Want to get their heads spinning? Point out 1 Tim 2 . If they read that, you will have them chasing you with pitchforks, lol. I think, as many have stated, is that people try and twist things into a humanly view point to fit their agenda, instead of following what is written per his laws. Who else can better know how we should conduct ourselves than Jehovah himself? I don't remember reading about Adam and Steve in the Garden.
Female pastors and homosexual pastors are two completely different issues. The latter is flatly condemned by scripture and the Bible clearly teaches homosexuality is an abomination and affront to God. In comparison there are many valid biblical arguments that women in leadership are not prohibited by scripture.
 May 20, 2016 at 9:33am
He came for the sick, not the healthy. You obviously have no need of Him. Sort of sounds like the rich young ruler. “I have kept the law since my youth”.
You speak as though you know Him, yet your words are in direct contradiction to His words.
2 Corinthians 13:5 “Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?”
Christ is not “all inclusive”. Matthew 7:14 ” For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.”
You seem to fail the test.
 May 20, 2016 at 9:08am
“Since I can’t win, I may as well tell the truth as I see it,” he said.”
Seriously?, and this isn’t disturbing?
So, Glenn, when you can “win”, truth isn’t so important? ’nuff’ said.
February 2, 2016 at 11:47am
No, it’s called the inconsistency of application of logic.
But, we tend to ignore that when it doesn’t fit our desires.
 February 2, 2016 at 11:30am
You look around and see all the things that man created and instantly know that they could not have “evolved” into existence. Yet, you look around and see the greater complexity and order in nature and instantly “know” it wasn’t created.
Its called the argument from awesomeness. It does not prove anything.
No, it's called the inconsistency of application of logic.
But, we tend to ignore that when it doesn't fit our desires.
I have to correct you with a little scientific method lesson: Science never "proves" anything. It "disproves" the null.
So much awesomeness disproves chance, emptiness, and lovelessness.
Yes, I look around at all the things that could not have created themselves because they are not living things. Then I study biology and know that life was almost certainly not designed.
And as your final question: You are.
Biologists are far more likely to be atheists than the general population.
because scientists looking at "what" don't always ask "why."
Scientists looking at "why" usually look at an isolated or specialized topic, not going deeper and deeper, with a larger and larger view. Biologists may be more likely to be atheists (as you assert) but denying God doesn't make them any better at their job. Some of the greatest scientists have been men and women of faith. Like all Catholics, such scientists know there is absolutely NO conflict between science and religion, reason and faith.
Biologists who believe in God are superior in the sense that while they have a micro(scopic) view of whatever they're researching, they also have a macro view of the origins of such things. What a thrill it is to discover something new in their field, because they get to know God that much more intimately.
Instead of "we know this does this" a faithful scientists says "we know this does this. Wow! To think this has been known by God since the beginning of matter and we little brained beings are just now finding out. What else is there to learn!? How GREAT God is!"
Some are limited to the natural world. It's pointless and empty. Christian and Jewish biologists are not. They know an even larger and greater reality full of love, hope, and joy.
Science sure as hell does ask the why and the how as well as the what.
And science doesn't care what you believe, only what you can prove.
The entire point of mentioning biologists are more likely to be atheists is because if you're "so sure" that life has the fingerprints of a designer all over it, then they should be the one group of people that are the most religious, as they would see it.
They're more likely to be atheists. So much for that.
Biologists who believe in gods are not 'superior' in any sense, as once again: Science does not care what you believe, it cares what you can prove. You can believe the world was built by a race of super intelligent ferrets, science will not care until you attempt to present that idea as true, then they will tell you why it isn't.
Can you prove it? That's all science cares about.
LestWeForget. I have to correct you as well on something called reading comprehension. I have in my statement not in any way what so ever claimed that science proved anything. I stated that because people “believe” something to be so awesome that a “Creator/Intelligent Design” needs to be “inserted” to make sense of something, is not in anyway proof that a Creator indeed existed and furthermore no proof that if a Creator did exist that such a Creator still exists today.
I read this: It does not prove anything.
and comprehended this: It does not prove anything.
This means you expect God to be proven.
Maybe you weren't as clear as you think, but God bless anyway!
I don't mean they are superior /scientists/, I mean they have superior knowledge, understanding, wisdom, period. All things equal in scientific talent and human intelligence between two people, the one with faith supersedes the one without faith because he simply is informed about so much more than the natural world. I want to be sure you don't believe there is a causal relationship between biology and atheism. The causes are often the university professors or parents who tell them God is a lie. Or ego. No Christian biologist looks at the development of a baby and therefore concludes there is no God.
The natural world is great, it is wonderful, and yes it is a clue to the Creator, but it is just matter. That is enough for some men and women. I have faith, so to me that seems sad, lonely, and empty compared to all of the natural world PLUS the supernatural world.
You seem to believe science is the ONLY way to identify "truth". Why? Philosophically, why?
Salt is good. Salt is bad. Salt is good. Coffee is good. Coffee is bad. Some coffee is good. Fats are good. Fats are bad. Aaaa, just give me the grant money so I can do more science.
Science isn't something to put such faith in. It's always changing. Only good science gets at God.
And before you worship science, scientists can't prove a mother's love.
 February 1, 2016 at 11:35am
>>Cruz’s response was: “Any president who doesn’t begin every day on his knees isn’t fit to be commander-in-chief of this country,”
Re-read this, not from the position of the questioner, and not from what you think Cruz meant, but by the actual words he used.
Are you saying that you would prefer someone who is not a humble person? Decisions have consequences. Always have, always will.
 January 29, 2016 at 1:55pm
granola, perhaps you should take a deeper look in your own mirror.
What Man said was absolutely correct. It was also incomplete. The two girls moved to a different classroom so as not to be seen. The way the article reads, is that it was agreed upon by the two girls. Sounds like both were running their mouths. This man’s precious snow-flake has received a life lesson. A lesson the father should have taught her before sending her out into the real world.
Another question that gets raised is how the teachers (adults) don’t really have full awareness of what is going on. That could be because of incompetence or from inability due to work requirements. We don’t know from the story.
Your attitude seems to be that you don’t care about personal responsibility, you just want to be protected regardless of your actions. The real world is brutal and really doesn’t care about your issues. You therefore live by the total grace of others. Great while you can get it, but then you whine when it’s not provided. Who’s the blathering idiot?
 December 22, 2015 at 10:13pm
It’s never the question of “can” you do something, but always should be “should” you do the thing.
Of course, it requires an ethical and moral foundation in order to be able to discern the difference.
You and the cartoon author have something in common.
 December 22, 2015 at 10:08pm
Since the country didn’t just become great on it’s own, it was the hard work and sacrifice of good people with a strong family and strong work ethic value, over the course of time, that created it to It’s peak of greatness.
You’re not very good with the whole critical thinking thing, are you?
December 14, 2015 at 8:19pm
Blest, I would say it’s because of the wide path. Most people have never really heard the true Gospel. Satan is the imitator of Light. So many deceived.
December 14, 2015 at 8:18pm
Sure, Blink, read the Bible. Unless, of course, you really aren’t interested. In that case, go and enjoy your life.
December 14, 2015 at 8:13pm
There absolutely will be a “behavior modification”, but being still in your flesh, you cannot be perfect. No where near. Paul questioned why he still did things he didn’t want to.
The whole point is that there is nothing you can do for your salvation. We are hopelessly lost and wretched. Salvation (justification) is a work of God. Our walk (sanctification) is also a work of God. If someone thinks that because they “think” they are saved, they are now obedient in behavior, they are still deceiving themselves.
The publican admitted he was a wretch and beat his chest and went home Justified. No further word about any works he performed. You cannot obey the Law. You don’t want to be held to the Law. The Law brings death since no man can hold to it. Jesus said He fulfills the Law. Good thing.
Just the opinion of another chief sinner.
 December 13, 2015 at 2:21pm
Personally, I don’t see the problem as her disdain for the Constitution. That really shows the problem of Congress to confirm her.
I find the biggest problem is that she took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. When they don’t, they make themselves out to be untrustworthy (Liars, for the hard of thinking). Then by this direct violation of their oath, makes them traitors to the very same Constitution.
 November 12, 2015 at 10:27am
Blood is definitely a “read the back cover of a book” individual. Never actually reads the content for understanding.
If you would watch what someone does, and not what they say, you’d have a better foundation. I know it wouldn’t further your agenda, but there it is.
 November 9, 2015 at 9:00am
To a young man speaking with Westmoreland and being told he could be admitted to West Point and there wouldn’t be any cost sounds a lot like a valid reason for a person to claim he was being offered admittance to West Point with a scholarship.
There seems to be one reason why people are getting wrapped around the axle on this and it doesn’t have anything to do with truth, but their own agenda’s.
" a young man speaking with Westmoreland"
From what I've read, this is the other problem with Carson's account. Westmoreland wasn't in Detroit on Memorial Day in 1969, when Carson claims he was offered the scholarship. His schedule states that he was in DC all weekend.
“There seems to be one reason why people are getting wrapped around the axle on this and it doesn’t have anything to do with truth, but their own agenda’s.”
Agreed. Of all the “gaffes” Carson has made, this is nowhere near the worst. The only reason it’s gaining traction, in my opinion, is because it’s gotten such a rise out of the man himself.
TT2 - Westmoreland was in Detroit in 1969 for an event just as Carson described it. The only thing Carson's 40 or 50 year old recollection got wrong was the date. This is not a gaffe. Just a minor fault in an old memory.
This is not at all like an adult telling you that 1 or 2 years ago they corkscrew landed in a hot zone and had to run across an airfield, head down to avoid sniper fire, when they actually had an uneventful landing and attended a ceremony right outside the plane on the tarmac. This is not a gaffe. It is an outright lie.
I only mention the Hillary lie to illustrate the difference between something truly worth making a story of vs the ridiculous and trivial story the media makes of someones very old memory having a very slight error.
Think Again - so Carson didn't meet Westmoreland??? The date was incorrect so therefore it's a lie? You're nuts.
That's like calling me a liar because I said I met my wife on October 28th and not November 3rd.
You're reaching and your agenda is blatant.
Btw Carson is not my pick. I just know the difference between right and wrong.
 October 31, 2015 at 10:58am
>>Maybe I’m just Super Man, who knows.>>
A more likely explanation is that you really don’t know what your talking about. Everything fits nice and comfy in the confines of your imagination until reality intrudes. And reality doesn’t really care about your (our) feelings.
 October 31, 2015 at 10:55am
bava, are you looking for understanding her actions, or looking for a reason to excuse them?
Actions have consequences. Otherwise, why would we not just do as we please?
October 31, 2015 at 10:51am
I hear ya Rapture, but how does offspring happen outside of mating with your own kind? Doesn’t that violate “after their kind”?