Archaeologist Believes Remains of Sodom’s Fiery Destruction Have Been Found

Tall E-Hammam-compressedALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – An experienced archaeologist who has spent a decade searching for the ancient ruins of Sodom is now confident that his team has located the ill-fated biblical city and evidence of its sudden destruction.

Dr. Steven Collins is a distinguished professor of Archaeology at Trinity Southwest University in Albuquerque and is also dean of the school’s College of Archaeology & Biblical History. In addition to writing dozens of scholarly books and journal articles, Collins frequently visits the Middle East, where he participates in ongoing archaeological research.

Since 2005, Collins has led excavations in the southern Jordan Valley in an attempt to find Sodom—the ancient city that was destroyed by God because of its sinful inhabitants, according to Genesis 19. Collins says he began his research by “analyzing the Biblical text regarding the location of Sodom.”

His investigation led him to conclude that one site in particular fit well within the biblical criteria. The site is named Tall el-Hammam, and it located in the southern Jordan River Valley, nine miles northeast of the Dead Sea.

“Tall el-Hammam seemed to match every Sodom criterion demanded by the text,” he said, according to a 2013 report in “Popular Archaeology.” “Theorizing, on the basis of the Sodom texts, that Sodom was the largest of the Kikkar (the Jordan ‘Disk,’ or ‘well-watered plain’ in the biblical text) cities east of the Jordan, I concluded that if one wanted to find Sodom, then one should look for the largest city on the eastern Kikkar that existed during the Middle Bronze Age, the time of Abraham and Lot. When we explored the area, the choice of Tall el-Hammam as the site of Sodom was virtually a no-brainer since it was at least five to ten times larger than all the other Bronze Age sites in the entire region, even beyond the Kikkar of the Jordan.”

Collins says the Tall el-Hammam site was mostly untouched by scholars when his team began conducting research there 10 years ago. When they began digging, they found remains of elaborate city infrastructure, including gates, towers, plazas, at least one roadway, and a thick city wall. From all indications, the site was once a thriving, influential city-state with a strategic location and a powerful economy.

But then, disaster struck.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Based on the excavated evidence, the city’s Bronze Age heyday seems to have nevertheless come to a sudden, inexplicable end toward the end of the Middle Bronze Age—and the ancient city became a relative wasteland for 700 years, for the most part void of human habitation,” reported “Popular Archaeology” last week.

In what experts describe as an “occupational hiatus,” the Tall el-Hammam site was evidently abandoned for centuries. As the researchers work to piece together the clues, Collins says his team has identified a distinct layer of ash at the site that dates back to the Middle Bronze period. The ash could be evidence of a fiery destruction, much like the one described in Genesis 19. Pottery shards that were exposed to extremely high temperature levels have been recovered from the site—another potential indication of a fiery disaster.

Is Tall el-Hammam indeed Sodom? Collins is increasingly confident that it is.

“Its massive size and remarkable fortifications, the monumental gateway, its attending satellite towns, and its violent, fiery destruction, all scream ‘Sodom,’” he says. “It’s compelling.”

Photo: Popular-Archaeology.com


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • DNelson

    Isn’t it wonderful that we live in a country where people are able to come together to share their views?

    “As citizens and as patriots of America we cannot support nor obey the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex-marriage,”

    Oh, the poor dears. They must think that the SCOTUS ruling requires that they marry someone of the same gender. I hope someone clears that up for them.

    “As Christians we do not hate homosexual people but we must stand where God stands regarding sin.”

    So I assume they also discussed making it illegal for people who have been divorced for reasons other than adultery to marry. They probably also spent time discussing how it should be illegal for people to worship a god other than the Christian god. Surely someone who spoke talked about making it illegal for citizens to have sexual relations outside of marriage. I guess their wasn’t room in the article to cover the comments about making divorce, except in cases of adultery, illegal. Odd I didn’t see any quotes about putting limits on free speech so that people aren’t allowed to take the Christian god’s name in vain.

    But of course I’m sure they support making all those changes to our laws. After all, they “must stand where God stands regarding sin”, so if they stand against the legality of same-gender marriage based upon “where God stands”, then they surely must stand against the legality of those other things, right? If they don’t, then they are nothing more than hypocrites which, by their own criteria, means their speeches that show their hypocrisy should be illegal, for “where God stands” on hypocrisy is quite clear.

    • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

      If you can’t obey the laws then leave the country

      • James Von Borcke

        I have nothing to add to this string of the discussion… I just wanted to give a nod of recognition to my fellow Nordesman.

      • Bezukhov

        Where did Jesus or any other New Testament writer tell Christians to seize political power and impose laws on everyone else?

      • MarcoPolo

        What laws has DNelson broken that would warrant his deportation?
        And don’t you agree that America is a free country that welcomes all sorts of wretched masses?

    • Margi

      We all sin daily. You just did a great job of it. If a person has sinned and they truly repent then God is faithful to forgive them. A homosexual who intends to continue in their relationship cannot be forgiven. If they finally accept Jesus as their Savior at this point their sins are forgiven. God will clean them up to make them a great testimony to Him, but they will not continue in their same sex relationship. We may move away for God and fall back into our sin, but the Holy Spirit is going to constantly remind us that we are sinning. We can only receive forgiveness when we are giving up our sin. We can even be forgiven for divorcing an abusive spouse. God never intended us to be in that kind of relationship. The Bible says, ” Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Eph. 5:25 (KJV) If men would treat their wives in such a manner there would be no divorce. There are many sins out there that there were once laws against. Two people just living together used to be against the law, but through the years we have slowly removed all the ‘blue laws.’ I take a stand against sin knowing that I am going to have to be begging for forgiveness in just a few minutes. And thankfully praying is not yet illegal in my home.

      • DNelson

        “We all sin daily.”

        That would depend on how one defines “sin”. While you are certainly free to believe that “we all sin daily”, that is merely a function of your belief system.

        Please explain how any of what you posted is relevant to the hypocrisy of those who support laws banning same-gender marriage based upon Biblical passages (although the Bible says NOTHING about same-gender marriage) but are not also up in arms about other sins not being illegal.

        • Matthew T. Mason

          Hey, you degenerate vegetable, you really think morality is defined by individual choice?

          All over the world, there are buildings full of people who believe just as you.

          They’re called prisons.

          • Jim H

            Degenerate vegetable? That ad hom pretty well destroyed any hope you had of intellectual credibility.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            But is it factually inaccurate?

          • Jim H

            I don’t see how it could be. A vegetable couldn’t type comments on a keyboard, and would be incapable of being a degenerate. A vegetable pretty well just sits, or lies, there.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Since in this case we’re speaking of someone with severe brain damage, I ask again, is it factually inaccurate?

          • Jim H

            If someone were severely brain damaged to the point that they would appropriately be described as a “vegetable”, they would not be able to type. So, calling someone who can type a vegetable would be factually inaccurate.

            However, it might cause some questions concerning the condition of the brain of the person who continues to claim otherwise.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            If someone were severely brain damaged to the point that they would
            appropriately be described as a “vegetable”, they would not be able to
            type. So, calling someone who can type a vegetable would be factually
            inaccurate.

            I believe anyone who actually says and believes morality is defined by individual choice to be a degenerate vegetable. You have a problem with that? That’s just what it is.

            Will you keep defending that gross stupidity until someone decides it’s morally right to shoot you in the head and take your car? Because like it or not, that is what DIY morality means.

            Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.

          • Jim H

            “I believe anyone who actually says and believes morality is defined by individual choice to be a degenerate vegetable. You have a problem with that? That’s just what it is.”

            I have no problem with you making comments that make you sound like a low browed knuckle dragger. As I said in my first post your first use of that ad hom pretty well destroyed any hope you had of intellectual credibility. Everything else you have said only serves to support that assertion.

            “Will you keep defending that gross stupidity until someone decides it’s morally right to shoot you in the head and take your car? Because like it or not, that is what DIY morality means.”

            I haven’t even mentioned the opinion of the person, much less defend it. I likely wouldn’t with you because your comments don’t make it seem that you are capable of intelligently discussing ethical theories. I just commented on your juvenile, sophomoric name calling.

            “Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.”

            I prefer Merriam-Webster, which , Noah Webster first published in 1806, as a Compendious Dictionary of the English Language. It was the first truly American dictionary.

            The first Funk & Wagnalls dictionary was first published as A Standard Dictionary of the English Language in 1893, which was 87 years after Webster’s.
            Just call me a sentimental traditionalist.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            I call you a moron who has failed basic reading comprehension and Debate 101.

            You have impressed absolutely no one here, and so I leave you to stew in your own gross stupidity. Have a nice day.

          • Jim H

            “I call you a moron who has failed basic reading comprehension and Debate 101.”

            That is pretty funny coming from an idiot who uses nothing but ad hominem attacks and thinks its a debate.

            “You have impressed absolutely no one here”

            And you have? I’m sorry, but most of your friends on the short bus can probably barely read and no one with an IQ above that would even take you seriously. I don’t expect to impress you. You have not struck me as even bright enough to understand what I am saying. So I leave you to stew in your own gross stupidity.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            Yes, as a matter of fact, I have impressed people here, because I come to the table with an understanding of certain things, some of which neither you nor that brain dead git DNelson can grasp.

            Who cares if I go ad hominem? I call things as I see them, and again, that’s your problem if you don’t like it. Not mine, not anyone else’s. I do not suffer fools, especially those who will 1) Defend the Planned Parenthood videos, 2) Try to take away my constitutional right to express my faith wherever and whenever I bloody well please or 3) Espouse and defend DIY morals.

            I already demonstrated how the latter type of thinking can be put into practice, but you decided to ignore it, and now you have the audacity to say I am the one that’s being stupid.

            Before you call other people stupid, make bloody sure you remove every mirror from your home, get it?

            This conversation is over. The debate is over. You lost. Now bugger off.

          • Jim H

            If you have impressed people here, it can only be because they like shallow word bytes they don’t need to think about, like “you are a degenerate vegetable”. Your comments are to intelligent discussion, what toilet jokes are to sophisticated humor.

            Saying: “Before you call other people stupid, make bloody sure you remove every mirror from your home, get it?” is about as smart as “I know you are but what am I?”, but its stupidity was actually funny when Pee Wee said it. Your stupidity wasn’t.

            This isn’t Iraq and you are not George Bush. It doesn’t work for you to declare victory and go home. It actually didn’t work for him either, as his brother is finding out.

            This has never been a debate. I told your comments lacked intellectual credibility. Your responses have repeatedly and increasingly showed how very correct I was.

            You may call them as you see them, but when a view is as myopic as yours, that would certainly not be something to brag about.

            I don’t care if you go away mad. I’m just pleased you are going away. You were nothing but a waste of the (small) effort I put into my comments.

            I’d tell you to go bugger yourself, but your head is already up your arse. so its a bit crowded up there already.

          • David Morales

            I ( and pretty much everybody else ) surely agree, That Jim H spanked the evil out of you! LOL! Show some respect for your elders son. Because we sure are impressed!! You live in denial son.

          • Matthew T. Mason

            You should speak only for yourself, son.

          • DNelson

            “you really think morality is defined by individual choice?”

            Every person chooses their views as to what is moral and what is not. Often those views are based on various writings, but the choice of which to follow is most certainly an individual one.

            You seem to be suggesting that morals can be forced on people. How would that be possible? If morality is not an individual choice, why is there not universal agreement as to what is moral and what is not? Even without the Christian faith – using the same book as their basis – there is not agreement as to the totality of what is moral and what is not.

      • EDBroker

        And Jesus calls remarried divorcees adulterers in Mark 10:11,12. Adulterers sit right next to homosexuals in 1Cor. 6:9,10 in a list of sinners who, “will have no share in the Kingdom of God…Do not be deceived.” So, tell me again about sinners continuing in their sin not being able to be saved? Some sins are just swept under the church carpet instead. But,
        “As it is written, None is righteous, just and truthful and upright and conscientious, no, not one.” (Romans 3:10) “…in fact, all the world stand hushed and guilty before Almighty God.” (Rom. 3:19)

      • EDBroker

        Margi, if remarried divorcees, whom Jesus calls adulterers in Mark 10:11,12, “intend to continue in their relationship [then they] cannot be forgiven.” Does THAT make sense to you? We ALL continue in one sin or another all the time. Homosexuals cannot help feeling their attractions any more than heterosexuals can help feeling their attractions. Sexual/romantic feelings are embedded in the autonomic nervous system. Pupils dilate at the sight of sexually exciting stimuli. Because of this they cannot be forgiven? Should remarried divorcees live in celibacy so THEY can be forgiven? If anyone could completely and honestly keep from sinning, then we would not need Christ to save us. “For Moses wrote that if a person could be perfectly good and hold out against temptation all his life and never sin once, only then could he be pardoned and saved.” (Romans 10:5)
        “And the person who keeps every law of God, but makes one little slip, is just as guilty as the person who has broken every law there is.” (James 2:10)

    • EDBroker

      Never forget that homosexual acts are NOT the ONLY sin in the Bible! You commit an abomination every time you eat shrimp. Now what are we going to do? God says, “Oy! Do I have a plan for you! And it has nothing to do with yourself being good enough to be saved!”

  • Homer for God

    Unlike my misguided, blind friend below…I say PRAISE GOD and all HIS glory as well as the first amendment rights and defense of it. I’m speaking of the true defence, not the establishment clause bs they try to shove down our throats. The WORD of GOD will speak true in the end and that is the straight and narrow path I follow. I will still pray with love and Glory to the ones that choose the broad and wide path that they can be saved before its too late.
    Time is short, the end will happen, and judgement will be upon.
    God Bless

    • James Von Borcke

      “…not the establishment clause bs they try to shove down our throats.”

      You mean the Establishment Clause that our Founding Fathers wrote?

      Well, glad to see at least ~one~ so-called Christian has the courage and honesty to admit that their faith is, at its core, anti-American. About time one of you traitors fessed up. After all, it’s no secret that today’s flavor of Conservative Christianity is little more than a Neo-Confederate front.

  • Nadine Faber

    I believe a lot of the laws, policies and regulations being created are intended to destroy and restrict our rights, freedoms, choices….by those who don’t want Christianity to exist in our Nation … want a government to take God’s place…an anything go place with no moral compass…we are heading that direction and hope Godly people, Americans at all levels and interests and beliefs…who do not agree which is why they are rising up…hope it is not too late.

    • David

      The ruling on gay marriage should not affect the lives of most Christians at all. Does it in any way impede your right to worship? Does it in any way change a Christian Marriage?
      People like to cherry pick the parts of the bible that they believe in, choosing the parts that agree with their preconceived notions and ignoring the rest. Do these people condemn divorce? Do they condemn adultery? Do they condemn the eating of shellfish or pork? Do they condemn wearing clothes of more than one type of cloth? No, they ignore those parts of the bible completely. That makes them hypocrites.

      • Becky

        Another bible scholar. You should bring up laws…”clothes of more than one cloth”…that you actually understand.

        • David

          Leviticus 19:19
          “You must obey all my decrees. “Do not mate two different kinds of
          animals. Do not plant your field with two different kinds of seed. Do
          not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of thread.

          I was raised in a catholic family, I have gone to Sunday School and CCD, I have read and understand the bible. But I also have parents who encouraged independent thought and encouraged me to go and find my own spirituality.

          • Dave_L

            A lot of the rules you mention were symbolic and used to teach Israel separation from the world and various truths. (They weren’t big readers). As was the Tabernacle and Temple, all highly symbolic. A little research might clear things up for you. You can usually determine the weight of an Old Testament Law by the penalty it carried. Thus a more severe penalty for homosexuality than other violations.

          • DNelson

            Like eating shell fish?

          • Dave_L

            Unclean animals represented unclean gentiles. See Acts 10:11–17

          • DNelson

            Ahhhh….yes….a Christian’s best friend….selective interpretation.

          • Dave_L

            No, just using Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is standard practice.

          • DNelson

            Yes, quite standard. Probably explains why the various sects of Christianity can’t come agreement as to the correct interpretation of the Bible, yet some still believe that it should be used as a basis for civil law.

          • Dave_L

            Please point out the disagreements.

          • James Von Borcke

            “Please point out the disagreements.”

            Up near the top–at this point in the conversation, that is–someone rants about people not using terms like ‘God-Jesus’ and such to indicate that God and Jesus are the same being.

            I can state clearly and without reservation that this doctrine was rejected by my branch of Christianity when it was invented 1900 years ago in order to place more temporal power in the hands of the priests. See, the priests at that time were more like librarians and candle makers; the original Christians didn’t have need for authoritative teaching, as the standard approach was for individuals to discuss and debate the issues–what most now call Gnosticism. But the invention of an hierarchy, which began in Heaven with God and worked down to mortal men through Jesus, provided the basis for an entrenched political priesthood. Thus, Christianity went from being a form of individualist spirituality to being the conformist religion with laws regarding orthodoxy that we have today.

            Now, if I and he–the poster above–can’t agree on who/what Jesus is, then we aren’t likely going to agree about much else.

            My advise: Stop identifying yourself as “Christian”; people used to identify by sect, which explained quickly what that person actually believed, where as “I’m a Christian” can literally mean just about anything, and therefore means nothing.

          • Dave_L

            In Scripture Christian = disciple. So the term “Christian” means something specific to those who define it with the Bible. It also sheds light on “non-disciples” who call themselves “Christian”.

            “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26)

          • James Von Borcke

            I’m sorry, but are you under the impression that I need a lesson on scripture? Well, I do somewhat, when people quote Saul at least, his being a false prophet that my sect rejected 1900 years ago. I’ve never had cause to study him, other than to see when and why his deceit causes damage, which is quite extensive.

            That said, we define Christian as those who turn to the ministry of Jesus for guidance and inspiration. When that is the measure of a Christian, it is ~immediately~ evident who’s a Christian and who just wants to wear the name.

          • John_33

            “We Christians”? You state that you’re a Satanist online.

          • James Von Borcke

            I stated that my philosophy is considered Satanic because it requires people to be responsible for their own actions. It is ~also~ considered Satanic because we accept the scientific method over the primitive belief in Genesis or any other creation mythos. It is ~also~ considered Satanic because we reject group think. It is ~also~ considered Satanic because we hold that humanity is on an upward spiral towards greater spiritual enlightenment, which is reflected in our ever increasing understanding of the cosmos and ourselves. It can be considered Satanic for many reasons, although conversely none of those reasons involve a rejection of Jesus, though we laugh at the Old Testament, reject Saul as a heretic and liar, and dismiss Revelations as the ramblings of a madman that inspired some cool movies and music but otherwise has caused nothing but problems.

            Strangely enough, we also reject the existence of Satan as an entity, but rather as a role: The Accuser, The Adversary.

            For instance, I see nothing here but a bunch of bigots crying over their supposed loss of freedom to impose that bigotry through our laws, in violation of both the teachings of Jesus ~and~ the Constitution. That being the case, I am ~very much~ the Accuser and Adversary in this discussion, and most discussions on this site, much as Jesus had been the Accuser and Adversary when he purged the temple of money lenders.

            Now… Am I a Christian? Yes. I have personally experienced the spiritual reality that is Christ, and that existence is very much a part of me, and always will be. And while that experience made the ~ministry~ of Jesus central to my thinking, that centrality also exposed the ugliness that is America’s ‘born again’ movement which condones humanity’s most base impulses–such as ignorance, fear, bigotry, and shame–for its own political purposes, providing a dime store version of salvation to serve as a carrot while threatening eternal damnation as a stick.

            When Thomas Paine wrote The Age of Reason, it was said that he was saving God from the Christians; In that regard, I’d now like to see Christ saved from those same Christians.

            Then again, Jesus said many would praise his name but few would live the life; that should give ~anyone~ that’s part of a majority religion reason to pause and consider.

          • John_33

            You can’t be a Christian and a Satanist. You are either on God’s side or you are not. Jesus said that only those who continue in His word are His disciples. While you claim to hold to Jesus’ teachings, your words contradict them. You also laugh at the Old Testament, which Jesus reverently called the Word of God. That’s not the mark of a Christian but of one who opposes Jesus.

          • James Von Borcke

            “You can’t be a Christian and a Satanist.”
            If you believe in the closet-monster-in-red-pajamas version of Satan, then no, you can’t be a Christian and a Satanist; New Testament mythos hold that these two ~entities~ are active opponents.

            If, on the other hand, you see Satan as a ~philosophical symbol~ of self reliance, individuality, reason, intellect and personal achievement, then yes, you can be a Satanist and a Christian.

            Your position presumes that there’s a boogie man hiding in the shadows; I’m not possessed by such infantile fears.

            My sect of Christianity is 1900 years old; yours is the result of countless revisions written by self serving priests over the centuries in order to shape or conform to the political landscape of the times. It should, then, be clearly obvious why I don’t take your theological theories all that seriously.

          • John_33

            No, Satan is not a boogeyman hiding behind every rock or tree. He’s simply a fallen angel that Jesus spoke about. If you really followed Jesus’ teachings as you claimed you do, then you would believe that part as well, but you have made it clear that you don’t believe or follow any part of the Bible as real Christians do.

            Jesus defined who His followers are in John 8:31 when He said, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.” It’s not enough to claim to be a Christian – one must continue in Jesus’ words by believing them and consistently keeping them. God’s people do not symbolize their beliefs by naming them after a rebellious angel. They name their beliefs after the One who gave Himself for them and died for them to set them free – the holy name of Jesus Christ. You can claim to be a Christian, but by Jesus’ definition, you are not one.

          • James Von Borcke

            “If you really followed Jesus’ teachings as you claimed you do, then you would believe that part as well, but you have made it clear that you don’t believe or follow any part of the Bible as real Christians do.”

            Like I said, my sect is 1900 years old; we have a set of Gospels, which we believe to be reasonably unadulterated, unlike the Bible you believe in, which has been ~proven~ to have been revised, altered, edited, abridged, mis-translated and revised again for political purposes again and again and again and again.

            Your sect, I’m guessing, is post-Reformation, likely with a preference for the King James version, which means that your bible is around the twelfth or thirteenth rewrite, designed to validate the rise of European aristocrats operating independently of Rome for the first time in centuries, as well as reinforce the existence of a serf caste to serve the rich, and also the rise of antisemitism in Europe… That is to say, you are following Martin Luther’s interpretation of a the political religion that was created by Saul to hijack Christianity during the second half of the 1st Century CE.

            That also means that you likely only have four Gospels in your Bible: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, with the other Gospels replaced by Saul’s religion and “Saint” John’s insane ramblings.

            So go ahead and use terms like “real Christians”; Given that you likely have no clue what the that means, it amuses me.

          • John_33

            Your entire post is a red-herring since it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, namely, your adherence to Satanism while claiming to be a Christian. I’ll answer your accusation despite it being a red herring. God preserved His Word just as He promised He would.

            I find your criticisms so ironic. Weren’t you happily quoting verses from the four Gospels hours ago on this website? Now you claim that they are in error and that you have different gospels (I wonder what Paul would have said about that? – Galatians 1:6-11). Which is it? Do you believe in the authenticity of the four Gospels or are you now rejecting those too?

            Perhaps you’re referring to Gnosticism when you refer to your ‘sect,’ but whatever it is, it’s certainly not what Jesus lived and taught.

          • James Von Borcke

            “God preserved His Word just as He promised He would.”
            If your Bible contains the word “Version” in the title, it isn’t preserved; you’re just gullible.

            “Weren’t you happily quoting verses from the four Gospels hours ago on this website?”
            I have no problem with the Fab Four… We just have a few more.

            “I wonder what Paul would have said about that?”
            Of course you care about what Saul said; he’s the true inventor of your religion, not Jesus.

            “Do you believe in the authenticity of the four Gospels or are you now rejecting those too?”
            I have not once said anything negative about the Gospels; if you can’t comprehend what I’ve written, I suggest you find someone else to debate with… Someone that hasn’t graduated Junior High should be about your speed.

            “Perhaps you’re referring to Gnosticism…”
            Good job; was wondering when you were going to finally break down and hit Google.

            And if you chose to look further into it, you’ll see that we were around long before Catholicism, which most other forms of Christianity–including yours–are derived from.

            We were at the Library of Alexandria before Roman Christians burned it down and murdered Hypatia. We were in Jerusalem when it was an open city shared by Jew, Christian and Muslim alike. We were present during the the 12th Century Renaissance, then in the Italian Renaissance two hundred years later. We encouraged the advancement of art and philosophy, gave passage to the Masons, promoted the scientific method and hearkened the dawn of the Age of Reason, and sang praises to the ideals of life, liberty and freedom that eventually gave birth to our nation, planting the seeds of democracy which have only just begun to produce their fruit.

            In other words, if you appreciate not being a serf tending some aristocrat’s pigs who looks upon those who can read and write as if they were some kind of wizard, you can thank ~us~ for that.

            “…it’s certainly not what Jesus lived and taught.”
            Says the guy that has to continuously quote Saul to prove his points.

            Funny how you quote Saul yet I quote Jesus… But ~you~ are the “real Christian”, right? Yeah… Keep going with that. I’m sure it’s worked wondrously so far.

          • John_33

            I have no problem with the Fab Four… We just have a few more.

            If that was really true, then you wouldn’t deny the existence of Satan or Hell since the Gospels refer to both. Paul warned in Galatians 1:6-11 that there are false gospels, and that’s what you have.

            Of course you care about what Saul said; he’s the true inventor of your religion, not Jesus.

            I care about the entire Word of God, and I will continue to freely quote from any part of it regardless of how it makes you feel. If that bothers you, then you can disengage anytime from the conversation.

            I have not once said anything negative about the Gospels; if you can’t comprehend what I’ve written, I suggest you find someone else to debate with… Someone that hasn’t graduated Junior High should be about your speed.

            Actually you did, whether you meant to or not. Read again what you were responding to. You quoted where I was referencing what Jesus said in the Gospels about Satan being an actual being, and you responded by replying that your sect had a set of gospels that were “reasonably unadulterated” compared to my Bible. The Gospels are part of the Bible.

            Good job; was wondering when you were going to finally break down and hit Google.

            I’m already familiar with it. Its teachings has its roots in Platonic thought; whereas, the Gospels come from the Old Testament. Since you admit to laughing at the Old Testament (and to being a Gnostic), you can’t possibly believe in the four Gospels. They quote the Old Testament as Scripture and identify the God of the Old Testament as the God of the Gospels. Gnostics don’t worship the same God as Christians do.

            And if you chose to look further into it, you’ll see that we were around long before Catholicism, which most other forms of Christianity–including yours–are derived from.

            My Christianity comes from Jesus Christ Himself. That predates Gnosticism by 100 years.

            In other words, if you appreciate not being a serf tending some aristocrat’s pigs who looks upon those who can read and write as if they were some kind of wizard, you can thank ~us~ for that.

            Not true, but even if all of what you said was correct, you would still be living in sin without God. Jesus said that even if you gained the entire world but lost your soul, you wouldn’t have gained anything. Even if you managed to build paradise on earth, you’d still die and end up in Hell for rejecting Christ’s offer of salvation, and although you deny the existence of Hell, Jesus warned about it in the Gospels. You either believe in the Gospels or you don’t, and you demonstrated that you actually don’t.

          • James Von Borcke

            “If that was really true, then you wouldn’t deny the existence of Satan or Hell since the Gospels refer to both.”
            Your opinion about what I should or should not believe is irrelevant. Google “Archetype”; Educate yourself, man.

            “I care about the entire Word of God…”
            I’m sure you do. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you actually ~have~ the Word of God. Rather, you have the words of Saul and a bunch of camel humping savages who thought the world was flat and that every species of animal boarded a boat two-by-two.

            “Actually you did…”
            No, I did not. My problem is with your bastardized versions. The Gospels are just fine by me, and if you could comprehend my posts you’d know that already.

            “They quote the Old Testament as Scripture and identify the God of the
            Old Testament as the God of the Gospels.”
            I see you’ve spent a few minutes more on Wikipedia. What, 15? 20 minutes perhaps? Well done.

            One does not have to ~believe~ in the OT to understand the Gospels; one can ~understand~ the talking snake archetype without the belief that there ~was~ a literal talking snake.

            Only children and the childish believe that nonsense.

            “Gnostics don’t worship the same God as Christians do.”
            See, Wikipedia fails you again… We’ve evolved. Y’know, all that knowledge and science stuff that you Biblical literalists throw hissy fits over because the modern world scares you. This expansion of knowledge has given us a view of God more akin to Deism–may have even led to Deism–with the understanding that ‘Demiurge’ was simply a catch-all for bad things that couldn’t be explained at the time but are understood now.

            You, on the other hand, are clinging to a definition of God invented by barbarians that raped camels and sold women. Go figure.

            “My Christianity comes from Jesus Christ Himself.”
            And yet you quote Saul whenever Jesus doesn’t provide support for your cherished prejudices, which is always good for a laugh.

            “You either believe in the Gospels or you don’t, and you demonstrated that you actually don’t.”
            I do, just not the uber-ultra-extra-super-revised hand picked by politicians versions you cling to.

            But thanks for warning me about Hell again… It’s always refreshing when someone attempts to inflict the same spiritual terrorism on me that they themselves have submitted to. It reveals how much their faith is, at its core, really about fear and cowardice more than anything else.

          • Guest

            You do realize that repeating yourself doesn’t make it true, right, James?

          • John_33

            Your opinion about what I should or should not believe is irrelevant. Google “Archetype”; Educate yourself, man.

            It’s basic logic. If you claim to follow Jesus’ teachings, then you are claiming to believe what Jesus said. This includes the existence of Hell and Satan. It’s not that complicated.

            I’m sure you do. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you actually ~have~ the Word of God. Rather, you have the words of Saul and a bunch of camel humping savages who thought the world was flat and that every species of animal boarded a boat two-by-two.

            …Or I really do have the Word of God and it bothers you. I thought you claimed to be a Christian? Now you’re attacking the Bible. Hmm…

            No, I did not. My problem is with your bastardized versions. The Gospels are just fine by me, and if you could comprehend my posts you’d know that already.

            So you pick and choose whatever doctrines you like to suit your preferences. OK…

            One does not have to ~believe~ in the OT to understand the Gospels; one can ~understand~ the talking snake archetype without the belief that there ~was~ a literal talking snake.

            Only children and the childish believe that nonsense.

            You’re trying to change the topic again. Need I remind you that you said you followed Jesus’ teachings? Now you’re arguing that the Gospels (the ones you claim you support) quote severely flawed books as sacred holy texts from God. You obviously don’t believe in any of the Bible, and that’s because Gnostics hate God and His Word.

            You, on the other hand, are clinging to a definition of God invented by barbarians that raped camels and sold women. Go figure.

            Again with the camels…I’m not even going to comment any further on that…

            See, Wikipedia fails you again… We’ve evolved. Y’know, all that knowledge and science stuff that you Biblical literalists throw hissy fits over because the modern world scares you. This expansion of knowledge has given us a view of God more akin to Deism–may have even led to Deism–with the understanding that ‘Demiurge’ was simply a catch-all for bad things that couldn’t be explained at the time but are understood now.

            For being an “evolved” Gnostic, you sound a lot like your predecessors (Hint: my knowledge of Gnosticism goes far beyond Wikipedia).

            And yet you quote Saul whenever Jesus doesn’t provide support for your cherished prejudices, which is always good for a laugh.

            Actually, the entire Bible supports itself. The problem is that you don’t accept any part that threatens Gnosticism (which is pretty much all of it). The existence of Hell? Gone. The existence of Satan? Gone (so you say). And yet, Paul believed the Gospels when they taught of Hell and Satan. I think I’ll go with Paul and the Word of God on this.

            I do, just not the uber-ultra-extra-super-revised hand picked by politicians versions you cling to.

            The ones you claim to believe in don’t exist.

            But thanks for warning me about Hell again… It’s always refreshing when someone attempts to inflict the same spiritual terrorism on me that they themselves have submitted to. It reveals how much their faith is, at its core, really about fear and cowardice more than anything else.

            Jesus warned about Hell. I’m merely passing on the message. It’s ironic and tragic that you consider that “spiritual terrorism.” No doubt that’s what you think when you read Jesus’ words. No, you’ve been outed. You’re simply a Gnostic who hates God and His Holy Word.

            There’s nothing “terroristic” about the Gospels. God loved everyone to the point that He died for all of our sins. He knew what we would be like, yet He chose to suffer and die anyway so we could be set free. In response He calls for us to repent from all of our sins and believe on Him and He promises to save us. That’s the real gospel message, and it’s open to all who will come. Will you honestly still choose rebellion against a God like that who is waiting to save you from your sins and protect you from all evil? It’s pure madness and folly if you do.

          • Guest

            You don’t know how to use block quote, do you?

          • Guest

            Do you even take yourself seriously?

          • Guest

            Red pajamas? Dude, seriously what are you smoking?

          • DNelson

            Here’s some examples, but most certainly not a comprehensive list:

            Trinity, alcohol, gambling, alcohol, beards, electricity, caffeine, divorce, marriage after divorce, birth control, communion.

          • Dave_L

            First I might say we are diverting away from our “shell fish” discussion which I believe is the reason for this discussion, since you would rather divert from that being unable to provide a suitable reply.

            There were differences even between the Apostles so debate and doctrinal views are always developing. But if you look at what doctrinal beliefs all churches have in common, there is plenty of agreement.

            Furthermore, I stated the principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture as the basis for sound interpretation. Any disagreements come from not doing this. So among those who practice this principle there is plenty of uniformity.

          • DNelson

            “since you would rather divert from that being unable to provide a suitable reply.”

            You asked me a question to which I replied with examples. How is that “diverting”?

            “But if you look at what doctrinal beliefs all churches have in common, there is plenty of agreement.”

            Agreed. Yet there is not totality of agreement and each sect claims that their interpretation is the one correct one, while the other sects are wrong. Not much of a basis for determining civil law.

          • Dave_L

            No one has totality of agreement, that is why people vote. But there is uniformity in belief among all Christians with minor disagreement on manners and customs.

          • DNelson

            What makes parts of the Bible “minor” and others “major”. Don’t Christian’s believe that it is all the literal, unchanging, definitive, word of God?

          • Dave_L

            Manners and customs come with culture, major Bible Doctrines transcend culture.

          • DNelson

            “Manners and customs come with culture”

            Oh, like acceptance of homosexuals. Good to know!

            Be sure to let the Amish know it’s OK now for them to use electricity. No doubt they will be very grateful.

          • Dave_L

            The Bible also condemns sinful cultures, the Canaanites are proof of this.

          • DNelson

            Are you suggesting that the Amish are a sinful culture?

          • Dave_L

            It is not for me to say unless Scripture can point to something sinful in their culture.

          • Mark Bouckaert

            And what sins did the Canaanites do? What could possibly justify genocide of an entire group of people? Well, its a bit vague now isn’t it.

            So as a Christian, do I now look at the Islamic states and decide genocide is what God commands? Does that mean we should nuke them?

          • Becky

            I didn’t say that it wasn’t in the bible, I said you don’t understand it…you’re taking them out of context. Studying those passages further will enlighten you, I hope.

            If you understood the bible, you’d be keeping the seventh day sabbath holy, you wouldn’t…bow down and worship idols and your false god the pope, accept your infant water sprinkling as the actual baptism that Christ commanded, confess your sins to your priests and believe that they could actually bestow God’s forgiveness through Christ, etc. What you understand is what you’ve been told to understand about the bible.

          • Michelle Castañeda

            Sorry for that.

        • James Von Borcke

          And yet the question remains unanswered… So I’ll answer it.

          As a Christian, I find zero effect on my own freedoms. I’m still free to believe and worship. I am still able to feed the hungry. I am still able to clothe the homeless. I am still able to tend to the ill. I am still able to congregate without interference.

          In short, I’m still able to follow Christ’s teachings without any deviation imposed by law.

          Well, locally that is. There are some “Christian” communities, after all, that have made feeding the poor illegal… What an amazingly queer thing for them to do?

          In addition, I am still able to vote, to read, to write, and to share my views with those who would listen; which is to say, I’m still able to live as an American citizen, with all the same rights and freedoms I’ve always had.

          On the other hand, there are numerous “Christian” communities that have gone about banning books, music, and anything else that scared them or challenged their favorite prejudices. Rather queer of them, I’d say.

          And, most importantly, there’s been no change at all to my marriagel. None. Not one bit of difference. We’re still perfectly imperfect.

          Although I do understand that there have been a lot of “Christian” leaders that have gotten busted by way of the Ashley Madison hack, Josh Duggar just being the most infamous of the hypocrites… What an amazingly queer thing to happen.

          Now, are there ~some~ Christians that fear that their opinions about sexuality will end up in the dust bin alongside those who opposed equality for women and those with different skin tones? Yes, there are. And they should be scared, because that is where they’re headed, and there’s nothing queer about that at all.

          In short, marriage equality doesn’t effect me as in individual, just as it doesn’t effect ~you~ as an individual. What it did change is how ~you~ can effect ~others~ with your opinions, religious or otherwise. And ~that~ is what you folks are actually upset about.

          • Becky

            Those questions have been repeatedly answered by many, many, many posters on here, with scripture, in context.

          • James Von Borcke

            If that was meant as a reply to me, then it failed.

          • Becky

            Okay.

          • James Von Borcke

            In other words, you don’t want to address what I wrote because you can’t.

            I ask you: Can you still clothe the homeless?

            I ask you: Can you still feed the hungry?

            I ask you: Can you still tend to the ill?

            And most of all, I ask you: Do ~you~ clothe the homeless, feed the hungry, and tend the ill? Or is complaining about homosexuals and playing the victim your most defining characteristics as a Christian?

            I’m not asking about other people, and I’m not asking for scriptural quotes… I’m asking about ~you~ and the fruits of ~your~ labors.

          • Becky

            No one is complaining about homosexuals, per se. The complaint is against not being able to retain religious liberties…for the millionth time.

            A Christian walks according to Christ’s word. Whether a person is doing all those things, some of those things, or none of those things, doesn’t change God’s laws. God Almighty said homosexuality is an abomination, a sin. He said that they will not enter the kingdom of heaven. He said that his people should not be partakers of sin. All of those things go hand in hand. A Christian will care for others in many ways, and one of those ways includes teaching others the word of God.

            Btw, no one has to answer your questions regarding their works. You’re not God and answering you will not validate or invalidate anyone. More importantly, Christ taught that we should do good without announcing it to the world.

            “Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.” Matthew 6:1-4

          • James Von Borcke

            “The complaint is against not being able to retain religious liberties.”

            And so far, you have failed to express even one such lost liberty. Not ONE.I keep asking, but you instead just ramble on and on, playing the poor victim role of a modern day martyr. Do you explain, in real terms that have meaning under the law and the Constitution, how this is so? Nope. Rather, you just complain about people not living their lives as ~you~ want them to, and not being punished for it as ~you~ want them to be. And just as no one is obligated to answer my questions, no one is obligated to care about your opinions, especially when you can’t validate those opinions with factual information.

            And if you are going to trumpet your faith to me, try a verse that doesn’t condemn the trumpeting of one’s faith. Besides, if you truly believe that “we should do good without announcing it to the world”, you wouldn’t be here… You’d be out doing good and keeping a low profile. Instead, you want to rant, gripe and play the victim with a bunch of folks who, feeling the same way and desiring the same thing, will stroke your ego and feed into your persecution complex in order to reinforce their own… Rather a sad little community you folks have here, to be perfectly honest.

            So now, back to the point you are so desperate to ignore… Can you actually name ONE liberty you’ve lost over marriage equality? Or are you going to avoid the question again by copy/pasting more verses you don’t really believe in?

          • Becky

            Oh, wow. Talk about rambling…long-winded, too.

          • James Von Borcke

            I find it funny that you are unable to counter anything I’ve said, but still feel compelled to post ~something~ in order to convince yourself that I’m wrong and that you’ve magically taken me down by saying absolutely nothing of worth.

            Good luck with that. We both know what you are, after all. Of course, I can leave this discussion and no longer have to be exposed to the ugliness in your soul; you, however, face it every time you pass by a sheet of glass. That must be a most unfortunate way to live.

          • Becky

            Okay, thank you.

          • James Von Borcke

            Hilarious…

            But I ask you this: If this is the United States, a land of individual freedom and liberty, then wouldn’t a philosophy that presupposes, despite all evidence to the contrary, that a segment of the population is inferior by default, then wouldn’t that philosophy be considered anti-American?

            Or you can answer another question: Are you a coward?

            See, if you’re a coward, then I can understand your unwillingness to defend your bigotry by answering my questions. Cowards often hide behind anything they can. The law. “Heritage”. Even the Bible. Anything that will help you to avoid confronting what lies within yourself.

            So, yes… If you just admit that you’re a coward, then I’ll know that you’ll never ~honestly~ address these issues and I can move on knowing that I did right despite your inadequacies as a human being, an American and a Christian.

          • Blaylock

            too many big words?

          • DNelson

            “The complaint is against not being able to retain religious liberties”

            What religious liberties are you referring to? You do realize, I hope, that the Constitution provides no protection regarding refusing to do your job based upon your religious beliefs, right?

            Are you not allowed to believe as you care to?
            Are you not allowed to conduct your personal life according to your beliefs?
            Are you not allowed to make decisions on what type of work you do or what type of business you own and operate based upon your religious beliefs?
            Are you not allowed to make decisions, if you own a business, on what products you will offer and what you will not, based upon your religious beliefs?
            Are you not protected from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodation, based upon your religious beliefs?

            Exactly what religious liberties do you no longer retain?

          • Becky

            “What religious liberties are you referring to? You do realize, I hope, that the Constitution provides no protection regarding refusing to do your job based upon your religious beliefs, right?”

            Currently, Christian public employees/private business owners are being denied their right to freely exercise their beliefs. They believe, according to scripture, that it’s a sin to partake in the sins of others and in complying with, for example, the new job duty of issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, they would be going against their belief.

            “Are you not allowed to belief[SIC] as you care to?”

            Allowed? Really? Anyway, the issue isn’t what you believe. The issue is not having the freedom to exercise what you believe, as the first amendment states.

            “Are you not allowed to make decisions on what type of work you do or what type of business you own and operate based upon your religious beliefs?”

            Actually, when it comes to the aforementioned Christians, nope they’re not. There are plenty of active court cases exemplifying my point.

          • Blaylock

            Currently, Christian public employees/private business owners are being denied their right to freely discriminate against anyone they care to whether they be gay, black, or immigrant. This is the problem. You’ve gotten used to being able to treat others as second hand citizens based on your religious beliefs. No longer. You can say that your religious freedom is being denied but in reality its not. This is just more caterwauling from the religious right…

          • DNelson

            “Currently, Christian public employees/private business owners are being denied their right to freely exercise their beliefs.”

            Again, the Constitution does not provide a right for citizens to refuse to do their job based upon their religious beliefs. It does not provide a right to operate a business a contravention of the law based upon religious belief. You are mistaken as to the protections provided by the constitution.

            “The issue is not having the freedom to exercise what you believe, as the first amendment states.”

            The 1st Amendment states that the federal government, and via the 14th amendment, the States are not allowed to pass laws PROHIBITING the expression of religious belief. The Constitution does not provide a protection for the expression of religious belief at any time, in any manner, and in any setting that citizens choose.

            “Allowed? Really?”

            Yes, Becky. Allowed. That is what the Constitution does. By placing limits on government action, it allows citizens to do things.

            “Actually, when it comes to the aforementioned Christians, nope they’re not.”

            So people are forced to take a certain job? People are forced to open businesses?

          • Bezukhov

            Exactly what religious liberties do you no longer retain?

            It’s quite simple really. The most precious Liberty a Christian can exercise is the liberty to dominate and control everyone else. Refusing them that most important Liberty means that you are now persecuting them.

          • DNelson

            It does seem that the thing that upsets them most is that their religious beliefs are no longer being given preference over others and no longer serving as a sole basis for laws.

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            A true christian, very rare I may say. I salute you.

          • Michelle Castañeda

            Not yet but it sure will soon. Why do you think there is war at our doors? Wake up. It’s because we took God out of everything.

          • James Von Borcke

            There is no “war at our doors”, and it’s not possible to take God out of anything. What ~is~ possible is to remove a ~definition~ of God that is held only by one part of our citizenry and not by any others.

            Seriously… Read the Declaration of Independence. Despite terms like “Nature’s God” and “Creator”, there is ~nothing~ there that defines God as being of any one particular religion’s view of God, written to appeal to Deists, Christians, Muslim–Yes, Muslims lived here during the Revolution–and even skeptics.. Read the Constitution. Not one mention of God, Jesus, the Bible or anything else. Why? Because it was meant to create a government that served Deists, Christians, Muslim, skeptics, etc., equally.

            In addition, your position holds that God didn’t do anything about slavery, the genocide of America’s native population, the abuse–including torture, rape and murder–of women seeking to win their right to vote, the lynching of African Americans during the Civil Rights Movement, the internment of Asians during WW2, and dropping two nukes on Japan… But Gay Marriage is the deal breaker?

            The position is ludicrous.

          • Bezukhov

            For most Christians slavery, genocide, ginning up wars against your neighbors to steal their land and resources is no big deal. Just some good ole boys lettin’ off some steam. God understands it can’t be helped. He just looks the other way. Homosexuality? Now He’s outraged!

          • Blaylock

            what war?

          • DNelson

            “Why do you think there is war at our doors? ”

            What “war” are you referring to?

      • DJC1111

        I use to think this too. I was supportive of gay marriage rights because I am libertarian. But now I realize this only works if everyone is libertarian…and they’re not. Right now in Canada, a private Christian university has been denied accreditation for a new law program based on its code-of-conduct policy that sanctions sexual conduct only inside Biblical marriage. On the basis of legalized gay marriage, the law society of various provinces have denied accreditation to the program accusing the university of discrimination.

        My belief is live and let live…but I am seeing that there indeed is an agenda and its values are conform or die. If those who value religious freedom (freedom period) don’t fight for their right to it, it absolutely will result in the denial of those freedoms. The insidiousness of this is not the issue of gay marriage itself. The real danger is in the tactics with which its proponents wish to accomplish their goals. You will conform or be silenced. In their zealous crusade to achieve their aims, they hold their own sense of justice as morally preeminent to liberty and pluralism. They do not believe in dialogue. They believe it is their moral obligation to deconstruct the perceived hegemony of the dominant societal discourse and enshrine the norms and values of the marginalized – whether through imposition or manipulation.

        In other words, they have framed differences not as disagreements – which can and should be tolerated in a free and pluralistic society – but as a struggle between the privileged powerful and the oppressed. In which case, your disagreement is not a matter of differences it is not a matter of your morally inexcusable desire to oppress and suppress another group. Therefore, neither you nor your values should have any place in society, and certainly they should not be tolerated.

        Hence, if you are male, Christian, or white you are a member of the privileged and historically powerful group – also still liable for the historical crimes of colonization, patriarchy, and cultural genocide. In the name of social justice, it is the duty of the moral person, to fight for against the current and historical oppression by socially marginalizing your group’s values, silencing your voice (e.g. why should a racist be allowed to speak?), and limiting your mobility in the public sphere (i.e. if you have to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony….or don’t practice business).

        These are the morals, methods, and methodologies of progressives. It is anti-liberal, and certainly anti-liberty. In fact, liberty is an enemy because in such a playing field the strong dominate the weak, so what is to be sought rather, is social justice, not liberty – the evening of the playing field – not the same rules for all – inhibitions on the strength of the strong, and empowerment for the weak. And there is no end to the penance you will have to pay.

      • Mike M

        Not unless the gays want me to bake a pagan ritual cake, or want to rent my reception hall or drag me to court because I hurt their feelings. I will NEVER bow to any law that is a blasphemy to my Lord Jesus Christ.

        • Michelle Castañeda

          I love your words and I, as a Christian stand with you. I too will never bow my knee to anther god or sin. God, Jesus Christ is The only true God.

        • James Von Borcke

          ” I will NEVER bow to any law that is a blasphemy to my Lord Jesus Christ.”

          “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.” ~Jesus

          • Mike M

            WOE to those who call EVIL good & good EVIL…..LIGHT for darkness & darkness for LIGHT – Jesus Christ IS the Way, the TRUTH and the LIFE…….You can accept evil & darkness all you want & receive the destruction you will be entitled to: Romans 1:32. I NEVER said to Hate, mistreat, kill anyone…….If a homosexual is hungry, I will feed him,, if he’s thirsty, I will give him water, I will be kind to him/her, but I will NOT accept their Perversion, just as Jesus won’t.

          • James Von Borcke

            Except you’re not Jesus and no one gives a crap what you ~will~ or ~will not~ accept.

            Governor Wallace insisted, with thousands of cheering supporters, that he would ~never~ accept the perversion of race mixing. Where is he now?

            Governor Barnett insisted, with thousands of cheering supporters, that he would ~never~ accept Africans in the University of Mississippi. Where is he now?

            Well, as far as history is concerned, they’re both where you’re headed: The dustbin. They just had the privilege of being famous bigots; you, on the other hand, are an obscure bigot who will die in the same obscurity in which you lived.

            What you will or will not accept is a meaningless statement; you’re a spoiled child crying because mommy put broccoli on his plate instead of a Snickers.

          • Mike M

            The Lake of Fire is an equal opportunity place, so I wish you luck there.

          • James Von Borcke

            “The Lake of Fire is an equal opportunity place, so I wish you luck there.”
            And there it is… The presumption by you to ~know~ what lies for me on my day of judgment, proclaiming that knowledge in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own teachings in Matthew 7.

            Fortunately, I don’t believe in Hell; it’s an empty threat invented by the priesthood to scare Christians into not questioning their interpretations and additions to doctrine~~interpretations and additions which you’ve swallowed hook, line and sinker. If you are so easily cowed into submission, then you’re the one that needs pity. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that I share your lack of will or that I’m as easily scared as you are; I don’t and I’m not, and it’s rather insulting of you to suggest otherwise.

          • Mike M

            You don’t believe in Hell????? Oh, well, I was right, then. All “children of Satan” don’t believe in Judgment – but there is going to be a time when ALL your thoughts, beliefs, sins will be judged. EVERYTHING YOU EVER DID, EVEN IN SECRET WILL BE JUDGED. That’s what happens to ALL UNBELIEVERS, HATERS OF JESUS CHRIST, THE BIBLE & THE GOSPEL. You’ll find out.

          • James Von Borcke

            Hate to break it to you, but it will happen to all ~believers~ too.

            Not believing in Hell does not mean I don’t believe in Judgment. It just means that I don’t subscribe to the early Catholic Church’s decision to adopt the Greek myth of Hades in order to scare simpletons.

            You, however, clearly have.

          • James Von Borcke

            I gave your response more thought and something struck me as interesting…

            While you want to focus on my lack of belief in Hell in the manner in which you believe it–Lake of Fire, eternal torture, yadda yadda yadda…–you don’t want to discuss how that issue came up.

            Let me point something out to you.

            In Matthew 7, Jesus says not to sit in judgment over sin. He actually says it more often than Matthew 7, such as when the adulteress was about to be stoned, but that’s the most direct version of teaching. This teaching is based on the commandment about taking the Lord’s name in vain; in other words, having the vanity of believing one speaks ~for~ God. Only God knows what our judgment is at any given time, and when my day of judgment comes, it is ~God alone~ who will do the judging.

            So while you proclaim certain doom for me because I don’t believe in Hell in the manner that you do, you evidently don’t believe in the Third Commandment and thereby ignore, in a most gleeful manner, what Jesus taught regarding it. And the reason for this has ~nothing~ to do with God or Jesus, but instead has ~everything~ to do with my refusing to capitulate to ~your~ views. If I am to be judged negatively by the Creator, it won’t be over your bruised ego; sorry if that bruises your ego some more, but you can take it up with the big guy yourself when you get there.

            So I don’t believe in the ‘Lake of Fire’, but still acknowledge that judgment will come; you, on the other hand, don’t believe in the Third Commandment, and believe proclaiming Jesus’ name–while ignoring his teachings–will grant you immunity.

            You should think that over for a good bit.

      • Mike M

        I sure hope you learn the Laws God gave the Jews, His Chosen People, to show their obedience to Him. Jesus Christ FULFILLED THE LAW…….Christian Jews can eat & wear what they want……..the MORAL LAW REMAINS THE SAME.

      • Michelle Castañeda

        We Christian do not condone any form of sin. But we are also not perfect. We will stand for the things we have done wrong too. But we still don’t put our believes in people face. Unlike the gays do. Open your eyes, it’s really easy to see, if one want’s to see it. Passing gay marriage opened up a pandora box of deep sin and perversion. It has opened a floodgate of hell in this Nation. We have war at our doors and it’s all because of people walking away from God to go enjoy a momentary life of lawlessness. But what gays don’t get, in the coming war they to will be killed too.

        • Blaylock

          again, what war are you referring to?

        • DNelson

          “But we still don’t put our believes in people face.”

          ROFLMAO

          So, tell me, if supporting laws that restrict the rights of citizens based upon the Christian belief system is not “putting our believes in people faces”, what would an example of that be? How about Christmas and Easter and all the hoopla around those holidays? Not in anyone’s face? How about church bells ringing on Sunday morning? Not in anyone’s face? How about when Blue Laws were in place requiring retailers to be closed on Sunday because it was “the Lord’s day”? Not in anyone’s face? How about the rally at the heart of this article? Not in anyone’s face?

          “Passing gay marriage opened up a pandora box of deep sin and perversion.”

          How so?

          “It has opened a floodgate of hell in this Nation.”

          How so?

        • James Von Borcke

          “But we still don’t put our believes in people face. Unlike the gays do.”

          No… Gays were just abused, outcast, imprisoned, committed to asylums–where they were often tortured through barbaric practices–and even killed because of your beliefs.

          But you weren’t in their faces, so that’s okay.

          Here’s a clue for you… “Gay Pride” isn’t about being in your face. It’s about no longer living in fear, and having to hide themselves away–only to be rooted out and persecuted anyways–due to primitive prejudices that people like you ~choose~ to adhere to. It’s about living openly, as proud Americans, serving in our military, contributing to our work force and economy, and the expanded inclusiveness of our secular democracy.

          As a straight man, I find myself with what’s called the Ally Pride Flag. Go ahead and Google it. Now, I find it a very important flag. See, back when, if a white family stated that they were for racial equality, then it was ~their~ yard that the burning cross would appear in. It was ~their~ wives and daughters were were brutalized and raped. It was ~their~ husbands and sons that got lynched. And those who did these acts had plenty of Bible verses to spout while doing the deeds.

          So those who believed in equality had to keep their mouths shut, saving their opinion for the voting booth, where it ~slowly but finally~ paid off.

          Now, it’s the racists who are in the closet, reliant on political code words to rally behind.

          Later, when speaking in favor of gay rights, we found ourselves targeted again; targeted by a new generation of bigots armed with new assortment of cherry picked Bible verses. And, just like the Old Bigots, the New Bigots favored verses not spoken by Jesus himself, since the majority of what Jesus taught is contrary to the bigot mindset…

          So here I am… A straight, white Christian male… And I’ve had ~your faith~ pushed upon me, shoved in my face, at every turn, regarding every subject, from race to gender to sexuality to science to math to philosophy to foreign relations to etc etc etc. That being the case, I can ~only~ imagine what it’s like to live as a homosexual, female or non-Christian…

          And that’s why I fly the Ally Pride Flag… And I don’t care if you think I’m all ‘in your face’, since you seem to think ‘in your face’ means that people you don’t like aren’t being persecuted the way you want them to be.

          So, yes, I’m ~happy~ that you perceive gay pride is being in your face, even if you haven’t the slightest clue what ‘in your face’ really means. And I will cheer them on, from jock strap to feather boas, until you join your philosophical cousins, the racists and the misogynists, in the closet where ~all~ bigots belong.

          “But what gays don’t get, in the coming war they to will be killed too.”

          You do understand that “Saint” John was a raving lunatic, right?

          • Michelle Castañeda

            Gays were abused? Oh please give me a break. Let me cry you a river. Here’s how the gay agenda is in everyone’s face. First of all target changes things to neutral gender, kids are being forced in school to use different words other than a boy or girl, Gay people are pooping on public sidewalks and roads in California, gays parade with her colorful flag half naked if not all naked, they’re trying to teach kids in school that being gay is OK, being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding. Gays purposely going to a Christian clerk for a marriage license just to get her in trouble. And I could throw a whole lot more out there. No Christians ever press charges against someone for not listening to their faith. Christians have never put their religion in someone’s face it only feels that way because you’re in sin and feel guilty. That’s all I’m saying about this the rest of this conversation isn’t worth having.

          • James Von Borcke

            What an over-emotional temper tantrum you’ve thrown here… Well, I’ll ignore the silliness and go straight to the important stuff.

            “Gays were abused? Oh please give me a break.”
            Ever hear of Alan Turing? Allan Ginsburg? William S Burroughs? How about Lucien Carr?

            Do you know anything about the Stonewall Raid and the riots that followed?

            Or… Did you know that after WWII, soldiers that were known to be gay for months and even years but were never harassed for it were suddenly, and without warning, deprived of rank and benefits as soon as the war was over? That’s right; the Army was fine with them being gay while there was killing and dying to do, but once it was time to recognize their service… Nope; military can’t tolerate no gays. These were honorable Americans, of every race and creed, who served their country in its darkest hours, heroes and patriots, who were then abandoned and rejected after the war because Conservative Christians thought they were too icky to acknowledge or respect.

            As an aside, these ex-military formed some of the first motor cycle clubs, giving rise to the Leather Culture in the 70s which still continues strong to this day. So I guess I do owe conservatives a grudging ‘Thank You’ for that.

            Or how about this bit: During the 80s, when only the gay community was stricken with AIDS, the government, with Ronald Reagan in the White House and the Moral Majority waging a crusade in congress to censor music lyrics, outright ignored the disease; it wasn’t until it began to appear in the hetero population that they would even acknowledge that it existed. And when the Surgeon General stated publicly that condoms were effective in preventing transmission of HIV, he was fired. Yes, fired for stating what most everyone today knows to be true. But stating so back then was too shocking and controversial for religious conservatives; for them, AIDS was “God’s Wrath” and many hoped it would cause homosexuals to ‘convert’ or something… Regardless, once the SG stated that condoms worked, conservatives saw that as giving gays license to be gay, so they pressured President Reagan to dismiss him.

            Here’s another bit: In the second season of American Horror Story, aka AHS: Asylum, Sarah Paulson’s character had been committed because she was a lesbian. The story takes place in 1964, and being committed to an asylum was what happened to the lucky ones; The unlucky went to prison. Most were put on experimental drugs to ‘cure’ them, which led to depression, psychosis and suicide. Fortunately, though, some of the homosexuals that were committed found themselves in the care of scientifically minded facilities which began the first real studies on homosexual behavior, leading to the eventual debunking of many anti-homosexual myths.

            And this is all just a small ~sliver~ of what homosexuals have endured; indeed, conservatives are still inflicting cruelty and torment upon homosexuals in Russia, which is one of the reasons why they love Putin as much as they hate President Obama.

            Consequently, through the late 80s and early 90s, I personally assisted the Pink Triangles patrolling the ‘Boys Town’ and ‘New Town’ on Chicago’s north side. I wasn’t a PT myself, but me and the other Gutter Punks of the time were allied to them and were quick to answer whenever the whistle blew. Why were the PTs needed, and why did they need our help? Because ‘Christians’ routinely engaged in a favorite past time called ‘F-g Bashing’, which I guess was how they spent their time between tipping cows and date raping their girlfriends.
            “Gays purposely going to a Christian clerk for a marriage license just to get her in trouble.”

            WTF? She’s the ~County Clerk~. It’s her ~job~ to issue marriage licenses, and gays have the Constitutional right to marry. Note, it is ~not~ her job to ~approve~ the marriage; only to affirm that the ~information~ on the form is correct. Whether or not she ~likes~ the information is utterly irrelevant, and denying service to ~tax paying Americans~ based on her personal biases is her own doing.

            Also, she took an ~oath~ to assume her office, to perform ~all~ legal duties afforded to her station, and she is in ~violation~ of that oath. That oath, also, ended with the words, “so help me God.” So by not doing her job, she is ~breaking her oath~ to God, the same God she proclaims to be the motivation for breaking her oath, proving her logic has more holes than a block of Swiss cheese.

            Clerk Davis has the choice: Do her job or, if unable to do so for whatever reason, resign. Instead, she has ~chosen~ to make a martyr out of herself. That being the case, she is deserving of any and all punishments which come her way; of course, nothing that will happen to her will compare to what homosexuals have suffered at the hands of her kind. But homosexuals don’t want vengeance; they want equality under the law, which is their Constitutional right.

          • Guest

            Do you think longer posts make it true? Most people probably skip over them — unless they want a good laugh.

            So why don’t you own your beliefs? Why come here pretending to be a Christian when you know you’re a satanist?

          • Michelle Castañeda

            I’m throwing a temper tantrum… You’re to funny. No a temper tantrum is when gay people parade around half naked with their asses showing and defecating on the streets like their dogs. Demanding their own way. Their way of pier evil and lawlessness. No point in responding any further I’m not wasting my time on reading your lies, nor did I read one outside of your first sentence . Your first sentence was enough for me. I will pray that God wakens you. It’s obvious you need it. The only reason why you accused me of a temper tantrum is because that’s what you do. When you accuse somebody of something it’s because you can see it in yourself.
            God bless you and I pray He turns you around before The sudden destruction hit you. May God have mercy on your soul.

        • Jolanda Tiellemans

          “But we still don’t put our believes in people face. Unlike the gays do.”

          Uhm right. I don’t see any homosexual going from door to door, just Jehova witnesses. And on my last holiday in Berlin there where even christians, yes christians on the streets trying to spread gods word. So yeah some of them are trying to put their believes into my face. I say some, not all.

          And those turning away from your god, don’t have a strong believe in him or your bible to start with.

      • John_33

        Sadly, it does affect the freedoms of Christians since religious freedom goes beyond church buildings and Christians marrying. During Obergefell vs Hodges, the Solicitor General stated that religious organizations that refuse to recognize same sex “marriage” are at risk of losing their tax exemption status. That means that gay affirming religious organizations could keep their exemptions while non-gay affirming religious organizations would not. Essentially, the government could soon be determining which religious doctrines it prefers by rewarding “good” doctrine with tax exemptions while punishing “bad” doctrine by withholding such funds. That’s simply bad policy.

        It’s not only the Supreme Court ruling that affects our freedoms but the laws and events that have preceded it. Across the West, Christians are being punished for not serving same-sex “weddings” because of their religious beliefs while others have been harassed, threatened, fined, fired, and even jailed for expressing their religious beliefs. Memories Pizza is a good example of recent harassment and threats directed at the owners simply for honestly answering a hypothetical question.

        In the UK a Christian woman, Sarah Mbuyi, was fired after respectfully answering a co-worker’s questions about homosexuality and religion (a workplace tribunal later ruled in favor of her, but not until a lengthy trial was conducted). Also in the UK, a Christian couple was prohibited from adopting because they stated that they could not affirm homosexuality due to their Christian beliefs.

        The atmosphere has become so poisoned now that the rhetoric has recently increased significantly. Shortly after Obergefell vs Hodges was concluded, some journalists and LGBT activists publicly called for churches to lose their tax exempt status – one activist openly stated that this was to punish the religious for opposing gay “marriage.” A few months before, a NYTimes writer quoted a gay activist who stated that church leaders must be made “to take homosexuality off the sin list.” Instead of condemning the activist for these words, the writer at the NYTimes endorsed it.

        There has been an assault on religious freedom, and sadly, it looks like it will continue to get worse, but that ultimately doesn’t matter. Christians will continue to follow God on this issue and reach out to everyone including the LGBT community with the gospel. If this stance results in a fine or some other type of punishment, then so be it. LGBT people need to know that God loves them and paid for their sins too.

        As for the last part about Christians not following the commandments, that’s a fairly common mistake that people make. Christians were never commanded to avoid shellfish, pork, or wearing clothes of different fabrics. In fact, the apostle Paul wrote to Christians telling them not to do such things. Those commandments were given only to children of Israel; whereas, the moral prohibitions, such as homosexuality, incest, adultery, etc. were commanded for everyone to follow (the Bible always clarifies which commandments are for which people). That’s why Christians today oppose adultery and homosexuality but do not keep the dietary laws – the New Testament goes into greater detail on this subject.

        I hope this helps clarify the matter and explains why Christians are taking this stance.

    • DNelson

      “I believe a lot of the laws, policies and regulations being created are intended to destroy and restrict our rights, freedoms, choices”

      For example?

      • James Von Borcke

        I’ve been trying to get that question answered for months… They never seem capable of answering it.

        • DNelson

          Because it’s not true.

  • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

    Imagine how peaceful and great civilization would be withou the hater bigot religions in this world.

    • Josey

      If you are referencing children of the Most High God as the haters and bigots, you will be very sad once we are removed from this earth for the devils that hate you and want to torment and cause you to die and enter hell with them, well, there will be no Christians to pray and do spiritual warfare against them here, you will regret speaking those words unless you are shown God’s grace and born again so that you understand spiritual things but if not you will regret it once hell is unleashed upon this planet w/out restraint upon unbelievers who mocked and ridiculed God and His children while they were lovingly warning you of what is to come.

      • Bezukhov

        Really? On second thought, maybe your right. All one has to do is see the effects of Christianity in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. There were no Wars, every dispute was settled peaceably and amicably. Anyone who strayed from the Righteous Path and committed sins like Witchcraft were mildly admonished for their lapse of faith. Jews were welcomed with open arms anywhere they went. Those who disagreed with established dogmas were tolerated, and allowed without hindrance to preach whatever version of Christianity they wanted. It was beautiful.

        • Josey

          Are you using more than one name on this site?
          And there is only one version of Christianity, just because someone slaps Christian on it doesn’t make it Christian. To be a Christian one must be born again by the Spirit of God and follow God’s word and obey His commandments, Jesus said if you love me obey my commandments for Jesus is the word of God made manifest in the flesh, He is God. I don’t agree with any denomination or RC church that claims Christianity but denies aspects of the Bible or adds to the Bible. I don’t know where you came up with that bogus history lesson anyway.

          • Bezukhov

            Having a hard time understanding sarcasm?

          • James Von Borcke

            “Jesus said if you love me obey my commandments”

            Of which he gave two: Love God, and love your neighbor.

            I see very little of either on this site.

          • Bezukhov

            No, why would I consider using another profile? I’m not in the habit of talking to myself.

            That bogus history lesson was to prove a point. Much as you’re wont to malign and distance yourself from the actions of previous generations of Christians, the sad fact is you owe them a debt of gratitude. Had they not acted as they did, like a tribe of murderous thugs (to put it mildly), Christianity would not have survived. I see, and hear you protesting “Yes, it would have!” But that is pure speculation on your part. I’m looking at History, and seeing the workings of Cause and Effect. The Cause of Christianity dominance in the world today is the Effect of its past savagery. It may not have been how your God wanted things done; on the other hand He did nothing to stop it.

    • Becky

      It wouldn’t be peaceful. The world was destroyed the first time, because everyone, save Noach and his family, were devoid of God’s laws…violence and destruction were everywhere. Likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah. In those situations, where two cities were without God and the entire world was without God, they had no peace!

      • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

        Whose noach? Sodom and Gomorrah is a fictional story. There would be no more wars except for oil. We are intelligent( well some of us) enough now that we don’t need a mythical fictional figure to explain things. We have science and reality!

    • KevinWarren

      6% of all recorded wars were religious in nature. 6%

      Your comment smacks of ignorance and hatred.

      • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

        Well I can’t make the ignorant learn so just stay in your little bubble and believe that. Give me your address so I can send you a book on world history!

      • Reinhold Von Kirschmann

        Pulled that figure out of your ass

        • KevinWarren

          Should you choose to use it, Google is you friend.

  • msicairos

    For once I would love to see the name JESUS attached to the word GOD; I don’t think to many people have a problem with the word ‘GOD’ everyone has a form of god, and everyone uses the name god very loosely; Muslims, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons; In fact Mr. Glen Beck had a large rally yesterday with signs that read ‘GOD’ and we all know that he is a Mormon; Jews have a god and its not JESUS. I would love to read signs that say; GOD/JESUS or GOD is JESUS and JESUS is GOD, the only true living GOD! I continue to read article after article by Christian leaders and none put those two names (GOD/JESUS) as ONE. Who is your GOD? Are you scared or ashamed to say JESUS is my GOD because they are ONE?

    • Becky

      I agree.

    • Josey

      yes, absolutely correct…God showed me this many years ago how many say the name God but don’t say in the Name of Jesus or Jesus is God and we should be specific as children of God. Whoever is ashamed of Jesus in this life, Jesus said He would be ashamed of them at His coming. amen msicairos

      • msicairos

        Amen..lets not ever compromise; No other name under heaven like the name of JESUS!

      • Margi

        When they had the prayer meeting at the pentagon Franklin Graham was asked to be the prayer leader, but was told he couldn’t pray in the name of Jesus. These demands came from none other than our President Obama. Prayer to God was allowed as long as it wasn’t in the Name of Jesus. That made it just empty words. Franklin refused but held a prayer meeting outside.

        • PRIMUS

          The Same Franklin Graham that says Mormons are not a cult. If you hate Obama for his skin just say it. We won’t cringe, at least we will know you are fake. I can go on and say a lot that the Grahams are, but for the Love of Jesus I just state this. Justice for all in Christ Jesus is the only way this name shall prosper.

          • EDBroker

            And we must learn WHY Mormonism is a clut! See my post as to where you can learn all about that under my reply to msicairos above—Rose Publishing.

          • http://www.tularemercantile.com Allen Casselman Sr.

            The only true argument against Mormonism and other so called religions is the test of source.
            If it could be true that Joseph Smith was gifted the golden tablets and the Urum and Thirmum to translate with then he would have held all Hebraic names sacred. He would have protected the name of God and the name of Christ is intended to be. Names are not to be translated they may be spelled differently but the phonetic would be kept sacred. As an example Boris Yeltsin, is Yeltsin no mater how it is spelled it will always sound the same.

          • Alice Cook

            You should not bad mouth Jesus annointed minsters

          • Kimberly Rock

            Jesus does not anoint ministers of cults..

          • Kimberly Rock

            Good grief… Do you really have to play the race card here? Sheesh.. It just never ends…

            Most “religions” are cults.. That’s what people do not understand about Christianity… Christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship with the Lord Jesus…

          • ogail

            I think this is not the issue of race. its the issue of light and darkness. Obama’s worst enemy is Christianity that is why he has fought it through out his life (check his view on Christianity through his campaign and reign and every things he stands for are those things that are against christian ethics) . may be he is not just an argent but a brother of the devil. I am a black man like him but i feel so disappointed about his styles. I love him But has never like his styles and war on Christianity.

          • Harold Osler

            You can’t be serious

          • ogail

            yes i am. support your point and i will give you my view

        • sandra-paquette-

          Interesting, another means of proving Obama is a true muslim.

        • ogail

          I am not surprise about this at all. As a member of satanic argent, what do you expect from him>>.. of caz the worst enemy of the devil in Jesus that is why his ministers hate him too.

      • Coretta Shelton

        jesus is Lord.

        • Leon Redmond

          Yes He is, and to the glory of God the Father.

    • Michelle Castañeda

      I really could cry right now after reading your post. Thank you so much for standing up in this dark hour. We need more voices like you. Keep pressing on. Our King is coming soon. JESUS IS THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD!!! Jesus is the only true God.

      • msicairos

        Amen..There is nothing so sweet then when we have quiet time alone with Jesus and the Holy Spirit in us cries out to Him in supplication and thanksgiving. Then there is nothing more hurtful then when someone blasphemies His person and name. Ungrateful ignorant people.

        • Coretta Shelton

          the trinity is equal in the God head .

      • EDBroker

        Jesus is like the solid snow. God the Father is like the liquid water. The Holy Spirit is like the invisible vapor. All are H*2*O. There is no other H*2*O! Great analogy in understanding that God is three (not three “gods”), just as the one water has three states. “And besides Me there is no other G*O*D.” (Isaiah 44:6)

    • James Von Borcke

      It won’t work… Ever since Nixon began the employment of the Southern Strategy, there has been an effort to use “Christian” as a blanket term. That is, before the 70s, folks–including politicians–didn’t claim to be Christian unless they were non-denominational, which they would state clearly. Rather, they identified as Baptist, Methodist, Quaker, Unitarian, Catholic, etc. The tendency then went full scale during the Reagan administration, when the ‘Moral Majority’ began the claim of representing ~all~ Christians despite only seeking to achieve far right political goals which are ~not~ shared by all Christians, a practice which continues to this very day from folks like the White/Conservative Citizens Council and the like. But this illusion is only maintained by avoiding things like this, which numerous sects would openly dispute if it became central to the political ramblings of right wing sectarians.

      The “I’m a Christian” statement also allowed people to avoid admitting that they belonged to a faith that fought to implement and retain segregation, adding to its instant popularity in the traitor states.

      As such, if Christians began using “Jesus-God” or “God/Jesus” or anything else like that, it would result in a very public dismantling of the ‘Moral Majority’ illusion which Conservatives are greatly dependent on in today’s political climate. Mormons would be against it, as to them Jesus is the highest angle ~under~ God. Most Unitarians would be against it, as to them Jesus was a mortal man granted divine insight. And on and on and on.

      Now don’t get me wrong… None of this means that I don’t want this. I would ~very much~ like to see that illusion destroyed as there are millions of Christians like myself that Conservatives ~do not~ speak for despite the numbers they like to toss about, and it would be a good thing if that came to an end. But it is because of this easily predictable result that your God/Jesus wish won’t come true, as those who lead your political movement won’t allow it.

      But do feel free to try… I’m certain there will be ~some~ amusement to be had, even if it is short lived..

    • Jim H

      I do know that they are Trinitarian, but Mormons definitely believe in Jesus. Their actual name is the Church of Jesus and Latter Day Saints.

      According to Mormon dot org (I originally posted a link, but that post is still in limbo as a result):

      Jesus Christ is the literal Son of God. His birth, life, death, and resurrection fulfilled the many prophecies contained in the scriptures concerning the coming of a Savior. He was the Creator, He is our Savior, and He will be our Judge (see Isaiah 9:6, 53:3-7; Psalms 22:16-18).

      Under the direction of our Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ created the earth (John 1:10; Hebrews 1:2).

      When Jesus lived on the earth (approximately 2,000 years ago), He led a perfect life. He taught by word and example how people should live in love of God and others.

      Through His suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and by giving His life on the cross—that is, by performing the Atonement —Jesus Christ saves us from our sins (1 Peter 2:21) as we follow Him. Because of the Atonement, you can be forgiven of your sins when you sincerely repent (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 26:30).

      Through His Resurrection, Jesus Christ saved us from death. Because He overcame death, we will all be given the gift of resurrection, that is to say our spirits will be eternally re-united with our bodies (Acts 24:15; 1 Corinthians 15:22). When life on this earth is over, Jesus Christ will be the final Judge (Acts 17:31; John 5:21-22; Acts 10:42).

      • EDBroker

        Please see my comment to msicairos above. Ask the Mormon, “Which Jesus?” They CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS! The Mormon “Jesus” has an entirely different definition!

        • Jim H

          Your comment to msicairos doesn’t seem to address that. It is about homosexuals.
          Is their definition of Jesus something other than the one on their international website?

          • EDBroker

            Here are the Mormon definitions of God and Jesus. Remember, to the Jews of Christ’s time, “Son of God” meant God Himself manifest in the flesh. If you want the historical, orthodox, Biblical definitions of God and Jesus I will be glad to post them:

            Who is (the LDS) God?
            God was once a man, but “progressed” to godhood. He has a physical body, as does his wife (Heavenly Mother). No trinity. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate gods. Worthy men may one day become gods themselves.Other gods exist also.

            Who is (the LDS)Jesus?
            Jesus is a separate God from the Father (Elohim). He was created as a spirit child by the Father and Mother in Heaven, and is the “elder brother” of all men and spirit beings. His body was created through sexual union between God (Elohim) and Mary. Jesus was married. His death on the cross does not provide full atonement for all sin, but does provide everyone with resurrection.

          • Jim H

            “Remember, to the Jews of Christ’s time, “Son of God” meant God Himself manifest in the flesh.”

            I think you are wrong about that. If you check the OT you will find the term son(s) of God applying to everything from the members of a divine council (either angels or minor gods), in Job, to some kings.

            In fact, when they thought Jesus claimed to be “God Himself manifest in the flesh”, they called it blasphemy.

            I commented that:

            “I do know that they are Trinitarian, but Mormons definitely believe in Jesus. Their actual name is the Church of Jesus and Latter Day Saints.”

            I don’t see how the fact that they see Jesus, or God, differently than Christians, makes anything in that statement inaccurate.

          • Greg Trujillo

            Heresy at it’s finest.

      • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

        it is called henotheism

        • Jim H

          I thought henotheism was the belief in and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be served, much like early Yahweh worship was. Yahweh was Israel’s god, but other nations had their own gods. Their gods were as real as Yahweh. The notion that Yahweh was the only god, and other gods were false, developed over time. Gods were originally thought to be tied to a certain place. Yahweh went with his people making him very different. Eventually, he was believed to be the only real God and al others were false.

          • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

            That is exactly what mormons are. They worship the same trinity other Christians do, but… b/c they can become a god themselves, they do not deny the existance of other gods. Each universe (to them there are many) has an earth with a Jesus, etc. Each good mormon will get to be the god of their universe.

          • Jim H

            I hadn’t thought of it that way. I tend to see such things in terms of past history and people, like the Jews. So, although I know that they believed could become gods themselves and rule over other universes, I tend to forget that and not think of them as henotheistic. But, you are right.

      • http://www.Yahoo.com Bastian Balthazar Bux

        Mormons also believe the Satan is Jesus’ brother.

        • Jim H

          Don’t they believe Jesus was the first spirit created by God before all others, and that he also later created the spirit Satan, so in that sense Satan was Jesus’ brother?
          Jesus chose to follow God. Satan chose to exalt himself, thus his fall.

    • bowie1

      I have heard it said many times. Jesus is also the I AM.

      • Coretta Shelton

        God is the Great Iam .before jesus came to the earth he was referred to as lord.

    • deaconsbench

      ‘Jesus’ was Christ’s, shall we say, ‘Christian’ name. I have for the longest time been drawn to use the name “Christ” in general correspondence. It just feels more respectful to my soul. No matter which one a person uses, use it to call on Him!

      • Paul Klemetson

        Jesus was the name given from God through rhe angel. John 17 clearly states the name is the name of God. You are right in that the Moshiach (Christ in English) was called by the name of Yahweh our father. John 5:43 Jesus states to unbelieving Jews that hos name is the name of God. John 16:25 Jesus says the language of father and son was figurative and not a distinction of the Diety. The name of God is Jesus “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” 2Pet 2:1.

    • Eric Marr

      You would be breaking a commandment. God is god, Jesus is Jesus. It even states that in the bible. If you worship Jesus as god then you worship one above God and you will not have salvation.

      Here is something else to chew on for a bit. Jewish God, Muslim God, Catholic God Christian God are all the same God. However I am sure someone will try and dispute it without even bothering looking it up or cross checking. Don’t worry there is a special place in hell for your type.

      ~Pastor Marr

      • Paul Klemetson

        Pastor Marr,
        To qualify as God one must be alive forever, be the Lord of all and have power over everything. To say that because a attribute of the Diety is called God or his name is Jesus that they are two is heretical and totally unbiblical.

      • Desertcatn

        Disagree, the Muslim God is Satan.

    • Greg Trujillo

      I must correct you in one place. The God of the Jews IS Jesus, they just don’t know it.

      • msicairos

        So true and so sad, that they continue to deny and accept Him as their God. What I don’t understand is that while all that is true, the Jews continue to prosper tremendously today.

        • Harold Osler

          Maybe you need to rethink your ‘theology’. how about a God that loves everyone no matter how they worship.

          • msicairos

            Sorry Harold, but God/Jesus does love everyone but if you are His born again child He will discipline you and take you to the woodshed; Also you can read that He was not very loving when He overturned tables and call the religious rulers of that time some nasty names. But you can make up your own god to suit your lifestyle and way of living, until you die and then, judgment time and finally your final eternal destination; Hell or Heaven; You choose

        • Dee

          To those who think “church” was created by man, read the Old Testament. What do you think the “tent of meeting” was? And, it was built by man under the direction of God. To those who relentlessly condemn others because they believe in some small way differently, well then I guess you are right. We definitely serve different Gods. My God, thankfully, is a loving and forgiving God. Your God not so much. I think I’ll keep mine, and we’ll see how it all works out for “you” in the end…

          • msicairos

            First of all the church is within a saved person. I believe the only true gospel that Paul thought. One must be born again of Spirit and is saved by Grace not if any works. The new covenant begins in Acts Nine and we are now living by a new dispensation. Like you said; we will all find out sooner or later; I know who my God/Jesus is and thanks to the Holy Spirit I have learned to divide the word of God/Jesus correctly.

          • Dee

            msicairos, yes, you are correct in the context you define as the church being within a person, I believe whether saved or not. I think the others were referencing the physical “meeting place”. Your “church” is what I believe to be faith. I believe God gives us all the ability to have faith; it’s just up to us how we will use it. You sound very steadfast in your beliefs (as you should be), and you seem to be okay with others thinking somewhat differently, and that is a good thing. Interpretation can be as individual as fingerprints, so it gives us the opportunity to learn from each other and exchange our thoughts. A good example of the freedom we get to exercise living in this country. Of course, we should all be living, at the very least, in accordance with the Ten Commandments as best we can if we’re going to call ourselves children of The Most High. None of us knows for sure if what we believe is right or wrong until we reach our end, and then will it really matter anyway? I like the quote about living my life believing in God only to find out in the end that there isn’t, than to live my life not believing in God only to find out in the end that there is…

          • msicairos

            Dee I can feel that you have a great heart and love for people. I pray the Holy Spirit will teach you how to divide His word (Bible) in its proper context; The Ten Commandments were not a requirement for us to live by, but to show us that no one can keep them, except God/Jesus Christ. Jesus tried to tell all the people specially the Jews that they could never keep/obey all the commandments. We Gentiles did not become part of the body of Christ until HE resurrected (Ephesians 2 & 3) please stop trying to live by the law and live by Grace. Love you in the Lord.

          • Dee

            It seems we are not reading the same Bible. In my Bible, Exodus 20, God is very clear and specific about the laws he has set forth for us. If he didn’t expect us to follow them, it would be an exercise in futility with no purpose. I believe (and please don’t take personal offense here) that those nay sayers of the Commandments are people who don’t want to follow them because of their own lack of self discipline and selfish desires. There isn’t one Commandment that we are not capable of following. It’s a matter of choice. I also pray that the Holy Spirit will guide me every day. But I would never profess that my interpretation of his guidance is the right or only way for others. It is only right for me. What if I forced people to think as I do, and in the end I was wrong? I would never want to bear that responsibility for others’ lives. In the end it will be about each of us individually with God/Jesus. I do live by God’s Grace, as I hope we all do. May our Lord Jesus Christ bless you every day.

          • msicairos

            Can you imagine if were required to follow all in Exodus? OMG! Or people can pick and choose what they they like and want to do; But it seems your more then willing to follow those laws/requirements; When when the last time you sacrificed animals for the forgiveness of your sins or built burnt offerings, burn incense, of course you must not do any kind of work on the seventh day, you MUST keep the Sabbath, and you must watch what you eat; It is written that if you break just one requirements/laws you broke them all, (there are hundreds). God/Jesus must be so proud of you. Congratulations Dee.

          • Dee

            Yes, I do believe that Jesus is proud of me, as I believe he is proud of you and all of his followers. That said, I think we should just agree to disagree. I am not trying to persuade you to believe as I do. I have very dear friends who are Born Again Christians, Jews, and Muslims. All are wonderful, good people who bring good into this world, and although we practice our beliefs differently, I think God loves us all the same. Amen?

      • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

        https://youtu dot be/Wiawe2Pyzws

      • Coretta Shelton

        as they have been told , not to read the new testmant it is bad and God is opening the eyes of the jews,

    • Editha Coja

      John 20:28 – Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

      Romans 9:5 – …Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

      Titus 2:13-15 – …our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

      Hebrews 1:8 – But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever…

      2 Peter 1:1 – …the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ…

    • http://kkkk.net Hammer Harris

      brother they(the roman catholic church, for one) are working very hard to remove JESUS from Christianity all together, I know that sounds absurd
      sine the very definition of Christianity is “CHRIST LIKE” but the pope is trying to merge all religions in to One World Religion, as prophesied in the bible, and if he does not remove CHRIST then that will never happen, he has already started a counsel for the “coming together ” of the religions, and they have even named it “chrislam” But it all has to happen, for that great and glorious day to come, Praise the LORD ALMIGHTY ! JESUS is KING OF KINGS!

      • msicairos

        Believe that to be true, but not surprised at all; JESUS warned his disciples that because of His name (JESUS) they would suffer, be persecuted and even die. Thats why, we now more then ever must continue to proclaim, defend His name and always make sure we identify who our living God/Jesus is by name; Because there is no other name under heaven that’s like Him; JESUS!

      • Lisa

        Seriously, where did you hear that nonsense?

        • Names_Stan

          Overlook the egocentric, they get wilder in their tin foil hat conspiracies every day.

          Every full moon, news story or televangelist sermon is “proof” of a secret message in the bible involving the president, the pope, Russia, or their local Western Auto.

      • lorac odraned

        Not true, as a practicing Catholic, the Church is doing no such thing. We believe in the Holy Trinity- God the Father, Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit, three in one. Each with His own individual purpose. The Pope merely wants all people to to praise the Lord, the one and only God, not some fake gods.

        • Kimberly Rock

          Oh, really? And that’s why your worshipped pope says you can get to heaven many ways, not just through Jesus Christ? That homosexual marriage is blessed by God and homosexuality is not a sin? Do Catholics not worship statues and pray to Mary? Do you not pray the rosary? Do you not call priests Father? The list goes on and on.. Read the Bible and you will understand how far the Catholic Church, and especially the pope, goes against God and His Word..

          The pope is a fraud and an evil wolf leading all of you straight to hell.. If you cannot see what he’s doing, maybe you have been the ones chosen to not have your eyes opened and have the Truth revealed..

          Keep following, worshipping, and having faith in man instead of the Lord.. We’ll see how that works out for you in the end..

          • http://www.tularemercantile.com Allen Casselman Sr.

            Just like Common Core is programming our young so have the Catholics been programmed from the very beginning.
            Part of the deception is the name Jesus and “God” one must research completely not just rely on what they are told. The theory of Trinity does not exist int he scriptures, it is a man made tradition to perpetuate the lies of interpretation of the Holy word of Yah.

          • Michael Mathis

            The Bible speaks of being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The 3 in one reality exists. We use the term “trinity” as a handy but imperfect term to describe a mystery of the Godhead which is 3 in one that has no other words to describe it. Christ said ” The Father and I are one” John 1 says “and the Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us”. The Bible says “God is a Spirit”. The concept of the trinity is biblical but the understanding of such a unity is shrouded in mystery…men cannot in their own limited understanding it even hope to comprehend it. We are created beings after all. The term Trinity is probably the best of a number of “shorthand terms’ that exist that even approaches a vague description of the intimacy that exists between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Christ said…”Before Abraham was, I AM!” Jesus called himself God! Don’t try to strain at the understanding of his statement, you gain a better understanding of it if you take it on naked faith and then let the Spirit fill in the “beyond verbal description” details in your heart over time. The reality is best understood as revealed by the Spirit to your heart…then your heart will inform the intellect as best as the intellect can receive it.

          • Dee

            Harold, thank you for putting a little humor into the discussion. Kimberly, it is very clear that you have no understanding at all about the Catholic Church. The first thing you see upon stepping foot into a Catholic Church is Jesus on the cross, reminding us that he died for his love of all of us – Jews, Gentiles, sinners, etc., and we in turn are to love all people; not just those who think the same as we do. You do not have to accept the deed (homosexuality), but Jesus does expect you to love the person, just as He does. (And FYI, I am a heterosexual, married, mother of two adult exceptional daughters, and a former teacher of religious education.) You, although you may not realize it, are one of the reasons people are questioning the objectives of Christianity. There is so much hatred in your tone. I will pray for you, that you will open your heart and your mind and rest assured that Jesus our God is always and ultimately in control – not the Pope, priest, minister, preacher, or anyone else. And by the way, we don’t “worship” the Pope. We do worship Jesus Christ, our Lord, our Savior, and our Healer, but you wouldn’t know that.

        • Harold Osler

          Oh honey, save your breath. Most of these people still think Catholics sacrifice children.

          • Leon Redmond

            I have never heard of Catholics sacrificing children.

      • Liberty

        That is utter tripe. You are crazy. You know nothing about the Catholic Church, the only church Jesus started on this earth.

        • Kimberly Rock

          Jesus wants you to pray to Mary instead of Him? He wants you to put your faith in a mere man and call him Father?

          Read the Book!!

          Matthew 6:7
          And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.

          “But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do…” -Matthew 6:7

          1 Timoty 4:1
          Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.

          First Timothy 2:5 declares, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and the saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father: “Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Whom would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

          God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in heaven has any greater access to God’s throne than we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

          • Harold Osler

            you do realize that they aren’t ‘praying’ to Mary–they’re asking her to intercede with God.

          • http://www.Yahoo.com Bastian Balthazar Bux

            “they’re asking her to intercede with God.”

            Yeah, that’s not a good idea….that’s not Mary’s job and never has been. Probably an evil spirit.

            Romans 8: 26-27

            26 In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words; 27 and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.

          • Coretta Shelton

            with her son Jesus

          • http://www.tularemercantile.com Allen Casselman Sr.

            The only intercessor is Christ. None other.

          • Harold Osler

            Funny, when I tried to go back on this site after running a security scan and update on my computer(which had slowed down) I was warned that it was infected with malware. Just a warning to others, you might want to run a scan on your computer and update your security.

        • http://www.tularemercantile.com Allen Casselman Sr.

          Yahshua did not start a church at all, the so called church you claim to understand is man’s creation.
          When he asked Peter Mat 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

          Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

          Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

          Mat 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

          He wasn’t saying that Peter would be the foundation of the Church but the Knowing of the Son of Yah would be the foundational rock that could not be shaken.

    • Lisa

      Every religion is equally valid in that they are all mythological. You are free to have your belief but it is an egocentric opinion that all should share it.

      • Desertcatn

        So you say.

      • Kimberly Rock

        Good luck with that… You are the higher power I guess…

    • Christopher Kanas

      While I agree with you in principle, at the time of Sodom, Jesus was an unknown (at least by that name) God is the name of the OT for the majority of text.

    • Ugo Ugo LiuLi Hai

      Let not the name bother you. Because there is coming a day where all them that believe in Jesus Christ in sincerity and honesty will be given a new name to call our saviour. Jesus is also answered by some Spanish speaking people. So until then let’s have Jesus Christ engraved in our hearts and mind so that the Spirit that rose Him from the dead will do the interpretation of His name to Himself.

    • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

      Jesus is NOT G-d.

      Once one ascribes divinity to any human more than they have themselves, they have become a pagan – plain and simple. There are hundreds of verses forbidding such an action.

      This is why Christians were thrown out of the synagogues and prevented form entering the temple beyond the gentile temenos wall with warnings of death in every language.

      There is only one G-d and there is none beside him. (ein ‘od bilvado)

      Of course they could not mention Jesus in this article as sedom was destroyed thousands of years before Jesus could even have worn a nappy.

      • msicairos

        While discussing names for God; In all truth HE has no name; In Exodus 3:13-15 the time when Moses asked HIM; What is the name that I shall tell them that hath sent me?; ? HE answered; Tell them that ‘ I AM THAT I AM’ Thus shalt thou say un to the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. Thats about the best HE can be described by human terms as a name. But if you are still living by the mosaic law of the old covenant; You can call HIM; El Shddai, El Elyon, Adonai, Yahweh, Jehovah and many more, But we born again Christians that are living in the new dispensation go Grace, New Covenant we call HIM (Yeshu’a) better known as JESUS. Immanuel! (Isaiah 7:14) meaning/interpreted in Matthew 1:23= God is with us. Also read Isaiah 11 & 12. There are many places in the New Covenant where Jesus (Yeshua) claims that He and the Father are one.

        But if you are a living Jew and are still trying to keep the Mosaic law, you will never accept Jesus (Yeshua) as God. End of discussion.

        • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

          There can be no discussion b/c u are purely pagan. G-d does not have sex with humans and produce killable offspring who wore nappies.

          Every people has a tradition of humans elevating to heroes, demi gods and full gods. Well, every people but Jews.

          If you step out of your box for even one second you would see what nonsense the whole thing is. It is not a semantic play on words. It is worshipping a human as God.

        • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

          better – just watch this…

          https://youtu dot be/Wiawe2Pyzws

      • EDBroker

        God became the Man Jesus Christ. Another cult that denies the deity of Christ gets all pissed off and mad when I ask them to please read these verses to me from their own “Kingdom Interlinear” KJV Bible. So, please explain why “Jesus is NOT G-d” as you say:

        Isaiah 44: 6 “I am the First and I am the Last, and besides me there is no other God.” Jehovah God is “the First and the Last.”

        Rev. 22:13 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the First and the Last.”

        Rev.1: 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the ALMIGHTY.” (The Lord God, the ALMIGHTY, “is to come”? Big clue here!)

        Rev. 1:17 “And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am THE FIRST AND THE LAST… [exactly the same Greek words again as in Rev. 22:13!] and,

        Rev. 1:18 I am He that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” So, is this God or Jesus? The answer is “Yes!”

        Micah 5: 2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” [“everlasting” is olam in Hebrew. Only God is from everlasting]

        • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

          The Jewish religion was revealed to 2m people who heard G-d speak. He said very clearly so all could hear and understand “have no other gods before me” (that would include Jesus).

          He gave the first 10 (of 613) commandments out loud. The people got scared and asked Moses to get the rest and tell them and right after the 10 commandments it starts listing the rest.

          We don’t have a mystery religion revealed to one (Jesus) or a few (ppl like Paul). We have an unbroken tradition and written bible that happened as it occurred, not something written 3 generations after some mystical figure was supposed to exist (the oldest NT document is from c. 79) to replace G-d or be part yet not part of him, etc.

          These are pagan concepts that belong to others’, every other people’s pantheon.

          Jews simple do not have this and never can. ein ‘od bilvodo – there is none next to him.

          And, we (Jews) are not alone. There are 1.2bn Muslims who also cannot understand the concept of giving divinity to Jesus. They see him as a person/prophet.

          Until a Christian can recognise that there is no divinity in Jesus, no logical dialogue with true monotheists can take place.

          I have the same divinity as Jesus, I am a child of G-d – just as you are. But you believe Jesus to be more – and therein lies the grievously erroneous error.

          Providing quotes from a Christian bible is just plain ludicrous. Taking our scriptures out of context and saying see it says blah blah and that means Jesus – is just plain unadulterated deceit. Quoting the KJV – the version done without a single Hebrew speaker b/c KJ forbade it is one of the worst translations ever created, poetic yes, accurate – not one bit.

          • EDBroker

            Daniel van der Merwede, How do YOU read these Old Testament verses in their proper context then? Why are they a “grievously erroneous error,” as you say? Who is this “everlasting” one Born in Bethlehem? Jesus is obviously not just a “person/prophet” in light of these verses,1.2 billion Muslims (who don’t even read the Old Testament) notwithstanding, now is He? God indwells me as the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, but that does not make ME the “everlasting one,” God Himself.

            Here is the verse from above, again, and two more:

            Micah 5: 2 “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from EVERLASTING.” [“everlasting” is olam in Hebrew. ONLY GOD IS FROM EVERLASTING]

            For unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder. These will be his royal titles: “Wonderful,” “Counselor,” “The Mighty God,” “THE EVERLASTING FATHER,” “The Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

            “Thy throne is established of old: thou art FROM EVERLASTING.” Psalm 93:2 Who is this?

          • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

            I have an unbroken transmission of the bible that is thousands of years old and speak fluent Hebrew, it being my second language (first is Dutch – 9th is English).

            If you cannot get over the pagan idea of ascribing deification to dead humans – then it is useless to start a dialogue as there is no common frame of reference.

          • EDBroker

            Well, how nice for you that you know all those languages. I wish I could speak Hebrew, but I have to refer to reference books like concordances in order to get the meanings of Scripture from professional scholars who, by the way, use proper hermeneutics. Yourself as a Jew will be forced to realize that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, Second Person of the Trinity, God Himself manifest in the flesh, when He returns. “Is to come,” remember? At that time you will be able to understand the Resurrection of Jesus too. And I am not “ascribing deification to dead humans,” just one dead human—who rose from death, “and lives forevermore.” I perceive that you are unable to give a correct answer to the three Old Testament verses above, “in their proper context,” so you MUST drop out. Your call. It’s quite obvious to anyone with good reasoning skills what these verses are saying. Get into the correct frame of reference so you CAN understand. Maybe you are self-blinded to their meanings.

          • http://www.opensuse.org/en/ Daniel van der Merwede

            It is much much more likely that our scriptures will come true.

            The gentiles nations will come during sukkot to attend services and bring their offerings, but they won’t be sincere and will kick in their tabernacles when the feast is over.

            Jesus, if he existed, will be resurrected and tried by our court. He will probably be found innocent and told to bring a she goat as a sin offering (I bet you didn’t know sin offerings were often female) and he will and he’ll probably make an announcement that he is sorry he wasn’t a better teacher and so many followed after Paul and were lead astray by elevating him to god status. If TV’s still around.

            There is no way that a religion revealed to everyone where the first commandment is to specifically NOT do what you suggest is going to allow a mystery religion to replace it.

            Stop trying to cause extermination to my people. Why not work on some Yanks or better Muslims.

            Haven’t Christians killed or destroyed the lives of enough Jews? Are you still so sore it took your Romans so long to conquer us? Get over it already.

            Humans are not divine. Every culture has that but ours. It is a death penalty offence for Jews.

            There are only 2 laws for humans recognised by Jews. The 7 laws of Noah – to which even you must ascribe and the 613 laws of Judaism – which is for Jews only.

            The gentiles had their prophet, Bilaam, he did not do well and that is why you have no prophets now (unless you count that Mormon in Utah).

            Equating “a” messiah – there are many (every King in Israel and every Cohen Gadol – was and will be a messiah) to divinity is also a big big no no. It just boggles the Jewish mind.

    • Coretta Shelton

      God is our Father and no one can come to the father except through the son, if you know the son you also know the father the God head.and his spirit dwells in us .

    • Michael Mathis

      Before Abraham was, JESUS IS!(Jesus replied to detractors at one point…”Before Abraham was , I AM!” which led to some listening to him to pick up stones with which to stone him!)

    • Terry Harguess

      John 10:30 KJV

  • Becky

    They’re dealing with the issues at hand…Christians (public employees,
    private businesses) are being forced to relinquish their religious liberties or
    lose their livelihoods and defunding the murderers, PP.

    To a degree, there’s a point made in regard to the divorce/adultery issue, it’s rampant and needs to be addressed. As rampant as it is, it isn’t affecting the religious liberties of Christians, again that’s the issue at hand. For example, depending
    on the state, marriage applications might ask about previous marriages and proof
    of termination (divorce, annulment, death), but it won’t ask why the marriage
    was terminated (eg: adultery, abuse). Therefore, a Christian clerk wouldn’t have that knowledge…remarriage isn’t always automatically an act of adultery, according to the bible.

    • Dave_L

      “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.” (Romans 7:2–3, KJV 1900)

      • Mike M

        For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God.

        • Dave_L

          True, but what is your point?

      • Josey

        I do believe Paul addresses this in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 vs10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
        12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

        • Dave_L

          This does not sanction remarriage while the separated spouse is living.

          • Josey

            No it doesn’t, I agree with you that remarriage is out of the question and agree with what Jesus said on the matter, he made it clear divorce happened because of the hardness of hearts, an unwillingness to forgive each other and to never let the sun go down on your wrath but we are imperfect and fail at times and must lean on Jesus for the strength and love He gives so we can be forgiving of each other.
            I do agree with Paul on if a believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever chooses to leave, that they should be allowed to go and that a brother or sister can remarry and that they are not under bondage in that case as Paul says, God has called us to peace.

  • DJC1111

    I am supportive of gay marriage rights because I am libertarian. But now I realize this only works if everyone is libertarian…and they’re not. Right now in Canada, a private Christian university has been denied accreditation for a new law program based on its code-of-conduct policy that sanctions sexual conduct only inside Biblical marriage. On the basis of legalized gay marriage, the law society of various provinces have denied accreditation to the program accusing the university of discrimination.

    My belief is live and let live…but I am seeing that there indeed is an agenda and its values are conform or die. If those who value religious freedom (freedom period) don’t fight for their right to it, it absolutely will result in the denial of those freedoms. The insidiousness of this is not the issue of gay marriage itself. The real danger is in the tactics with which its proponents wish to accomplish their goals. You will conform or be silenced. In their zealous crusade to achieve their aims, they hold their own sense of justice as morally preeminent to liberty and pluralism. They do not believe in dialogue. They believe it is their moral obligation to deconstruct the perceived hegemony of the dominant societal discourse and enshrine the norms and values of the marginalized – whether through imposition or manipulation.

    In other words, they have framed differences not as disagreements – which can and should be tolerated in a free and pluralistic society – but as a struggle between the privileged powerful and the oppressed. In which case, your disagreement is not a matter of differences it is not a matter of your morally inexcusable desire to oppress and suppress another group. Therefore, neither you nor your values should have any place in society, and certainly they should not be tolerated.

    Hence, if you are male, Christian, or white you are a member of the privileged and historically powerful group – also (in this ideology) still liable for the historical crimes of colonization, patriarchy, and cultural genocide. In the name of social justice, it is the duty of the moral person, to fight for against the current and historical oppression by socially marginalizing your group’s values, silencing your voice (e.g. why should a racist be allowed to speak?), and limiting your mobility in the public sphere (i.e. if you have to bake a cake for a gay wedding ceremony….or don’t practice business).

    These are the morals, methods, and methodologies of progressives. It is anti-liberal, and certainly anti-liberty. In fact, liberty is an enemy because in such a playing field the strong dominate the weak, so what is to be sought rather, is social justice, not liberty – the evening of the playing field – not the same rules for all – inhibitions on the strength of the strong, and empowerment for the weak. And there is no end to the penance you will have to pay.

    • James Von Borcke

      “My belief is live and let live…but…”

      Nothing good ever follows the ‘but’.
      “I don’t hate women, but…”
      “I’m not racist, but…”
      One can usually swap out ‘but’ for ‘except’, and you’ll find that the context and meaning of the statement remains completely unchanged.

      .
      “,,,but I am seeing that there indeed is an agenda and its values are conform or “die.”

      You mean the agenda of recognizing the equality of homosexuals the same way there was once an agenda of recognizing the equality of Africans and, before that, an agenda of recognizing the equality of women?
      Yeah… What an evil thing us liberals are up to.
      Face it, the racists of the 1960s felt that way, as did the He-Man Women Haters of the 1920s did as well. Playing the victim is a long standing tradition with Conservatives, often accusing Liberals of planning to do to Conservatives what Conservatives had been doing to others all along.

      “Hence, if you are male, Christian, or white you are a member of the
      privileged and historically powerful group – also (in this ideology)
      still liable for the historical crimes of colonization, patriarchy, and
      cultural genocide.”

      As a white, straight, Christian male, I find your paranoia amusing. Ever see the movie “White Man’s Burden”? It’s premised on the idea of “What if Africans settled North America?” It does a good job of showing that it is opportunity that makes a ‘race’ of people oppressors over another, and that it’s not inherently associated to any specific skin color. And as it’s not inherent to skin color, it ~can~ be undone and corrected.

      Get with the program or be a ~small~ speed bump on the road of human progress.

      • DJC1111

        I think you missed my point. Both Liberals and Conservatives appeal to the state to have their values recognized and then imposed on the rest of society – using the power of the state. However, progressive (not liberal – I’m liberal) ideology frames socio-political ethics within a moral framework based on power and oppression and intrinsically does not seek liberty as its end goal – rather it seeks to establish and impose its own definition of ‘justice’ on the whole of society via the removal of social power of hegemonic groups through the deconstruction of ‘their’ norms and values. The end goal is not so much equality as ‘equalizing’ in which the dominant hegemony has an infinite debt to be repaid.

        I am not necessarily opposed to the positions or perspectives derived from this framework. Indeed, I believe much of it represents valid concern. There is a dominant hegemony. As a non white person I know this first hand.

        What I am opposed to, however, are the methodologies of what is essentially Marxism – which ultimately increases the power of the state and defines its relationship with its public in ways that are antithetical to liberty. I am opposed to moral policing in any direction. My view is that gay marriage was rightly legalized as a necessary recognition of gay people’s individual liberties which should not be denied them by other groups in society via the power of the state. I support it as a victory for liberty.

        However, as can be seen in the case of the Christian bakers, and TWU in Canada, it seems it was not about liberty at all but reversing the direction of moral policing. The willingness to silence debate, prohibit discussion, and paint legitimate concerns with the brush you yourself used – ‘you’re wrong so nothing you say matters’ – this is what scares me.

        You did not address my actual points. All you did was paint me as inauthentic and then define for me what I ‘actually’ meant. No. I meant what I said, the way I said it. You are demonstrating what I find so disturbing about progressive methodologies. Your are not actually engaging in rational debate. You are simply declaring my views INVALID, me invalid – essentially not worthy of dialogue.

        Everyone is worthy of dialogue no matter how right or wrong. As Malcom X asserted, it is the only genuine starting point for true and lasting change.

        I assert that progressive methodologies are rooted in Marxist ideologies which are intrinsically and fundamentally antithetical to liberty. I assert that the aims of progressives are not to expand liberty to places they were previously not recognized, but to assert their own moral values and impose these upon all groups in society. I assert that liberty is not the guiding compass that defines these values but rather ‘social justice’. This concept of social justice necessitates special rights for the marginalized and diminished rights for the dominant. These terms are defined historically and applied collectively – i.e., collective justice trumps individual justice. I assert that neither the ends nor the means of this approach result in a just society, and instead give rise to a socialist state. I assert that while the moral positions of progressives may be fully valid, the methodologies are a threat to liberty – as has been demonstrated repeatedly.

        Now, James, be a big boy, stop with your rhetoric and accusations, and give me a real argument.

        • James Von Borcke

          “… in which the dominant hegemony has an infinite debt to be repaid.”
          Being part of the ‘dominant hegemony’, I don’t see this at all.

          “As a non white person I know this first hand.”
          And as a white person, I affirm that it exists. I do my best not to add to it, of course, though I’m sure my kids will do a better job than I.

          “However, as can be seen in the case of the Christian bakers, and TWU in Canada, it seems it was not about liberty at all but reversing the direction of moral policing.”
          I see it more as ethical policing, with the ethical standard being the Constitution. The moral policing of the Religious Right–be it Christian, Jewish or Islamic–is not based on the Constitution, however, but on the mythos of primitive cultures which can simply be regarded as barbaric. Particularly so since every one of these religions, when applied through the conservative mindset, call for the oppression of ‘the other’, with ‘the other’ defined differently per religion, with women considered second class citizens in all three.
          Note, too, that I consider the US that allowed slavery to have been barbaric; the US that permitted and, depending on the President, promoted the near genocide of the continent’s varied native population to have been barbaric; the US that allowed women to be beaten, tortured, raped and murdered during their struggle to vote to have been barbaric; the US that allowed segregation and turned a blind eye to lynchings to have been barbaric; and the US that similarly ignored AIDS until it began to manifest in the hetero population to have been barbaric.
          And I hope–really, truly hope–that future generation look back at us and recognize that we were ~still~ barbarians even in this day and age, and that they’ve advanced beyond what we thought to be possible.
          As far as the bakers go, imagine if you, a non-white person, walked into a bakery and were told “We don’t serve your kind”? Or perhaps, “You were supposed to use ~that~ entrance over there”? Homosexuals walking into a bakery to buy a cake deserve the same treatment you would expect, which is ~now~ the same treatment a white man like me has ~always~ been able to expect.
          That’s equality, not privilege. What a man like me had 50 years ago, that was privilege. Indeed, that you and I can ~still~ walk into the same place of business and be treated completely differently by the same person is ~still~ privilege. Granted, it’s not my fault, but I ~am~ obligated to call it out when I see it.

          “You are demonstrating what I find so disturbing about progressive methodologies.”
          No, I simply didn’t quite understand your position fully–you can imagine the sorts I deal with here–which made some of what you posted seem off. Know what I mean?
          And it is difficult sometimes when four or five different threads are going on the same topic to keep track of who’s who…

          “I assert that progressive methodologies are rooted in Marxist ideologies which are intrinsically and fundamentally antithetical to liberty.”
          Ever hear that Marx stated that he wasn’t a Marxist?
          Marx and Engels never intended for the proposals within the Communist Manifesto to be implemented full scale. Both considered the idea that someone would even try to do it was preposterous, and what they predicted would happen if such implementation occurred was proven correct through the USSR.
          Rather, the material within the CM was intended to open discussion regarding the economic policies of the time in order to implement ~change~. And we can see the positive effect of this change through the socialist policies that the US implemented between the 30s and 70s, as well as the effects of the Marshall Plan following WWII, when western Europe ran mostly on a system known as Social Market Capitalism.
          Today’s economic issues are the result of abandoning these policies for more libertarian policies of unregulated markets bolstered by excessive subsidies paid for by taxes on the Middle Class–In other words, socialism for the rich.
          BTW, the reason why the name Marx is so often evoked while we almost never hear about Engels is because Marx was an Atheist and Engels wasn’t; pointing out that Marx was Atheist has been a continual theme expressed by those who wish to denounce his theories, usually by religious folks who’ve gained a bigoted view of Atheists from the same place they gained their negative view of women, Africans, pagans and Jews.

          “This concept of social justice necessitates special rights for the marginalized and diminished rights for the dominant.”
          And again, as part of the ‘dominant’, I do not find my rights diminished at all. I keep hearing that they are, but all evidence says this is a lie. Even in this discussion, I’ve asked again and again for one of these folks who ~insist~ that their rights have been diminished to state clearly ~which rights~ have been infringed upon. And to date, not a single one has been able to answer the question.
          And let’s be honest: If what was being said were true, I wouldn’t have to ask the question because I’d have experienced that infringement myself. But I haven’t.

          “…and instead give rise to a socialist state.”
          Again, America was a socialist state from the 30s to the 70s, and we ~created~ socialist states in Europe following WWII. And given the economic success of those years, and the stability of those nations which held to the system even after the other nations moved away from it, there’s no evidence that a ‘socialist state’ is a bad thing.
          One may also notice that as individual liberties increased, particularly following the Civil Rights Movement, conservatives became more adamant about eliminating, or simply defunding and adding mountains of red tape, to social programs–including/especially education, the ultimate social equalizer–which were now being accessed by the ‘wrong sorts’ of people.

          Is that real enough for you?

  • Josey

    Oh, how I wish I could have been there physically, I am standing with those that are standing with God. Father God, rise up your faithful from the youngest to the oldest, rise up your prophets, pastors, preachers, bring revival to our hearts and a fire in our bones to speak and obey Your will, may it Your will be done in the earth as it is in Heaven in Jesus Precious Name. All glory, honor and power belong to You Lamb of God, Lord Jesus.

    • Michelle Castañeda

      Aman. I will stand with you in prayer for this. God Bless America. God Come back to America.

    • James Von Borcke

      Jesus said not to pray in public… But don’t let that brown-skinned hippie stop you.

      • KenS

        context, context, context, Jesus himself prayed in public. When he addressed this praying in public, he was addressing the hypocritical Pharisees and how they were praying in public to try and show how spiritual they were when in reality their soul was empty.
        There are many instances where Jesus is seen praying in public, So if you look at the entire bible you will see that Jesus was not commanding us not to pray in public but rather not to pray in hyprocrisy, otherwise he would not have broken his own commandments.
        One example is on the cross: “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”

        • James Von Borcke

          Context, context, context… I see no Christians here, just a bunch of Pharisees using the law to brow beat those they don’t like.

          And there’s the funny part… Jesus could forgive the Romans and the mockers, who were in the act of murdering him, and asked God to forgive them, too. And yet, in this entire discussion, we can’t get ~one~ person to indicate ~one~ instance in which their rights were violated, but yet ~everyone~ here acts like they’re on the cross themselves, and being a lot more heartless about it.

          Oh… What’s that? You don’t want to make a wedding cake for two men? Well, tough. There are ~other~ bigots out there who don’t want to make a cake for interracial couples. Are ~their~ rights violated when an interracial couple enters their store? No, they’re not. Nor are ~your~ rights violated when two men walk in. Grow up.

          Be more forgiving; forgive others for being gay the same way we forgive you for being a bigot. Otherwise, you’re just heartless Pharisees to whom the ~letter~ of the law is of use ~only~ as a weapon to beat others over the head with, and to whom the ~spirit~ of the law is not only meaningless, but is often ~mocked~ when shown to be contrary to intent.

          • Guest

            You’re like a one trick pony. Too bad that one trick doesn’t work for you.

  • Nidalap

    Good! A man or woman needs to make clear that they intend to stand for the right at times like these! 🙂

  • James Von Borcke

    It reminds me of the time thousands of Christians gathered to stand with God against desegregation.

    • Bezukhov

      And on the other side were thousands of Christians who thought Segregation was God’s Holy Writ.

      • James Von Borcke

        I think you misunderstood me… No worries, though; we see the same thing.

      • Dave_L

        References??

        • James Von Borcke

          Okay, Dave… This is American History. Are you ~not~ familiar with it? Are you ~not~ familiar with the KKK, a Christian-based organization of terrorists? Are you ~not~ familiar with the speeches of Governor Wallace? Are you really this ~ignorant~ of our nation’s history? The Civil Rights Movement? Women’s Suffrage? Any of this ringing a bell?

          Or are you clinging to the bliss of ignorance?

          • Dave_L

            I suppose you still think it was “native Americans” who launched the Boston Tea Party?

          • James Von Borcke

            And I suppose you still think you’re the intelligent one in this conversation.

            Are you going to address the issue, or are you just here to derail the issue because you know it’s true?

          • Dave_L

            You must prove the validity of the Christian experience in the lives of those you accuse. I’m simply saying your accusations do not line up with the character of New Testament ethics, required of all Christians. Chop away…

          • James Von Borcke

            No, I don’t. They identified as Christian, just as today’s anti-gay lobby does. They quoted the Bible to support their position, just as today’s anti-gay lobby does. They claimed that ~they~ were being persecuted by having to acknowledge the freedom and equality of others, just as today’s anti-gay lobby does.

            I’m not obligated to ‘prove the validity’ of the segregationist’s Christian experience any more than I have to ‘prove the validity’ of the homophobe’s Christian experience. After all, I don’t think ~either~ the segregationist or the homophobe are Christians to begin with; both use the Bible to validate their own pre-existing bigotries while pissing all over Jesus and his ministry.

          • Dave_L

            So counterfeit $50s are as good as the real thing in your book?

          • James Von Borcke

            Nope; my book says that two counterfeit bills are both worthless regardless of denomination.

            If one is following the ministry of Jesus, it will help them to ~shed and overcome~ their prejudices; not justify and reinforce them.

          • Dave_L

            Exactly. God made of one blood All people.

          • James Von Borcke

            Including the gays.

          • Dave_L

            How about kleptomaniacs?

          • Guest

            And the pedophiles?

          • Guest

            Speaking of counterfeit things, why are you a Levay Satanist pretending to be a Christian? Not to mention, you’re not very good at deceit.

          • Guest

            So not only did you fail history 101, you flunked basic grammar too.

          • Guest

            So, like, how long have you been a satanist?

          • Guest

            You failed history 101, didn’t you?

    • Dave_L

      References?

      • James Von Borcke

        Google “interracial marriage protest”, then flip to Images.

        • Dave_L

          I would rather have specifics from you so I know what exactly to address.

          • James Von Borcke

            To know what ‘exactly’ to address? How about the thousands of Conservative Christians that protested the Virginia v Love decision? Or the fact that the Virginia v Love decision was even necessary to begin with?

            Do you ~really~ need me to be more specific than that, or are you playing dense on purpose?

          • Dave_L

            Again, you must define Christian by the Bible. “… And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Acts 11:26, KJV 1900)

          • James Von Borcke

            No, I don’t. Especially if it comes from the writings of Saul.

          • Dave_L

            Post it with your interpretation…

          • James Von Borcke

            One who follows, or makes an ~honest attempt~ to follow, the teachings of Jesus through his ministry.

          • Guest

            Paul followed Jesus. That’s why you hate him so much.

          • Jim H

            The reason that Christians were first called that at Antioch is that the Apostles, including Jesus own brother James who headed the church at Jerusalem, considered themselves to be (like Jesus himself) Jews, they practiced Judaism not Christianity.
            Christianity, per se was invented by Paul, based on what he considered his own personal spiritual revelation which he came to believe was a superior understanding to that of even James or any of the Apostles.

          • Dave_L

            I gave Scripture to support my position. You gave only your opinion.

          • Jim H

            It is all there in Paul’s own words. I assumed you knew the Bible well enough to know where. I apologize if I assumed to much.

            In Galatians 2:11 Paul says:

            “For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. 1:11-12).”

            Despite the fact that Paul felt that his revelation was from Jesus himself, at that point Paul still seemed to care about the acceptance and patronage of the Jerusalem group.

            By Galatians 2:11 he was not even concerned with what Peter or James thought:

            When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

            How’s that?

          • Guest

            Playing dense? Oh, the irony! Unless — !!!!

          • Jim H

            Here are some specifics concerning Christian belief and interracial marriage or segregation in general that you can address.
            Virginia v Love went to the Supreme court because of a lower court decision in which the Christian Judge Leon M. Bazile, on January 6, 1959, remarked:

            “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

            Theodore Bilbo was one of Mississippi’s great demagogues. After two non-consecutive terms as governor, Bilbo won a U.S. Senate seat. For Senator Bilbo racism was more that just an ideology, it was a sincerely held religious belief. In a book entitled Take Your Choice: Separation or Mongrelization, Bilbo wrote that “[p]urity of race is a gift of God . . . . And God, in his infinite wisdom, has so ordained it that when man destroys his racial purity, it can never be redeemed.” Allowing “the blood of the races [to] mix,” according to Bilbo, was a direct attack on the “Divine plan of God.” There “is every reason to believe that miscengenation and amalgamation are sins of man in direct defiance to the will of God.”

            Ross Barnett won Mississippi’s governorship in a landslide in 1960 after claiming that “the good Lord was the original segregationist.” Senator Harry Byrd of Virginia relied on passages from Genesis, Leviticus and Matthew when he spoke out against the civil rights law banning employment discrimination and whites-only lunch counters on the Senate floor.

            Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.”

          • Dave_L

            Where does Jesus fit into this?

          • Jim H

            I would guess the Christians who believe such things would say everywhere.

          • Dave_L

            What if Jesus is not guilty of your charges? What does that make you?

          • Jim H

            I haven’t charged Jesus with anything. It is about what gets claimed and done by “Christians”, in his name. It is like Gandhi said: ‘I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.’

          • Josey

            That’s because Gandhi made up his own version of Jesus, it wasn’t the Christ of the Bible.

          • Jim H

            Apparently, his version was a lot nicer than yours.

        • Guest

          You should Google the entire Bible.

  • notwithgod

    This is absolutely ridiculous and pure republican propaganda. If you truly believe in the bible, specifically the book of Leviticus, then most are breaking the laws laid out is said book. There is so much more going on than just homosexuality, but then again most only want to hate someone. If you are going to follow what the bible says, you must be misogynistic, racist, a slave owner, and murderous. God is not real, the bible was written by men to establish rule and incorperate wealth.

    • Dave_L

      “As also in all his (Paul’s) epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:16)

    • EDBroker

      But the prophecies of the end-times, including the return of the Diaspora Jews to their ancient homeland of Israel, verifies the truth of the Bible! How could mere men have just written that without Divine Inspiration? Also, read Ezekiel 38 & 39 about the looming invasion of Israel by Russia and Iran and Isaiah 17:1 about the coming destruction of Damascus. When these prophecies happen, think again about God not being real! Also…There are over 600 sins in the Bible not just one. There are 67 abominations in the Bible, not just one! We MUST rely on God as the Man Jesus Christ to give us the free gift of Salvation available to ALL. When Christ returns the whole world will know that He is the Great Creator God! (Colo. 1: 15-17)

    • Greg Trujillo

      We are no longer under the law. At all.

      • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

        LOL! Sin is transgression of the Law of God. All still sin. Some more, some less. Only repentant sinners get forgiven. Jesus’ Blood.

    • Desertcatn

      Your posting name is correct, sad.

  • PRIMUS

    Matthew 6:6

    But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    What is happening above is propaganda. When will Christians awaken and READ! the Bible.

    Hosea 4:6

    my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. “Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    Jesus Christ is not universal. He is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. He is not up for grabs, Christians are not trying to make Him palatable to everyone, just telling the Law and Gospel as Christ presented it and it was passed to us in the scriptures. He came to turn mother against daughter, son against father, etc. It’s in there, search for it.

  • Peter Leh

    “The landscape of this great republic is eroding daily and the floods of
    change are seeking to assassinate the moral fiber of the land we love.
    Crime rates are rising, civil unrest is abounding and perversion is
    growing exponentially”

    WAIT….is this in the year 2015 or 1964? or 1865?

    same script… different “villain”

    • James Von Borcke

      I keep pointing that out, but none of the local residents are keen on hearing it.

      • Peter Leh

        “the past is never dead it is not even past”

  • FoJC_Forever

    Stand with God for the Salvation of those who are still trapped in Sin. Sin will be, until the Time of the End. Salvation is the key, to set free those who are now condemned.

  • Edsword

    How about the I stand with Yahweh and his son Yeshua rally?

  • James Jackson

    Well it’s a true shame what is going on in America and the world. Jesus said it would be likened as the days of Noah and Sodom before His return. So those that are really looking for Him be ready for He is coming soon. These days had to come. Jesus told us exactly how it would be and it is here. There is nothing that will change the end of time that is here now. All nations and people that forget God He will turn them into hell. You’re seeing that now.
    This thing concerning the baptist on homo’s is a very serious thing because it’s not what the bible teaches. The bible is very clear when it states that there is no fellowship with darkness. Light and darkness will not fellowship with each other.
    Also the false teaching of once saved always saved is a total lie from satan. In REV. 22-18,19 is very clear. Change or add one word to this book and your name will be taken out of the Lamb’s book of life. If you were once always saved then this scripture would’nt be in the bible. So wake up for your redemption draweth nigh.

  • Chris Kolker

    Overwhelmed by sin in your own life? Go to Christianwebmd for help.

  • EDBroker

    Only 1/2 of 1% of households are same-sex households. But the destruction of the marriage institution through divorce among heterosexuals just seems to be swept under the rug. “Save marriage. Stop divorce.” God hates divorce! (Malachi 2:14-16) Boys need their dads for male-gender identification in becoming straight. So easy to blame the victim and excuse emotionally or physically absent fathers! Read ch. 9 of Dr. James Dobson’s book Bringing Up Boys. “Mothers make boys. Fathers make men.” But ask any developmental psychologist. This is another reality just swept under the rug!

  • WGB

    I wish I could have marched with them.

    • maxine

      i believe you are confusing Sodom with the city of Jericho. : )

  • Michelle Castañeda

    Well said brother. I will stand in prayer with you that God awakens this nation to real reality. Gods’ reality. Keep speaking out. God bless you

  • http://www.smbelow.com Steven

    Normally, I will read the article above and then comment based on what I read. I have to say that I’m at a loss. The article above has the title :
    “Archaeologist Believes Remains of Sodom’s Fiery Destruction Have Been Found”

    Yet the comments below reflect something completely different.

  • Blueray Andrews

    ,,,GODJEHOVAH is allowing the world to see hard factual evidence, on His timetable, here, in this time period, the end of time,,,how ironic he chooses us to see the remnants of Sodom, a ungodly people,,, and the world, most anyway, will choose not to believe,,, yes, believe GODJEHOVAH loves them enough to share material evidence,,, choices, He also chooses to allow us choices,,,Shalom…….

  • Jim H

    There is something wrong with the comments shown. Most were written long before this article was posted and have nothing to do with it.

  • pauleky

    This is satire, right?

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    There is such utter babble in the comments. Do you people really believe in this nonsense? Are you adults or children? Even Israeli archaeology admit that the first books of the bible are made up, and have no bearing on actual places and events. Moses never existed, neither did any of the main characters of these stories.

    Come join us in the modern world and take responsibility for your own actions.

  • Lisa

    Wow, a city burns and automatically God did it. Couldn’t be due to natural disaster, attempt at disease eradication, conquest or anything natural and plausible. Very scientific. What university is this? Not accredited? It’s a biased conclusion.

  • http://textsincontext.wordpress.com Michael Snow

    How did a story on archeology and Sodom turn into this this cacophony? Why do fellow Christians insist on bringing embarrassment upon Jesus’ Body with off-topic sectarian squabbles?

  • Michael Downard

    That is absolutely hysterical how NONE of the comments on this story have absolutely nothing to do with Sodom or archaeology whatsoever. It’s just basically a bunch of sycophants proselytizing their primitive antediluvian faith with a hive-like mentality.

  • Michael

    And once again, the stones cry out! (Luke 19:40) and will continue…

    Come on people! Those of us that know The Truth have the responsibility to tell others about the saving Love of Jesus Messiah. Study Scripture and:

    “…sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence;” 1 Peter 3:15

    OK, everybody on the count of three, 1, 2, 3,

    Gentleness and reverence. The Enemy loves it when we attack each other. Can we please remember who the REAL Enemy is?

  • Mark H

    Seriously? What a complete waste of time and resources. The Bible is, at best, allegory. Searching for actual places named in it is like looking for Never Never Land. These things didn’t actually happen people!

  • bex

    you mean “archaeologist” you can’t find what’s not there

    TSU is not accredited by any accreditor recognized by the United States Department of Education.

    • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

      Jesus was not “accredited” nor were his disciples.

      What’s your point bex? Or is that POX?

      • bex

        You are correct the Mythical Archetype was not accredited. My point is true academics and scientists are not trying to put a square peg into a round hole.

  • Janet Cross

    I don’t understand the need to search for ancient citys. The Bible is truth. The Bible is real. We do not need to confirm this or that truth. When God destroys a city, why do we need to find it?

  • Cromulent

    But I thought everything in the Bible was fiction. No?

  • http://artfuldilettante.com/ huckfillary

    Until they find Lot’s Wife in the form of a pillar of salt, I remain skeptical.

  • http://whoper.com Lil Nephew

    Who gives a shit?

  • archaeologist

    collins is very wrong