User Profile: Alex


Member Since: May 11, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [1] September 9, 2015 at 7:39pm

    While I respect and recognize the defense of traditional marriage, and the condemnation of homosexuality on biblical grounds being put forth by Evangelicals, I find that the foundation of Evangelical doctrine on the issue is less robust than that of the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Mormon traditions. In these latter three, marriage between a man and a woman is not only recognized scripturally, but is also a sacrament of the church. The doctrine of marriage in the Mormon tradition even goes a step further, where the most exalted state of man and woman in the afterlife is to be eternally united to each other and to God. In short, marriage between man and woman is hard-wired into our doctrine and practice. It is non-negotiable.

    Responses (1) +
  • September 9, 2015 at 4:59pm


    I’m well aware of the power that the Catholic Church has wielded at times in history. Heaven forbid the Catholic Church (or any other group, religious or non-religious) ever has that kind power of the sword. I’m not even a Catholic, though. I’m a Mormon. Catholics and Mormons don’t agree on everything, but we do have a common understanding of the concept of authority residing in the church, rather than in the scriptures alone, as authoritative as those scriptures are. Of course, to both you Evangelicals and Catholics, I am a heretic, so touché.

  • [-5] September 9, 2015 at 3:44pm

    History has shown us that Sola Scriptura virtually guarantees the disintegration or fragmentation of groups who espouse it, and yet even after the countless times this cycle has played out since Luther, those whose doctrine was born of the Protestant reformation are still shocked, when it happens yet again. In saying this, I don’t mean any ill-will towards Protestants and Evangelicals, nor do I impugn their motives, but I can’t help but notice this continuous pattern. You apparently have recognized the this as well.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-4] September 3, 2015 at 6:55pm

    I respect Davis for being willing to go to jail for her beliefs. Really, I do, and if she weren’t representing the government, I would be on board with what she is doing. However, regardless of how much I vehemently disagree with gay marriage (and I do), as a county clerk, I am obligated to carry out the law as it stands. That means that I am required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. As the clerk, you are representing the state or county as the case may be. You are not representing yourself, as you would be in the private domain. In my opinion, this is not the place for civil disobedience credibly to be exercised. I know this offends people, whom I normally am in agreement with.

    In short, we can move to change the law, but for the time being, this is the law the clerk is required to carry out.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] August 17, 2015 at 6:24pm

    Wrong. Glenn is merely indicating that he will die before he gives in. It’s called civil disobedience. The government is the one who is threatening the religious beliefs of others, not Glenn. In that sense, it is the government that is more like the “religion of peace”. Glenn has no government to enforce his beliefs on others.

    Responses (1) +
  • August 14, 2015 at 3:11pm


    I’m having a tough time believing anyone who claims to know Jesus, but doesn’t believe in a God who speaks to His children, besides what is said in the Bible. Deeply skeptical.

  • [1] August 11, 2015 at 3:06pm

    My five favorites:

    Ted Cruz
    Rand Paul
    Scott Walker
    Ben Carson
    Carly Fiorina

    Donald started in my top 5, but has dropped out.

  • [6] June 26, 2015 at 2:23pm

    The problem with living in fear of becoming a relic is that you end up never really living, and the life you do have is void of principle. You don’t really own your own soul. Why on earth would I want to be on the cutting edge of this dopey movement? No thanks. You can have your gay marriage. I sleep well at night knowing that I had no part in it. If I have to go against my convictions to avoid someone thinking I’m a relic, then I never had any to begin with. Besides, being told you’re a relic means about as much as being told by playground kids that you have cooties.

  • [1] June 25, 2015 at 4:12pm


    Amen. My point about six year terms and term limits had less to do with the fact that the Senators were to be chosen for 6 year terms (which I knew), and more to do with the fact that Madison designed the House to have 2-year terms for precisely the reason that he didn’t want them to have 4-6. He knew what happens when you get legislators in Congress for more than 2 years without having to go back for reelection, and we are seeing that being played out today. All politics was meant to be local.

    A 6-year term for a Senator pre-17th amendment is perfectly fine. He is less exposed to the pressures of special interests, since he must not answer not to the whole electorate, but to a finite number of state legislators. It is harder for lobbyists to exert undue influence on the process this way, since they have to go through the local state legislative layer to get to the Senator.

  • [6] June 25, 2015 at 2:40pm

    Let us reset to the Constitution, but eliminate the 17th Amendment. The 17th amendment was the abomination which took the election of Senators out of the hands of the state legislatures and made them directly elected. This made the House and Senate a distinction without a difference, except that the Senators now had 6 year terms and not 2. Before this amendment was passed, the states exerted a check on Federal power through the Senate, as well as oversight over the Federal judiciary and Supreme Court. The Senators were the watchmen of the 10th amendment. You will notice that all the greatest expansions of the Federal government occurred after the 17th amendment was passed. You will also notice that term limits are a huge problem precisely because of the Senators, but not the Congressmen. I say, get rid of the 17th, and you won’t need an amendment on term limits.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] June 19, 2015 at 12:15pm

    The man is the head of the household, but the woman is the neck. (Courtesy of My Big Fat Greek Wedding)

    In reply to the contribution Christian Marriage: Why My Wife Should Obey Me

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] June 18, 2015 at 3:34pm

    Great news! This isn’t just important for churches who have marquees out in front of their building. You never know when violations of other’s freedom of speech will become your problem as well. I love the following quote: “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended.”

  • [8] June 16, 2015 at 3:31pm

    And yet here you are.

  • June 4, 2015 at 7:54am

    The chaos is your problem, White House, not ours. It is about time you owned it. Chaos for you is peace and order for us.

  • [6] May 25, 2015 at 1:44pm


    You’ve made my point precisely. It has been my experience that whenever there is a scandal amongst religious people, atheists naturally get really, really excited. That is why I refer to atheists as being out for blood (analogy of sharks, blood, and a feeding frenzy). I am not clergy, nor am I an Evangelical Christian, but rather a Mormon. So you can have your way with Josh Duggar. He’s done it to himself and he’s all yours. This isn’t my battle. If the Evangelicals are right, I will be in hell with you anyway.

    I just think it is foolish to defend Christianity in an article about molestation by a Christian. You will nearly always wrongfully be made to look like you are defending molestation if you come to the defense of your beliefs in the middle of an argument over the subject. Heck, I just offered some friendly advice to Evangelicals, and here you are insinuating that I believe Christians approve of molestation.

  • [5] May 25, 2015 at 11:43am

    There is a time to defend your position, and a time to just shut up and get out of the way. Carrie Hurd should have had the sense enough to keep her silence until the feeding frenzy went full course. There is no way she was going to be able to make it right, regardless of what she said. That she stuck her head in the fray, even though she was not defending molestation, doesn’t matter. She is made to appear as if she was defending Josh’s actions.

    Josh Duggar is a molester and the atheists want blood. It sucks, but there is nothing you can do about it.

    Responses (2) +
  • [3] May 20, 2015 at 5:52pm

    I understand the pleas to have a spirit of forgiveness for this pastor. We all should want the same mercy, and that’s good. He has it from me. Even so, I hope I don’t hear anybody get indignant about the pile on that is happening. While these matters are best handled discretely, the truth is, he set himself up for this internet feeding frenzy. For now, he’ll have to deal with it himself. You should probably let the sharks disperse before you come to his aid.

    As a Mormon observer who is as capable of sin as anyone else, may I offer a bit of advice to Evangelicals on handling this, for what it’s worth. Before I do, I want to be clear that I don’t think you are hypocrites just because he is. My advice is this: if you’re going to call homosexual activity a serious offense in your public professions, please don’t trivialize violations of this standard with glib and insulting defenses like, “We’re all sinners.” Naturally we’re all sinners, but when your fiery sermons call out homosexuality by name, and tell them they’re going to hell if they don’t repent, you had better be serious about it. If, in response to this Pastor’s indiscretions, you instead act as if his forgiveness is already secured, or as if his repentance won’t require him to tread a thorny path, beset by blood, sweat, and tears, then you cheapen the mercy of Christ. You make Evangelical Christianity into a good-old-boy’s club that isn’t serious about transformation. I’m sure you don’t intend it that way.

    Responses (1) +
  • May 20, 2015 at 10:33am

    I’m a Cub Scout leader, and I can tell you right now I won’t comply. I was at a Boy Scout Camporee last month with my son and we did the water balloon slingshot. It was a blast. As a Cub Scout leader I wasn’t planning on having a water gun fight this summer, but now I definitely will. What are they going to do? Throw me out?

  • [2] May 19, 2015 at 4:32pm

    There’s no guarantee that a change in doctrine or policy will either help or hurt church attendance. Making decisions based upon those kind of calculations is unwise, misleading, and very often fraught with surprises. You need to ask yourself who you intend to follow, with a realization that each man receives wages of him whom he lists to obey.

    If you want to be popular, and fear that you will be “out of touch” if you don’t change your tune, remember that there is no guarantee that having done so, you will still be popular. I think Presbyterian Church USA believed the flattering words of those who told them that if they changed their tune on gay marriage all the “more-open-minded-than-thou” would come flocking. We can see now how that worked out.

  • [2] May 18, 2015 at 3:01pm

    Joel 2:28-29

    28 ¶And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

    29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love