Matthew here. The very ugly reality is that any American president or potential president is soaked in blood. It is war and pillage and avarice on the right or abortion and gender confusion on the left. The only way to serve your neighbor is by loving him with your life and service and renouncing the blood soaked politicians. Just one example should suffice- the pro life candidate in the 90s was GWBush- the man responsible for two wars and millions of deaths. If we took your logic above in this case we would be responsible for the fountains of blood in Iraq and Afghanistan ostensibly to "protect the innocent" and "for the good of our fellow man". It just doesn't work. But loving and serving the people in your local community does work and save and serves real lives not hypothetical guess work at who is responsible for more bloodshed and trying to pick the less bloodshed guys. Thanks for listening.

I sincerely appreciate your response. I'm so in the fence. I've seen witnessed abortion and it's horrific. Josh said in the debate that neither Hillary nor Trump would affect Roe v Wade, but he was wrong. And because Trump was in office, at least 7 states now have a total ban on abortion. So many babies and women were saved. I think about Stephen Douglas being elected instead of Lincoln. My ancestors would have stayed in slavery longer. Whether believers vote or not, somebody is going to be elected into office, and it's going to affect us, the innocent, and those who have not come to Christ, yet.

@@veronicamoore5560 the lesson for me is that both sides of the political spectrum are shedders of innocent blood. Trillions of dollars of defense spending is not for looks. They all have it and they all use it and it is patently unchristian. But even if some good were done even in a net result calculation- the ends do not justify the means. For us, the people of God, how and why we do things is as important as what we do. And we the people of Jesus the followers of the prince of peace can never co-opt violence and coercion even in the name of doing some earthly good. If you hate abortion, as we all should, work with women at risk of doing it. Work together with your community to alleviate the causes of abortion, not just dismiss it into the political realm. A great example of a grass roots ministry doing exactly this is in our sister community in Kampala Uganda- where abortion is both illegal and very common for young women- check it out here: www.his-image-ministries.com

We don’t have much time to respond to comments as there are so many on our videos, but this is worth a response. We see Jesus welcoming the children and rebuking the disciples for thinking they are more important than the children. We aim and hope to always welcome the children- disruptive or otherwise- in our services. We would far prefer catering to a family environment than our online content. If you can’t receive a blessing take comfort that the children are loved and respected and did receive a blessing.

children are always welcome in our services. They are far more important than online audiences.

It doesn't appove anything!

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

lol, I hope you are joking

@@robertmiller812 I am. 😄

Saints must be filled with Holy Spirit and the word then they will be able to discern wht is pleasant and acceptable to God