Southwest Airlines Flight Turns on Pink Cabin Lights for Pro-Abortion ‘Women’s March’ Participants

Photo Credit: Krystal Parrish

WASHINGTON — A Southwest Airlines flight transporting a number of men and women to the “Women’s March” on Washington on Thursday reportedly turned the cabin lights pink to show support for those attending the event, which was largely pro-abortion and feminist.

“Southwest turns on the pink lights and a loud cheer erupts. #WomensMarch” Jennifer Moran, who was aboard the flight, Tweeted, sharing a photo of the illuminated cabin.

Passenger Krystal Parrish likewise posted a photo to Instagram writing, “When your Southwest flight crew celebrate a plane full of [expletive] women and men going to the Women’s March by lighting it up!!”

Southwest Airlines has since released a statement outlining that the move wasn’t a company effort, but that individual flights often change the lighting as a statement of support for passengers.

“While we’re unaware of details surrounding a specific flight, our flight crews celebrate, commemorate, acknowledge and share in special moments with our customers all the time,” it said.

“Some of our aircraft are equipped with mood lighting and while this was not a companywide initiative, at times, our flight crews will adjust the lighting for a customer or group of customers traveling on their flight,” the company explained. “For example, in October, one of our flight crews changed the lighting to honor a breast cancer survivor onboard their flight.”

According to reports, hundreds of thousands attended the march in Washington, which included speeches and appearances from secular celebrities such as Madonna, Cher, Alicia Keyes, Katy Perry, Miley Cyrus, Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, Whoopie Goldberg, Scarlett Johannson, Natalie Portman, Emma Watson, Drew Barrymore, Lena Dunham, Vanessa Hudgens, and many others.

  • Connect with Christian News

Some held signs such as, “We deserve to be sexual and serious, or whatever we please,” “I stand with Planned Parenthood,” “Our bodies, our minds, our power” and “I am woman, hear me roar.” Some were too explicit or profane to repost—using profanity or vulgarity—and some referred to President Trump as the “predator in chief.”

Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, was one of the speakers at the event.

“For the majority of people in this country, Planned Parenthood is not the problem, we’re the solution,” she claimed. “My pledge today is: our doors stay open.”

One of the march organizers, Linda Sarsour, is a Muslim and a supporter of Planned Parenthood. Sarsour, who serves as the executive director of the Arab American Association of New York, stated that the potential defunding of the organization was one of the main messages of the Women’s March, along with her concerns about the treatment of Muslims.

“[H]ands off the Affordable Care Act—we need our health insurance, hands off Planned Parenthood and our reproductive rights, hands off Muslims, hands off the undocumented. These are really our top messaging lines,” she told MSNBC last week.

Abortion was likewise one of the “unity principles” outlined on the march website, and only those who aligned with these principles were allowed to sponsor the event.

“We believe in reproductive freedom. We do not accept any federal, state or local rollbacks, cuts or restrictions on our ability to access quality reproductive healthcare services, birth control, HIV/AIDS care and prevention, or medically accurate sexuality education. This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education,” the site reads.

Even though they were not allowed to serve as sponsors because of because of their disagreement with the “reproductive rights unity principle,” a number of women who identify as “pro-life feminists” also took to the streets of Washington to counter the abortion advocacy message, holding banners and signs such as “Abortion betrays women” and “Real feminists reject abortion.”

The Huffington Post reports that some attendees cussed at the pro-life women, while others thanked them for their participation.

In addition to support for abortion, other unity principles for marchers included immigration rights, environmental justice and “LGBTQIA rights.”

“We firmly declare that LGBTQIA rights are human rights and that it is our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters and siblings. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes,” the website for the event reads.

Similar marches were stated to have been held in cities across the nation, as well as internationally.

Former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton Tweeted in support of the effort, writing, “Thanks for standing, speaking & marching for our values @womensmarch. Important as ever. I truly believe we’re always stronger together.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. Now, as the cold winds of winter blow in, we are seeking to also meet the physical needs of the people by providing fuel-operated heaters for the refugees and their children to stay warm. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work (James 2:16)? Please click here to send a heater to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly
  • Reason2012

    So apparently if you want to_kill women while they’re still in the womb, that means you support women’s rights.

    • RealityBites

      Or just support the right of a woman to do what she feels is right for her at the time, without the government sticking its way too large nose into it

      • Reason2012

        Why is it right to_kill a woman just because she’s still in the womb?

        Yes, criminals wish the government would not stick it’s nose into their business as well, so they can go back to criminal activity in peace. Doesn’t mean they’re right, either.

        • RealityBites

          Except that’s one misconception people have. Just because abortion is legal does not mean that women are going to automatically choose that option. Its an option however that women along with doctors decide is best for her at the time

          • Reason2012

            They need to decide what’s best for both women – the one that’s pregnant and the one in the womb.

          • RealityBites

            And politicians need to get out of private decisions

          • Reason2012

            Nothing private about_killing a woman just because she’s still in the womb.

          • RealityBites

            Politicians butt out, its that simple.

          • Reason2012

            Politicians do not butt out of women being_killed, even if they’re still in the womb.

          • RealityBites

            They’re mad that they haven’t been able to control a woman’s body for the last 44 years, I get it

          • Chris

            It is reasonable to think that when the brain stops functioning then life [as we know it] is ended. It must also be reasonable to think of life beginning when the brain begins to function. Most abortions take place long before the development of the brain.

            That being the case if a woman seeks an abortion because she is pregnant there is only one person to consider – the pregnant woman. The fetus is a potential person, until it’s brain develops.

          • Reason2012

            Hinges on your assumption that a human being is not alive until its brain begins to function. Be thankful you were not_killed before your brain started to function, but then going on to champion 57 MILLION women and men being_killed over the past few decades with a million more each year. The only ones for such brutality are those who were not_killed by one.

          • Chris

            “Hinges on your assumption that a human being is not alive until its brain begins to function.”

            No it doesn’t. That’s why I put the words ‘as we know it’ in there. However ethics is guided by what can be shown which requires evidence. The evidence, at the moment, shows that the brain controls the body and therefore when the brain ceases to function life, as we know it, is over.

            “And it’s a fact that 99.999+% of those whose brains were not functioning yet go on to live up to 100 years old as healthy as anyone else who has lived proves they ARE human beings / people – proving they ARE alive, until someone comes along and_kills them for their agenda of course.”

            What? No one can live without a brain. Take away someone’s brain and, I promise you, they will die.

            “Comparing someone who is fatally injured to the normal growth process is disingenuous.”

            I am not doing any such thing. I am pointing out that the medical fraternity have recognised that life ends at brain death so, logic dictates that, if that is the case, then life begins when the brain is functioning.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            A woman in the womb? How does that work?

          • Reason2012

            You mean women were never in the womb before being born? How does that work?

          • Jenny Ondioline

            I think you will find they were not women at the time.

      • Janetp

        The time to make a decision is when you decide to have sex. If you want the govt out of your business then go to a hospital and pay for your abortion yourself.

        • RealityBites

          Or just keep the politicians out of it.

          • Janetp

            So you just want them involved to give you money for your mistakes?

          • RealityBites

            Thank you for showing your crowd’s true colors. As if we who are pro choice did not figure that out a long time ago, we have your number. The pro birth crowd proves consistently that they don’t give a flip about the mom or baby once they force the woman to give birth.

          • Janetp

            I give a flip about everyone. You make your choices…

          • RealityBites

            Your crowd’s true colors on display. The kid is here the family is on their own. Figures

          • Janetp

            And please spare me the melodrama, girls have unprotected sex, get pregnant and for some reason someone else is supposed to pay for it.

          • RealityBites

            Again thank you for showing your side’s true colors

          • antifasciste

            Do you personally approve of everything the government pays for? I don’t approve of religious institutions not paying taxes, but accept it as part of living in a society of diverse ideas.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Under the Hyde Amendment the government can’t pay for abortions, nor have they.

    • Tina Tenace

      great point

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Nothing is right about killing the human babies. Only the women who raised or are raising all their children properly should have a right to march for anything. Child-killing witches harm the society.

    • antifasciste

      Child killing drones in an immoral war harm society as well.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Nations should not touch the USA if they want to be safe. Villains make their children as human shields and that is evil.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Uh, no. That’s not how First Amendment rights work. Everyone in America can speak out on any topic they wish. That’s one of our most cherished freedoms.

      • pastriesqueen

        Speak all you want, as long as you don’t harm others, loot, riot and do bodily harms to others.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Okay…?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Killing children is no freedom but murder crimes.

  • meamsane

    I sometimes wonder whether these people are truly aware of WHY they do what they do?
    Celebrating the KILLING of their own unborn children and everyone else’s too! Yeah, that should be something everyone should celebrate!??

  • KCR

    I am flying Southwest soon , but if I knew they were such an evil company, I would not have booked my flight with them! I bet when the pro life folks come to DC they totally ignore them😬

    • Ambulance Chaser

      So you’re going to boycott Southwest based on what you “bet” they do, without evidence?

      • pastriesqueen

        Perhaps the pro-life group should fly southwest and see what they would do.

      • pastriesqueen

        It’s her right to fly with whatever airline she wishes. Isn’t that her first amendment right just like your post above?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Yes? I didn’t say she didn’t have a right to, just that it makes no sense to exercise that right.

          • pastriesqueen

            She makes sense to me. You seem to contradict yourself from one comment to another.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Where did I contradict myself?

          • pastriesqueen

            This is what you said to Grace in quote below
            Ambulance Chaser Grace Kim Kwon • 3 hours ago

            “Uh, no. That’s not how First Amendment rights work. Everyone in America can speak out on any topic they wish. That’s one of our most cherished freedoms.”

            Then when KCR expressed her opinion about Southwest, you questioned her opinion. If that’s not a contradiction, i don’t know what is.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            He never said she couldn’t express an opinion. He still has the right to question it when it is being given without evidence.

          • pastriesqueen

            who is he to question KCR whether she should boycott a company? If he wants to question , then question those congressmen/women who boycotted the inauguration… and I doubt he did.

          • Jenny Ondioline

            He simply asked for evidence. Nothing wrong with that.

          • pastriesqueen

            Why does he need evidence? Is she being tried for expressing her first amendment? All I’m trying to say is the left always says someone is exercising their first amendment, as long as it fits their narrative. When someone on the right does that, then all hell breaks lose!

          • Jenny Ondioline

            Why does he need evidence?
            Well, so we can know he’s telling the TRUTH and not just making something up? How about that?

          • pastriesqueen

            She’s not on trial. The lying media lies all the time so why are you not asking for TRUTH & facts with the media. KCR doesn’t need to provide any evidence if she chooses to boycott a company…her right. You guys just keep losing sight that it’s ok for the left to express but it’s not ok for someone else to express. One sided, huh? No one cares what chaser thinks or you for that matter. Just let the lady has her own choice of buying or not buying a service. For God Sake! Why does she have to provide any evidence if she wants to boycott somebody? This is not a communist country. You want to buy something, you buy, you don’t, you don’t! Why does she have to answer to chaser, or you?

          • pastriesqueen

            And you assumed that it’s a he. By the way, it’s a she that wants to boycott Southwest.

          • Chris

            Didn’t KCR speak out? When did Chaser try and stop her from speaking out? You seem to think the right to speak on something includes the right never to be contradicted.

          • pastriesqueen

            So, you agreed that he contradicted himself. I doubted that he questioned why the congressmen/women boycotted the inauguration. The left always defends their first amendment but whenever the right exercises their first amendment, they get criticized, questioned.

          • Chris

            “So, you agreed that he contradicted himself.” No. And I’ve already answered this.

          • pastriesqueen

            So, you agreed that he contradicted himself. I doubted that he questioned why the congressmen/women boycotted the inauguration. The left always defends their first amendment but whenever the right exercises their first amendment, they get criticized, questioned.

          • Chris

            “So, you agreed that he contradicted himself.”

            No. She is using her right of free speech and he is doing the same.

            “I doubted that he
            questioned why the congressmen/women boycotted the inauguration.”

            What has that got to do with Chaser and his post?

            “The
            left always defends their first amendment but whenever the right
            exercises their first amendment, they get criticized, questioned.”

            You do realise this is stereotyping don’t you?

          • pastriesqueen

            No not stereotyping, just observing facts, and experienced it personally, but what do you know about facts?

          • Chris

            Actually you are stereotyping. Have you observed every single liberal in the entire world? No? How about every single liberal in your entire country? No? Then you are guilty of using the hasty generalisation fallacy which is stereotyping.

          • pastriesqueen

            Am I NOT free to exercise my first amendment even if I stereotyped? And I don’t think I have to prove 1 million cases before I speak, do I? You just proved my point… I’m exercising my right & you accused me of stereotype. Just proved it! Haha. Case closed!

          • Chris

            “Am I NOT free to exercise my first amendment even if I stereotyped?”

            Absolutely. Even though stereotyping is prejudice you are free to express it. And I am free to call you out on it. That’s free speech too.

            “And I
            don’t think I have to prove 1 million cases before I speak, do I?”

            If you’re making the claim that all liberals are X then you have to prove it, yes. Otherwise, as I’ve established, it’s just stereotyping.

            “You
            just proved my point… I’m exercising my right & you accused me of
            stereotype.”
            So me pointing out a fact is proving your point? Two points:
            1) Pointing out a fact is neither associated with liberals or conservatives. It is associated with being thorough.
            2) I am NOT from your country neither am I either a liberal or a conservative. As I wrote previously I consider the left/right dichotomy dead.

            Case closed!

          • Chris

            “I’m exercising my right & you accused me of stereotype”

            Let me be clear. You have the right to stereotype, and I have the right to point out that you are stereotyping. Clear?

          • Chris

            “…but what do you know about facts?”

            Well I have studied and have a degree in history and philosophy. I teach both to adults. However what has my knowledge base got to do with your hasty generalisations concerning others?

          • pastriesqueen

            I don’t give a hoot about your academia. Please tell me where you teach so I can be sure not to pay even a dime to send my kids to your school & have your liberal mind poison my kids’ minds. I can tell I’m pissing you off & I love it. Freedom of speech. Hahahaha!

          • Chris

            Sorry to disappoint but you’re not pissing me off. I frankly don’t give a damn for your opinions. Additionally, as I’ve already explained, I’m neither a liberal or a conservative. This is the third time I’ve told you this. Oh well. I can suggest a special school where they teach remedial education.

          • pastriesqueen

            I don’t need to go to a remedial school. I’m a RETIRED CPA, if you know what that is.

          • Chris

            Yet you seem incapable of being able to understand when I wrote something three times. Do you normally have this much trouble with your account work? Or are you one of those accountants who practice ‘creative’ accounting? 🙂

          • pastriesqueen

            I really like pissing you off & I’m LOL!

          • Chris

            If you like pissing me off then you are failing I’m afraid. I’m just sitting here chuckling. Sorry to disappoint. But I forgive you.

          • pastriesqueen

            You sound calmer and more civilized, so I’m glad I pointed that out to you that you sounded pissed. I don’t need your forgiveness, because I didn’t insult you. You put that on yourself, mr. philosophy. I pointed out facts based on my personal experiences and you label me as stereotyping, blah, blah, blah. You said I needed to go to remedial school… who is insulting who, mr. philosophy? You think all your academia makes you smarter than everyone else, but what you don’t realize is all that philosophy crap makes you a book worm…you like to live in your ideology and that’s your right. But it’s not ok for the left to exercise the first amendment but God forbid, if someone else who is on the other side of spectrum exercises their first….like boycotting a company. The people that deserved to be criticized are the ones that boycotted the inauguration, not someone who doesn’t want to fly a particular airline.
            FYI, this country is not my birth country but I love it as it is my birth country. So, you are wrong about me again. And I don’t practice creative accounting because I’m a law abiding citizen, and I respect law & order. So, you’re wrong again.
            I’m thrilled that you don’t teach in America because we don’t need another professor like you who would poison our young and innocent minds.

          • Chris

            “You sound calmer and more civilized, so I’m glad I pointed that out
            to you that you sounded pissed.”

            So you’re glad you were wrong? Strange.

            “I don’t need your forgiveness, because I didn’t insult you.”

            By your own words you were saying things to ‘piss me off’ as you put it. If you don’t think that’s insulting I’d suggest you examine the definition.

            “You put that on yourself, mr. philosophy. I pointed
            out facts based on my personal experiences and you label me as
            stereotyping, blah, blah, blah.”

            Since you were stereotyping I was correct in pointing it out. Stereotyping is defined as “To characterize by a stereotype”

            “You said I needed to go to remedial school… who is insulting who, mr. philosophy? You think all your academia makes you smarter than everyone else, but what you don’t
            realize is all that philosophy crap makes you a book worm…you like to
            live in your ideology and that’s your right.”

            Philosophy is a way of life as well as a discipline. it adhere’s to logic. But you are correct when you identified the remark I made about being an insult. Apologies. As to my ideology you have no idea what I believe except that I am neither conservative nor liberal. Everything else is an assumption on your part.

            “But it’s not ok for the left to exercise the first amendment but God forbid, if someone else who is on the other side of spectrum exercises their first….like
            boycotting a company.”

            Once again I have said this several times. It is free speech for you to make stereotypical statements. It is also free speech for me to call you out on it.

            “The people that deserved to be criticized are the ones that boycotted the inauguration, not someone who doesn’t want to fly a particular airline. ”

            If you want to avoid flying an airline go ahead. That’s your right. It’s an illogical reason you’ve given for doing so but people reject flying on an airline for all sorts of reasons.

            “FYI, this country is not my birth country but I love it as it is my birth country.”
            I never even suggested you were born there.

            “So, you are wrong about me again.”
            Since I made no such assumptions no I wasn’t. Appologies if you take this the wrong way but you really do seem to have trouble understanding what I am writing.

            “And I don’t practice creative accounting because I’m a law abiding citizen, and I respect law & order. So, you’re wrong again.”

            If you’d reread that statement you’ll see there’s a smiley face at the end of it. In other words I was joking. Perhaps you’re not familiar with the custom. If you put a smiley face at the end of a sentence it is NOT meant seriously.

            “I’m thrilled that you don’t teach in America because we don’t need another
            professor like you who would poison our young and innocent minds.”

            But you’re not insulting me. Oh no. Lol. I forgive your insults. You are quite compulsive about them. Not to be insulting but you really should seek help for that. Compulsions to insult others isn’t healthy.

          • Chris

            By the way. It was Maggie Thatcher who pointed out that the ones who used insults are the ones who’ve already lost the argument. So please lay some more insults on me. Show everyone reading this just how Christ-like you can be. I’ll just forgive you again. See ya.

          • pastriesqueen

            Shouldn’t you be working on your lecture plan? Or grade papers instead of arguing with me? Or are you one of those tenured professor that sits around, collecting pay checks & impose your ideology on the young minds? Yeah please tell me where you teach.

          • Chris

            I still have a week off before my classes commence. I teach in Melbourne, Australia.

          • pastriesqueen

            Oh, thank GOD! you’re not here in the US. I was so worried that I will have to support your salary if my kid happened to end up where you teach. Hallelujah!

          • Chris

            Oh thank God you’re not in Australia. I’d hate to think someone this dim and incapable of thought gets to vote in our elections. Hallelujah. See I can do it too. 🙂

          • Chris

            But, on a more serious note. I forgive your insults and prejudice. After rereading your posts I don’t think you can help it. You seem quite compulsive in your prejudice and hatred of others. Have a nice day.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to not be criticized.

          • pastriesqueen

            True. All I’m saying is it’s ok for the left to have first amendment, but when someone on the right exercises that, then they are criticized, shamed, called out, labeled as racist, bigot. Recap: first amendment should work both ways; what’s good for the left is also good for the right. Fair and balanced! Pretty simple.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Freedom of speech doesn’t mean “say whatever you want and no one can criticize you for it.” If the right has the freedom to say something, then the left has freedom to criticize them for it, and vice versa of course.

          • pastriesqueen

            So what Madonna said about the White House, I assume you would agree that she should be called out for, criticized, demonized? Do you condemn her comment?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I actually had to look that up to see what she said, I hadn’t heard about it. Saying she’s “thought about blowing up the White House”…..she has every right to protest, but I’d say that’s going too far. Just like anybody making any comment, people are allowed to criticize her for it, and I’m sure they have.

          • pastriesqueen

            I’m not surprised you had to search for Madonna’s threat…the biased media like cnn, abc, msnbc, cbs, washington post, huffington, ny times, etc….would prefer burying her video as deep as they can. It’s her right to be angered, to be outraged, but it’s not her right to make a threat against the WH like that. And I’m glad the SS paid her a visit. Maybe if you switch to fox or other conservative network once in a while, you may learn something to the contrary to what the biased media reports.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It’s not a case of the media I’ve been using not reporting it, I just haven’t been paying attention to that kind of thing anyway over the past few days. Conservative media outlets are just as biased as anyone, anyway. If they weren’t, you wouldn’t be calling them “conservative networks,” would you?

            It’s funny, though, I’m reminded of how Trump himself was spoken to by the Secret Service after his comments about Hillary Clinton and the Second Amendment, back when he was still campaigning, if you remember that….that was just as bad, if not worse, in my opinion.

          • pastriesqueen

            To tell you the truth, when I heard his comment about the 2nd amendment, the first thing that came to my mind was that all the people supporting the 2nd amendment were gonna come out to vote for Trump and not Hillary because Hillary was going to take away their guns…that was what I thought until the media made a big stink about it. I think his comment could be subject to interpretation, whereas Madonna’s comment was clear as crystal…there is no interpretation to what she said.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            He might not have meant that as a threat, but he should have at least realized it could have been taken that way.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then you don’t know what is.

            I told Grace that everyone has a First Amendment right to protest. I didn’t tell KCR she doesn’t have a right to protest, only that her protest was nonsensical.

          • pastriesqueen

            Did you tell those congressmen/women that their boycotting the inauguration was “nonsensical”? Now, that is nonsense & I bet you didn’t think so.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Do you realize that you just changed the subject entirely? Can I assume, then, that we have resolved the first topic?

          • pastriesqueen

            No, not changing topic at all. Just pointing out to you that according to you, it’s ok for the left to express their opinions, or boycotting. But God forbid, if the right does that as they will face criticism, questioning. I see no reason to discuss or debate with a brick wall….you that is. You contradict, you apply first amendment when it’s convenient for you but someone on the right better not exercises that right because you don’t think they should.

            President Trump!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, not according to me. I never said such a thing and I’ll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

            According to me, it is perfectly and equally legal for the Left or the Right to express whatever opinion they please without fear of government interference or punishment. And those people who are constitutionally permitted to speak their opinions include, but are not limited to, women who have had abortions, women who haven’t had abortions, people who think abortions are sinful and should be banned, people who mistakenly think they are already banned, and people who think the government is run by lizard people in human suits.

            However, having a Constitutional right to say something doesn’t insulate you from being called out on it. Which I will do any time it’s warranted.

  • TJ

    Shouldn’t airlines stay out of politcs?

    • E528491

      Nope. Not when so many of their employees are women their basic human rights are coming under fire.

  • April J

    Referring to these rallies as only “pro abortion” isn’t fair to rest of us who marched for so many other issues affecting women and us all. There is nothing un-Christian about fighting for equality for all races, equal pay despite gender, affordable education, ethics in politics, and general kindness and respect for all people.

    • antifasciste

      The “pro abortion” label serves to increase the frenzy of their rhetoric.

    • Reason2012

      Christians’ do not march with anti-God agendas to promote ones they think are Christian – you make a new march that is anti-abortion but pro-whatever issue you’re referring to. To have professing Christians on what is majorly a pro-abortion march is careless.

      • April J

        Tell that to every woman from my church, and the pastor who married my husband and I, who marched with his family in DC. Agree to disagree.

        • Reason2012

          Tell that to God. If you’re against abortion, you do not march in gathering that is pro-abortion. So now they use ammunition that many Christians are pro-abortion and also marched – that God is pro-abortion (haven’t you heard them use that argument before?).
          God’s name in defamed when we do such things while representing Him by identifying as a Christian.

          There are pastors and congregation that also march in same-gender promotions. Does that make God wrong there, too?

          • April J

            Great job! You changed my mind! Oh wait, you didn’t. Not even close. If you had been at the march I might listen to your evaluation of who was there and what they believe in, but you’re too close minded for that.

          • Reason2012

            I can’t change anyone’s mind. Just pointing out how professing Christians defame God’s name by partaking in anti-God activities because there are some things there they agree with.

            If you went on a pro-women march that was also promoting “God’ is a lie”, would you go? I would hope not and maybe now you get it.

            Christians do not go on marches that promote anti-God agendas just because they lured Christians with other things they might agree with.

            But then again, there are more and more churches that pretend God is ok with same-gender marriage and worse, so it’s not surprising professing Christians march to promote an anti-God agenda..

          • Chris

            You do realise you’ve used the no true Scotsman fallacy, don’t you?

          • Reason2012

            How so? If Jesus says “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Me, that believing on Him is the only way to get to Heaven, not believing on works, or believing on apostles, or believing on catechisms, then those who think they’re getting to heaven other ways are clearly not, according to God / Jesus.

            You think every single person is going to heaven? Feel free to cite where the Bible says this.

          • Chris

            Logic is logic. If you declare that someone must think such and such to be a ‘true’ Christian then you have committed the no true scotsman fallacy. This fallacy is defined as “No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect a universal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample.”

            By the way we’ve no idea what Jesus said. All we have are the words of someone who wrote that that was what Jesus said. Hearsay in other words.

            As to people going to heaven or hell I made no such claim. Why are you implying that I did?

          • Reason2012

            Logic is logic. If you declare that someone must think such and such to be a ‘true’ Christian then you have committed the no true scotsman fallacy.

            I didn’t declare it, Jesus did. That you do not believe what Jesus declared is irrelevant to this fact that it’s Jesus in the Bible that declared it, not me.

            By the way we’ve no idea what Jesus said. All we have are the words of someone who wrote that that was what Jesus said. Hearsay in other words.

            And there we have it: you think God’s Word is a complete lie made up by others. Have at it.

            God is able to trivially make sure His Word is preserved, so if God exists, it’s illogical to pretend He cannot make sure His Word is preserved in spite of people’s attempts to pretend it’s not.

            And under the premise that God exists, that He told us who ARE Christians, then when others by their own words admit they are believing something contrary to what Jesus said, they are admitting they are, by God’s standards, not a Christian.

            Whether you believe what God said or not is irrelevant to these facts.

            Take care.

          • Chris

            “I didn’t declare it, Jesus did.”
            Correction. YOUR interpretation of the words in the gospels did. However, if we assume for the sake of argument, that Jesus did utter those words then He is guilty of using the no true Scotsman fallacy and you are also by repeating it.

            “And there we have it: you think God’s Word is a complete lie made up by others.”
            Incorrect.
            1) I don’t accept that the bible is God’s word.
            2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written decades after Jesus was alive.
            3) The authors claimed that Jesus said something. We have no way of verifying if He did. That being the case the authors could have believed every word they wrote was true. But we have no way to know if it was accurate.

            “…with your view that the Bible is just made up claims.”

            Incorrect. Anyone who says X is making a truth claim. In other words they are claiming that X is true. A truth claim is NOT a made up claim. It is a claim to truth. We can only decide if the truth claim is correct or not if it is supported by evidence. If there is no evidence then the truth claim may be true but we can’t know it. Understand?

            You then ask if I am a Catholic, atheist or agnostic. I am a Zoroastrian.

            “God is able to trivially make sure His Word is preserved, so if God exists, it’s illogical to pretend He cannot make sure His Word is preserved in spite of people’s attempts to undermine and dismiss it.”

            God could preserve His word but that is not to say that God DID preserve it. For example there are hundreds of differences in the different copies of the New Testament.
            so either:
            1) The new Testament is NOT God’s word.
            2) God did NOT preserve the New Testament.
            Or both. Your choice.

            “Whether you believe what God said or not is irrelevant to these facts. Logic is logic.”

            Even if God exists [which I believe] you still have no way to know from anonymous documents written decades after Jesus’ death what Jesus actually said. Additionally even if the original New Testament was accurate there are a multitude of copies saying different things. So obviously God did NOT preserve the text. Additionally if Jesus’ words were accurately recorded then His statement was in violation of logic. As you say – logic is logic.

            Thank you for your courtesy. It was greatly appreciated. I hope you have a nice day as well.

          • Reason2012

            Correction. YOUR interpretation of the words in the gospels did.

            False. There’s nothing to ‘interpret’ about these verses, like “I am the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by me”. That means “I am the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by me”. Words mean what they say. The first attack on God’s Word by satan was

            Genesis 3:1 “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said…?”

            Hardly a surprise that type of attack continues even unto today.

            But you’ve already claimed the Bible is not true that it was made up by men, that there are so many false copies hence it’s not preserve, so attempting to debate it is hence pointless to debate the INTERPRETATION of words you are claiming are false anyway, which exposes your conscience as knowing the truth.

            1) I don’t accept that the bible is God’s word.

            Correct: you claim it’s a lie that it’s God’s Word and it’s just men’s opinions. Jesus said otherwise. Prophecies prove otherwise. Scientific facts in it prove otherwise. No other religious texts do any of this, which will leave them all without excuse.

            2) The Gospels are anonymous documents written decades after Jesus was alive.

            So the logic is if you remember something that happened in the past, it’s now false unless you wrote it down the moment it happened? No. False implication.

            They’re not anonymous – things written in there make it clear precisely who wrote it (even if you reject what they wrote), which is why they’re called the gospels of Luke, John and so on, rather than just “the four gospels”.

            Not to mention you contradict yourself by passing off your beliefs as fact while condemning passing off beliefs as facts. Which is it?

            It’s your belief they are anonymous. Just a belief.

            Not to mention what Jesus said:

            John 14:25-26 “These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

            God can trivially bring to remembrance to His apostles what He said to them, and said He would do so.

            If God exists, then pretending no one would remember is false.
            If God does not exist, who cares if they remembered 100% perfectly.

            So the logic of “you didn’t write it down right now, then what you write down later is false” is illogical. And even if someone writes something down the moment it was done or said, that doesn’t make it TRUE, either.

            Common anti-God argument of “we can’t know anything”, pretending we can live in ignorance to God and His judgment and be fine in case we’re wrong.

            3) The authors claimed that Jesus said something. We have no way of verifying if He did.

            Then throw out all history books as we have no way of verifying any of what those people said and wrote either. But of course we don’t. Do you lobby for the discarding of all history books because we don’t know if that’s what all the people in history really said? You use different logic when it comes to the Bible than you use for everything else you take on faith is accurate, which is the best evidence you could ask for that you’re just fooling yourself.

            On faith we take it Jesus said those things.

            If God exists, it’s TRIVIAL for Him to preserve what Jesus said.

            If God does not exist, who cares if it’s all verified a million times over.

            Illogical to try pretending the Bible is not God’s Word if God exists, and illogical to try pretending the Bible is not God’s Word if God does not exist. If the Bible is not God’s Word, then those who reject it should stop the hypocrisy of wasting hours a day talking about it and go live their lives. That they spend hours a day arguing it proves their conscience knows something that has them taking a lot of action to silence – the best evidence they could ask for that the Bible is God’s Word.

            And the Bible has hundreds of prophecies of things that would come to pass that came to pass as written hundreds and thousands of years after they were written down, which shows it is the Word of God and is one more reason we’ll be without excuse when we face Him.

            Although not meant to be a science book, the Bible has a great many scientific facts that scientists could not figure out until hundreds and thousands of years later – that people could not have possibly figured out at the time of writing – more reasons that will leave us without excuse.

            Both are easily searchable with sites going into great detail.

            No other religious book can make either of such claims.

            The Bible was written by over 40 authors over 3,500 years. Every other book was written in one lifetime by one person.

            “…with your view that the Bible is just made up claims.” Incorrect.

            So you admit the Bible could be true? That’s a start. The things I pointed out above prove it is of divine origin.

            And “it could be false” does not mean it is, which is what you’re basically implying. We’ll be without excuse just assuming it is when the above things verify its divine origin.

            And you did in fact imply it’s false:

            By the way we’ve no idea what Jesus said.

            You’re implying it’s NOT true He said those things. Prove it’s not. Prove it’s not true that any other historical figures said what they said. We take it on faith that they said what is written until someone shows otherwise. If not, we’d throw out all of history since “we have no way of knowing”.

            You then ask if I am a Catholic, atheist or agnostic. I am a Zoroastrian.

            So using your logic, do you admit you have no idea what you’ve been told “Zoroastrian” said is true?

            If so what do you do about it? Do you believe it anyway?

            If so, then it’s disingenuous for pretending others can’t do what you yourself are doing, and try refuting their beliefs on the grounds of the very thing you do yourself: that you “do not know”.

            God could preserve His word but that is not to say that God DID preserve it. For example there are hundreds of differences in the different copies of the New Testament.

            False versions do not mean there’s not an accurate version. Do you not realize this? You ignored this option, to instead pretend this means none of them are accurate, which is disingenuous.

            Even if God exists [which I believe] you still have no way to know from anonymous documents written decades after Jesus’ death what Jesus actually said.

            Consider: You have no way of knowing God exists – yet you BELIEVE it anyway. Why the hypocrisy? Why condemn others for doing exactly that? Believing something without knowing .. ?

            And the prophecies and the scientific facts and the nature of the book itself that continues to be hated in all areas of the world is what proves it’s God’s Word, what leaves us without excuse when we face God.

            Again, you’re being inconsistent: rebuking “not knowing” while believing what YOU believe while “not knowing”

            Additionally even if the original New Testament was accurate there are a multitude of copies saying different things.

            Which is how you know the fake ones. Simple reading a person can tell which ones are diminishing God / Christ, contradicting what He has said and process of elimination it’s easy to see which one is MOST accurate (KJV in English), combined with the fact that God would trivially make sure we have an accurate version preserved = no problems, except when we need an excuse to reject God and silence our conscience that has us attacking the Bible.

            Plus we know God so we know His Word when we read it as well, which is also exactly what Jesus said:

            John 7:15-18 “And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.”

            So obviously God did NOT preserve the text.

            False versions does not mean they’re ALL false.

            And beware: God allows people to remain in deception if they so choose.

            I’m nothing and cannot convince anyone of anything. It’s between each person and God. And when we do the very thing we try to use as an excuse to reject God over, we just condemn ourselves further.

            Please think again.

          • Chris

            Interpretation may be defined as making sense of what you’ve just read. If all you do when you read is mumble sounds then yes, you don’t interpret. However if you do try and make sense of what you’ve read then you interpret because that’s what the word means.

            Second. You rambled on about the bible but I’m sorry I can’t make head nor tail of what you’ve written. Would you care to rephrase?

            You then went on and on about things I never raised.

            You then wrote this. “They’re not anonymous>” Yes they are. The earliest Gospels we have do NOT have the name of any author attached. Virtually every single scholar will admit this.

            “Not to mention you contradict yourself by passing off your beliefs as fact while condemning passing off beliefs as facts. Which is it?”

            My beliefs concerning the authorship of the gospels are supported by evidence. For example the earliest copies of the gospels, the disagreements concerning authorship of the early Christians [something that wouldn’t have happened if everyone knew who wrote them], etc.”

          • Reason2012

            However if you do try and make sense of what you’ve read then you interpret because that’s what the word means.

            Again, since you ignored it:
            “I am the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by me”.

            means

            “I am the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by me”.

            You want to pretend we need to interpret it, which shows you’re just being disingenuous. Not agreeing with it does not mean those words don’t mean what they say.

          • Chris

            Sorry to break up my reply but you did produce a weighty tome in reply. To do it justice I’ll have to respond to your main points.

            “Then throw out all history books as we have no way of verifying any
            of what those people said and wrote either.”

            Archaeology, support from other historians of the era, monuments, etc. All those support history. Let’s look at the existence of Caesar. Not only did several contemporaries write about him but he left several buildings with inscriptions which read that such and such was built on the order of Caesar, as well as an account of his invasion of Gaul. All of that verifies that Caesar existed. Does it verify anything he said? No! We don’t know what he said. All we have are the words of people who claimed he said something. That’s why modern historians don’t place any emphasis on anything an ancient historian claims he said.

            You then wrote “On faith we take it Jesus said those things.”

            Good. Then you admit you haven’t any evidence. So you agree with me. Why the diatribe about history books then?

            “If God exists, it’s TRIVIAL for Him to preserve what Jesus said.”
            I’ve already gone over this. To show ability does NOT even imply action. God can make square circles. Seen any lately? Just because God can do something doesn’t mean He has.

            “Illogical to try pretending the Bible is not God’s Word if God exists, …”
            No. I’m not pretending but it is interesting that you seem incapable of even admitting the possibility that someone could have a valid viewpoint which disagrees with you, even if you consider them wrong.

            “…and illogical to try pretending the Bible is not God’s Word if God does not
            exist.”

            If God doesn’t exist then the bible can’t be God’s word nor any other holy book for that matter. You keep using the word ‘illogical’ but I don’t think it means what you think it does.

            “And the Bible has hundreds of prophecies…” Many of these ‘prophecies have been written AFTER the event. That’s a pretty easy way to do prophecy. Additionally many of them give no date for their fullfillment so it’s impossible to say if they will ever be fulfilled. That’s pretty easy to give a prophecy like that too. I’ll give one like that “in that great day we will all bow down to the great Bunny in the sky.” If a million years go by and nothing like that happens I can say “it will happen one day” Such prophecies aren’t prophecies at all. They are wishes. Oh, just so you know, the bit about a great bunny was a joke.

            “Although not meant to be a science book, the Bible has a great many scientific
            facts that scientists could not figure out until hundreds and thousands
            of years later ”

            Provide some examples please. I’ll show you how the ancients figured those things out. We have some good records from the Greeks that show this.

            “The Bible was written by over 40 authors over 3,500 years. Every other book was written in one lifetime by one person.”

            No it wasn’t. It was written over a span from, at most, the 10th century BCE to the early second century CE. A span of 1200 years. Nor was every book written by one person. One book – Daniel – was written in high class Hebrew and low class Aramaic. You really need to read things other than apologists.

          • Reason2012

            Archaeology, support from other historians of the era, monuments, etc. All those support history. Let’s look at the existence of Caesar.

            Talking about quotes from historical figures, not events.

            So again, since you keep avoiding it: Please PROVE how you KNOW that what Caesar said he really said.
            Please PROVE how you KNOW what your religious leaders of the past supposedly said.
            Please PROVE how you know ANY historical figures said what is written that they said.

            You can’t, but you just accept it on faith because it’s documented what they said.

            Same for Jesus – we know what He said because it’s documented.

            Hope this helps.

          • Chris

            You then wrote “You’re implying it’s NOT true He said those things. Prove it’s not.
            Prove it’s not true that any other historical figures said what they
            said. We take it on faith that they said what is written until someone
            shows otherwise. If not, we’d throw out all of history since “we have
            no way of knowing”.

            Do you understand the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims are the ones who must prove it. You are the one making the positive claim. All I need to do is say ‘prove it’. I don’t need to make any claim at all.

          • Reason2012

            Do you understand the burden of proof? Those who make positive claims are the ones who must prove it.

            Again, since you keep ignoring it: PROVE what any historical figure said what is written that they said.
            You can’t but you accept it anyway.
            Hypocrisy, friend – selective at that.
            Hope this helps.

          • Chris

            Since you seem incapable of either civil argument or reason then, with reluctance, this discussion is over. I forgive your insults but we will speak no more.

          • Chris

            I wrote “You then ask if I am a Catholic, atheist or agnostic. I am a Zoroastrian.”

            And you responded “So using your logic, do you admit you have no idea what you’ve been told “Zoroastrian” said is true?”

            We actually have a book which was written by Zoroaster – the Gathas. How many of the books in the New Testament were actually written by Jesus

            “If so what do you do about it? Do you believe it anyway?”

            No. But then I’m not a Zoroastrian because Zoroaster said something. That would be the argument by authority fallacy. I am a Zoroastrian because it is rational and because it isn’t fundamentalist. I was a Christian fundamentalism. I go so sick and tired of the ego worship, the arrogance, the intolerance, and the glorification of ignorance.

          • Reason2012

            We actually have a book which was written by Zoroaster – the Gathas.

            So your book are considered fact, but other books are not. Selective hypocrisy. We have several books telling us what Jesus said, you have one supposedly written by him, but you can’t prove that either.. That makes your book even less reliable yet clearly you pretend it’s fact. Selective hypocrisy.

            Thanks for posting.

          • Chris

            “So your book are considered fact, but other books are not.”

            You really have no idea about the Gathas do you? The Gathas is a book containing philosophical arguments. An argument is not a fact. An argument is either logical or illogical. I do not accept a philosophical argument because of the person who gave it. I accept it because it is logical.

            Sorry but you’ve insulted me three times while I have been nothing but polite to you. If you wish to continue the discussion then apologize.

          • Chris

            I wrote “God could preserve His word but that is not to say that God
            DID preserve it. For example there are hundreds of differences in the
            different copies of the New Testament.”

            “False versions do not mean there’s not an accurate version.”
            Correct. How do we know what the accurate version is? We don’t have an original Gospel. We don’t even have a copy of one. All we have are copies, of copies, of copies. So how do we tell which one is the true version?

            You then concluded by writing “Consider: You have no way of knowing God
            exists – yet you BELIEVE it anyway.”

            To ‘know’ in the philosophical sense means to be able to prove. You are correct that I cannot prove God exists. However I find the arguments given in philosophy compelling. They don’t ‘prove’ God’s existence but they do make His existence probable.

            “Why the hypocrisy? Why condemn others for doing exactly that? Believing something without knowing…?”

            I am NOT condemning you for believing something. I’m sad that you should think that. My most profound apologies if you felt that. But that doesn’t change the facts.

            When I went to university I was confronted with many uncomfortable truths. I’m glad I did however. It enabled my faith to grow. It also enabled me to look at other opinions and examine the basis for their arguments. The fact is that people can genuinely believe all sorts of things. it’s NOT pretense. It’s not them attacking a faith. It’s a genuinely held belief. Facts also need to be acknowledged. Even if such facts make us uncomfortable. It’s only by doing this we grow as human beings.

          • Reason2012

            “False versions do not mean there’s not an accurate version.” Correct. How do we know what the accurate version is?

            Glad you admit an accurate version can be out there – contrary to what you were trying to claim.
            The only point.
            Thanks for posting.

          • Chris

            I’ve been claiming that we have no idea about the scripture. I maintain that. I never said there wasn’t an accurate version since there’s no way to know if an accurate one exists. Why do you misrepresent what I’ve written like this?

          • Chris

            “There’s nothing to ‘interpret’ about these verses, like “I am the way,
            the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by me”. That
            means “I am the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father
            but by me”.”

            Possible interpretations:
            1) You have to accept Jesus before you die because Jesus is the only way to God.
            2) Every religion is really worshiping Jesus so there really isn’t a way to God except through Jesus.
            3) The Father that Jesus is referring to is God unlike the God who created the world. This was the Gnostic view. Like me to go on?

            You then mention Satan and quote Genesis. But Genesis NEVER calls the snake Satan. That is an interpretation by Paul. In Genesis the snake is just a snake.

            Oh and by the way Genesis is mythic in nature. Be careful how you interpret a mythic text.

          • Reason2012

            No, only interpretation: Christ is the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by Him.

            So when someone else says they instead get to the Father by church attendance, by church membership, by lineage of bishops and so on, that’s contrary to the plain words of Jesus.

            Irrelevant as you pretend those words are not of Jesus anyway.

            Thanks for posting.

          • Chris

            Already answered this.

            Let me ask you one question. Can the bible be right but reason2012 be wrong about his interpretation of it? Yes or no.

          • Reason2012

            “Christ is the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by Him.”

            means

            “Christ is the way, the truth and the life – no one comes to the Father but by Him.”

            Which part of this do you not understand?

            Do you think “Christ is the way” is “interpreted” “Christ is not the way”?

            Clearly you’re just trolling.

            Take care.

          • Reason2012

            So, again: using your logic, do you admit you have no idea what you’ve been told “Zoroastrian” said is true, since “all we have are the words of who was supposedly Zoroastrian that wrote it”?

            To pretend you “know” he wrote it when anyone could have pretended to be him, exposing your hypocrisy.

            If you’re honest enough to admit you do not know, but believe it was him anyway, that also exposes your hypocrisy of condemning others for doing precisely what you do.

            And you continue to ignore the fact of a great many prophecies and scientific facts, which further condemns us to be without excuse pretending “well how was I supposed to know”.

            You keep avoiding these facts but continue repeating what I’ve already addressed and now seem to be seeking out any post I make to anyone about anything, which suggests you’re out to troll instead of have an actual conversation.

            Take care.

          • Chris

            “So, again: using your logic, do you admit you have no idea what
            you’ve been told “Zoroastrian” said is true, since “all we have are the
            words of who was supposedly Zoroastrian that wrote it”?”

            Zoroaster wrote the Gathas. Zoroaster is the philosopher who originated Zoroastrianism. That being the case then we do have a good idea what he taught since we have his writings.

            “To pretend you “know” he wrote it when anyone could have pretended to be him, exposing your hypocrisy.”

            Firstly we not only have the words of Zoroaster, we also have the words of the enemies of the Persian empire who wrote what he taught. But all of that is irrelevant. Zoroastrianism is a philosophy. It doesn’t matter who first composed it. It only matters whether it is logical or not.

            You are trying to use a system called skepticism. But, being skeptical is only the first principle. The second is that you apportion your belief to the claim and the evidence. For example if I claimed it didn’t rain last night where I live then the claim is trivial at best. It might be enough evidence for me to say it. If I claim, however, that aliens kidnapped me and took me to their planet then you’d be wise to need more than my word since the claim is extraordinary.

            “And you continue to ignore the fact of a great many prophecies and scientific facts, which further condemns us to be without excuse pretending “well how was I supposed to know”.”

            And you keep ignoring the fact that such ‘prophecies were either made after the fact – like me predicting Trump will win the presidency – or were made with no date as to fulfillment, or were plain wrong – like the one which declared that Egypt would be uninhabited.

            Additionally, when I was a Christian I loved apologetics and read many books on these so called scientific facts which the bible had and no other people had. Even then, since I was a keen amateur historian, I knew that a number of ancient people had known such ‘facts’.

            Take care.

          • Reason2012

            Zoroaster wrote the Gathas.

            You don’t know that he did – it’s just a claim that he did. Hypocrisy, friend.
            Take care.

          • Charles

            >>>>>Possible interpretations:
            1) You have to accept Jesus before you die because Jesus is the only way to God.>>>>

            I wouldn’t wait till your last breath banking on that.

            >>>>2) Every religion is really worshiping Jesus so there really isn’t a way to God except through Jesus.<<<>>>>3) The Father that Jesus is referring to is God unlike the God who created the world. This was the Gnostic view. Like me to go on?<<<>>>>You then mention Satan and quote Genesis. But Genesis NEVER calls the snake Satan. That is an interpretation by Paul. In Genesis the snake is just a snake.

            Oh and by the way Genesis is mythic in nature. Be careful how you interpret a mythic text.<<<<<

            The snake is symbol of the serpent Satan.. It wasn't a talking snake it's what was coming out of Satan's his mouth. He speaks with a forked tongue. He is subtle and moves methodically like a serpent.

            (Rev 12:9) And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

          • Charles

            >>>> God could preserve His word but that is not to say that God DID preserve it. For example there are hundreds of differences in the different copies of the New Testament.<<<<

            No there isn't. If you accept the fake NIV (Alexandrian) manuscripts then go for it. They were admitted forgeries by a Turkish man. He admitted it, and kept doing so for several years, saying "He didn't write it to deceive anyone". KJV doesn't use this forged text. Ironic isn't that the text was found in a Catholic Monastery. It's a Catholic forgery.

            (2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            (2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    • Charles

      What denomination are you if I may ask?

      • April J

        The church I attend is a non-denominational Christian church

        • Rachelthemillenial

          You can call yourself “Christian” all you like, but Christians don’t approve of killing the helpless.

          • Charles

            Eighty Percent of the people in this country claim to be Christian, and in the next breath speak of Karma, Same sex marriage rights.. Do you really believe that’s accurate? It’s more like around twenty five to thirty percent. Christian in name only. You will know them by their fruits

          • Chris

            Another no true Scotman? Perhaps you’ve heard of the witchcraft trials carried out by Christians at Salem? Wasn’t that killing the helpless?

    • Rachelthemillenial

      Wow, “general kindness and respect for all people.”

      Oh, except a baby in the womb – KILL those, and that shows “general kindness and respect for all people.”

      FAIL.

      • April J

        And that comment is a fail for you on that front, too.

        • Rachelthemillenial

          Not all women are like you.
          Some of us respect human life. You believe in killing for convenience. Maybe when you’re old and alone, some “caring” doctor will exercise some poetic justice.

          • April J

            You don’t actually know anything about me. I am happily married, no kids, and if I were to have one I would never think of terminating the pregnancy. This anger you’re throwing my way and wishing for my own life to end is SUPER Christlike though. You’re really doing a great job. Jesus would be proud of you.

          • Charles

            So then why would you show up at a rally that supports abortion? How about the LGBQRST nonsense? You OK with that?

          • April J

            My choice about what I would do with my own body is personal and not something I feel the need to impose on everyone around me. I listed my reasons for showing up above. Unlike some people, I am not interested in only associating with and rallying with people who are exactly the same as me. Being around others with varying opinions and beliefs actually makes you realize that life is not so black and white and vilifying strangers doesn’t help anyone. Maybe you should try it sometime.

          • Charles

            I see.. I know who you are a little bit better now.. Thank you..

          • April J

            Yeah, getting to know me better was obviously your goal. You’re welcome…

          • Charles

            As the Lord says:

            (Mat 15:10) And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand:
            (Mat 15:11) Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

          • April J

            Oh good! An out of context Bible verse! My life is forever changed. I shall never defileth myself again.

          • Charles

            How exactly is that out of context? You are rallying at a Pro-Abortion (Which is murder) which God is opposed to. Then the LGBQRST (Which again, God’s opposed to).. Light has nothing in common with darkness.

            (Eph 5:11) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

            Like I said, you’ve answered my question.

          • April J

            I’m SO glad. I’m sure it’s the answer you expected all along.

          • Charles

            No. I didn’t expect an answer such as that from a professing Christian who follows the Lord Jesus Christ..

          • April J

            Sometimes unexpected things happen! C’est la vie.

          • Charles

            I’m always amazed at how many people comment on this site claiming to be Christian. Yet, when they speak about various issues, just about everything they write is completely contrary to what Jesus Christ teaches.

          • April J

            In this case I don’t think it’s what I’ve written, it’s what you’ve read into what I’ve written that’s contrary. You’ve completely glazed over the things that I’ve explained that I DO stand for. You’re only concerned with the things that I don’t oppose quite vehemently enough for your liking.

          • Charles

            Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

          • April J

            I made my initial comment to explain why I marched. If you have anything to say about my reasons and the things I’m FOR as opposed to AGAINST, we can discuss that. I’m not interested in trying to pass this “good Christian” pop quiz that you’ve already decided I will fail.

          • Charles

            That’s a very simple question. Doesn’t have a thing to do with Good Christian/Bad Christian. There is no “Good” Christian. You either are, or you aren’t. If you don’t believe that your God put his Holy Words in the Bible, without error where is the foundation? You don’t think YHVH Lord of the Universe, creator of all things couldn’t preserve his Word completely intact? That’s a faith issue. Seriously, how long would it take to sweep away your house when the rains came if there’s no foundation to built the house upon? This isn’t a quiz. This is a question. Regardless, I certainly take no joy in seeing the brethren “fail”. Quite the opposite.

          • April J

            Ok, I’ll bite.

            I DO believe the Bible is Holy and is the word of God. I also believe that many of us lack the knowledge and education to truly understand it and interpret it correctly. I DO NOT believe the words of God that I read in my English Bible are verbatim. They have been translated countless times, imperfect men have chosen to omit some books, include others, wars have been fought over what is in the Bible and what is not. Also, context is so important and knowing the history of the time during which these Holy books were written is crucial. We need to know the culture, the political landscape, the circumstances under which major Biblical events happened in order to correctly interpret and apply any sort of meaning to our own lives. For example, Jeremiah 29:11 is not about ME or YOU or any of us. Also, many of the stories in the Bible are allegorical and meant to illustrate lessons to us, similar to parables, and are not events that literally happened.

            Also, Christians are by definition Christ followers. We try to emulate Jesus as best we can, but we are not perfect. We doubt, we question, we fail, but none of that gives you or anyone else the right to judge whether someone is a Christian or not. Those who judge do nothing to spread the love of Jesus, they only drive people away. That being said, I’m guessing you are not an Evangelical.

          • Charles

            “”I DO believe the Bible is Holy and is the word of God”

            Me too.

            “”I also believe that many of us lack the knowledge and education to truly understand it and interpret it correctly.””

            Other than being able to read, or hear. You don’t need a theological degree to figure it out. The Bible was meant to be understood by his people. That doesn’t mean some passages aren’t tougher to initially understand. I learn new understanding in the Bible every time I read it. The initial meaning is still the same. But it doesn’t change the intended meaning. God’s Words gets deep into the soul.

            “”I DO NOT believe the words of God that I read in my English Bible are verbatim. They have been translated countless times, imperfect men have chosen to omit some books, include others, wars have been fought over what is in the Bible and what is not””

            I hear these falsehoods (Intentionally or unintentionally) repeated many times. It’s people repeating factually incorrect statements. These are “Rumors” that get planted, rooted, and circulated mainly on the Internet. You can read the Greek side by side with the language of your choice. They are called interlinear Bibles. It’s good tool to compare the languages. Many of the words in the English language have Greek origin. Not sure what you mean by “Translation”. Do you mean transliteration from one language to another? We do this all the time. There is more historical documentation (Around 20,000) for the Holy Bible than any other ancient document. As far as books not included, they are called the Gnostic (Meaning Knowledge) gospels. The Old Testament “Additions” were written between the 2nd and 4th BC. Keep in mind, the Hebrews never added these books to the Tanakh (Old Testament). They have no relationship to God’s Word is why. The books are merely a curiosity with names such as 1 & 2 Maccabees, Tobit, or Wisdom, etc. There were 14 of them from this period. Later Gnostic volumes (2nd-4th Century AD), included books such as “Gospel of Judas”, or “Thomas”. Catholics include these fake “Gospels” because the Roman Catholic Church and its doctrines of men is apostate. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. The Hebrews did not include them among the inspired Old Testament. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church either. They were rightly omitted. “Wars” fought over Scripture is not essential in the grand scheme. Though it’s good to know why the “Wars” happened (Including the incredibly cruel Catholic Inquisitions) just for learning, and historical purposes. This is especially true in understanding the Apostate Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church slaughtered millions for nothing more than wanting reading a Bible on their own (In their native languages) without a “Priest”. Yes, men are not perfect. However, God is.

            “”Also, context is so important and knowing the history of the time during which these Holy books were written is crucial. We need to know the culture, the political landscape, the circumstances under which major Biblical events happened in order to correctly interpret and apply any sort of meaning to our own lives””

            While we can’t have enough knowledge on most subjects, knowing the political landscape, culture, etc. isn’t necessary to understand God’s Word.

            “”For example, Jeremiah 29:11 is not about ME or YOU or any of us.””
            “”Also, many of the stories in the Bible are allegorical and meant to illustrate lessons to us, similar to parables, and are not events that literally happened.””

            It’s historical, and there are also lessons to be learned; otherwise it wouldn’t be in there. It is a piece of the whole.

            “”Also, Christians are by definition Christ followers. We try to emulate Jesus as best we can, but we are not perfect. We doubt, we question, and we fail””

            Yes, we are fallen, and far from perfect. Yes, we are to emulate Jesus Christ.

            “”but none of that gives you or anyone else the right to judge whether someone is a Christian or not. Those who judge do nothing to spread the love of Jesus, they only drive people away. That being said, I’m guessing you are not an Evangelical.””

            We are to judge with righteous judgement
            (Joh 7:24) Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

            If you are meant to be with the Lord, no one will pluck you from his hand. Not possible. Some street preachers for example can be abrasive. Some are quite good, and reach many. If people are “Turned off” by God’s Most Holy Word it’s because they are unable to accept truth at that moment in time. But may be at a later appointed time.

            (Mar 4:10) And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable.
            (Mar 4:11) And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
            (Mar 4:12) That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

            We do not abandon the truth for the sake of someone’s feelings. Salvation in Christ Jesus is worlds more important than hurt feelings. God commands that we speak the truth in love. Truth IS love, and God is truth. If we are unable to speak the truth, then we do not speak in love.

            (Eph 4:11) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
            (Eph 4:12) For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
            (Eph 4:13) Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
            (Eph 4:14) That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
            (Eph 4:15) But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
            (Eph 4:16) From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

            Often, I’ll hear something like I’m a Christian and Jesus is love. In the next breath, its karma, and I’m a Scorpio, and other false doctrines, and idols that fancy people’s desires.
            I have no idea if you really are a Christian or not. The title isn’t important all by itself. Just as I can say I’m a PhD. Doesn’t make me one. Do I think you’re not a Christian for going to a rally of ungodliness? Of course not. You shouldn’t be there. But from the statements you’ve made, it sounds as if you’ve gotten off track, or were unaware of the truth in the first place.

            (2Ti 2:15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
            (2Ti 2:16) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

            I have no denomination. I’m a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ, The Son of God, and his Word the Holy Bible which is one-hundred percent correct and true.

            (2Ti 3:16) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            (2Ti 3:17) That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

          • April J

            Agree to disagree.

            Again, if you have anything to say about my reasons FOR marching, that’s really why I came here.

          • Charles

            Well, it’s not the march that concerns me. More so, I’m concerned you are accepting the Gnostic (Uninspired) books and don’t think the Bible is transliterated correct. Like I said you can read the Greek right next to English. Word for word.

          • April J

            This article is about the MARCH. If you don’t want to discuss that then you probably should have moved along long before now.

            Especially since the only thing you’ve made me more sure of is how much I don’t care for know-it-all Christians.

          • Charles

            So be it. My job here is done.

          • April J

            👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼

          • Charles

            Do you believe that the Holy Bible is the inerrant Word of God?

          • Chris

            “Being around others with varying opinions and beliefs actually makes you
            realize that life is not so black and white and vilifying strangers
            doesn’t help anyone”

            Could not agree more. Well done by the way.

  • Linda

    The best way to send a powerful message is to boycott Southwest Airlines. It’s easy, just fly another airline and tell Southwest you don’t believe in ending life, rather you need to honor and celebrate life.

    • pastriesqueen

      Also tweet, facebook, instagram about this so people know where they stand.

      • April J

        Slacktivism! So effective…

        • pastriesqueen

          Trump tweets, Facebook & boy, oh boy, is he effective!

        • pastriesqueen

          It’s fine for the left to march, protest, voice their opinions,loot, create chaos, riots, boycott, exercising their first amendment but people on the right get silenced, called out, criticicized when they exercise their rights.

          • Chris

            You know that’s not true.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            No, she really doesn’t. We’ve been going back and forth for a few days and it’s clear that she thinks that if you support one position, you must necessarily support literally everything about that position, and every ancillary thing that might support or further it, including silencing the other side.

            She lives in a very black-and-white world, and no amount of explaining has gotten her to understand nuance.

          • Chris

            I stand corrected…and amazed. How can an adult function like that?
            Well then all I can do is proffer my apologies. PQ I assumed you were being deliberately obtuse at best. I should have known better than to make such an assumption.

  • thats_just_me

    This was not a “Pro-Abortion” march.

    Mission & Vision
    We stand together in solidarity with our partners and children for the protection of our rights, our safety, our health, and our families – recognizing that our vibrant and diverse communities are the strength of our country.

    OUR MISSION
    The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us – immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault – and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear.
    In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice who have come before us, we join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women’s rights are human rights. We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.
    We support the advocacy and resistance movements that reflect our multiple and intersecting identities. We call on all defenders of human rights to join us. This march is the first step towards unifying our communities, grounded in new relationships, to create change from the grassroots level up. We will not rest until women have parity and equity at all levels of leadership in society. We work peacefully while recognizing there is no true peace without justice and equity for all.
    HEAR OUR VOICE.

    It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognize, accept, and celebrate those differences.
    — Audre Lorde

    • Nidalap

      “Birds of a feather” You linked arms with the pro-abortionists and marched in solidarity.
      You will be numbered among them now.
      Just the price you pay…

    • pastriesqueen

      Are baby rights human rights?

      • NCOriolesFan

        Baby females too.

        • Chris

          Are blobs of cells male or female?

          • NCOriolesFan

            Were you?

          • pastriesqueen

            BRAVO!

          • Chris

            I think you meant rAmen.

          • Chris

            Your question is a bit unclear. Was I once a blob of cells? Of course. Were my blob of cells male or female? They were neither – they were cells.

          • Reason2012

            They copying what Hitler did: they dehumanize women while still in the womb, convincing others it’s ok to slaughter them by the millions.
            They pretend life started with just cells, but then pretend when in the womb you’re “just cells” and hence that’s suddenly no longer life.
            They’re evil deceivers, nothing less.

    • 2summer4

      When do you start helping women who really need help? Like those in the Middle East, ruled by men and Sharia Law.

      • Chris

        Feminists are doing exactly that. My question is when are you going to petition your government for an increase in financial support for single mothers? There’s going to be a lot of them with the changes Trump is making.

      • Reason2012

        They won’t. It’s not really about helping females. it’s about promoting their culture of death, then pretending we need to let them continue to_kill females with excuses like there will be single mothers – as if they have no control over their_sexual desires and are being forced to have_sex with men they meet that they’re not married to. Their “solution” is to let them_kill their daughters while making everyone else pay for their sexually immoral and genocidal lifestyle.

        • 2summer4

          That person is a deluded old fashioned peacenik. They get in the way of progress… they’re idealistic not realistic.

  • Tina Tenace

    They just lost our business

  • NCOriolesFan

    I sometimes fly SW because they’re affordable and can make flying fun. If I had been on that particular plane, I guarantee you I would have made my opposition known pretty quickly.

  • E528491

    So glad that South West is taking a stand to be on the right side of history and understanding the completed nature of woman’s health.
    That they are uniting with the marches that brought millions of people together to project human rights.

    • pastriesqueen

      The march was organized and funded by the evil george soros.

      • Chris

        Then we should be glad that Soros is putting his money where his mouth is and supporting women. Thanks for pointing that out.

  • Reason2012

    The left tries to pretend_killing a woman while she’s still in the womb is about protecting women’s rights.

    • Chris

      Why is it pretense when someone voices an opinion with which you disagree?

      • Reason2012

        We’re talking about them_killing women that are still in the womb. That’s an action, not an opinion.

        And to claim you’re helping “people x” while_killing “people x” is not an opinion, it’s a lie – a murderous lie at that. They claim to be helping females while_killing females.

        • Chris

          Incorrect.
          1) You wrote “The left tries to pretend_killing a woman while she’s still in the womb is about protecting women’s rights.”

          The idea of protecting a woman’s right is an opinion NOT an action. It is only an opinion which can be a pretense.

          So I ask you again. Why is voicing an OPINION with which you disagree a pretense?

          To claim that you are helping people X while aborting a potential person is NOT a lie. It is looking at a situation differently to yourself. You don’t have to agree with their point of view to view it as such.

          Conclusion: Their viewpoint is neither a lie nor a pretense.

  • Reason2012

    Search: Soros-Funded Groups Back Anti-Trump Women’s March. This is nothing but another soros attempt to attack democracy and our president.

    • Chris

      How are people exercising their democratic rights attacking democracy? As to their disagreeing with your president he is hardly infallible. In addition it is the office which is owed respect and NOT the one who holds it at any particular time.

      • Reason2012

        Saying “I’ve thought for months about blowing up the White House”?

        They can disagree all they wish – but to lie and pretend their rights have been taken away when no such thing has happened, where people like Soros PAY them all to say such lies and act mad and burn down limos and break windows and attack others who support Trump, that’s attacking democracy, not “exercising democratic rights”.

        • Chris

          “Saying “I’ve thought for months about blowing up the White House”?”

          You attacked their martch. Now you’re attacking what a lone individual said? I can give you many many instances where tea party members entered a democratic meeting armed with guns.

          Wasn’t the implied threat there undermining the democratic process.

          “They can disagree all they wish – but to lie and pretend their rights have been taken away when no such thing has happened, …”

          You haven’t been keeping up with the news then. Trump defunded Planned Parenthood yesterday, and reintroduced the gag rule concerning abortions. Those actions have removed choice from women whether you agree with them or not.

          “where people like Soros PAY them all to say such lies and act mad and burn down limos and break windows and attack others who support Trump, that’s attacking democracy, not “exercising democratic rights”.”

          Two points:
          1) A minority, at most, did those things.
          2) Please provide hard evidence that Soros paid them to do this. Not an argument, not a blog post by some nut, hard evidence. Otherwise you are guilty of spreading rumours.

  • http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/ Ted R. Weiland

    This would have never occurred here in America if not for the 18th-century founders replacing
    Yahweh’s unchanging moral law for the for their own capricious Enlightenment and Masonic traditions.

    This is but one of tens of thousands of consequences of the wind today’s America is reaping as a result of the wind sown by the constitutional framers:

    “[B]ecause they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law … they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind….” (Hosea 8:1,7)

    Had the founding fathers (like their 17th-century Christian Colonial predecessors) established government and society upon Yahweh’s triune moral law (His Ten Commandments and their respective statues, including Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), there would be no homosexual agenda period because no sodomite or lesbian would dare risk exposing themselves to petition government for their “rights” or advertise in children’s magazines.

    For more on how Yahweh’s immutable moral law applies and should be implemented today, see free online book “Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

    Then find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

  • Tony

    Pro-Murder feminist ! enough said.