony in Wake of Anti-Christian Violence

bcoontz »

Tue Jun 16, 2009 10:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

I have spoken to missionaries in India and receive regular reports from there and no one is forced into accepting Christ. We are commanded by Jesus to spread the Gospel.

"The Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.'" Matthew 28:18-20.

This is our primary mission as believers in Christ. It is the only thing that will last.

I was also stunned by the comment that Tauran made when he said, "I am also very impressed that Indians are open minded and tolerant with positive values." He said this shortly after Peetham stated, "We will not allow external interference in our internal affairs." That doesn't sound very open minded to me.

One last thought. If the people are forced to convert, why wouldn't they immediately convert back under the threat of violence? Why are they attacked by the Hindus if they are being victimized by Christians? The whole argument they present makes no sense. This one world religious system that the Catholics are pursuing in not good.

Religious Liberty Stops at the Schoolhouse Door

bcoontz »

Sun Jun 14, 2009 8:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 9

I think the issue at bar is that the education that our children are getting is not religiously neutral. Materialism becomes the defacto religion that is being taught. In a system devoid of objective truth, everyone becomes their own aspiring god with the end result being chaos and suffering. Survival of the fittest and an end justifies the means attitude become the accepted theology. If an intellectually honest comparative religions course could be taught (that includes materialism), I think we would be better off. As I read somewhere else, if the Bible is just a book, then there should be no problem teaching it and it should be required reading as it is the most read and largest seller of all time with significant historical impact. If it is the word of God, then it would be foolishness not to teach it.

A Matter of Pride?

bcoontz »

Sat Jun 13, 2009 9:18 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 7

Some of the questions for the Church to consider when trying to apply a Biblical standard to homosexuality are these:

1) What is sexual immorality? It is defined in Leviticus 18.
2) Are homosexual acts listed among them? Yes, verse 22.
3) Do those standard remain in effect in the New Testament? Yes. When the apostles were coming to grips with what Levitical laws were to remain effect, they came to the conclusion that sexual immorality, eating the meat of strangled animals, eating food sacrificed to idols and blood (that is the consumption of blood) should be abstained from. Acts 15:20 & 29.
4) Does Jesus comment on sexual immorality? Yes. "For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, . . . ." (Mark 7:21)
Jesus also comments extensively in the book of Revelation and mentioning sexual immorality in the last two chapters as being rewarded with "the fiery lake" (Rev. 21:8) and those who are "Outside" the kingdom of heaven (Rev. 22:15).
As Christians, we are rightly concerned with the eternal estate of the sexually immoral and pray for them to repent. Making laws that encourage their lifestyle (and therefore, their eternal condemnation) should always be resisted by the Christian community, out of love and concern.

Eliminating Homosexuality: Nazi Germany and Modern Uganda

bcoontz »

Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:42 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 5

Two men were sitting in the front seat of a car an two women were in the back and as they were driving along the road, they saw a sign that says, "One way, do not enter." They ignored the sign and continued on their way. A short time later they saw a man standing on the side of the road waving his arms, so they stopped.

"Friends," he said, "this is a one way road and at the end of it is a steep cliff. You need to turn around."

They began to laugh at him, so he pulled out a map and he said to them, "No really. This road ends and anyone who goes that way will be killed."

They began to pull away and the man jumped in front of the car and they blew their horn at him a began to curse him. When they saw that he wouldn't budge, they ran over him and left him for dead.

After that other men and women at various times did the same thing, and showed them the map and pointed to the signs, but they treated them the same way.

The two couples got on their cell phones and called their lawyer who went to a judge. The judge, forgetting or ignoring the reason that the road was one way, ordered that the road be made a two way street.

"But your honor," the opposing lawyer said, "this road ends with a cliff that will kill anyone that goes over it."

The judge responded, "This case is about equal access for those who wish to go in that direction, not about geography."

Sometime later on that same road, they continued to see the same signs, but drove on. They came to another man along the side of the road. He was well dressed and smiled and waved at them. There was a map behind him on a signpost. They smiled and waved back. The man said to them, "Jesus loves you, go your way in peace."

Sometime later that night, the road ended suddenly. The two couples saw at the bottom the wreckage and blazing fire from other wrecks, but it was too late.

Which of these people loved them more?

Court: School 'Not Unreasonable' in Barring Bible Reading

bcoontz »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:40 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 3

Oh, and show and tell is basically whatever the student chooses to present, it's left up to them to decide the what and the how.

Court: School 'Not Unreasonable' in Barring Bible Reading

bcoontz »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:38 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

DP, how is it different from a teacher or a celebrity reading to the class?

Court: School 'Not Unreasonable' in Barring Bible Reading

bcoontz »

Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:25 am Agree: 4   Disagree: 7

Secular does not equal neutrality, contrary to what many believe. It goes about its business as though God does not exist, in essence teaching practical atheism. We believe in God and His word because it is true, it isn't true because we believe. This country taught the Bible in its classrooms for a long time and the country became great. I don't think that is a coincidence. Some children who are raised in a non church going house may not get any exposure to Gods word as a child and as an adult they will probably not think it worth their time because of the way they have been taught in school (that is, an education apart from God). No one needs to be "protected" from Gods word. It teaches the way to eternal life. If Christians don't stand up for it, then who will? We cannot insulate ourselves into our churches and hope no one notices us, because eventually they will come looking for us, and not for any noble purpose.

Pastor Cited for Holding Home Bible Study Without Permit

bcoontz »

Fri May 29, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 5   Disagree: 2

shari y, I'm not sure how we can unite when some denominations teach that sexual immorality is alright, while others teach that it will send you to hell. How can we unite when some denominations teach that bread and wine are God (the doctrine of the real presence) while others consider it idolatry? There are many compelling reasons why we are not united.

America's Unsettled Conscience on Abortion

bcoontz »

Wed May 27, 2009 9:30 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 4

Rhi Bran,

Is this woman's hypocrisy supposed to add legitimacy to abortion? I agree with you that we should not be judgmental about who is and isn't a Christian. That is for the Father to decide. That being said, it becomes difficult to understand how anyone who has read Psalm 139 can think any differently about abortion than that it is murder if you believe in the God of the Bible.

Atheists Advertise 'Man Created God' on Chicago Buses

bcoontz »

Tue May 26, 2009 7:57 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 3

Flagged as inappropriate. show How does an atheist decide what is or isn't moral? There can be no objective standard. They are then forced to borrow from the Biblical standard, but only when it is convenient for them. They accept parts of the Biblical standard, but can offer no reason for it in their worldview. If they believe in survival of the fittest, would not deceit (or even murder) be moral in order to advance their own agenda? When they say that they can be moral without God, what can that morality be based on? It is shifting sand and no person can then tell another person that what they are doing is wrong. If the majority decides morality, then when they allow something that they didn't allow before, was it moral before or after? Just a few thoughts to consider. hide

Respect or Revulsion?

bcoontz »

Sat May 23, 2009 2:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

Amen!