Of course, he's God.
I fail to see the purpose in saying G-d instead of God. Only for that which doesn't exist . . . It's fascinating to see so many in the no column.
I think this answer here reveals something far more enlightening than mere opinions regarding Christ.
Look at how many say that even if they knew Christ was God, that they would still reject Him.
Tell me, what's worse for a person at judgement day, to do wrong knowing they are doing wrong, or to do wrong ignorant to the knowledge that it is wrong, to know who God is and still reject Him, or to be ignorant of who God really is when you reject Him?
Either way, you go to hell, so which is worse? The Bible says that to know and still reject God is worse.
Look how many say that even if they knew, they would still reject God.
Their ignorance, our inability to prove God definitively, it's a mercy extended to those who would reject Him anyway because if they saw the proof, and still rejected Him, it would be worse for them come judgment day.
Even in their hateful rhetoric, they prove how loving and merciful this God is, this non-existent entity that they utterly despise.
Must not be a lot of liberals answering this question. 67% say yes. No way a person who loves big government is going to think it's their right, much less obligation to revolt against a government so big that it oversteps it's bounds. Either that, or they're just naive enough to think that it will never happen, which history has proven is a rather idiotic very dangerous way to think.
Of course it's our obligation. Freedom isn't free. If you don't take freedom by force, you don't get to have it.
A Christian is obligated to do as God calls them, and for some that will be revolt while for others it will be to obey the government, but still put God first.
However, to any who are not called by God specifically not to rebel, it's their obligation to rebel and overthrow the tyrannical government for the sake of their families and their communities so that we can worship in freedom.
Soon the left will inevitably win and take our freedoms, but I do not believe enough will rebel to stop them because we have grown complacent, and those that support the left have grown numb in their thinking. They won't rebel till it's too late, and then their cowardice will keep them silent, and their propensity to believe what they're told will have them blaming everyone except themselves for their oppression.
It's human nature to trust those we identify with more. So when those times come of disagreement and conflict, race will more easily become involved, if it can become involved.
That's human nature.
We have the ability to rebel against what human nature compels us towards and decide that all people are equal in the eyes of God regardless of how we may feel.
And it wouldn't matter anyway. If racism wasn't the issue, it would be something else.
People can literally hate those who support another basketball team when both their support of their team, and those they hate only support the teams they do because of where they are. It's not even ideological, theological, or racism. It's simply location.
We are inclined to trust those we more identify with and have suspicion for those we don't.
It's actually sort of healthy in such a violent and uncaring world because it's what allows us to profile and catch those who might do us harm.
We demonize profiling, but profiling is a fact of life. You aren't going to watch everyone because you'll miss those you should have caught. You're going to pay attention to those most likely to fit in with what you are looking for so that you can narrow your search and not be as likely to miss something.
We are what we are, and that's just how it is. Likewise, we are obligated to use our intellect and understand when what we are compelled to do is nonsense and when it is wise.
That's just stupid. People need to use their phones sometimes while driving.
Rather than restricting, dictating, being righteous judges using one-size-fits all laws, why don't we simply give people rights and take the other route to solving the problem, you know that route Democrats hate and liberals are instructed to believe is the stupid route.
That other route I'm talking about is where we design things to assist in the safety of using devices such as phones. You know, the blue tooth technology, the hands-free corded and cordless devices. Perhaps a holder for a phone and/or voice-command apps.
All these neat ideas we could come up with if we were focused on how to maintain people's freedoms instead of how we can take them away.
But then, people not accustomed to losing freedoms would never be easily taken by a dictator.
That's an excellent idea. I hadn't thought about that.
A league for those who don't care about damaging their bodies. I like this idea. What it does is give people freedom to take stupid chances if they so desire in order to win.
It also takes the steam out of the point of competition for those who would use drugs because the glory is pretty much gone when everyone knows that drugs are helping you. --> This may be a reason it doesn't work in the end.
It would also finally give those who don't want to use drugs a fair competition.
Not the way this world defines peace. Peace in this world means some get to sit fat and happy on their couch while others starve. Yeah, world peace means that oppressive regimes who watch their people die of starvation, who horrifically oppress them and leave them to suffer at the hands of bandits continue to rule their nations with impunity. They get to continue their crimes against humanity with impunity.
That's what world peace means in this world.
So, no, I don't want world peace. I want those corrupt governments to be crushed under foot and thrown to their people to be convicted, judged, and then sentenced to whatever suffering death the people so choose.
You see, we love our peace so much, that we'd let them suffer horrifically so that we can pat ourselves on the backs and pretend that we're enlightened.
We may have peace, but they sure don't.
Just because there isn't war never means that there is peace.
Until peace can be had by all, world peace is selfish and cruel.
The child doesn't only come from the Woman. The child is every bit as much the father's as well. It shouldn't even be a debate. How do we go from ideals of due process, inalienable rights, and all people are equal to children not having any rights as human beings simply because they aren't as developed as others are?
This notion that somehow a child is magically a part of the mother's body is just PC gone stupid to placate the guilt of women who don't want to feel guilty of killing another human being.
It's far easier for one to say they excised an unimportant lump of tissue than to acknowledge the reality that the child growing with them is actually a totally separate life form wholly human and entirely genetically distinctive as much from the mother as the child is distinctive from the father who doesn't carry him or her around for 9 months.
It's literally like cracking an egg and trying to claim that somehow means you injured the hen who laid it. It's both absurd and an intentional ignoring of the truth. This is probably why women suffer psychologically so often from having an abortion, because no matter how hard one tries, it's not too many people that can honestly convince themselves of that which doesn't make any sense, that somehow that separate growing child is a part of her own body.
Why would this ever be okay? We're not animals. If we were animals, then yeah, it would be okay because we wouldn't have the mental capacity to take it beyond what is necessary, and look at the animal kingdom, they're pretty content to just dominate rather than commit to bloody massacres.
The only reason we go so overboard is because we have the mental capacity to do so.
A wolf will dominate his fellow wolf in a vicious fight, and then when domination is secured, will fight with the other wolf, trusting them with their own lives.
That's how animals operate. They don't kill unless that's what ends up happening.
Finally, we people have the mental capacity to not only do much worse, which we do at times, but we have the mental capacity to step outside of our natural compulsions, rebel against them, and choose to do what we know to be right regardless of how we feel or are compelled to do.
We have the ability to be supremely peaceful, humane, and caring, and if we do not strive for that, we become more deadly, evil, and inhumane than any animal would ever be even to those it would consider it's enemies.
Yes because that's the direction we always progress towards without Christ. One key theme exists in the nations that prefer humanity, and that is Christianity. In all other nations, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Atheist, religious worship of the Saints, Pope, and Mary, and pagan, oppression, violence, and inhumanity is the way of life there. Except for those that follow a deeply religious Catholicism, the people of these nations do not even really understand what freedom means, it is so foreign to them.
Even in the Christian nations, mankind kept trying to debase itself, become more corrupt, follow it's own selfish greed and ambition.
Yet, even in spite of that, Christian nations had enlightenment imposed upon them that defied human nature and overcame human nature.
However, every where else that did not have the benefit of Christianity. This did not happen, and things even became worse and more inhumane for the people.
Our nature brings us towards evil, immorality, and malevolence, however God will overcome our nature for the sake of His children.
And this is seen everywhere, for where God was in abundance in the people's hearts we improved in spite of our nature, and where God was not in abundance in people's hearts, even rejected by the people there, the products of our human nature are more prevalent.
I chose by deciding which temptations I would follow and which I would put out of my mind. The question is if we chose. I can remember the whole of my sexuality as a I grew up, and I can definitively say that I chose. From 5 years old when I experimented with friends to my adulthood, I have chosen which sexual temptations that I would follow and which that I would not follow.
I'm not saying that I can just choose at a whim. I'm saying that when the temptation came, I chose to follow it, and those temptations I chose not to give place in my life never became a part of my life.