“Nowhere in the Bible does God say that two men or two women who love each other are going to hell for it”
Like the song says, what’s love got to do with it?
The biggest lie is that SSM is about love. It’s not. It’s about validating a sexual relationship, either in the eyes of the state or in the eyes of one’s religion. The state’s interest is in prevention of harm (child marriages, lack of consent, etc) and presumption of parenthood. The Bible is clear that marriage is between 1M1W, and sexual activity outside of that is sinful.
So the “scholar” is being completely disonest.
July 27, 2015 at 5:19pm
How does someone so uneducated about scripture become a pastor?
July 27, 2015 at 5:18pm
So? We know that – and yes, it’s a problem. But what does that have to do with the sin of homosexual activity? Believe it or not, it’s actually possible to address more than one sin at a time – and fornication *is* being addressed. What usually happens is people then get attacked for promoting abstinence among teens as being unrealistic or mean or prudes or whatever.
June 2, 2015 at 2:00pm
People need to stop using Gofundme. They’ve done this more than a few times.
“committed to creating a non-intimidating, welcoming environment for our members.”
Unless you are a woman who feels intimidated and in a non-welcoming environment because there’s a dude in the women’s change room.
 February 25, 2015 at 8:15pm
When word first came out that Target was coming to Canada, a lot of people were really excited. They’d been to Targets in the US and were looking forward to competitive alternative to Walmart. They bought out the Zellers chain and staff were lead to believe they’d be hired when the new stores opened. My own city ended up with several Target stores, including one that invested heavily in enlarging the space they had at a mall, expanding into a significant portion of the parking lot. By the time that store was done and open, there were already rumours that Target was failing and soon to close.
People were very disaapointed. Many felt that the CEOs expected us rubes to be so greatful to have them, we wouldn’t notice the empty shelves, poor selection and higher prices.
 February 6, 2015 at 3:25pm
Using “science and archeology”
Well, we already know what conclusions they’re going to come to!
 December 26, 2014 at 4:07pm
For those asking why the 6th son can’t make it out at least once, the logistics can be quite overwhelming. I have a friend who is a quad, and believe me, long distance travel is NOT something that can be taken lightly.
Some possible restrictions/hurdles:
He would probably need at least one, possibly 2, caregivers to travel with him. These would be people who know how to transfer him in and out of his chair, care for his physical needs and have the medical training to meet his medical needs.
He may need to sleep in a special type of bed or mattress.
He would need to bring the equipment needed to transfer him in and out of his chair; this may require a specially designed sling with hammock.
He would have to get his medications administered in advance, as well as any extras (such as painkillers) he may have flexible prescriptions for. He would have to have advance doctor’s instructions for those, and his traveling caregiver would have to be legally certified to administer them.
Then there is the special equipment for going to the toilet (and having one that is accessible available), taking a shower or bath, eating, voiding…
The list is potentially very long.
February 25, 2014 at 11:15pm
Looks more like a Groucho Marx mustache to me.
January 29, 2014 at 7:07pm
You’re assuming it was being delivered to people who are able bodied or not stuck somewhere without access to food and water, or do not have medical conditions that require them to eat an regular intervals or take their medication with food, or that they’re not very young or very old, etc. While people might be able to go a night without eating, a night without water is not only something to avoid but, for some people, potentially deadly.
Even if there were none of those problems present, are you really willing to deny people food and water if it can be brought to them? What if you were the one stranded without access to either? Perhaps with your children, if you have any? Or an elderly parent?
January 29, 2014 at 6:59pm
It’s not just the snow. It’s the ice under it. Where I live, we’ve had an unusually mild winter, bouncing back and forth between bitter cold and lots of snow followed by several degrees above freezing, with melt everywhere. It doesn’t matter how experienced or careful you are. If you’ve hit a patch of ice under some fresh snow and start sliding, there’s nothing you can do but hope you can control your steering enough not to cause injury.
January 29, 2014 at 6:55pm
recipefile, I’m from the Great White North, and I am totally sympathetic over the conditions you have. Few things are more dangerous that even a small amount of snow on top of sheer ice.
January 29, 2014 at 6:53pm
Being a Canadian, it would be easy enough to laugh this off, but the truth is, if you’re not prepared for or used to even a little snow and ice, it can be a major problem. Just a little bit of snow on top of ice is seriously dangerous. We’ve got fleets of plows and sanders in the city I live in now, yet every year, on the first snowfall, it’s like this. Everyone has to learn how to winter drive again.
Plus, almost everything about our housing and infrastructure is built around temperature extremes; we get as hot in the summer as we do cold in the winter. It’s hard to be prepared when you live somewhere with minimal insulation in your buildings, no block heaters in your cars, or the wrong sort of tires for safe driving.
January 26, 2014 at 5:09pm
“We know that tectonic and atmospheric events, on the global scale that you are eluding to, take thousands of years to take place. ”
False. The earth has repeatedly gone through periods of relative calm and cateclysmic change. Some things did take a long time, but others happened quickly (for example, we’re finding whale fossils on mountains, showing that they had to have risen quickly in a massive geological event).
January 26, 2014 at 5:06pm
The earth has exactly the same amount of water now as it ever did. No flood would change that. The earth has also seen significant geological changes. There is nothing strange about the notion that we have enough water to cover the earth.
The Biblical account describes both rain and the earth splitting, releasing water from underground reservoirs. It describes mountenous upheavals. It also described a pre-flood climate that was warm, with a heavily saturated atmosphere with no rainfall. Rain requires particals in the atmosphere to form droplets around. A series of volcanoes would have provided the aerosold necessary for rainfall, while earthquakes released the underground reservoirs. After everything settled, the earth would have been completely transformed. The water from the flood didn’t “disappear”. It just went to where we can find it now (and then some, as we are still finding underground reservoirs today).
Yes, that can happen, over a period of hundreds or thousands of years, not in the time frame of the biblical flood.
The account of the biblical flood says that from start to finish, the flood lasted 1 year and 10 days.
You mean to tell me that an unimaginable amount of water, combined with tectonic upheavals on a global scale, along with extreme volcanic activity all took place and settled back down in a time frame of a single year?
Thank you for showing them what a TRUE creationist believes, instead of what they think we believe.
Seriously FishingwithKittens, the evidence is there to support the Flood, but I guess if you rule out God from the beginning, then these events are impossible. But with God all things are possible, and since he caused the Flood, Kunoichi has made some good observations as to how that has happened.
January 26, 2014 at 4:35pm
That’s not at all true. The only way to claim so would be to misrepresent not only the Biblical stories, but the ones they supposedly borrowed from.
Yes, because your personal blog is a more valued and trusted resource than archives upon archives of meticulously researched data.
Um what data, other than that other cultures have similar stories to the Flood Account.
You mean the other cultures with flood stories that happened at different times and for completely different reasons? But yours is the "correct" one even if it is an absolutely indisputable fact that stories about a flood predate it?
The first and foremost among the data is that there is not enough water on this planet to create that kind of flood. Even if there was, that water had nowhere to go. There is no geological evidence of a flood nor is there any fossil evidence of one at any point within human history, least of all within the last 10,000 years.
Like everything else from creationism, to young earth, to geocentrism, to homeopathy, to expanding earth... and the flood. There is not some huge conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of scientists all collectively lying about this crap.
There is no evidence of a flood.
January 26, 2014 at 4:31pm
“A recently deciphered 4,000-year-old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia purportedly contains the specifications for an ark to endure a great flood — and it predates the Biblical story of Noah.”
Er… if the tablet is 4000 years old, then it’s right in line with the Biblical flood, which is estimated to have occured somewhere between 2500 and 2300 BC (arrived by calculating backwards from various recorded events within the Bible and Torah). Therefore the flood recorded in the Torah and the Old Testement happened more than 4200 years ago.
Which means that this tablet actually confirms the Noahic flood.
As for the shape of Noah’s Ark, there isn’t a lot of information to go on, but the image of a giant ship with a little house in the middle is based on artistic preference. It’s more likely the Ark was shaped somewhat oval, like a football, designed to withstand being rolled by waves and righting itself again (Canada’s old destroyers were designed to do so, though it meant losing the guns mounted on desk; it worked, too).
January 23, 2014 at 5:06pm
This whole thing is playing out wrong right from the start.
Nye isn’t an evolutionist. He’s a neo-Darwinist. If one is going to argue for evolution, one has to be clear as to which definition of evolution is being used and which theory of evolution they are arguing in favour of.
Ham isn’t a creationist. He’s a Young Earth Creationist. If one is going to argue for creationism, one has to be clear as to which definition of creationism is being used, and which theory of creationism they are arguing in favour of.
I don’t see this as going well for Nye. First, he’s not an evolutionary scientist in any way – at least he admits he’s not going to argue his view as a scientist at all. The problem is that Nye has become increasingly erratic, tempermental, foul mouthed, with a tendancy to resort to the equivalent of “Oh, yeah? Well f@#$! You!” style of debate, resort to ad hom attacks and have tantrums when people dare hold opinions he doesn’t approve of. He’s also not particularly articulate. Ham, whatever your opinion on his position, is going to come across a lot better.
I agree in some respects. Bill Nye is probably not the best person to represent modern biology; he's a mechanical engineer, actually. But he's also an experienced educator and has spent many years popularizing general science on television, so I think he certainly has some of the skills required to enter into this debate. I'm not sure about your description of Nye as "erratic" and "foul mouthed" - I think he's a bit more polished than that. Ham's biggest burden is that, yes, he's a dyed-in-the-wool YEC proponent, and that's a pretty indefensible position in the twenty-first century. It's not much of a step up from flat earther-ism. He has absolutely zero credibility with anyone outside his dwindling circle of fellow believers. Having said that, he'll be on home turf at his preposterous creation "museum", and as long as he avoids discussing some of his whackier ideas, he may well come across as reasonably presentable to what will likely be a fairly friendly crowd.
At the end of the day though, Ham is way, way out of sync with reality. It doesn't matter who "wins" the debate. Reality continues to be reality.
January 15, 2014 at 11:57pm
“with an attitude of “brown people bad, American people good.””
So, apparently, a person can’t be brown and American at the same time.
Tell me again, which side is racist?
December 8, 2013 at 9:07pm
The baker isn’t saying they can’t have one. The baker just doesn’t want to be the person baking it. They are free to go somewhere else.