Tommy Mann

I thought it was just a glob of tissue. To say the baby has a future is to admit that all babies in the womb have a future. Those proud pro-choice activists are proudly robbing children of their future. What if that baby you aborted was a future president, Nobel prize winner, or the one to cure cancer? We don't know. That's what happens when you destroy an innocent person's future before we have the chance to find out.

The shirt says, "I'm grateful my friend's abortion was safe and legal. Safe for who? Depending on the method of legal abortion, the baby was either dismembered, decapitated, or poisoned, violently stopping a beating heart. The shirt should say, "I'm glad my friend legally murdered her baby."

One might also say, "If you ignore the New Testament's clear teaching that homosexuality is wrong, you're using it wrong." And in reference to the verse about love, true love warns a person of the error of their ways. What happened to loving a person enough to care about the consequences of their wrong choices? It does more harm to let disobedience go unchecked in the name of love.

That's correct, the Constitution does not use those words. But the preamble to the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…" These truths (that we were created  by a Higher Power, not evolved by random chance) are self-evident. That means that this was the commonly-accepted belief (and is still common sense today). When something is commonly believed by the vast majority, the Constitution would not need to contain those words. This is like saying that the menu at McDonald's never uses the words hungry or thirsty. That is presupposed before someone goes to a restaurant. Furthermore, the First Amendment to the Constitution states, " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ."The Constitution was written with an understanding that God is the Cr...

Doesn't the ability to think prove the existence of God? If you want to think hard, try thinking about thinking. How do you think? The scientific community has no generally accepted idea as to what thinking is and how thoughts are created. If you believe, then, that this mind-boggling idea called thinking is the result of some random chance luckiness, then you can conclude there is no God. But if you get the hunch that there just might be some intelligent design involved, then grab a cookie and admit there is a God.

Proud to not exist. 

Yes, please do know your Bible. Only the King James Version uses the word unicorn. The last time the KJV was updated was 1769, and at that time the word unicorn did not mean what it means today. Newer translations use the words wild oxen, but no need to get hung up in those pesky facts.

George Carlin? The comedian?  I like all my "critical thinkers" to quote comedians. 

Genesis 32 records the night that Jacob wrestled with God. This passage refers to God as "the Angel of the Lord," which is one of the titles applied to Jesus before  His birth in Bethlehem. Theologians call this a theophany, or pre-incarnate appearance of Jesus on earth. In other words, seeing Jesus' face and seeing God's face are two different things. No one has looked at the face of God. Obviously, multitudes have seen the face of Jesus. Nice try, contradiction watch dogs. But once again, the Bible validates itself.

Did you catch how Adam contradicted himself? He does not believe in God, yet believes in the laws of the universe. How is there a law with no law-giver? If there is a law, who is the judge that enforces it? Random chance does not create laws. Evolution does not explain any of the laws that govern this universe. This universe, and the laws that govern it, are all governed by God. It's the only feasible explanation. Maybe the thought of facing a Judge has Adam Carolla freaked out.

Whoever made this image is getting the biblical record wrong. It was the Bible, not science, that first said the earth is round. It was the Bible, not science, that first said the earth is suspended in space. When science says we evolved from pond scum, we should probably stick with the Bible there too. It is  He who sits above the circle of the earth … Isaiah 40:22 He stretches out the north over empty space; He   hangs the earth on nothing.   Job 26:7

What should we have seen coming? One murdered thousands of people. The other quoted the Bible.  This is a typical atheistic move, comparing murdering terrorists to Christians. 

Creationism: teaching that raptors mowed each other down with machine guns since...since when? Although the evolutionist would have no problem believing the machine gun evolved, just given enough time.

Atheism has the power to stop wars? That's terrific news! So stop them. The person who made this graphic is once again falling victim to the belief that Christians cause all wars. The graphic ignores the fact that Hitler, Marx, bin Laden, Hussein, and others like them were far from being Christian. Related post:  Are Christians Responsible for the World's Wars?

While this handy little chart seems like it pins Bible believers down, the fact that it is blatantly false renders its pointless. Christians teach fellow Christians that the Bible proclaims its own validity, but if I were talking to a non believer that is not the approach I would use. If someone asked, like the graphic does, "How do you know it is infallible?" I would ask them to show me an error in it. Believe me, people have spent 2,000 years trying to find an error in it, and if they could find one they would be talking about that instead of circular logic. The Bible contains thousands of names, cities, dates, and rulers; none have been found to be inaccurate. When the Bible addresses science, it is accurate. Archaeology only confirms, and never contradicts, the Bible. For further proof of the validity and infallibility of the Bible, please read  Is the Bible True? Proving the Credibility of the Word of God Through Archaeology

Because we all want to gamble our eternal destiny on "probably."  

How can you define good without God? What if I think it is good to rape, as long as it makes me happy? What if I think it is good to steal if I am starving? What if I think it is good to kill someone who stands in the way of my success? What if I think it is good to lie to get out of a jam? If you tell me I can’t do those things, then I would ask, “Says who?” These things are wrong because God says they are. Without God there is no final authority, no real standard of right and wrong. That little voice in your head that tells you something is wrong? That is called your conscience, which is a gift from our good God. 

This shows the misunderstanding of the concept of the wall of separation. This picture indicates that the church influenced Hitler, and therefore we need a wall to keep the evil church away from government. But as any person who knows history understands, Hitler was in no way influenced by the church. He hated church and had nothing to do with it (thanks to Darwinism). After he rose to power, he forced all churches to spread his propaganda, replacing all religious relics with images of Hitler. Thomas Jefferson's concern on his "wall of separation" remark was to prevent this. The Government (State) is not to interfere with the Church.

Jesus did speak about homosexuality. He said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them MALE and FEMALE, and said, "Therefore a MAN shall leave his FATHER and his MOTHER and hold fast to his WIFE, and the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19:4-5)." Jesus mentioned father and mother, male and female, and husband and wife being made that way from the beginning by God. It doesn't get any more clear than that. Aside from that, we don't know a fraction of what Jesus said when He was on earth. John ended his gospel by writing,  " Now  there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that  the world itself could not contain the books that would be written (John 21:25)." Even still, God is the author of the Bible (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit being One)--the same Bible that declares homosexuality a sin in Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians...

This often-used example shows how desperate defenders of evolution are when it comes to finding facts. A real scientist understands the difference between macroevolution and microevolution. Microevolution is something we see all the time—its responsible for different breeds of dogs, for example. Microevolution is changing within a species. Macroevolution, which is akin to Darwinism, is changing from one species to another. This where missing links come in. Someone remind the scientific community that they haven’t found any missing links yet after 160 years of looking. Just to be clear, the evolution of the flu is an example of microevolution. Until the flu evolves into chicken pox (or a chicken) it will never prove Darwinism.