TheSword

In addition to UM's excellent points, here's a fantastic article on a Noah's Ark feasibility study that should answer most questions you have on that one: http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark
Additionally, I would caution against the use of micro-evolution because it still implies evolution is a real phenomenon. Evolution (be it micro or macro) assert a gaining of genetic information through mutation. Rather, what we see with speciation within the created kinds is a loss of genetic information that differentiates between species we know of today.

On micro-evolution, not exactly. The variation is never due to added genetic information. What you see with finches is more of a sorting and subsequent loss of genetic information. When a species becomes isolated in a particular environment, the genes most effective for survival are the ones that end up becoming expressed. Rather than gaining a mutation to survive in a particular environment, less effective genes are essentially bred out. Consider the attached graphic of finch beak alleles where "T" (large/thick beak) is the dominant trait and "t" is recessive. If the available food supply cannot be collected or eaten with a small beak, the "t" will ultimately die out and "T" will eventually be the only available trait to be expressed. This is an example of how the loss of genetic information is what produces variation and not the addition of it. Speciation occurs when enough genetic material is lost from a population so as to be distinct from another previously identical population. You don't need a compromise with evolutionary theory to explain the variation in kinds or the diversity of species.

Whaaat? I asked an honest question trying to understand why you find something so irrelevant to be so "unholy" that you need to label it "anti-Christ." Seriously, I just wanted to know what your issue is with Looney Toons of all things. I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with any of it. I just don't understand why you're making such an issue about something that very few people even think about anymore, much less actively care about. Are you always this combative?

Help me out here, because I am truly confused about why you're making such a big deal about Bugs Bunny, of all things. Why such a disdain for a set of cartoons and tv shows that have pretty much fallen off the air? Surely there are more important, more influential, and more ungodly things to take issue with right?

Help me out here, because I am truly confused about why you're making such a big deal about Bugs Bunny, of all things. Why such a disdain for a set of cartoons and tv shows that have pretty much fallen off the air? Surely there are more important, more influential, and more ungodly things to take issue with right?

Help me out here, because I am truly confused about why you're making such a big deal about Bugs Bunny, of all things. Why such a disdain for a set of cartoons and tv shows that have pretty much fallen off the air? Surely there are more important, more influential, and more ungodly things to take issue with right?

Curious. Where does this come into Biblical discussion?
You deem Bugs Bunny as wicked?
Is 'slapstick' style humor wicked?
You could probably pick something a little bit more 'wicked' than that couldn't you?
I don't know of any Christians that focus on Bugs Bunny as being a role model at all. Nor do I find that Christians even mention Bugs Bunny anywhere.
I think false doctrine brings about wickedness in Christians, and that is the result of being 'weak' in spiritual strength, for lack of wisdom from the word of God.
Bugs Bunny, nor any other cartoon character, is not the problem - false teachings affect lives more than any type of entertainment.
 

I had a wise preacher once tell me when I was but a young pup, that if we wanted to avoid everything that the world has crept into, or that the Devil has his hands in, we need to empty our houses, step into the corner of a room, shut the door and sit and stare at the wall, because frankly the devil has gotten his dirty hands into everything. Every grocery store supports some wickedness, some, like Smiths, even being openly owned by false religions, thus, a portion going directly to their church, or to whatever wicked organizations they promote. You cannot escape it anymore. Turn on the computer to Youtube, you're going to get ads with your videos, and some of those things, if not all, are connected to some wickedness. Some of the people who make helpful videos are quite reprobate themselves, (they might even watch Bugs Bunny!)
My point being, we MUST, of necessity live in a wicked world among wicked people, do business with the wicked, and no matter how we try, some of our own hard-earned money WILL go to causes we deem evil. You can't completely escape it. Look at the Amish: they separate themselves into their own little communities, yet they shop at Walmart, which supports the Gay Pride parades. The idea is not to be overcome, not to purposely be a part of these things, while remembering it is to the wicked that we are sent. Jesus sat and ate with sinners, and was castigated for it, yet we know He didn't participate in their wickedness, but used it as an occasion to teach them about His Father and salvation. The goal, is to keep ourselves unaffected and untouched by the sin that surrounds us, to not become caught up in it, to live IN the world, without becoming a PART of the world. As for the Three Stooges, I think some Christians today could learn a lesson on how to dress from them-they dress better than your average Christian today. Though I wouldn't emulate their etiquette and behavior.
As for the OP, concerning grace, grace is simply God's unmerited favor that He gives us unto eternal life; once we are saved, it is that grace that continues to abound in us and keep us until the day of redemption. That's why the Bible says that where sin abounds, grace much more abounds: its not an excuse to sin, as some think, to continue to life worldly and in the flesh, rather it gives us the consolation that is we DO sin, that grace is still at work within us, keeping us saved, keeping that new man unspotted from sin, that we might be presented to the Father without spot or blemish.  grace is God's saving and keeping power in us.

...and why so many think Christians are crazy!
Anyone seen the latest "sign from God" making the rounds of the internet?
"A rainbow appeared over the Arapahoe County courthouse on Thursday – the day the Aurora theater shooter was found guilty of murder."
Across the internet where this is being posted Christians are calling this yet another sign from God. Comments such as God showing His approval of the murder conviction and that sort of thing.
Is that really what a rainbow represents, God's approval of something? After a prayer meeting earlier this year in DC there was a rainbow and Christians were at it again proclaiming this a sign of God's approval. Ironically, after the Supreme Court handed down their pro-homosexual "marriage" ruling, homosexual groups posted a photo of a rainbow from that day and declared, see, it's a sign from God he approves of homosexual marriage!
Christians, if they know the Bible at all, should know the one purpose God declared with regards to the rainbow; and it's not as a special sign of approval for whatever is going on at the moment.
Christians cried out that Hurricane Katrina was a sign of God's disapproval of homosexuals in New Orleans. Earlier this year homosexuals used this same sort of argument when Texas put forth an anti-homosexual ruling and much of the State found itself flooding and the homosexuals said to Christians, Look, God disapproves of the anti-homosexual ruling!
We should stop declaring this or that is a sign from God and simply do as God commanded by sharing the Gospel, training up immature Christians, preaching and teaching the truth of Scripture. Leave the soothsaying and guessing games to the hucksters and false religionists.

Sadly, my wife and I were completely oblivious to this when we first got married. We were still spiritually immature and had never heard any of this from either the church or anyone in the health sector. It literally never crossed our minds. Unfortunately, she got pregnant during our first year of marriage while she was on the pill and we ended up losing the baby sometime between week 7 and 11. That inhospitable environment doesn't just go away when the fertilized egg implants. Her placenta simply tore away because the effects of the birth control were still at work. It was probably one of the most difficult times in our marriage. Since then we've done our research (initially just to figure out what happened) and have come to these same conclusions. It's something everyone under our spiritual care (especially teens and young adults) need to be taught and understand because the outside world certainly isn't going to make them aware. It happened to us out of innocence, but the loss of life is no less tragic and devastating. Know what I know now, birth-control pills should be considered no different than abortion pills because they effectively cause the same effect.

Well I have had it in my heart for a while to write a commentary/exposition on Song of Solomon.
I spent an hour on it tonight, I got the introduction and up to 1:2 done. It is going to take me quite a while.
I ask that you pray that God would bless this work, I have no idea why God put it in my heart to write this, and it is my hope to maybe get in into print or even e-book format. I just want people to be pointed to Jesus Christ by this!

After a lengthy meeting with Dr. David Gibbs and the Christian Law Association, and also a meeting with the insurers of our church, the following items were brought to our attention that required an emergency meeting and a revamping of our church bylaws in order to protect us from lawsuits arising from the recent Supreme Court ruling on same sex marriage:
Church property must have extremely strict "worship only" use written into the church bylaws.  No longer can you rent out church property to any other entity outside of your church or you fall into "public use and domain" laws that open you up for attack. Marriages should not be performed for anyone other than your church members AND it is highly recommended that they be termed as a "Marriage and Family Worship Service" rather than a "Wedding Ceremony".  There are real legal protections still in place to protect "worship services" that are NOT in place to protect a church from a typical wedding ceremony. Any church benevolence offered to the general public such as donations to soup kitchens, food banks, rescue mission for homeless in your city, etc...puts your church into a public services category and opens the church up to an entirely new set of laws and regulations.  Unfortunately, all church benevolence has to be restricted to only those within your church fellowship or you open up the doors to litigation.  Very detailed membership requirements must be in your church bylaws (I am sure all IFB churches have this covered already), so that person or couple can't just walk in and ask for an application for membership to be accepted without a testimony of salvation. There were a host of other small, seemingly nit-picky measures recommended to protect your church and/or pastor from litigation from the LGBT crowd.  I would highly recommend your pastor contact the Christian Law Association and their insurers the sooner the better. 
Hold the Fort.
Bro. Santos

While I agree with the comparison point by NN and DaveW, there's actually a little more nuance to the explanation that makes it all a little more concrete. In 1 Ch 20:5, "Goliath" is preceded by "achi" which specifies "brother of", thus "brother of Goliath" is clear. In 2 Sam 21:19, Goliath is preceded by "et". This is an untranslatable word that can is used as either a particle to designate a definite direct object (i.e. divides the subject/nominative and predicate/accusative parts of a sentence), or signify "with" or "among" for the following word.
In essence, then, what we have in 2 Sam 21:19 is probably an example of the latter that would woodenly read something like "...slew among/with Goliath the Gittite".  Here's the really cool part, 2 Samuel was written at a time when the immediate audience would be well aware of who Elhanan killed and therefore it wasn't necessary for the author to be as explicit, but rather used elliptical language. 1 Chronicles, on the other hand, was written centuries later to an audience who would not have been as immediately familiar with the events, and the author therefore needed to be explicit.
What we have in the KJV appears to be both a comparison and a faithful rendering of the text as it was intended.

Jesus didn't say that merely "adultery" was grounds for divorce: He said "fornication". Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Mere "adultery" is only the sin of a married person with the opposite sex. But "fornication" includes ALL sexual sins, including "adultery". So if a spouse is sleeping around, the other can have protection from STD's like AIDS. The kids also can be protected if the other spouse is molesting them. Adultery, incest, rape, child molesting, homosexuality etc are all "fornication"; it covers it all. Don't believe it?
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Jude 1:7 

1 Cor 5 is the guidepost for such a case, particularly vv. 1-5 from the church perspective. It parallels this situation remarkably well. In such a case, Paul exhorts the church to remove the person from fellowship so that God may deal with him/her and so that the sin doesn't infect and tear down the church. Keep in mind that it should be done with love and a mind toward restoration and not a hateful shunning that drives the person away from Christ for the rest of his/her life (see 2 Cor 2:6-11 which seems to indicate the man in 1 Cor 5 ultimately repented and was restored to the church fellowship).
From the perspective of the wronged spouse, adultery is the only reason ever given any valid grounds for divorce (Matt 5:32) because the unfaithful spouse has already broken the marriage covenant. However, reconciliation should always be sought first. While divorce may be permissible or even justifiable, it is never a great option. Principles of love and forgiveness should be the rule. If the spouse is willing to repent and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, all effort should be made to give it to him/her. As a child of divorced parents, I can attest to the devastation all of this causes on the family; not just the immediate pain it causes, but the lifelong confusion and mixed message that can cause great spiritual harm in the end. My wife's parents battled through an affair, and while it was incredibly hard on the family for a while, they're still together and the family as a whole is better for it.

U.S. Air Force veteran

U.S. Air Force veteran

U.S. Air Force veteran

I agree with Salyan's explanation above. At least for me and in the churches I've been a part of, it is about giving God your best. If you wear greasy coveralls every day to work and your best clothes are pressed jeans and a polo, awesome. Sport it proudly on Sunday! However, if you wear a coat and tie to work every day, and you still wear jeans and a polo to church, what's that say about where God ranks in your life? I think it's all about your attitude and showing reverence and deference to a holy God.
I never wear a coat and tie out on door-knocking/soulwinning though. Not only is the heat and humidity oppressive, it makes people think I'm another Jehovah's Witness pushing bad literature.
 

U.S. Air Force veteran

U.S. Air Force veteran

I agree that reconciliation should be sought. A separation might be in order, though not initially divorce, to allow him to consider the seriousness of his actions, and maybe in time he will repent. But if it continues and there is no repentance, I do believe divorce is the correct course of action.
The marriage is supposed to emulate the relationship of Jesus and His churches. A church that is continually unfaithful, the Lord has said He will remove their candle from its place. That doesn't mean any loss of salvation, but the local church itself might be rejected for unfaithfulness. But He will put up with a lot, even to being locked out, for a long time, before doing so. See the church at Laodicea in Rev 3.
So be patient and prayerful, and faithful to him and to God, separate if necessary, but I would think, if he wants a divorce, let him do the deed, not you. Let it be in his court.

1 Cor 5 is the guidepost for such a case, particularly vv. 1-5 from the church perspective. It parallels this situation remarkably well. In such a case, Paul exhorts the church to remove the person from fellowship so that God may deal with him/her and so that the sin doesn't infect and tear down the church. Keep in mind that it should be done with love and a mind toward restoration and not a hateful shunning that drives the person away from Christ for the rest of his/her life (see 2 Cor 2:6-11 which seems to indicate the man in 1 Cor 5 ultimately repented and was restored to the church fellowship).
From the perspective of the wronged spouse, adultery is the only reason ever given any valid grounds for divorce (Matt 5:32) because the unfaithful spouse has already broken the marriage covenant. However, reconciliation should always be sought first. While divorce may be permissible or even justifiable, it is never a great option. Principles of love and forgiveness should be the rule. If the spouse is willing to repent and seek forgiveness and reconciliation, all effort should be made to give it to him/her. As a child of divorced parents, I can attest to the devastation all of this causes on the family; not just the immediate pain it causes, but the lifelong confusion and mixed message that can cause great spiritual harm in the end. My wife's parents battled through an affair, and while it was incredibly hard on the family for a while, they're still together and the family as a whole is better for it.

I confess that my primary creed is just Christ and Him crucified, risen and coming again.
 
Seriously, basic fundamentalist position: salvation by grace through faith, not works, and eternal security of that salvation; the deity of Jesus Christ; virgin birth, death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ; literal return of Christ to rule and reign 1000 years on earth, and then a new heaven and new earth, to last forever. Literal 6-day creation as recorded in Genesis.

I was saved in 1981 (the reason for the 81 in my name).
None of what you said in any way gives any valid reason to question the very clear Scripture which consistently says that each of the six days of creation were literal days (24 hours). For reasons not in accord with the clear wording of Scripture, you choose to believe this portion of Scripture to be untrue and therefore search for ways to circumvent the clear statement of Scripture on the matter.