home
RSS
July 25th, 2010
05:51 PM ET

Status report: Ted Haggard's new church

[cnn-video url= http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/living/2010/07/19/co.haggard.new.church.kusa%5D

Fallen evangelical leader Ted Haggard says the church he founded last month is quickly gaining new worshippers. KUSA reports.

- CNN Belief Blog

Filed under: Christianity • Leaders • Scandal

soundoff (407 Responses)
  1. JohnQuest

    Gary, I have never been a believer so if the questions sounds juvenile please forgive me. Agnosticism means that there might be a GOD? So, you think that since we don't know for certain there may be a chance that GOD might exist?

    July 26, 2010 at 5:13 pm |
    • Gary

      JohnQuest, Yes ...I dont know how we can prove their is not a God? great question not juvenile @ all.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:21 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Gary, I guess we can't disprove a lot of things (name any negative), By that logic anything that can not be disproved might be possible. That goes a little too far for me.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
    • Ronnie Harper

      No, we can be relatively certain there is no 'god'. There would more likely be a video gamer running a virtual simulation than a 'god', on a certainty scale.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm |
  2. jacksoninjax

    Here are some questions for bobrosss2 (a few of many that I have)

    Assuming that the Bible is the true word of God and that God is omniscient and omnipresent, why would God....
    1. Create Adam and Eve knowing that they were imperfect and would committ sin. What would be the point? The free will argument is not valid because God saw the future and must have ordained the sin. In fact, he would know that I was going to be born and that I was going to write this comment. My free will to do otherwise is negated.
    2. Why would God, the creator of the entire universe, allow immense pain and suffering to take place? Just because Eve disobyed him and ate a damn apple? The punishment certainly doesn't fit the crime. And again, if he knew that she would make "the choice" to do so, why even bother. His behavior is far from 'god-like."
    2. Why does Genesis say that the Sun will rule the day and the Moon will rule the night? This might make sense if the earth was at the center of the universe and that the sun and moon revolved around the earth (which was the belief at that time). And it might make sense if the Middle East was the center of the Earth (which is what the writers of the Bible assumed). However, day and night are ALWAYS equal when Earth is viewed from space and no particular hemisphere or continent is considered "special."
    3. Along that same thought, other than vague references to some "distant" lands, why doesn't the Bible specifically refer to any other continent or part of the earth besides the Middle East portion of Asia? What about the aborignies of Austrailia or the indeginous people of the Americas and Oceania? They must not count in the eyes of God.
    4. Why doesn't the Bible mention the dinasours (sorry, the word "behemoth" that is used a couple of times in the bible doesn't count).
    5. Why does God strictly forbid murder yet orders and condones the murder of thousands of people (the majority of which were not really "evil" as their rulers or kings may have been) but were simply living as best they could based on the circumstances. The commandent isn't "Thall shall not kill except....

    I could go on and on but I didn't want to go overboard on my first post (some of you might be saying "too late for that"). I feel that these are legitmate questions that I have tried to answer myself. For the record, I agree with the views of "Thinkrationally" and "Luke. " But the bottom line is that no one knows the answer to the question of how life was created and what is the meaning of it all.

    July 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
    • bobross2

      jacksoninjax, I apologize for the delay, I just noticed your comment.
      1) I think it is important that you recognize the difference between foreknowledge and predestination... The short answer to your question is that God would create man knowing that he would fall away in order to magnify his own glory... As far as free will and pre-destination are concerned… here is my response… first, pre-destination is one of the hardest Christian doctrines to comprehend, thus I would recommend that you stick to establishing the basic truths of God’s existence and love before your try to understand his properties. Second, I personally don’t think that we, as humans, will ever understand the coupling of God’s omni-properties with our ability of choice… I think it is for God to know, not us… I don’t believe that it has any bearing on our salvation and I believe that if you think about it in the wrong light it can lead to a distorted image of God…. Now, with that being said, my belief on the coupling of predestination with human choice (I don't like using the term 'free will' because I believe that it is impossible to be completely free of God's influence) is this: God is all-knowing, but the fact that he is all knowing does not eliminate the element of choice. I believe that God allows us to CHOOSE to make certain decisions without 'forcing' those decisions to be made... If you think back to the beginning: yes, God did know man would fall, but if God forced us to make decisions that honored him, what Glory would he receive? We would all just be robots at the disposal of his programming(I doubt that would be motivation for creation). Now, on the other hand, if God makes man knowing of the future(that being the very nature of God) and knowing that some would perish, yet chooses to make man regardless, and allows man to have the ability to choose to embrace or deny the holy spirit SO THAT he may be magnified in the end, do you still have an issue? This is my opinion, but there are so many different opinions out there, I believe God is love, and his word tells us that he doesn’t want any to perish, so I don’t feel that he ‘picked’ people to go to hell, but I do feel that his omni-properties prevent him from performing creation without foreknowledge. Does this make him immoral (God defines morality not us) as you seem to be saying? NO, we all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God, we deserve HELL, yet he gives us the opportunity to magnify his name and experience eternal salvation! Anything above HELL is a gift, we earn HELL yet he offers us LIFE through JESUS CHRIST who is Lord of ALL, that is the GOSPEL, Please embrace it friend?...

      July 27, 2010 at 10:31 am |
    • bobross2

      2) As far as this question goes, I'm unsure where you have attained the authority to categorize God's behavior as ungodly... that statement is being made with the assumption that God would behave a certain way which conforms to your standard... The problem is that God does not conform to us, we conform to him, I would recommend that when you postulate about God, that you really give him the attributes of God and not of man... now as far as your actual question goes, my answer is that God would allow pain and suffering again for his own glory. You still seem to be having a problem with meshing of God's 'omni' properties with human choice though… I would like to say that not all Christians embrace the doctrine of predestination so you may want to consider tackling some of the basics before you start addressing this topic... I do embrace pre-destination and my opinions are listed above. As far as the problem of evil argument, this really is a weak argument… If you embrace the idea of God, then you must embrace the fall which completely explains why evil is in the world… many atheists have an issue with evil being in the world, but man is a fallen, sinful creature, and we brought evil into the world so rather than complain about its existence we should be thanking God for his mercy which prevents more evil from taking place.
      3) I don’t understand your question… The sun is creating light during the day and the moon is reflecting the sun’s light at night… what’s the issue? I see none.
      4) Again, I don’t understand your argument, you have to consider the context of when the Bible was written and what the writers of the Bible knew at the time. The writers of the Bible were not God and Christopher Columbus hadn’t existed at this point, so what are you getting at?
      5) How do you have the authority to claim that the behemoth that Job describes in Job 40:15-24 doesn’t fit that of a dinosaur??? It does exactly! You should consider reading it… here’s a link: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job+40%3A15-24&version=KJV
      Also, look up Leviathan, this creature is mentioned 6 times in the Old Testament.
      6) ‘the majority of which were not really "evil" as their rulers or kings may have been’… Where do you get the authority to make such a claim? First off, you have to understand the context of the Bible, you can’t just take out snippets that you disagree with and think about them completely out of context… look up the context of the passages that you are referring to and I’m sure that you will find the answers that you are looking for. Finally, God established commandments for MAN, why do you have such a small image of God? Why would he have to follow the commandments for MAN? HE IS GOD… Again, when you are postulating about God, please give him all of the attributes that such a being would have.

      Finally, thank you so much for taking the time to post some questions… I hope that my responses can offer you a different view of things and if you have any other questions I would be glad to hear them… Please remember though, when thinking about GOD, you must give him the powers that a GOD would have, don’t think of him as a man… Also, I’m not accusing you of implying this, but I feel that you may believe that science offers all of the answers… It doesn’t, as I said to Luke: science can’t prove logic, mathematics, metaphysical truths, ethnical beliefs, aesthetics, nor science itself… so please, don’t listen purely to secular scientists… I feel that true science reveals evidence for God, but some of the people that represent the name of science can lead you completely astray… Anyways, Thanks, and have a good one!

      July 27, 2010 at 10:31 am |
  3. Gary

    Johnquest , good point really I am agnostic about any God I have never met seen or spoke to . I doubt any one alive today has ever seen,spoke to or heard from God. So yes I am agnostic towards the tooth failry Santa easter bunny,muhammad, of them. The burden of proof is in the hands of the devout religious folks....Not the agnostics.

    July 26, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
    • Luke

      Gary – The prophet Mohammad was a real being, backed by well documented evidence. His fairy tales on the other hand, were not. Ironic to the great religion debate, is that it is Jesus whom has no evidence of ever existing. The entire Christian religion pivots on the Jesus character whom we, archeologically speaking, have no evidence to prove he ever lived. We only have texts that are riddled with inconsistencies and falsifiable stories speaking of the supernatural. Hardly substantial.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:03 pm |
    • bobross2

      LUKE: 'Jesus whom has no evidence of ever existing'. Do you really believe that statement? The reason that there is archaeological evidence that Mohammed or Muhammed existed is because he is buried. The reason he is buried is because he was not God, the reason Jesus' body can't be found is because he was resurrected and ascended into heaven where he reigns. First off, I would like you to stop being solely reliant on scientific evidence... Science can't prove logic, mathematics, metaphysical truths, ethnical beliefs, aesthetics, nor science itself... so it may not be the best tool for you to use universally. Secondly, as far as evidence for Jesus' existence... archaeological evidence is about the only thing that we're lacking and even in the field of archaeology, there have been discoveries made that prove that crucifixion was occurring during Jesus' time which gives the historical accounts of the bible even more credibility. If it is going to take a discovery of Jesus' corps, which still couldn't be proven(You could find a man that fits many of his characteristics based off of the BIBLE), then I must tell you... you will never believe in his existence because he won't be found. He is reigning in heaven, He is LORD of all, He is ruler of the universe, and you need to repent and believe.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:45 am |
  4. testor

    Great, I thought we had heard the last of this religious fairy.

    July 26, 2010 at 4:48 pm |
    • Gary

      testor, you know better . this country is filled with religious idiots who love sending their hard earned money to creeps like Haggard....Just ask Jim Bakker,Jimmy Swaggert, Oral Roberts ,Benny Hinn, pat robertson,koresh,jim jones many more...

      July 26, 2010 at 4:56 pm |
  5. CD

    “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

    Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

    July 26, 2010 at 4:43 pm |
  6. Jesus

    Just another snake oil salesman selling hope to those who will give to get into a fictional place. Religion. LONGEST RUNNING SCAM KNOWN TO MAN!

    July 26, 2010 at 4:32 pm |
  7. Gary

    big bang theory is no proof God dose or dosnt exist. The fact that earth is billions of years old ,fossils,fossill fuels,erosion escarpments,plate techtonics are scientific facts but dosnt proof God dosnt exist. Natural selection and evolution are back by solid scientific experiments which still dosnt prove That God dosnt exist. As an agnostic I know that some religious texts written by men some 2k years ago is no proof that God dose exist. religion is not based on fact but faithe .......therefor proof God exists can not be proven or disproved.

    July 26, 2010 at 4:21 pm |
    • Luke

      You are correct. But you miss something important. We don't need to prove or disprove god. We merely need to reject the claims of the bible to reject the entire philosophy. This is something we have done time and time again. For example, the bible makes claims of virgin births, men living in whales, creation in 7 days 6K-10K years ago, a great flood, etc. We have disproved these things via evolution, plate tectonics and the study of astronomy, therefore the remainder of the claims become suspect, and rejected. A more modern example would be; if a lawyer argues his entire case convincingly, but gets caught in a lie in his closing arguments by the jury. Can the jury believe everything prior? No. It all becomes suspect and you reject the hypothesis. Short example. Have to go.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:35 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Gary, neither can the "tooth fairy" are you "agnostic" about the "tooth fairy"?

      July 26, 2010 at 4:38 pm |
    • Rich

      @Luke – You have not disproved these things through evolution, because you have failed to take time dilation and Einstein's Theory of Relativity into account. The reality is that the Earth is both 5.4 Billion years old and 6 literal (not figurative) days old. (Check out Gerald Schroeder's work) Such a thing is entirely possible, you are just being closed minded. If it doesn't fit neatly into what is commonly known from science, we naturally try to write it off as myth. Unfortunately, we sometimes throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a few quacks. All I'm saying is – let's not call something 'disproved' just because of our limited scientific understanding of the universe.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:10 pm |
    • Luke

      Rich – I know Schroeder's Day-Age creationism theory. It has little to no evidence to support it and a near-zero following in the scientific community. One giant hole in his argument is that it is stated in genesis that god created the earth and light the second day. Scientific evidence demonstrates that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, while earth is 4.5 billion years old. Light is undeniably older than the Earth. Secondly, the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day, after the creation of vegetation, which was created on the third day. There is no evidence of any vegetation living before the birth of the sun. Thirdly, birds are said to be created before land animals, which defies the evolutionary consensus that birds descended from land dinosaurs.

      I've found the let there be light argument oddly funny. If the earth were 10K years old, we would see little to nothing when we look up at the sky because the light from the stars we see would not be here yet. The light we see is millions to billions of years old. That light would not have had time to get here. Think about that one for a minute.

      July 26, 2010 at 5:58 pm |
  8. 67890

    luke – thank you for time. i got to get back to work. i admire your intelligence and persistence. keep searching, good luck to all!

    July 26, 2010 at 4:14 pm |
  9. BobRoss

    JohnQuest – To avoid an infinite regress an uncreated Being, outside of time and matter is a necessity.

    As to you saying that God "needs man" to exist. This is based on your assumption that God does not exist, a person's existence is not based on belief.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:58 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      BobRoss, I don't think that is true, besides if we can have an "uncreated being" and that makes sense then why not an "uncreated" universe, it makes as much sense. Are you saying that GOD is a person? If so what type of person, If GOD can be considered a person then GOD would have to have characteristics of a person (you wouldn't call a horse a horse if it had the characteristics of an ocean).

      July 26, 2010 at 4:17 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      Sorry BobRoss, a person's existence is not a belief it is something we can test for.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:18 pm |
    • Kate

      So far the only reference ever found for your God comes from men. That's pretty telling evidence. No bibles are buried deep enough, none found sitting on the moon, nothing flashing in the stars. Nothing written in the clouds or in the depths of the sea. Your God has pretty shallow reach. No longer than the hand of man.

      July 26, 2010 at 6:10 pm |
    • MikeTheInfidel

      "To avoid an infinite regress an uncreated Being, outside of time and matter is a necessity. "

      This is one definition of a potential solution. There are other potential solutions. Simply saying that a potential solution has those attributes does not mean that that solution is correct.

      July 26, 2010 at 7:48 pm |
    • BobRoss

      JohnQuest – "Sorry BobRoss, a person's existence is not a belief it is something we can test for."

      I agree that a person/being exists independent of belief, however I don't see that us being able to "test for" it is necessary to its existence.

      Also, we can trace the beginning of the universe back to the Big Bang (a beginning), so unless you have evidence for an eternal universe beyond that point an eternal Being is much more plausible. Scientists can keep creating theories about the multiverse and the oscillating universe, but until these theories move beyond simply a mere speculation, it will be far more plausible to attribute the creation of this universe to an eternal Being. These theories do not even account for the creation of time and matter, but are only attempts to explain away the odds of this universe being able to hold the diverse life that it does.

      Also, when I use "Person" in reference to God, I am not saying God is a human being, but a personality/character.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:32 am |
    • BobRoss

      MikeTheInfidel –
      The only possible solutions are that the universe was created or that matter has been around for eternity (although there are several different theories that fall in these categories).

      Since we can trace the origins of the universe back to a particular point, and evidence is pointing towards the destruction of the universe arriving due to continued expansion (heat death or cold death). It seems to me that there is little evidence to believe that matter has been around for eternity. But, if you know of any new theories I would be glad to hear them.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:48 am |
  10. Enforcer 55

    Boy you talk about religion and you get a million responses. I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe in. If it makes them happy and they don't bother anyone else, then have at it. I just don't like people who think that if you don't believe you are going to burn in hell (what ever that is) or if you are good you will go to heaven (what ever that is). Let me know when someone that you know has died and can come back and tell you what it is like. The bible was written to control the masses, simple as that. The leaders wanted to be able to hold something over the heads of everyone so they would fear dying and going to an imaginary place that wasn't pleasant. If you want to spend your Sundays and any other days of the week going to church, then that's up to you. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone to believe as we please.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm |
    • Dustin

      There lies the problem. Some people cannot live and let live, but seek to further their religion through any means possible, even if that means hindering scientific advancement or subjecting people to cruelty and oppression. I agree with you; if believing in something makes someone a better person, and so long as it doesn't harm their fellow man, I'm all for that. But we have clowns like Fred Phelps, Peter Popoff, and Ted Haggard, who prey on the weak and spout off their messages of fear and hate.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:02 pm |
  11. Jorge

    Most of us believe in God to one extent or another, just not in power-hungry closet queens with substance abuse problems or disgraced snake-oil goobers from the bible-belt who want to jump back on their gravy trains and tell us how we're supposed to live...

    July 26, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
  12. Openminded19

    I think folks are just scared that they just might be swayed to not believe, so they just spew nonsense. I understand that faith is a personal thing, but when you see folks like Haggard gaining followers, it makes me wonder how gullible people are. They'll give their money to any idiot! I don't think you have to "belong' to a church or give money for it. You can worship at home. Church is a business.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:44 pm |
  13. 67890

    luke- the theory of evolution, is not a fact, but a theory. the earth revolving around the sun is a fact, which will not need faith to believe in, as well as all other facts that are part of creation. and i dont undermine and refuse fact, science is brilliant, my work as a licensed architect requires a lot of science. i have come to believe that scientific findings are just discoveries of the anatomy of god's entire design, but let's not use brilliance of science to undermine the creator. the theory of evolution, is still up in the air. even einstein, if i'm not mistaken, cannot deny the fact that there is a god. i really hope you'll find the meaning of life (if this discussion is where it's leading to) through how it was intended to be.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
    • CTYank

      "the theory of evolution, is not a fact, but a theory"
      You're not the only one confused on the meaning of "theory." Which is, a hypothesis for which there is sufficient evidence in hand to serve as proof. Some such concepts are not intuitively obvious, nor universally accepted, but none-the-less true.
      Meaning- Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, because of absence of dis-proof, and enormous body of supporting evidence, is thus true, and _a_fact_. Except to those who (arrogantly) insist on their own parallel reality.

      July 28, 2010 at 8:31 am |
  14. SyllyB

    Can you get something out of nothing ? It would appear that many complex explanations from learned peoples over the last several centuries would answer this question as in the "big bang theory" , but still didn't these particles come from somewhere, where did they come from, where did they originate from, isn't the explanation only ever the "middle" of the whole story. The funny thing is, the living God does not need a man's approval or acknowledgement of His existence afterall we are just a "vapor" even if we don't think so. Also the Kingdom of Heaven is only full of believers, so everyone has a chance to tell God face to face at some point in time what they think of Him and He'll direct your path as you deem. Afterall we have free choice, to believe and or not too. It doesn't ever diminsh God' Omnipotence, unless of course you can control your very next breath and have some kind of time share for eternity.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:30 pm |
    • Luke

      Surely you see the logical fallacy you are abiding by, right? One part of scientific knowledge breaks down, and you insert the entire Christian doctrine regardless of evidence otherwise. That's dishonest and nonsensical. Where the physical laws break down – the singularity – many theories have arisen. Please check out M-Theory, which has a rather large following these days. There are other lesser known theories that attempt to explain the origins of nothingness. At no point, however, does the data suggest Yahweh or the super natural.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:35 pm |
    • verify

      Sure, SyllyB, there *might* be a First Cause to all that we are experiencing; but perhaps not, if Time (and physics), as we know it, doesn't exist, or doesn't work the same way in other dimensions which we have not discovered yet. To give this possible First Cause properties, such as human emotions and desires, is specious, to say the least.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:42 pm |
    • Dustin

      The Big Bang Theory doesn't address the state of matter and/or energy before the singularity and the resulting explosion of space. Why do you think that this invalidates the theory? Creationists will insist that there had to be an intelligence responsible for the process. What if it was a "big crunch" of a previous universe? What if in that case the force of gravity did overcome the rate of universal expansion and simply pulled the universe back in? There could very well be a natural explanation for what caused the original singularity. Stating that the process is unknown doesn't mean we should slap the "god did it" sticker on it.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:45 pm |
    • JohnQuest

      SyllyB, two things, if something can not come from nothing (by nothing I mean we don't know yet) then GOD MUST have come from something, by your own logic GOD could not just come from nothing. Second thing, GOD absolutely needs man, once we stop believing, GOD no longer exist (Consider all of the Omnipotent GODs were here before the one you believe in, they all "died" when people stopped believing they existed).

      July 26, 2010 at 3:49 pm |
    • BobRoss

      Dustin – There is not enough matter in the universe for the "Big Crunch" Theory to work. The universe is actually accelerating in expansion, not slowing down. Even if there were an oscillating universe, though, that still leaves the question of a Prime Mover to begin the whole process.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:53 pm |
    • Dustin

      I wasn't stating that our universe would rebound into a Big Crunch; but another universe (a predecessor to ours) could have with the sufficient amount of matter. The expansion of the universe does not explain that there is a Prime Mover accelerating it along. If so, what benefit would that have to a deity, other than promoting it's own eventual demise?

      July 26, 2010 at 3:57 pm |
    • BobRoss

      Dustin – "The expansion of the universe does not explain that there is a Prime Mover accelerating it along. If so, what benefit would that have to a deity, other than promoting it's own eventual demise?"

      A "Prime Mover" refers to the initial movement of the universe (Big Bang), not necessarily accelerating it along. Why would matter begin expanding in the first place otherwise? Also, God's existence is not reliant on the universe, time, or matter.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:07 pm |
    • Dustin

      I'm referring the Dark Matter/Dark Energy principle, which is believed to be key to understanding the acceleration of the universe's expansion. The Big Bang itself is believed to be the initial cause of the universe's expansion. You're claiming that god is not reliant on the universe, time, or matter to exist, but he is perfectly capable of interacting with the universe, time, and matter. How can something manipulate the universe and yet not be reliant on it for it's existence? Anything that exists outside of time and space is completely irrevelant to that which exists inside of time and space.

      July 26, 2010 at 4:39 pm |
    • Eric G

      You guys are swinging at a pitch in the dirt. I just love the "So, you believe something from nothing?!?!?" group. Please do not entertain these childish taunts. I will say it one more time for the people in the cheap seats in the back........... Even if we can disprove the big bang theory, that still does not prove your god exists. Creation theory and the big bang theory are two separate ideas and both must be proved on their own evidence, testing, verification and merrit. Stop trying to disprove the big bang. Please provide evidence to support your creation theory. Or......if you have nothing contructive or reasonably intelligent to add......... shut your pie hole.

      July 26, 2010 at 9:35 pm |
    • Woody

      Let me get this straight. God has, reportedly, always existed. He was floating in the dark, cold (absolute zero?) vacuum of space, alone, for an incalculable amount of time before he decided to create the universe. He then, in six Earth days, created hundreds of billions of galaxies. Each galaxy has a hundred billion, or so, stars, and probably many times that number of planets. He picks out a planet orbiting an average size star in an average size galaxy. He decides to set up housekeeping in the upper atmosphere of this planet that we now know as Earth. Then, being lonely, he creates the angels and for a trump card, he decides to create the only life in the entire universe, including we humans. Somehow, the creation gets screwed up. There are rebelling angels and humans that frequently disobey his commands. He then creates “Hell” at some undetermined distance below the surface of the Earth. Here he ships the aforementioned rebelling angels and the souls of the humans who refuse to obey him, where they will be tortured for all eternity.
      And "they" say the Theory of Evolution is hard to believe.

      July 27, 2010 at 3:51 pm |
  15. Atlantaman

    Luke, is there any man anywhere in which it cannot be said "just one man's opinion?" I mean, I agree with you there but it speaks to a bigger point, huh? I'm not trying to win a debate here, just suggested a book for anyone–on either side of the issue–who might be interested in something other than a reinforcement of what they already believe.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:21 pm |
    • Luke

      Sort of. The difference is that some scientific data is up for debate and is tweaked. Others are not. I don't know your friend's book, but it should be read not as fact and likely, very easily refuted.

      Think of it like this: We find a new fossil, which changes the timeline within the theory of evolution. The theory is tweaked to make better sense. However, at no point do we say, "whales didn't evolve" when we find the new fossil. The latter is what strident religious folk try to do.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm |
  16. Human

    Any religion will thrive because it sells salvation. It speaks to the gullibility and innate fear of all mankind. Shed light on your fears and shed naïveté.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:12 pm |
  17. Atlantaman

    Jennifer, what do you know about this "fraud?" The school where he teaches? His honors? Just curious

    July 26, 2010 at 3:11 pm |
    • verify

      I think Jennifer was referring to Haggard as a fraud... not to your friend.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:27 pm |
  18. jennifer

    This guy is a complete fraud.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
    • Gary

      jennifer yes mam just like Koresh ,Jim jones,bin ladin,pat Robertson,Jimmy swaggert,Jim bakker,benny hinn,Oral roberts and the rest of all religious "Leaders"

      July 26, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
    • verify

      Some are frauds, some are deluded 'true-believers', and some are a combination of both - they believe some of it, but run with what 'sells'.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
    • BioFeed

      If you want to sell a life boat, you need to convince people that they are going to drown.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  19. Atlantaman

    People,
    Check out this
    http://www.thetruthwillprevail.com/index.html
    Gene Ashby is a renowned scientist (very legit credentials as you will see), a man of faith & a friend of mine. He tackles the issue sincerely as both scientist and Christian...give his book a read. Sorry to interrupt the discussion...carry on.

    July 26, 2010 at 3:03 pm |
    • Luke

      Just one man's opinion. Plenty of scientists are religious, but don't let it interfere with evidence that is counter intuitive to their work. Even more scientists are without religion. Shall we say, for example, Dawkins? What about Dennet? Harris for example? Can go on forever. Don't jump down the rabbit hole because this guy fits your narrative.

      July 26, 2010 at 3:07 pm |
    • Kate

      If he had real evidence, it would be the number one story in all papers all over the world. I don't even have to bother to look.

      July 26, 2010 at 6:07 pm |
    • bobross2

      Luke, to be calling us hypocrites so much, you may want to look up the definition... you accused Atlantaman with this statement: 'Don't jump down the rabbit hole because this guy fits your narrative.' Well, guess what, after naming 3 of the 4 'new athiest'... Congratulations! You've now become the hypocrite because unless I'm mistaken, you've listed 3 men who fit your narrative(The very same thing that you accused Atlantaman of doing). I've got an idea... Why don't you lose the 'I'm better than thou' attitude, provide some legitimate evidence, and carry on with some respectful debate. You may get further with your point this way rather than just calling everyone who disagrees with you ignorant... Atlantaman was just trying to provide some other sources that offered a different perspective since you've been dominating this blog... let it be.

      July 27, 2010 at 8:16 am |
    • Luke

      bobross2 – False identification. I've read many sides of the argument and digested them all. Dawkins, Dennet and Harris happen to be the best and brightest of their respective fields – Biology and Philosophy – and leaders of their discussions. They do not fit my narrative. Furthermore, the discussion was between he and I and concluded, resprestfully, below. You failed to read on.

      July 28, 2010 at 8:42 am |
  20. Bubba

    Religious questions aside, anyone who'd give a dime to this church has been huffing meth. Haggerty's a lying sack of spit.

    July 26, 2010 at 2:43 pm |
    • Luke

      Excellent point, Bubba. Could it be possible that he attracts other meth-heads. Birds of a feather...ya know?

      July 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.