TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying PreacherNorm's 10 most recent comments.

• 3 Real-Life ‘Miracles’ That Took Place on the Set of ‘The Bible’

  March 13, 2013 at 1:37pm

  In reply to cosmic dogma.

  So you have a natural explanation for a man walking on the surface of water? Or a natural explanation for the instantaneous conversion of water to wine? Or a natural explanation for the instantaneous healing of a paralytic man? Etc., etc., etc. The whole point of a miracle is that God is the only possible explanation for it. It shows that God is not bound by natural law, he is All Powerful. A person could say that these things were God’s providential activity, which is God working through nature, but they are most definitely not miracles. Most people don’t know the difference between providence and miracles because of biblical ignorance. The comments on this post show that 90%, if not more, of people are completely ignorant of biblical truth.

• 3 Real-Life ‘Miracles’ That Took Place on the Set of ‘The Bible’

  March 12, 2013 at 1:03am

  It drives me nuts when people degrade the actual biblical miracles by calling silly stuff like this “miracles.” A miracle is something that cannot be naturally explained, it contradicts natural law – like walking on water. A 20 second wind in the desert doesn’t exactly fit the definition. As a matter of fact, the absence of such wind bursts would be stranger.

  The biblical miracles happened, and they happened for a reason – to confirm the word of God (Mark 16:20). When the word was completed the purpose of miracles ended also (1 Cor. 13:10; Eph. 4:13). The kind of charismatic cookery reported in this story just makes it harder for people like me to teach the truth about Christ and His word.

• There’s a Medical Explanation for the Scary-Looking Pictures of Joe Biden’s Eye from Tuesday’s Big Speech

  February 14, 2013 at 8:51am

  I just assumed it was because he’s actually a demon.

• Associated Press Publishes Odd Photo of Romney — Do You Think It Should Have?

  October 9, 2012 at 10:47am

  I voted “ether way” on this one. It could be used by someone like Brian Sack for a little harmless fun. The problem is when people use it maliciously. Any sane person would know that Romney wasn’t poking his rump out at a bunch of kids. The girls looks like she could be telling the kid next to her “OMG” or “move over” or nearly anything else, while Romney is in the process of kneeling down for the photo shoot.

• What Was That Odd ‘Thud’ Sound During the Debate? Listen Here

  October 4, 2012 at 12:03pm

  Was it Chris Matthews head exploding?

• CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Confronts Joel Osteen on His ‘Being Gay Is a Sin’ Stance: ‘That Is the Opposite of Uplifting’

  September 21, 2012 at 11:24am

  In reply to Passerbye.

  I don’t think you’re wrong about Osteen, just about what’s in the Bible.

• CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Confronts Joel Osteen on His ‘Being Gay Is a Sin’ Stance: ‘That Is the Opposite of Uplifting’

  September 21, 2012 at 11:23am

  In reply to Passerbye.

  You’re wrong: Romans 1:26

  “For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.”

• CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Confronts Joel Osteen on His ‘Being Gay Is a Sin’ Stance: ‘That Is the Opposite of Uplifting’

  September 21, 2012 at 11:13am

  If people are genetically predisposed in their sexual orientation, i.e. they have a “gay gene,” then why isn’t every set of identical twins the same sexual orientation? Hold on before you say that one or the other may have chosen to deny their “natural” orientation. I didn’t think you believed they could choose to deny their genetic orientation.

  And, if sexual orientation is genetic – for which there is no proof whatsoever – what about people who are sexually attracted to children? Or sexually attracted to animals? Or sexually attracted to objects? Should those “sexual orientations” be respected, defended and tolerated? If not, why not? If they can’t choose, if it is natural for them, their natural orientation according to their genetic makeup, then why not grant those sexual orientations the same level of tolerance that homosexuality receives?

  Interesting fact: Up until the mid 80s homosexuality was classified as a psychological disorder by the American Psychological Association. Under pressure from the homosexual community, the classification was changed. But shouldn’t the declassification of something as a psychological disorder be based on evidence and research rather than political pressure? There were no changes in the studies done that had it classified as a psychological disorder. It just arbitrarily got changed. Who is helped by that kind of politically correct influence in medical and/or psychological fields?

• Update: Man From Viral Photo at Obama Event Is Secret Service Agent, Agency Denies He Was Peeing

  September 17, 2012 at 3:31pm

  Legs apart, hips forward. Oh, yea, he’s taking a leak.

• The Real Mitt Romney: Beck Interviews People Whose Lives Have Been Touched by the GOP Nominee

  September 14, 2012 at 10:54pm

  Great program! While I don’t agree with Romney’s religious views, I can’t help but respect a man who lives his faith.