Depends on what you think the Bible means when God says that God is willing that none should perish, but all should come to repentance. Christ died and rose again for the elect only, yes only the elect.
But who are the elect, exactly?
The elect are those who God has chosen to be saved.
Yet, God's desire is that all are saved.
The Bible is clear that most will not be saved.
So, the question comes again, who are the elect, exactly?
Well, remember the parable of the seeds that were cast about by the sower, some landing on rocky soil, some shallow soil, some amongst weeds, and some on fertile soil?
Remember, each of the others eventually died except that which fell on fertile soil.
The seed is the message.
The soil is us, the people who are told the message.
Tell me, which soil would you say was the "elect" soil of the farmer?
Would it be the rocky soil, the shallow soil, or perhaps the weed-grown soil? Of course not, because none of them produce anything for the farmer.
It's the fertile soil that is the "elect" soil of the farmer, is it not? Of course it is.
So, who are the elect then of God? Wouldn't it be those who fit the profile of the "elect"/fertile soil in the parable,
those who choose to take the message to heart and commit to Christ for salvation? Wouldn't they be the elect of God?
Christ did not die for those who refuse to accept Him. Christ made this clear when He talked about those who refused to accept Him, the priests and teachers of the law. Christ said that He does not come for the healthy, but for the sick and infirm, which means for those who need salvation from Hell.
Of course the Priests and teachers of the law needed salvation, but they did not think that they needed salvation, therefore Christ did not come for them, for they think they are healthy.
It is the same for us.
Christ died for the elect, and only the elect, however, that is only because the elect are those who recognize their need for Christ and choose to come to Him.
Except where it takes the rights of others away, yes. We were given the power to learn and use this world, therefore we Should use it and learn how to improve it even more.
Clone them, and bring them back into existence for the betterment of human understanding and learning. They are just animals, for us to use how we deem necessary.
Now I have to put 11 more words, that will be it.
Yep, because it's the parent's right to determine their child's exposure to such things. I know that lefties think that it's their right to determine what kids should and should not be exposed too, but in reality, that right should fall exclusively on the parents of the child to make that determination because the parents are the people with the vested interest in the positive growth and development of their own child.
Do you have the right to refuse to provide birth control to me? That is the essential argument.
The Hobby Lobby argument wasn't about providing birth control, like Obama's executive orders and Obamacare would ever have such power in a nation of people who care about freedom more than their own greed.
Hobby Lobby refused to provide certain types of birth control, those that have the potential to induce abortion of a newly conceived child.
It's a lie that you've been instructed to believe that drugs like the morning after pill don't cause abortion. Of course they do. That's why they're called "morning after." You don't take drugs after the fact if you don't intend on disposing of the unwanted child just conceived in your fallopian tubes.
However, with the question you asked, does a business have a right to refuse to provide coverage for birth control? Yes, simply because we live in a nation that claims to believe in personal liberty. That basically means that I don't have the right to enforce you to buy something for me.
And if I don't like what you do offer to pay for, I can find someone who does offer to pay for what I want. It's called everyone having their freedoms.
Religion isn't, faith is. Religion is the consistent practice of something. Religion, except that which is for the effort of one remaining uncorrupted and helping those in need, often incites discord.
Even religion when used for the sake of Atheism is proven to be unstable and very dangerous.
However, faith tends to bring hope in the hopeless situation, and tends to encourage people to act where they otherwise would not.
No, certain nations have to right to bear such arms.
We, as in the U.S., should dictate who can and cannot wield such destructive power. We are the most domineering and influential empire in the world, and as such, it is our duty to dictate who can and cannot wield such power.
If the situation were different and a more oppressive nation had our power, they would not only exercise their prerogative, but they would do so inhumanely, oppressively, and violently, and it would not be for the same reasons that we exercise our prerogative.
It is our right to exercise our authority to dictate who can wield such power, and we do so for the sake of the maintenance of world peace, to ensure that those who would use them never have the power to do so, and in order to maintain a destructive superiority over those who might otherwise attempt war with us.