In addition to a "wealthy man" not getting into heaven, anyone who attempted to gain entry by good works, such as "giving" to the poor was also denied entry. The only way anyone can get to heaven is by God's grace. Thus your point about the wealthy man is 100% irrelevant.

Actually, if a homosexual client comes to a counselor with a psychological concern over his homosexuality, "passing" on that client is an indication that the counselor does NOT consider it a "problem." Counseling that person about his or her homosexuality, on the other hand, confirms that it is a probelm that must be addressed.

"She was asked to get help countering her Xtian biases against gay clients. The state tried to help her get over her Xtianity in that it impeded her ability to be a counselor. Geez." Asked? No, she was required to do so. What's more, she was required to at least "appear" to change her mind. Note it wasn't that she thought homosexuals ware bad, evil, or even immoral-- just that she thought homosexuality wasn't exclusively genetic-- a FACT borne out by scientific and empirical study. As for the state requiring her ("tried to help her get over her Xianity") to change her religious beliefs, isn't that a violation of the 1st Amendment (as modified by the 14th)? Something about the state not interfering with the free exercise of...

Is giving to the poor required in order to attain salvation? No, for "it is by grace you have been saved . . . and this not of yourselves, lest no man should boast." God through Christ GAVE us salvation, with no stipulations, no requirements . If Christ had wanted us to be saved ONLY if we did good works, like giving to the poor, He'd have said so. Instead, He said the opposite: no preconditions for salvation. Forcibly taking my (or anyone else's) property away, even to give a portion to others is not, cannot, never has and never will be defined as "giving" by me (or whoever else's property was taken). "Giving" means I choose who gets it and how much. Being only 1/300,000,000 of the population means that if the government takes...

The Social Justice in AD 33 that Jesus "stood for" was voluntarily loving His fellow man. That meant He advocated giving cheerfully, of our feelings to others individually, of our possessions to others individually, and of our hearts to God by choosing to follow the Law. Note the voluntary aspects of Jesus' teachings. The Social Justice Hal and other Liberal/progressives advocate in 2010 is substantially different. It stands first as identifying a person as a member of a class or category, which is defined by Hal and the other Liberal/progressives as either a victim or an oppressor, regardless of any attitude or action that person has actually had or done. If that person falls into the category of oppressor, he is summarily...

"In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God. . . . the Word became flesh . . ."

Dear Olive: You are the proof of the statement that "97% of all statistics are made up on the spot." The Republican Party is not a monolith as you would label it. Some Republicans are liberal, some are moderate, and some are conservative. As a conservative, I take issue with the moderate and liberal Republicans-- however, the Democratic Party has far more liberals and are more likely to vote in bloc than the Republicans. Your depiction of Ruby Ridge is way off. The FBI sniper missed Weaver and hit his wife, who was behind him, and Weaver didn't shoot a sniper, his 13 year-old son did after they killed his dog. I've never heard anyone call Weaver a hero, but the term victim is very appropriate. The wall the GOP tried to erect was...

"quit presenting yourselves as gun-loving, homophobic, ignorant racists." Just who is alienating whom, David?

I wouldn't trust a doctor who didn't have both a scientific and a literary mind to be able to accurately communicate the problem/illness/injury to the patient and other doctors.

Can't we all good conservatives agree that Otto Bismarke is a Tea Bagger?