Are primary sources always credible? why or why not?

Just because a source is primary, doesn't always mean that it is credible.  Just as in present day, people and institutions have inherent biases that can potentially render a source unusable for your research.  Intended audience, purpose of material (was it generated for propaganda purposes?), and one-sided viewpoints can indicate whether or not a source is suitable to use.  

because everyone tends to get their feelings hurt if they don't agree with something someone is doing and vice versa. it's a major issue that needs to be dealt with, especially in the christian society. everyone thinks that christians hate gay people, because it is a sin, and christians "just hate everyone who sins and every one is going to hell for sinning"(saying that all in a sarcastic tone but i'm just going to go ahead and tell you why everything with that type of view on christians is wrong.

#1. christians do not hate gay people. and if they do, then that is their own personal problem. christians are not supposed to hate anyone. if you hate a neighbor (or any person basically), then that is as if you are hating jesus.

#2. being gay is in fact a sin according to the holy bible. it is in genesis. and no, the fact that it is a sin, does not mean that god hates you. he is grieved that a person is sinning against his word, but he still loves that person. in fact, christians are supposed to love everyone. we are supposed to love our enemies, but hate the sin they are doing. we love you and respect you, but we do not agree with every decision you make, is basically what i'm trying to say.

hope this you ! (:

mount st. helens in washington erupts, causing a massive avalanche and killing 57 people on this day in 1980. ash from the volcanic eruption fell as far away as minnesota. seismic activity at mount st. helens, which is 96 miles south of seattle, began on march 16.