Re: woodlema,

You certainly seem to be articulate and knowledgeable, however you are indeed correct in your sarcastic remark about your ignorance.

I made it very clear in my answer to the question raised by "mamaemma in her question, "Is it possible to be a follower of Ayn Rand and not be an atheist?"

I clearly stated that I believe it is indeed possible as I acknowledging that I am a Christian see absolutely no conflict between Ayn Rand's Objectivism philosophy and my belief in Christianity.

I of course can understand your lack of understanding this concept as you are clearly a defender of atheism and can't understand that followers of any religion don't find a conflict where in fact no conflict exists. This is of course only my opinion based on my personal understanding and people of all persuasions may differ.

As an aside, the problem that religious people have with atheists is that they want to ridicule and deny the right of religious people to practice their beliefs. That is of course primarily directed at Christians and Jews, as most atheists don't have the courage to direct this hatred for religion onto other faiths such as Islam. Some members of that faith unfortunately tend to be less forgiving of those that oppose them.

Fred Speckmann

Re: woodlema,

I apologize, I did not realize that I was addressing an ignorant, (the meaning of which is someone lacking knowledge) who doesn't understand that by definition people are either atheists, agnostics, or religious. There are no other options.

I proudly claim to be religious, in fact a Christian, while still a believer in the Ayn Rand philosophy without any sense of contradiction with my christian beliefs.

Fred Speckmann

Yeah, when men are not leaders, better the gap filled by a lady than no one.

Glad we see eye to eye on this...most current evangelicals consider this doctrine of biblical leadership outdated and erroneously attribute it to the Apostle Paul somehow being a misogynist.

Here is the problem with the universe existing in eternity-past: the universe is amoral - no development of any meaning can come from this situation that is absolute.

We cannot live without absolute meaning, no matter what the most erudite post-modern PhDs will promulgate.

Therefore, a person, entity or intelligence has to have existed in eternity, without being created; there is no God creating God creating God to get to here...there is no point to it. God gives any creation meaning; we, man, corrupts meaning and distorts creation in ways where creation becomes our god, and we seek to make Him in our image.

Now, many may say, "Why did God, if He is there and doesn't need anything, create anything?"

To me, that is the only question that cannot be answered; His Word doesn't address it; however, I know He is there for me to ask someday upon meeting Him....I do not think you can meet the "universe" or "matter" and ask it anything and get a response.

I can appreciate that; however, men, right or wrong in what they teach, are the only authorized teachers of God's Word and can be pastors. No such thing as a woman pastor, just like marriage cannot be defined as anything but between one man and one woman, them being either two nonChristians, or two Christians (principle of unequal yoking must be observed).

Nevertheless, not sure what the lady teaching you meant by her interpretation of the Temple. The Temple was designed to be a tangible teaching device for what the Christian spiritual life would be like after the Messiah had come and that Church began.

Ok I get it. Unfortunately, most pastors do not yield thoughtful fruit from their sermons, but create nothing better than "Happy Meals" for the sheep which require no thinking at all.

I assume you believe there is only one true concept of God, else, the idea of "concepts" of God results in no meaningful concepts of God.