Previous 31 - 40 Next
Barber says, "Let us be abundantly clear. Same-sex 'marriage' is sin." Actually, the sexual act that defines homosexuality is sin, just as the sexual act that defines adultery or fornication is sin. Same-sex "marriage" is simply not marriage at all. Redefining marriage is not only a sin, it is ignorant. It is also a political strategy that has been adopted by judges to thwart the will of the majority of Americans. Jesus defined marriage as one-man-one-woman-for-a-lifetime - period. Our Christian nation has accepted that definition since before our founding.
In response to:

The Worst Sin

Chries Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 10:30 PM
There appear to be only two ways to try to discredit this column: first, adopt a dismissive tone by using phrases like, "... the invisible guy in the sky," or, "The Ten Commandments are FAR from being 'morally influential,'" second, dismiss the content of the column by maligning the character of the writer.
In response to:

The Worst Sin

Chries Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 10:24 PM
Actually, the Golden Rule originates in the Jewish scripture and Christianity and other religions got it from the Jews.
In response to:

The Worst Sin

Chries Wrote: Dec 23, 2014 10:22 PM
David writes: "Prager discredits his opinion piece in his very first sentence." In his opening sentence, Prager writes, "The Ten Commandments is the most morally influential piece of legislation ever written." David0303600 clearly stated that Prager's is an opinion piece. Opinions are rarely able to be discredited, due to their subjective nature. Second, when David challenges Prager's initial statement, DAVID is the one who is discredited, unless he is able to credibly name another piece of legislation that is more morally influential than The Ten Commandments.
In response to:

Grimes To Paul: I'll See You In Court

Chries Wrote: Dec 18, 2014 10:29 PM
Rand Paul's voice is badly needed in the Senate at this point in history. He should stay there at least one more term. He's still young and might gain enough knowledge and wisdom in the Senate to be a viable POTUS candidate in 2020 or 2024... IF he learns some lessons about the importance of a muscular U.S. foreign policy and IF he can successfully distance himself from, or silence, his crazy dad.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

Chries Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 11:04 PM
II Kings chapter 17 says, "They rejected his decrees and the covenant he had made with their ancestors and the statutes he had warned them to keep. They followed worthless idols and themselves became worthless." Good column... appropriate scripture verse with which to accompany it.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

Chries Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 10:57 PM
Sorry, TOK, I thought you were asking a rhetorical question, "Can someone please explain what Prager is referring to in the title?" Obviously, taken in the context of the column, Prager is, firstly, referring to the pursuit and the securing of a PhD. Secondly, he is referring to other things and pursuits that people substitute for a belief in God.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

Chries Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 12:54 PM
"- epic fail." TOK seems intent on disagreeing with Prager, even if it means all he can do is to nitpick the wording of a column's title. When TOK says "it's rather absurd," I don't think he even realizes he is affirming Prager's arguments. It truly is absurd to deny the existence of Almighty God and then to try fill that void with a slavish affection for education or something else that could never achieve transcendence without the acknowledgement of the Creator.
In response to:

‘Mittmentum’ Part VII: Ready For Romney

Chries Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 12:44 PM
Matt gives three choices (there are obviously more): Mitt Romney --- RomneyCare Jeb Bush --- Common Core Scott Walker --- Slapped down Wisconsin Unions If these are the three choices in 2016, it's clear there is only one choice. I would prefer to vote for Ted Cruz, myself. I love the way he seems intent on fighting for the citizens of Texas that he represents.
In response to:

Ph.D.'s and other False Gods

Chries Wrote: Dec 16, 2014 10:17 AM
"If you think of a god as in some sense a person..." I believe in the examples Prager uses, the people in question REJECTED the thought of "a god in some sense as a person." They don't believe in a personal God, so they elevate education, music, or something else that is precious to them, as transcendent; a substitute for the God Whose existence they deny or reject.
I have a dear friend whose dad was an alcoholic, an adulterer, and a man who beat his wife and children. I asked him, "What do you do with the verse that says, 'honor your father and mother.' How do YOU honor a man like your father?" My friend replied, "I acknowledge one simple fact: He gave me life. I don't honor my father because he deserves it, I don't honor him because it can somehow be of benefit to him. I honor him in the only way I can because in doing so I am liberated from my past."
Previous 31 - 40 Next