Search results

At least, I think I am. But I don't think "I AM" I know you capitalized "I AM", but God thinks, therefore I am: I AM, therefore I am. But because God can think us into existence, we can think: I am, therefore I think. I can't think myself into existence, but I can imagine, and then create...

I'm evidence for God. You're evidence for God. The universe is evidence for God. Everything in the universe is evidence for God. There is nothing that exists that is not evidence for God, since He made everything in heaven and earth. Saying there is no evidence for God is a way of saying I don't...

I definitely prefer substance with my waffles.

Amen, Brother! Hence I’ve given my approval of your post just like a sheep.

Wait for it…

Sore LUser Name has to dredge up a hit piece on the auditors from May 10th, because he can see the truth in recent news.

Or polluted by Robertson’s view, Brain?

As good as I want to be, usually.

I don’t know all the details, but much of it is taught in literature and social institutions, like high school and college. And “subservience” is not what Robertson is talking about, so we’ll call that a straw man.

I’m not sure which of your questions you don’t think I’ve answered. I thought I was pretty straightforward. Ask again what I missed. But I think you are saying in this post that teenagers should never listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you on this subject. Even if your way is wrong...

You haven't actually said anything. He tasted death for every man, and he is bringing many sons into glory. Those statements don't conflict, since not everyone will be brought into glory, even though he tasted death for every man. You really need to put aside you preconceptions and maybe listen...

If it's only in reference to some evil intention you've cooked up for him, then there's no real beef, except in your head. It still isn't a problem. If you could answer my question, however, it gets you outside of your own standard of morality for a moment, and might allow you to think clearly...

Would you have trouble if he said the young men needed to be pliant, malleable, and molded into the "ideal husband"?

Yep. Not a sudden morphing, but hard to reverse after 20. Nope, because they are only so to you because you have a humanistic mindset that won’t allow God’s standards to dictate anything to you.

And feminism does the same thing.

“Sage” is the descriptor. You don’t need to ask what kind it is anymore. But you answered your other question, too. Since they are going to morph into rabid and selfish feminists, it’s better to marry them before they get that way. Feminists are made, not born.

Because it disagrees with your worldview? How is that any kind of standard? What he said was sage advice.

I deal with “zero tolerance” efforts at work. They are often a political ploy to make someone look good, while the errors are often hidden to meet the new policy on the surface, if not in actuality. On Robertson, do you have any idea who he was talking to? It didn’t seem to be targeted toward...

I think you answered your own question with the comment about the laws in UK. Why would the laws need to tighten if there weren’t a problem someone to solve? Why is Robertson’s statement a problem? We weren’t talking about marriage, were we? Unless you equate rape and sexual assault with...

It already has—just not everywhere.