Same-Sex Couples Apply for Marriage Licenses in Iowa

rr2002 »

Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:03 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

I'm very ashamed to be an Iowan right now...

Trial to Begin in Suit Against Joel Osteen's Wife

rr2002 »

Thu Aug 07, 2008 2:27 pm Agree: 4   Disagree: 0

for a sec, i thought she was holding a gun in the picture

When Car Seats Become Church Pews

rr2002 »

Mon Jun 30, 2008 8:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

matthewr1,
Although I agree with most of your opinions, I don't think people are eating while worshiping. According to the article, donuts and coffee are served AFTER worship. Perhaps this is more like fellowship?

Yes, but I'm not happy with the idea of isolation either.

I Have No Interest in God

rr2002 »

Wed Jun 11, 2008 2:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

If a creation has a purpose in its creation, then the creator gives the purpose to its creation, not the creation itself.

Thus, if we have a creator, which I frankly believe we do have, our creator has the purpose in creating us. However, if you choose to believe that God did not create us and that we are mere result of coincedental causes, then you can find your own purpose there.

Yes, you are indeed right in saying that the idea that Jesus (god-man) came to earth and died on cross is foolish. The foolishness of God shames the wisdom of the world. This is an idea you will never understand with your own logic.

I Have No Interest in God

rr2002 »

Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:38 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(plus, I hope The Christian Post allows the readers to modify their own comments...)

I Have No Interest in God

rr2002 »

Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I do not think the existence of God could be explained completely through logic. However, His existence is more "real" to me than the existence of the chair that I'm sitting on right now.

Science has its gaps. Science answers questions like, "how", "when", "where", and such, but science does not answer, "why". Science may explain how we came to exist, they may explain when the earth was formed, and such, but they will never be able to explain the purpose of our existence. God is the onlyone who can give that answer.

I Have No Interest in God

rr2002 »

Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Also to our anti-Christians,

I do think that Billy Graham's logic in his first two paragraphs does not prove the existence of God.

Now, assume there exists a group whoses exitence is explicable. This group clearly seems to exist, becuase our existence is explicable. In order for the group to exist, there has to be an entity that is not in the group to create the group. That "creator" has to be outside of the group, thus it's existence is not explicable.

I am not saying that "creator" is God at this point, however, I am just saying that there exists at least one entity whose existence could not be explained.

Now, this means just because we cannot explain God's existence does not mean He does not exist.

I Have No Interest in God

rr2002 »

Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:20 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

To tpique1,

Although I am a believer myself, I think you made some errors in your argument.

1. You said, "For someone to know definitively whether there is a God or not he (the atheist) would have to himself be all-knowing"

I don't think this is necessarily true. If your claim happens to be true, then anyone who knows that God exists is all-knowing himself. I KNOW that God exists, yet I am not all-knowing.

(Now, someone may argue that I don't know for certain that God exists - that I only believe that God exists with no logical proof. The same applies to the atheist. He does not have a logical proof of inexistence of God.)

2. According to your argument, being an omniscient implies he is a god. Now, we know that God is omniscient. To make it simpler,
"If you are God, then you are omniscient", and "If you are omniscient, then you are a god" are two different statements. Just because the first statement is true does not imply the validity of the second statement.

Vatican Slams Harry Potter as 'Wrong Kind of Hero'

rr2002 »

Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:21 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

My faith was not affected by the Harry Potter books. I have to say, the stories were very interesting.

However, if there is ANYONE whose faith is affected by the Harry Potter (or even the Da Vinci Code or the Golden Compass), I am willing to abstain myself from supporting it.

Obama, Churches Heat Up Iowa Gay 'Marriage' Debate

rr2002 »

Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

ifeelfine72 – yes, I also think that the feeling of a person makes him a gay. But then, the Bible says hating a brother is pretty much like murdering and looking at a woman in a lustfully way is pretty much the same thing as committing adultery, which are undoubtedly hard to control. But still, hating a brother or looking at a woman lustfully are sins.

Also, it is debatable whether humans are born sinless or not. King David wrote, “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.” (Psalm 51:5)

Obama, Churches Heat Up Iowa Gay 'Marriage' Debate

rr2002 »

Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:53 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

to ifeelfine72:
Yes, divorce is sin, just as homosexuality is sin. There are lots of sins in the world, and homosexuality is one of them. Some people are born as homosexuals, but then some are born blind or born paralyzed. The state of a person’s birth does not justify its legitimacy.

Then I’m sure people will ask the question God being unfair of making some people born in the state of homosexuality. I believe the answer lies in John 9. Why was the man born blind? Jesus answers that it is to reveal the work of God in his life. And then he heals the man. Homosexuality is spiritual sickness that needs to be healed.

One of the controversial issues about homosexuality is people’s “attitude” toward it. When speaking of murder, which probably causes a greater problem in the society and a life of the victim, almost every acknowledges the act of intended murder as sin. The problem is, a number of people would not accept homosexuality as sin. If a person accepts his problem and go to Christ, he can be healed. But if he does not accept his fault, how would he be healed? Without knowing that he is sinning, he would sin even more.

I’m not trying to attack on homosexuals. There are plenty of people who are sinners (and I am pretty certain that all of us are). But instead of distorting the teachings of the Bible to suite one’s preference, I think the image of a Christian should humbly accept the sin and ask God for healings.

Survey: Most Americans Say Founders Intended Christian Nation

rr2002 »

Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:15 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

I know that many of our founding fathers were deists, but I also want to point out that the majority Americans were Christians (including Unitarian) at the time of independence.

The political scene of early America may seem like deism, but I don’t think politic is the only aspect to analyze the founding of a country.

And as for Thomas Jefferson, he changed his mind later. He was indeed a deist while he was in presidency, his religious view shifted to Christian (Unitarian) later in his life. Not that his later Christian beliefs had any effect on politic, but just wanted to defend Jefferson.

Lutheran Gay Clergy Debate Prolonged

rr2002 »

Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:28 am Agree: 5   Disagree: 1

Hi lefty. I think emaracin's Sodom and Gomorah example refers to the very act (or attempt) of homosecuality. Genesis 19:4-5
4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."

In addition, there are Paul's critiques on Homosexuality in Romans 1
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

But I guess this may not be a "proof" that you desire. I am inclined more toward the argument of original creation of God and the role of man and woman according to it.