?

I've been asked this question. I want to say "read the New Testament", but I feel that's too easy.

Thanks for the help.

If Jesus is one with God or one in the same, why would he say that he was sent and came not of himself? Also, why would he say ask why his father had foresaken him? Wouldn't he know if they were one? And wouldn't it be a lie to say he came not of himself if he and God are one (how could they not been accord)?

I'm not saying atheists can't be moral, but how do they justify it? If we're all just a bunch of molecules in motion and came from nothing, isn't it just preferences? Your opinion vs mine. If we came from nothing, how can we OBJECTIVELY say killing is worse than loving? Wouldn't that just be an opinion? Why would your opinion have more merit or value than someone who does think killing is better?

If there is no objectively law-maker, no objective judge, how can we say the Nazis were wrong? Wouldn't that just be your opinion?

How can we have good, bad, wrong, right, if we evolved from goo? How do we have any standard of right or wrong without a transcendent law giver? Again, wouldn't it just be your preference vs mine?

If you're saying we got here through the evolution of mankind, through the strengths of mankind, why would you help those in need? Or the poor? Wouldn't it be best to weed out the weak? Shouldn't the shallow end of the gene pool be cleared away so the dominant can go on and become what's best for society? If you want to chalk up our existence to evolution, wouldn't it be a bit hypocritical to help those beneath you?

Also, why are you so hostile towards the idea of a God? I've never seen anyone grow furious about unicorns. I've never seen anyone driving around with a fairy bumper sticker and think to myself "it's people like that who are destroying the world." It's weird to have all this pent up animosity towards something you don't think exists.

Thanks!

The LDS Church believes there is a living, modern day prophet on earth today. Is this biblical? Is this necessary?

Thanks!

Mormons believe you need to be a part of this priesthood in order to baptize people. Is this biblical? Or is this only found in the book of Mormon?

Thanks.

Hardly ever do we see wrestlers single out an individual fan like that in the WWE. Sure, it happens during house shows, but that's one of the first times I've seen someone call out a fan like that on a live program.

Punk laid into that guy, hard. The live audience obviously enjoyed it as there were serious cheers and "Cm Punk" chants right afterwards.

So, what did you think of Punk... punking (get it) that fan? Did you think he crossed the line? Or did you find it funny?

Feel free to answer from a kayfabe or non-kayfabe perspective.

This whole storyline is about Daniel Bryan basically not being worthy of that title -- "face of the company". Apparently, they believe that Randy Orton is more deserving and feel he's better suited in that role. They say the company is in better hands with Orton being on top and WWE Champion.

Kayfabe wise, why is this? Isn't Orton the same dude who's been suspended twice for violating WWE's drug policy? Someone who's been suspended for something like that doesn't deserve the glory and praise he's getting from Triple H/Stephanie/Vince.

Again, this is strictly kayfabe. I'm just trying to understand why an unreliable, injury prone performer who's been known to have backstage issues, is all of a sudden "best for business". Wouldn't you want someone who you can count on, someone with no track record, someone who's durable to be leading your company?

And again, Triple H helping the dude who did all those despicable things to his wife and in-laws simply isn't believable. Nobody in their right mind would overlook the wrongs Orton did to Triple H's family/wife because it's "best for business". It's just not believable. And Vince got his head kicked in by Orton and (again kayfabe wise), suffered a serious injury. Orton literally punted Vince in the head, and now he's relying on him to lead his company. Vince knows FIRSTHAND just how unstable Orton is. He knows he that he can snap at any minute and lose it. Yet, again, he's putting all his eggs into the Orton-basket and giving him the keys to the kingdom. How does that make sense?

Let's put it this way, if YOU were looking for someone to run your business, to be the face of what you stood for, would YOU choose someone who punted you in the skull? Would YOU choose someone who's physically attacked a women (your daughter or wife I might add)? Would YOU choose someone who's been busted not once, but twice for substance abuse? More than likely, the person who did those dastardly things would probably be one of the last people you would choose and put your trust in.

No, I'm not 12 years old. No, I don't think wrestling is real. But some kayfabe consistency would be nice. My point is just, this whole storyline is flawed. The art of kayfabe is no where to be found.

What do you think? Do I have a point? Or am I just being a whiner?

I hate to do this, but man, that whole "twist" was crap.

Just a few years ago, Randy Orton (during his "psycho" phase) punted both Shane and Vince and even RKO'd Stephanie. Remember that? It occured on Raw, and after it happened, Triple H rushed to the ring (I believe he was on SD at the time).

This set up a WrestleMania match between the two that actually main evented the freakin' card. The whole feud was on the premise that Triple H wanted revenge for what Orton had done.

Orton even went as far as handcuffing Triple H to the ropes, and forcing him to watch as he DDT'd and kissed her (if you don't believe me, look it up on Youtube).

Now I'm supposed to buy they're cool again? Just like that. Really? In what world does it make sense that Triple H is now helping the guy who punted his in-laws and beat up his wife? If some dude beat up your wife, would you help him? No. If anything, you'd make sure he DIDN'T accomplish what he wanted.

But no, all of a sudden, they're tight again and we're supposed to act like their feud never happened. I hate being treated like I'm 12 and don't remember past events. It's insulting.

Had Orton just cashed in, that's fine. I get that. But the fact that Triple H HELPED him even though Orton did all these despicable things to him and his family is lazy story writing. That's all it is. Lazy.

Your thoughts please?

I hate to do this, but man, that whole "twist" was crap.

Just a few years ago, Randy Orton (during his "psycho" phase) punted both Shane and Vince and even RKO'd Stephanie. Remember that? It occured on Raw, and after it happened, Triple H rushed to the ring (I believe he was on SD at the time).

This set up a WrestleMania match between the two that actually main evented the freakin' card. The whole feud was on the premise that Triple H wanted revenge for what Orton had done.

Orton even went as far as handcuffing Triple H to the ropes, and forcing him to watch as he DDT'd and kissed her (if you don't believe me, look it up on Youtube).

Now I'm supposed to buy they're cool again? Just like that. Really? In what world does it make sense that Triple H is now helping the guy who punted his in-laws and beat up his wife? If some dude beat up your wife, would you help him? No. If anything, you'd make sure he DIDN'T accomplish what he wanted.

But no, all of a sudden, they're tight again and we're supposed to act like their feud never happened. I hate being treated like I'm 12 and don't remember past events. It's insulting.

Had Orton just cashed in, that's fine. I get that. But the fact that Triple H HELPED him even though Orton did all these despicable things to him and his family is lazy story writing. That's all it is. Lazy.

Your thoughts please?

They put him in the Punk-Cena match a few years ago at Summerslam, and they're doing the same thing again. (Kayfabe wise, Triple H actually blew a call that lead to Punk's victory). So how can they say that Triple H will call it right down the middle, when again, kayfabe wise, he's not equipped enough to be referring?

Bryan vs Cena has the chance to be the match of the year, so why does Triple H feel the need to get involved? It's ridiculous. Do I think they'll still put on a great match? Absolutely. But not having an actual ref will hurt the overall quality of the match IMO. Things just aren't as smooth with a special guest referee.

So why include him? Bryan and Cena don't need a special guest ref. Those two alone have done a great job the past few weeks building up this feud.

Is it ego? Can Triple H just not stay out of the spotlight?

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/10-degrees--mike-trou...

I encourage you to read this article..

This is an interesting take on the "valuable" debate. Fans seem to have a hard time deciphering whether the MVP Award goes to the best player, or the most valuable player to his team.

Should salary play a role in the MVP debate? Mike Trout makes up less than 1% of his team's payroll, while Miggy makes up 14%. Getting Trout's production as such a cheap price allows for more flexibility to sign other great players.

So like I originally stated, would you rather have Miggy's production for $21 million this year, or Trout's production for $510K? Does that make Trout more "valuable" to his team? Is Miggy's production $20 million better than Trout's production?

Actually think about this argument before you start blasting it. And honestly, the Tigers have a VERY good record this year when Miguel Cabrera doesn't play. I hate to bring up the WAR argument, but Trout still has a better WAR than Miggy does this year.

Your thoughts?

You can make a case for both guys. Cobb had 80 catches in only his second year, and the Packers lost arguably their top target in the off season. Fitzgerald on the other hand, finally has a competent quarterback now.

Who would you rather have? Remember, PPR league too...

Brian Kenny for the MLB Network thinks we should get rid of the "win" in regards to pitchers.

For example, 33 pitchers currently have more wins than the great Matt Harvey. Isn't it silly to even look at wins when assessing how good a pitcher truly is?

Do we look at wins for relievers? Or do we see if they're getting guys out and preventing runs from scoring? Why don't we do the same with starters?

Isn't a pitchers job to get outs and prevent runs from scoring?

Matt Harvey has been the second best pitcher in baseball, yet 33 pitchers have more W's than him. Weird, right?

I remember a few years ago when Felix won the Cy Young over CC and how much outrage there was with some users in this section. They felt CC deserved it because "you play to win the game."

That argument is silly now, right?

Take Scherzer for example. He's been great. But has he really been FIVE wins better than Harvey? Chris Tillman has FOUR more wins than Harvey. Just crazy!

Do you know there's been instances where a pitcher literally didn't even throw a pitch but got the win? That alone just shows how ridiculous wins are.

Your thoughts?

Kind of an interesting question to think about...

If players were allowed to use PEDs and roids, who do you think would benefit the most?

Would Miguel Cabrera become so good that pitchers wouldn't even want to face him, and basically give him the "Bonds-treatment"?

Or would steroids elevate one's game like Mike Trout or Andrew McCutchen to where they would have zero weaknesses?

Just picture Trout or Cutch on steroids. They're already great at what they do, but imagine them being bigger, stronger, and faster. With steroids, would those two be able to flirt with a 50-50 season? As good as Cabrera is, with roids, he still wouldn't be able to run and play defense the way Trout or Cutch could.

I personally think Miggy would still be the best hitter (I have no reason to think otherwise), but as an overall player, who do you think would be the best if steroids were legalized?

Do any other players come to mind that would be unstoppable if put on roids? Any pitchers even?

And please, this isn't a question about whether or not PEDs should be legalized. It's a question for fun. Use your imagination.

I'm stoked for this match. When paired with the right opponent, Cena can put on some of the best matches WWE has to offer. And what better opponent is there right now than Daniel Bryan?

Just as Cm Punk has brought out the best in Cena, I expect Bryan to do the same. Cena wrestles to the level of his opponent, so I fully expect an amazing match between these two.

Another aspect I'm looking forward to with this is that Cena will likely have the opportunity to control some of the match. One of the biggest gripes fans have about Cena is that he gets beat up 75% of the match, makes a comeback, and wins. Cena's matches are SO much better when he gets to showcase some offense. Take MITB 2011 for example. In that match, we didn't have Cena getting dominated then pulling a "SuperCena" comeback. Cena controlled a good chunk of that bout. With both Bryan and Cena being faces (assuming that doesn't change from now till SS), I think we'll see Cena controlling the pace. When Cena controls the match, we don't get the predictable "SuperCena" comeback.

Lastly, with Bryan, I get the feel that he could actually take the Title away from Cena. I never got that sense from Ryback or Henry. The unpredictability factor makes this match up that much more interesting. Too bad Summerslam is in LA. Their crowds are usually lukewarm. Imagine this match taking place in Chicago or New York!

Regardless though, I can't wait. How about you?

BQ1: Which match are you looking forward to more: Punk vs Lesnar or Cena vs Bryan?

BQ2: I'm sure we'll find out soon enough, but assuming Ziggler takes on Big E at SS, who would you like to see face Del Rio for the World Title?

His performance was great no doubt, but do you think the fans won't take him seriously the next time he wants to retire?

Or do you think when he hangs em up, he'll just kind of disappear? Or will this past Monday's segment have no impact when he truly does retire?

There's so many players who can just flat out hit bombs.

So, who would you choose?

BQ -- For football fans, what do you think of Jimmy Graham being left off NFL Network's top 100 player list even though guys like Heath Miller and Dennis Pitta made it? Kind of silly, right?

Might sound like a stretch, but hear me out.

If Bosh continues to miss open jump shot after open jump shot, the Heat are going to have a real tough time winning this series. The more Bosh struggles, the more his defender can sag off and give help to whoever is guarding Wade and LeBron. So even though LeBron might have been too passive in the 2nd half, can you really fault him that much? After all, Chris Bosh IS wide open.

At least with Rashard Lewis, you have a guy who can hit the 3 ball. He might be a former shell of what he was, but Lewis can still shoot, something Bosh is obviously struggling to do right now. And defensively, is Lewis going to be any worse than Bosh? Probably not.

It might sound odd to bench a guy making that much money, but Bosh is a liability right now. You can't have guys on the floor in crunch time who the defenders don't need to pay attention to.

So, what do you think?

BQ1 -- What other adjustments should Coach Spo make heading into game 2?

Was there ever a time when people asked "who's the best player in the NBA?" and the majority of fans thought it was Tim Duncan?

Does that matter when ranking the best players of all time?

Man, he was incredible flying around the ring and taking out The Shield left and right. WWE didn't even need to use the recorded cheers that they usually use for SmackDown, because the crowd was going absolutely insane for Bryan.

It's pretty rare to see an ENTIRE crowd get behind a wrestler like fans do for Bryan. Everybody loves him. They kept showing the crowd and everyone in the arena was doing the "Yes!" chant. Talk about stealing the show.

What'd you think of his performance?