Whatever one thinks of Obama's stand on "the issues" is irrelevant. He will lose, not on the issues, but because he's a loser. He just doesn't have what it takes to succeed in dark world of politics.

Some say that there are many ways to God, and that all religions teach the same thing. We all know that this is false. Rational examination of various religions leads us to conclude that they don’t all teach the same thing. So if I attend a church which teaches doctrines at odds with what I must necessarily believe if I’ve accepted Christ as my Lord and savior, a non-believing observer would not know what to make of it. My decision, then, would be a well-kept secret. Paul declares “I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation." (Rom.1:16.)

Abortion, especially partial-birth abortion, is a crime against humanity, no less egregious than genocide or slavery. We fought a civil war to rid the Republic of slavery. Perhaps it's time for another. The time for talk is past. As Bismarck once remarked, "the great issues of the day are resolved not by parliaments and debates, but by blood and and iron."

While there may be redemption in religion, there is none in politics. Once a nation allows a practice like abortion to become law, it incurs the wrath of God, sooner or later. And it will do no good to say, "but we didn't know!" This is NOT an issue on which reasonable people can disagree, any more than slavery or genocide are issues on which reasonable people can disagree. Anyone who is pro-abortion (there's no such thing as "pro-choice") disqualifies himself for high office, ipso facto. It makes no difference where he stands "on the issues." THIS is THE ISSUE. It attests to our lack of ability to think critically that so many Americans can't see this.

It's in the realm of soteriology, I think, that sola scriptura must be accepted in its most uncompromising form. It is from Scripture alone, not intuition, not reason, not direct "experience," nor from any other source that our knowledge of God is derived. It's all too easy in our God talk to allow intuition and cultural biases to get in by the back door. When we assert that "God is good" or "God is just," then "goodness" and "justice" when predicated of God mean just what Scripture says they mean, and nothing else. It may be that at times we find it hard to reconcile passages in Scripture with each other. But we must keep in mind that God has revealed to us only what He has deemed it necessary for us to know about Himself, not everything there is to know. If there are gaps in our knowledge, so be it. Order and tidiness are demands of reason, not of Scripture and not of revelation.

I wasn't aware that the translators of the KJV and the NIV used different manuscripts; I thought they all used the same ones except that the translators of the later versions had more manuscripts available. But then I may be wrong. I defer to your better knowledge of the subject. Please tell me more.

The Eastern Orthodox churches also adopt a literal interpretation of "This is my body." But they accept it as a mystery, and don't feel compelled to subject it to rational scrutiny. If the meaning is as straightforward as you're suggesting, then why does the Roman Church find it necessary to "explain" it by resorting to a spurious doctrine like "transubstantiation?" Have you found that in the Bible as well? You're also committing yourself to a literalist hermeneutic, but you seem unwilling in practice to apply it consistently.

The best commentary is the one you write yourself in the course of reading and studying the Word. Can you be mistaken? Sure! But who ever said that reading the Bible should be easy?
"Omnia praeclara tam difficilia quam rara sunt."

That both believers and non-believes do and have done bad things to people is a matter of record. My question to the atheist is this: why is it that when Christians do bad things, it's because they are Christians, but when atheists do bad things, it's in spite of the fact that they are atheists?