Problem:OPTIONS:
- Attendant
- not enough information
- Greg.
- Dr. Huff.

The bright Sunday morning sun illuminated the stained glass windows, diffusing multi-colored hues across the congregation. Attendance is up today, thought Greg. As the organist was nearing the end of the Prelude, he stepped up to the podium. "Please take your hymnals and turn to page 23, and let's stand and sing 'Holy, Holy, Holy.'" Holy, holy, holy! Lord God Almighty! Early in the morning, our song shall rise to Thee... As Greg sang and conducted the 4/4 pattern, which he could do in his sleep, his mind began to wander. Shouldn't he feel guilty about what he was thinking last night while kissing Cynthia on the couch? His actions had been within the bounds of acceptable behavior. He had nothing to be ashamed of in that regard. But what about his thoughts? It wasn't what he did with Cynthia--it was what he wanted to do. He didn't want to dishonor her or his commitment to God. But his feelings had been only natural. God created humans and gave them sexual desire. Wasn't it okay to want to have sex, as long as you didn't actually do it? Then he remembered the passage from Matthew 5:28. But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. At the end of the hymn, Greg stepped back and Dr. Huff went to the podium and said a prayer. Then there were announcements, two more hymns, and a chorus. After the offering, it was time for the choir to sing their anthem. When Greg motioned to the choir to stand, Cynthia smiled at him from the Alto section. She was so incredibly beautiful. Standing there in her choir robe, she looked like a redheaded angel. If they could just get married, Greg could stop feeling guilty about his desire for her. Question: Who thought that God created humans? === The answer to the above question is
****
A: Greg.

China's Defense Ministry said Thursday that a U.S. decision to disinvite China from a major international maritime exercise is "unconstructive." A ministry statement said despite the decision, China will continue playing a role in "maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region." The United States announced its move Wednesday, saying Beijing's "destabilizing behavior" in the South China Sea is inconsistent with the principles of the U.S.-led drill. "China's continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region," read a statement from Lt. Col. Christopher Logan, a Pentagon spokesman. The statement said that disinviting China from the 2018 RIMPAC is an "initial" response to Beijing's South China Sea activities. It did not specify what other steps may be taken. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China's activity in the South China Sea was for self-defense and that it was a "much smaller scale" than what the United States had done in Hawaii and Guam. "We hope that the U.S. will change such a negative mindset," he said at a joint news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Since 2014, China has taken part in RIMPAC, the world's largest international maritime drill, which is held every two years in Hawaii. It's a reflection of expanding U.S.-China military ties, despite tensions over Beijing's construction of man-made islands in the South China Sea, some of which have been militarized. "We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China's landing bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions," the Pentagon statement said. "We have called on China to remove the military systems immediately and to reverse course on the militarization of disputed South China Sea features," the statement added. "We believe these recent deployments and the continued... Question: Why was China not invited to 2018 RIMPAC? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- They were not willing
- They militarize the Spratly Islands.
- They attacked America
- not enough information
They militarize the Spratly Islands.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- a blog reader
- not enough information
- a critic
- a blog writer
Q: Every so often I see a scenario play out that I find rather disappointing. It works like this: someone posts a topic to their blog that is critical or controversial. This person can either be a community member, commentator, employee or otherwise; it doesn't matter who the person is. Then what happens is a series of comments are posted to that blog entry from readers that are critical of the post, thus challenging the author on their views. The author then either deletes the blog entry or disables the comments based on the feedback. In other words, a viewpoint is shared, an invitation for comment is provided, but that invitation is then revoked when the author of the blog post is dissatisfied with the response from their readers. I have seen this happen countless times over the years and I don't like this. I believe we should all be accountable for our words. Our words have the ability to inspire, to entertain, to challenge, but to also hurt. Actions have consequences, and so do words. As such, when I see someone openly share their thoughts on their blog and invite their readers to provide comments, I see that as a wonderful demonstration of accountability and engagement; debate is a beautiful thing when executed with politeness and respect. To then close that door, seemingly because people disagree with you, is in my mind the equivalent of walking out of a room in the middle of a debate. The excuse when folks are criticized of this behavior is typically "it is my blog and I can run it how I like". This is true: it is your blog, and you can run it how you like, but the true measure of a person is not just in what they say, but also in the conversation and discourse that follows. Question: Who is the author? === The answer to the above question is
Answer:
not enough information