Im sorry, but this is not right! Brothers and sisters, the whole Bible is God-breathed and God inspired. God intended for each word and each sentence in the Bible to be in the Bible. The Bible is our handbook and we are to live by it. You guys have it wrong! God’s words are very important. But do not forget the apostles and the prophets!! God worked through their lives and inspired them to write what they wrote. So technically, all of the Bible is the Word of God! God’s hand was in it all. Please, do not call yourselves Red-Letter Christians and separate yourselves from your brothers and sisters who believe in God and his unending love and grace. Rather, call yourselves Followers of Christ. Follow the Word of God! Not just the red letters, but let every passage you read from Old Testament to New Testament speak to you through the work of the Holy Spirit. Let us Christians unite under God to fulfill His purposes for our lives here on Earth.

In refererence to the Ray Lewis article. I think you are right to a degree, but not exactly. I think God is more personally involved in the lives of those who reach out to him and spend time with Him. I think there are times when He will give us what we ask for.
From what I know of Ray Lewis, he is a sincere follower of Christ who is deeply faithful and desires to give all of his life to serving God now. To most of the world a football game is just a game and means nothing. To God I’m sure a football game means nothing. It’s not about the game at all really. I think it’s not really about the game to Ray Lewis either. I think there was a lot spiritually that went on btwn the team members that no one in the public ever saw.
The team had a very deep meaning to Lewis spiritually because he had a lot if growth during the time he spent with those men, and God was central to him in his relationship to his team. God will give us things that may seem silly to others, when we ask, and when His will lines up. Ray knows God is not a genie. I don’t think he ever concluded that God had them win because they were “good”. It is true though, that when you are closely alignd with God, there are times that he will answer you with a yes. I think it’s quite possible that He answered RayLewis with a yes

Interesting site, but I’m so sick and tired of being told to “join the conversation.” That can be on a list of everyday cliches that need to be banned, imo

The Bible is inerrant in its autographs, and, because of the many many texts and excerpts we have of it, we can pretty much determine what that original text said and meant, with a little help from our Hebrew friends who are familiar with the intent of Scripture. For instance, the phrase an eye for an eye, etc., is actually an admonition against cruel and unusual punishment that doesn’t fit the crime. Also, the Ten Commandments say, Do not murder, so capital punishment for the crime of first degree murder actually upholds that Law, not contradict it, as some of our liberal friends misinterpret it. Finally, we must remember, in helping the poor, that Proverbs 10:4 says, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” So, God is not opposed to accumulating wealth, so long as you do indeed remember the poor. However, we are not required to give charity to an able-bodied man who will not work or to a man who will not support his family, as Paul says and implies in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 and 1 Timothy 5:8.

Given the horrors of the Gosnell trial particularly and Planned Parenthood’s — which last year performed 333,964 acts of Filicide by abortion securing about $150,283,800 in fees from those abortions — move away from Pro Choice to “Reproductive Justice” (as if there could be justice by killing an in utero baby created in the Imago Dei) particularly, it would stand to reason that RLC solicit more discourses on Filicide, Abortion, and the quintessential question of “When does life begin?”

POP QUIZ: Where else besides an Abortion Abattoir can you conspire to have someone killed by paying a killer money and do it with impunity?

You can’t!

Here follows my unsolicited submission.

The feckless logic behind the Pro Choice / Reproductive Justice movement is completely ad hoc, capricious, subjective, gestationally sexist, and therefore completely untenable. It is certainly no basis for a law that deals with Life & Death.

A civil, just society can NOT make nor justly enforce laws that are inherently ad hoc and capricious. The quintessential building block, indeed the cornerstone of our Constitutional Rule of Law REPUBLIC, personified by a blindfolded Lady Justice holding a scale in her hands, is that ALL LAWS apply equally to every person without regard to race, color, creed, gender, gestational status or age (above consent).

Pro Choice completely obliterates this first principle.

Science, orthodox Judeo-Christian Theology, Humane Ethics, and non-atheistic Philosophy all state unequivocally that a new human life begins at fertilization. ONLY THE CURRENT law that goes by the pseudonymical Roe v Wade, wrongly decided based upon some of the worse jurisprudence in our nation’s history (confessed to by several 21st-century SCOTUS Justices), 40 years behind current Science, still regards in utero babies as “non-persons” and therefore not protected under the 14th amendment. This is reminiscent of the way the U.S. regarded Black slaves — as de facto non-persons or at least no more than three fifths of a person each — for the first 76 years of our history. No wonder they were enslaved, whipped, beaten, sold like mere chattel, and killed with impunity.

Is that how Pro Choice views in utero babies, as non-person chattel deserving of no better than enslavement, whipping, beating, auctioning, dismemberment and finally death? It happens 1,211,000 times per year every year for the last 40 years.

SCOTUS in 1973 admitted that Science, Theology and Philosophy should influence their juridical decision regarding the moment when a non-human becomes a human person, but then panned all three disciplines, noting that since they didn’t all three agree SCOTUS therefore needn’t decide when a 100% HUMAN DNA in utero baby becomes a legal person . . . and then arbitrarily assigned a point in time for this miracle to occur as coinciding with birth; presumably that existential moment when a baby completely exits his/her mother’s vagina. Whether or not s/he had to have the umbilical cord cut and/or take a 1st breath to become a FULLY HUMAN person warranting Constitutional protection is NOT clear.

But neither SCOTUS nor any Pro Choice person has ever explained how “personhood” is conferred merely by fully exiting a vagina (or in the rarer case of a C-section, fully clearing the belly). Biologically and Theologically there is no discernible nor non-discernible fundamental difference between a baby 5 seconds before fully emerging from a vagina and 5 seconds after fully exiting. NONE AT ALL. If personhood is not something that can be observed, measured or otherwise discerned than it has either magical properties or resides at the level of deep sub-atomic space that our most powerful microscopes and atom smashers can still NOT detect.

Who or what confers this personhood? If a 40 week old fully formed baby is NOT a person 1 second before s/he fully exits the vagina but is 1 second immediately thereafter Who or What conferred that personhood? The mother’s vagina? God? Buddha? And at what precise moment down to the 1/1000th of a second did it occur? How do we know?

Neither Science, Theology, Philosophy, Ethics nor an Abortion doctor can objectively answer these questions. But the law somehow is certain (or feigns it), and wants us to be certain, that whereas it is a heinous homicidal crime to kill a just exited from the vagina baby, whether 22 weeks old, 32 weeks old, or 42 weeks old, it is no crime at all to kill that same baby so long as s/he has NOT fully (though mostly is OK) exited the vagina.

Why is it a heinous 1st-degree murder for a mother and her doctor to kill a 22-week old baby just fully exited from her vagina but NOT a crime to kill a 28-week old baby still residing at least partially in utero?

THINK: It is as if the law — not Science, Theology, Philosophy or Ethics — has conferred God-like power to create a new human being to pregnant women’s vaginas, which alone can impute full humanity and legal personhood.

BUT STOP, THINK AGAIN: The ugly gestational sexist bias of the law reared its very ugly head with the conviction of Scott Peterson for DOUBLE HOMICIDE: of his post-born wife Laci and his PRE-BORN son Connor. The ONLY way Scott (and less famously known biological fathers) could have been convicted of a 2nd homicide is IF his unborn son was regarded by the law as a fully human PERSON protected under the 14th amendment. Had Laci killed Connor she would have been able to do so with full legal immunity. But the impunity the law would have granted to Laci it refused to give to Scott: ugly, biased gestational bias.

Have you heard of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004? More gestatational sexist bias at the federal level. “(Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a LEGAL VICTIM, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

en dot wikipedia dot org/ wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Is it any wonder that our horrific, gestationally sexist jurisprudence came about as a result of seven (7) pussy-whooped men (two White men wisely and morally vociferously dissented), six White and one Black. Their outdated, 40-year old juridical decision is a guilt-ridden testosterone manifesto that pays homage to estrogen and the power of vaginas that have driven men mad, crazy, to drink & drugs, and broke for millennia.

Lust for vaginas, guilt over how cruelly some men have behaved toward women with vaginas, and a sincere but sincerely wrong desire to make reparations is NO BASIS FOR LAW-MAKING WHEN IT COMES TO THE LIFE AND DEATH OF OUR MOST PRECIOUS, MOST VULNERABLE, AND LEAST ABLE TO PROTECT AND SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES BABIES; in utero.

Anyone who has never endured an abortion, and is entirely unwilling to endure one — or the lethal equivalent — now, should ever have the hypocritical gall to enact a law that confines in utero human babies to horrific deaths, arguably the 2nd most heinous only to Christ’s crucifixion.