‘I Understand You Are a Christian!’: Bernie Sanders Angrily Erupts During Questioning of Nominee Who Believes Christ Is Only Way to God



WASHINGTON — Former presidential candidate Bernie Sanders became agitated and hostile on Wednesday during the questioning of Deputy Budget Director nominee Russell Vought, as he noted a social media post written by Vought that remarked that Muslims “do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ his Son, and they stand condemned.”

Sanders began by reading a joint letter from the Arab American Institute, Bend the Arc Jewish Action, and Muslim Advocates, which expressed objection to Vought’s nomination because he had “denigrated Muslims” and therefore has shown “hostility to religious pluralism.”

He then pointed to a portion of an article written by Vought last January in response to the Wheaton College controversy surrounding then-professor Larycia Hawkins’ assertion that Christians and Muslims “worship the same God.” Hawkins’ remarks had resulted in an investigation by the college and generated much discussion nationwide as to whether or not the Christian school was right to take action when such messages are put forth by its staff.

“Muslims do not simply have a deficient theology. They do not know God because they have rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned,” Vought, an alumni of Wheaton and a Christian, wrote in part in commenting on the controversy.

“Do you believe that that statement is Islamophobic?” Sanders asked during questioning on Wednesday.

“Absolutely not, Senator. I’m a Christian, and I believe in a Christian set of principles based on my faith,” Vought replied. “That post, as I stated in the questionnaire to this committee, was to defend my alma mater, Wheaton College, a Christian school that has a statement of faith that includes the centrality of Jesus Christ for salvation.”

Sanders then asked Vought if he believes Muslims are condemned by God for rejecting His Son.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Do you believe people in the Muslim religion stand condemned? Is that your view?” he inquired.

“Again, Senator, I’m a Christian, and I wrote that piece in accordance with the statement of faith at Wheaton College,” Vought responded.

“I understand that. I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America—maybe a couple million. Are you suggesting that all those people stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned, too?” Sanders questioned.

Vought again sought to emphasize that he is a Christian, and Christians believe that Christ is the only way to God.

“I understand you are a Christian!” Sanders erupted angrily. “But this country is made of people who are not just—I understand that Christianity is the majority religion, but there are other people of different religions in this country and around the world.”

He repeated, “In your judgment, do you think that people who are not Christians are going to be condemned?”

“As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all individuals,” Vought replied.

Sanders, finding it disrespectful to state that those who reject Jesus stand in danger of God’s judgment, again pressed Vought.

“You think your statement that you put into that publication, ‘They do not know God because they rejected Jesus Christ, His Son, and they stand condemned,’ do you think that’s respectful of other religions?” he asked.

“Senator, I wrote a post based on being a Christian and attending a Christian school that has a statement of faith that speaks clearly in regard to the centrality of Jesus Christ in salvation,” Vought repeated.

Sanders then remarked that Vought is unAmerican and therefore should not be confirmed.

“I would simply say, Mr. Chairman, that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about,” he said.

He also released a statement about Vought later in the day, remarking that “condemning an entire group of people because of their faith cannot be part of any public policy.”

Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

He also declared in John 3:18, “He that believeth on Him (the Son of God) is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”


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. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Dems hate the Christians. Humanism is detestable and destructive. Humanism kills the most by upholding blasphemy and abortion and immorality.

    • RWH

      A lot of Democrats are committed Christians. The Republican Party is not the party of God. Apparently, this individual didn’t consider the fact that Sanders is Jewish, and the same accusations this person hurled at the Moslems applies to the Jews as well.

      • JS

        Except the Jews are not cutting people heads off or stoning to death young women that were raped or forcing their young girls to marry old men. Or pushing gay men off of high roofs. See the difference?

        • RWH

          You can’t compare what radical Moslem elements do in third-world countries with what happens in the United States. There are Christians who have done some pretty horrific things as well. However, the fact remains that both Moslems and Jews have rejected Christ. As with Sanders, I would also be very wary of someone who shows a possibility that he will not treat others with whom he disagrees in a fair manner.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Apparently some Jews have accepted Christ too. There is a web site for it, but I can’t remember the acronymn but it is called Jews for Jesus all one word dot org if you want to look at it.

          • Amos Moses

            well Christ was a Jew ….. so ……….

          • Sharon_at_home

            The Lord blinded the Jews to the fact that Jesus was the messiah, because they did not believe him.
            I have also read that they did not believe that the messiah would come to Earth two times. So I guess because the end times did not happen, they couldn’t believe Christ could be the messiah because if he had been, he would not come again at the end times.

          • Amos Moses

            one group expected a military leader ……. so they could kick Rome out of the Holy Land …… and Christ was not …. He will be ….. but He had a different mission when He was here …… the other group expected what He was ….. and many of them became christians ……..

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            More evidence that God, as written in the Bible, is a jerk.

          • Islam teaches that the only unpardonable sin is to believe in the Christian Trinitarian God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit…The Jews have, as their 18th Benediction a prayer that every “heretic” (Christian) will have their name blotted out of the Book of Life…So all three faiths teach that their way is the only way…Why do people like you and Bernie Sanders only want to attack Christians given what I just said is true?…I’ll tell you why – because you want to attack Christianity through Saul Alinsky techniques because ONLY! Christianity is a threat to your vile progressive beliefs…

          • RWH

            There is an appropriate time to bring religious beliefs into a discussion, and there are inappropriate times. Anyone who claims that their way is the only way lets others know that there is a good chance that s/he will be biased in favor of people with like beliefs and will not treat others fairly. You may not like this assessment, but this has been a problem in many workplaces, and in government, we certainly don’t want people to feel that their leaders are not going to treat them fairly. The courts have been littered with cases of municipalities that tried to block minority religions from opening houses of worship in their communities.

          • Are you arguing, then, like Bernie Sanders that any Christian who lives his faith shouldn’t be employed by the government?…Because to be fair, which Bernie makes no pretense of being, you would have to exclude all Humanists, Muslims and Jews who live their faith as well…

            Secondly, why is it assumed that all Christians who actually live their faith cannot be “fair” in the workplace when dealing with anyone who lives by another philosophy or religion?…But Humanists, Muslims and Jews have no trouble being “fair?”…

            Bernie may be a “Jew” in name only but I don’t think anyone would argue that he isn’t a Humanist first and foremost. Consequently, I could give you many examples of humanists having trouble treating others who live by another faith fairly, i.e. Bernie Sanders in this very video. Why do you Progressives only attack Christians with your feigned assumptions?…Let me answer that question for you; You attack only Christians because you rightly view Christians as the biggest threat to your failed ideology which is so godless and devoid of morales and virtues…

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            I’ll repeat what I posted up thread here, because you are lying. Here’s what the Koran teaches:

            The Koran teaches that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do believe in God (Allah is just the Arabic word for God) and have honored their lives with good works and moral living shall enter paradise.

            “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Baqarah 2:62]

            “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Maa’idah 5:69]

            But please, quote the Surah where it is taught that being Christian is the only unpardonable sin.

            Now, Shirk, associating other Gods with Allah, is unforgivable. So if you believe in three co-equal deities then you are in trouble. However, Christianity seems to say that God is three in one, which is totally something Allah would be cool with.

          • Amos Moses

            again …….

            “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.” (Koran 4:171)

            “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

          • Reason2012

            Hundreds of MILLIONS of those who follow islam are doing such things in 13 countries – it’s not just a few “radicals” – they do what their religious book commands.

            And “Christians” who slaughtered others are showing they are NOT doing what the Bible commands – that they are in fact not Christians.

            “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”
            John 8:7

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            Dude, if there were hundreds of millions of radicals Europe would be burning from the Danube to the Scottish border. You are talking about an army ten times larger than the Soviet Army in WWII and driven by fanaticism.

            Experts estimate that the true number of hard core radicals in the Muslim world at under 2 million. Out of 1.7 billion. It’s why they hide in caves and don’t come out in big numbers.

          • Amos Moses

            “I would also be very wary of someone who shows a possibility that he will not treat others with whom he disagrees in a fair manner.”

            So you oppose Sanders because that is what he just did to Vought …………

          • Richard O. Mann

            One of the early founders of the US actually wrote that only Christians should be allowed to be leaders of this country. I’ll have to find the exact quote and person.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yeah, and the guy was a narrow-minded bigot.

      • Amos Moses

        “A lot of Democrats are committed Christians.” …. but committed to what ….

        “The Republican Party is not the party of God.” …. gotta give you that one …..

        “Apparently, this individual didn’t consider the fact that Sanders is Jewish, and the same accusations this person hurled at the Moslems applies to the Jews as well.” …. not sure that is true …… and what Vought should have said was …..

        “ALL MEN are under the condemnation of God, every last one of them” ……………..

        • RWH

          Amos. Maybe if you would get out of the house for a while and get to meet people, you will find that not all Democrats think alike, and some have very compelling reasons for taking positions that you don’t like. Maybe then you won’t sit around and pontificate about things you know absolutely nothing about.

          • Amos Moses

            and so the question …. committed to what …. because as i have stated …. they move further and further away from christianity everyday and in direct opposition to it ……….. and as has also been pointed out ….. if the fruits do not line up with the statements …… then it is just another lie to oneself …………

          • TheLastHonestLawyer

            This would require Amos having the strength to challenge himself. That will never happen.

      • Richard O. Mann

        Yes, Jews are just as lost as Muslims if they have rejected Christ Jesus as the only way of salvation. They are just as damned as all other lost sinners. In fact, during this current age there are only two groups of people on the face of the earth. The saved, believers in Christ Jesus, and the lost, those who don’t.

    • Colin Rafferty

      What about the Democrats who are Christian? Are they self-loathing?

      • They are not Christian at all. They just call themselves Christian for their political career and/or out of cultural reasons. They are the worst of them all. Better an honest atheist than people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama calling themselves Christian.

        • Colin Rafferty

          Grace and I are talking about all Democrats, not just the few that you have grudges against. I know quite a few Democrats who are Christian. I also know Republicans who are pro-choice (and Democrats who are not). People come in all shapes and sizes.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Good point Colin!

          • Reason2012

            Jesus addressed this very question:
            “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
            Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”

            Matthew 7:15-23

            So, for example, someone claiming to be a Christian, but fighting to support abortion (their daily fruits) is proving they are likely not really a Christian at all. Only God knows for sure, but He points out we can spot them by their fruits.

            Jesus says there will be people who look like a Christian, talk like a Christian, walk like a Christian, dress like a Christian, but they are not – the real way to tell is by their fruits.

          • Colin Rafferty

            There are people who are anti-choice, but also don’t see that as their #1 priority in voting, and vote Democrat because they believe that is the best choice for what they think is important.

          • Reason2012

            Pro-life is not “anti-choice” any more than pointing out how it’s evil to_kill your 1 day old daughter is “anti-choice”.

            Most anti-God things about this country are supported by democrats – and democrats support abortion. If someone truly is a Christian it’s time to get vocal about the fact rather than remaining silent about it, which is consent through inaction. Please show me groups of democrats that are busy protesting abortion – I never see them.

            In any event, if a person is against abortion, against censoring God, against transgenderism, against homosexual behavior, against same-gender “marriage” and so on (all issues vehemently and dogmatically promoted by democrats), then what party they are in matters not (although it’s strange to be in the part that’s pro all of those things and is the party responsible for forcing it on everyone else). If a person supports those things, it also doesn’t matter what party they’re in – not looking like they’re really following God.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’m going to disagree with you. I completely understand that you believe that abortion is murder, and because of that, you appropriately feel that other people should not be able to do it.

            However, I don’t see why you would think that, as a Christian, you need to stop people from being gay, from having a legal marriage, or being transgendered. I understand why you wouldn’t want to do it for yourself, but it seems to me that what is more important is things like social justice, poverty, war, peace, and so many other things.

          • Reason2012

            Yes, killing another human being is murder in the eyes of God. And that you also feel other people should not be able to do that as well when they’re at least a minute old. You are against abortion, are you not? Or was that just talk earlier?

            However, I don’t see why you would think that, as a Christian, you need to stop people from being gay,

            I said homosexual behavior. So trying to pass laws to PROMOTE that sort of behavior is contrary to God.

            from having a legal marriage

            Marriage was created by God. So I take it you’re not a Christian, thinking marriage is anything we make it when it’s God who created it, while trying to defend “democrat” Christians?

            or being transgendered.

            Not sure why you want to encourage other human beings to mutilate their genitals and force everyone else to get on their anti-biology belief system, exposing everyone else’s kids and grandkids to kids of the opposite gender in bathrooms.

            I understand why you wouldn’t want to do it for yourself,

            So while you wouldn’t want to break God’s laws, you’re fine with the country passing laws to violate as many as they can? Or are you just not a Christian?

            but it seems to me that what is more important is things like social justice, poverty, war, peace, and so many other things.

            We can’t address them all? Seems there are more important things like justice, poverty, war, peace and so many other things than to come here and post pro-homosexual, pro-same-gender, pro boys in little girls bathroom, pro-death agendas instead. You’re not being consistent.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I have never claimed to be a Christian, nor pretended to be one. I’m actually asking you this because I’m trying to understand your reasoning. That’s why I’ve already acknowledged that I understand your reasoning about abortion, and why you think it’s legitimate to make it illegal. I agree, that if I thought it was murder, I would also think it ought to be illegal. But I’m not looking for a conversation about whether it is murder or not, because that is not productive.

            Seriously, I keep hearing that we New York East Coast Liberal Atheists need to try to understand what other people think and why they think that. That’s exactly what I’m trying to do here.

            There are people who honestly think that Democrats have better ideas about how to fight poverty, and help people be healthy, and reduce world tensions, and make sure no children go to bed hungry. And see that as more important than making sure that other people aren’t sinning. Whose general view on other’s people’s choices is: that’s not for me to judge. And think that if two people are in love, that’s a good thing, even if it’s not the kind of relationship they would want.

            Why does being a Christian make you need to have laws against other people sinning?

          • Reason2012

            So you’re really an atheist who started out making a pretense at caring for “democrat Christians”. Not very upfront of you – could have started with your claim of being an atheist wanting to understand Christians instead of being misleading.

            There are people who honestly think that Democrats have better ideas about how to fight poverty, and help people be healthy, and reduce world tensions, and make sure no children go to bed hungry.

            Yet you brought up abortion, then were defending democrats, who are dogmatically forcing homosexual behavior, same-gender marriage and letting boys into girls’ bathrooms because they want to live in the worldview of everyone else pretending they are really a girl and more – in effect an anti-Christ worldview where everyone else has to bear the consequences. And aren’t there greater issues they could be legislating, having to do with “social justice, poverty, war, peace, and so many other things”? Again you’re being hypocritical.

            If you want to instead talk about health and hunger, that’s another subject, but doesn’t change the fact that:
            – killing another human being is evil, even if it is your own daughter. Forcing our country where the vast majority are Christians to get on board with this wicked genocide, funding the sacrificing kids on the altar of person convenience with our own tax money
            – forcing the allowance of little boys to walk into bathrooms and locker rooms with everyone else’s little girls is wrong
            – forcing anti-Christian laws to redefine religious institutions like marriage that existed long before any government did is wrong and violates our constitution -specifically the establishment clause.

            That’s more like defending ourselves against anti-Christian activists who are determined to force everyone else to adhere to and support their anti-Christian behaviors: killing_human beings, forcing little girls to be subject to boys walking in on them in bathrooms and locker rooms, establishing a new State Religion with it’s own version of marriage, forcing everyone else to bow down to it, lest they be sued or tried as a criminal for not supporting such ACTS no matter who asks (homosexual or not), when they have no problem serving those who feel the need to announce they’re into homosexual behavior.

            It’s disingenuous to pretend that’s just trying to “make sure other people aren’t sinning” – that’s called trying to stop them from forcing everyone to sin, against their conscience and against God.

            Why does being an atheist make you need to have laws promoting the slaughter of 60+ MILLION sons/daughters, with a million more each year, forcing everyone else’s kids / grandkids to be subject to boys walking in on them in bathrooms and locker rooms, and attacking Christianity, forcing Christians to violate their beliefs and promote sinful acts?

            And therein is their hypocrisy exposed.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I care for all people to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. Including Christians. And Muslims. And Jews. And gays, and straights, and asexuals, and everyone.

            Thank you for sharing your world views.

          • What is Truth?

            Is not the issue here that you can’t actually allow all people to live their lives as they see fit?

            Would you be ok with a 13 year old having a relationship with a 40 year old? A biological brother and sister getting married? Polyamorous marriage where 4 men and 6 women are all married to each other?

            Howabout two adults who mutually consent to one killing the other then eating them – just let them get on with it as consenting adults living life as they see fit?

          • Colin Rafferty

            The 13 year old cannot consent.

            I see no reason to restrict two adult singling from having consensual non procreative sex. Nor do I see a reason to stop ten adults who mutually consent to marry. Why do you think you should be able to restrict them?

            I also have no problem with assisted suicide. Because each person’s life is their own to live, our not, as they see fit.

          • What is Truth?

            I picked 13 deliberately, as some cultures around the world allow marriage from 13. Those cultures define adulthood at puberty. Even here in the UK, I understand there is dispensation for certain religious adherents to marry under 16 with parental consent.

            All you have done here is expose your own prejudice. You say that you allow people to live life as they see fit, but only under your own pre-conditions that you yourself are choosing to define. You have taken it upon yourself to dictate what constitutes adulthood, on what moral basis do you do that when certain other cultures take a different view to you?

            I happen to agree with you by the way, but then I’m not the one who has a problem setting rules by which people need to abide!

            In the absence of an absolute morality, who arbitrates precisely?

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yeah, well I’m not a cultural relativist.

            I don’t take it upon myself to define adulthood, any more than I take it upon myself to define gravity.

            We have science, and we actually know that a 13 year old brain does not actually have the ability to make informed consent at that level.

          • What is Truth?

            Granted, but my point was simply “who arbitrates”.

            You say that a 13 year old doesn’t have the capacity, other cultures say that they do.

            Who is correct?

            I’m not sure you can bring science into it very easily, I’m sure you could find a 13-year-old prodigy with a highly advance IQ and maturity, and compare to a 25-year-old with hampered development who was actually less able to make informed consent than the whizzkid 13-year-old.

            Plus then where do you draw the magic line. 16? 18? 17.65379? Or do you make it that a person needs to be psychiatrically assessed to get like an adult licence when they are deemed ready for the rights and responsibilities of adulthood?

            If the magic line is 16 (like in the UK) or between 16 to 18 (like in the US, depending on the State), or at puberty (as in Saudi Arabia) – then who has it correct? Are 17-year-olds in certain States in the US unfairly discriminated against by the law? Or are they being protected until they are bit more able to make informed consent as an adult?

          • Colin Rafferty

            I honestly am not sure how to determine the line. It would be nice if we could throw a brainwave helmet on someone’s head and say: “competent”. But we can keep pushing to make the line narrower.

          • What is Truth?

            I guess I find it interesting. You seem to (quite rightly) recognise the danger of allowing 13 year olds to enter into relationships that are not safe, and that society needs to protect them from this (regardless of whether or not that 13 year old accepts this or agrees that the protection is necessary).

            If there is a higher moral authority to humanity, then we are like the 13 year olds – and God is like the parents (or the law). We might not fully understand why something is spiritually damaging to us; we just have to trust that the higher authority wants what is best for us and follow the guidance as best we can.

            I guess loosely that is the analogy I have attempted to draw here.

            Also, I note in an earlier thread that you quote the chiefly Judeo-Christian value of do unto others as you would have them do to you/as they would wish to be done to them. But if there is no higher moral authority then convince me, using pure logic alone, why I should do good and help my neighbour at all? Why not beat them up, and steal their stuff – and make that my moral code? Survival of the fittest; the strong do eat and the weak are meat etc. That is much more in line with the natural world around us.

          • Colin Rafferty

            That’s the interesting question: what are your core beliefs? In math, they would be called the axioms which are just true because they are. And these are hard in morality, because it does come down to defending them and revising them. My base approach is to imagine what it would be like if I were born differently. What if I were born a woman? Or black? Or as Trump’s child? Or in the ghettos of Mumbai? Or blind? How would I want the world organized in such a way that I’d be happiest no matter how I was born?

            And I’m always willing to question and defend my own prejudices, because I know they are just coming from my own head. It would be easy to be lulled by a false sense of morality imposed from above. But I have to take responsibility for my own actions. Even if I believed there were a God, I would still have to make my own moral decisions, because that is my responsibility.

          • What is Truth?

            That is an interesting way to look at it.

            Just out of interest, because it is rare I find someone who is of your worldview so open to a friendly discussion about this as you seem to be, what it your best guess about how life arose in the absence of a creator?

            I have studied to university level in physics by the way, so I’m one of the increasingly rare breed who can self-identify as both scientist and theist. I might well have pursued a career in physics, were it not for my perception (which may be wrong) that I would find it very hard to progress within that culture given the fact I am a theist.

            The stumbling blocks for me in accepting the random chance theory of creation are:

            1) The first cause. In a universe that demonstrates cause and effect, time, and entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics), what was the first cause – because there cannot be an infinite amount of time past. And where did the energy/matter come from in the first place?

            Hawking (somewhat optimistically) thinks that something can come from nothing IF the laws of physics already exist. But even then, what caused the law of physics to be?

            Note God does not suffer from this same problem of infinite regress, as by definition he/she/it is infinite. As soon as something exists, there must be some level that is infinite. 0 is not equal to 1, nor ever will be.

            2) Ignoring the problem of the first cause, how did DNA created itself out of random chance? Given that not only does it contain meaningful information (and superlatively complex information at that) – but it also has to decode and “interpret” itself to function properly also. This seems like so far beyond wishful thinking to have happened by random chance, I’ve never understood how anyone can take it seriously (my wife has a first class in Biochemistry, so she is better with that side of things – and she thinks it is ludicrous to think DNA created itself out of random amino acids. It would be like a book writing itself.)

            Even Richard Dawkins is so stumped by it, he has admitted he thinks it is so complex it must have been written by maybe some form of advanced aliens…

          • Colin Rafferty

            (1) Is not a question about life, but about the Universe. Which, by definition, it is infinite. The theory that I go with is that the current visible universe (about 13 thousand million years old) exists as a false vacuum bubble that came into existence by a random low entropy fluctuation.

            (2) Is a question of abiogenesis. It’s not random, just as evolution isn’t random. Evolution is not just random mutations, but natural selection of those mutations. Getting back to abiogenesis, there is constant energy going into the system, and about three thousand million years between the formation of the Earth and life first forming. That’s ninety thousand million million seconds, with sunlight and tides and geothermal activity constantly pushing on and forming and reforming molecules into proteins, some of which survive, and some which keep mutating form that energy.

            And RNA/DNA works. The simplest strands maintain themselves because they were naturally selected over those thousands of millions of millions of seconds of action.

            Tell your wife to imagine an outside energy source pushing those words around randomly, but also an editor that has set rules about what words work well together, and hangs onto the ones that meet the rules. That editor is natural selection.

          • What is Truth?

            You think that the universe is infinite? Despite the fact that all the empirical evidence points to entropy “running everything downhill” in the long run? You drop a plate it smashes, you drop the pieces they smash up even smaller. Entropy never runs uphill; you never get the full plate back again (without intelligence and outside agency – eg a human gluing it back together). Entropy can only appear to buck the trend in the short term and in an isolated system where a greater external force acting upon it (eg individual Earth systems being fed energy from the Sun) – but eventually the Sun dies, and the Earth with it. Entropy gets its pound of flesh eventually.

            Out of curiosity, are you studied in physics and biochemistry – what is your level of qualification?

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, I have not studied past undergraduate level. On the other hand, I keep up with the science.

            One of the most likely theories, based on the knowledge of local physics, is that we are in a false vacuum of the larger Hilbert Space. The 13 billion year old visible universe is naturally having its entropy increase, and the initial vacuum that created us was a random fluctuation in that higher space.

          • What is Truth?

            How do you get round the problem that the world of science (universities, researchers, world class physicists) all have their own inherent bias of how they go about science?

            Eg, if somebody tries to write a paper about evidence contrary to the current mainstream thinking on global warming – do they get taken seriously, or are they shunned by the scientific community, denied funding, denied promotion – effectively excommunicated in a similar way to Medieval Christian societies?

            So what you end up with, is not a plurality of open minds coming together, but an inherantly biased community who all are institutionalised to think the same way. And you have hallowed tenets, that are practically unchallengable that noone dare speak an alternate view on it (eg age of universe, global warming).

            Eg, I’ve given you several counter-propositions why the universe might not be anything like 13 billion years old. As a scientist, I happily admit “I don’t know how old it really is”. Yet your threads still continue with “the 13 billion year old universe…”. You are so entrenched in declaring something as fact, which is ultimately totally unprovable. It is a best guess, based on several theories and observations, literally RIDDLED with assumptions.

            Are you not willing to accept the blindingly obvious (and highly significant) limitations of human science?

          • Colin Rafferty

            The great thing about bias — and everyone has biases — is that there is peer review and replication. An important thing about science is that it’s all about falsifiability. There are mountains of facts that we know are true, and scientific theories are supposed to explain those facts. If you want to propose a new theory, it has to not be contradicted by reality.

            So for example, if someone were to write a paper that showed the Earth was cooling, they would have to not just talk about the evidence for their paper, but explain how all the contradictory facts fit.

            There are lots of examples of people who have theories that go against the consensus, and are eventually proven right. For example, the germ theory of stomach ulcers, or plate tectonics. But they are shown right because they explain the world better, and aren’t contradicted by known facts.

            Your examples of how the universe is not about 13 billion years old fall into two buckets: (a) brain in a box; (b) disproven theories.

            (a) Are the idea that God planted the evidence, or we’re being fed lies, or just a brain in a box. This is utterly disprovable, and utterly useless for living our lives. Because even if it were the case, assuming it’s not true and that we can trust our senses still comes up with the correct answers.

            (b) Is things like the idea that fundamental laws of physics change over time or with distance. That’s a serious kind of question, and is something that physicists actually have worried about. We assume it doesn’t, but we’re always testing. And we’re able to test because the further distance we look, the further back in time we look.

            It has actually been shown over and over that the physical constants are actually constant. One recent example is the LIGO detection in 2015. The two black holes merged 1.3 billion light years away (which is very far and very long ago). And they did it in exactly the way physics predicted they would.

          • What is Truth?

            I only just noticed your question, and it is an important one. You ask why I should be able to restrict them. Several points:

            1) I don’t necessarily argue that they should be restricted. It is their choice and from a secular societal point of view maybe they should not be restricted. If they want to enter into a secular civil union, that is entirely up to them.

            2) If they do choose to enter into such a union, then I’ve never really understood why a union between any partnership (other than the religious commitment of one man and one woman) needs to be called “marriage”. Marriage is a religious institution. If you want to have a civil union, knock yourself out. But why demand it to be called “marriage” – when it isn’t? When women fought for universal suffrage, they didn’t demand to be called men. They still wanted to identify separately, but as equals under the law.

            3) Humanity choosing to live life under their own moral compasses, does not preclude the fact that if there is a higher moral authority (God) then what we decide for ourselves doesn’t really amount to anything. If you steal from a shop, and stand before a judge, and say – “it’s not stealing, I think it’s perfectly acceptable under my own moral judgment” – this will not get you very far, you will still end up having the justice of the court exacted upon you. The Bible suggests that any sexual relationship outside of the God given institution of marriage is spiritually damaging. You can say you don’t accept that, but you do so only on your own moral authority which claims no source of derivation other than that of other human beings. So again, who arbitrates where the various cultures disagree? Or is everyone “right”?

            4) Turning the question around, if I think that having a sexual relationship outside of marriage (which is strictly one man and one woman) is spiritually damaging under the moral code of Christianity that I follow, would you restrict me from teaching my children this as a moral value? Or airing my views in public to encourage other people not to engage in something spiritually damaging (in the same way I would encourage somebody not to smoke, as this is physically and medically damaging)?

          • Colin Rafferty

            2. But why demand it to be called “marriage” – when it isn’t?

            If it were the case that marriage was strictly ceremonial, no one would care about it. But it’s the fact that there are dozens of rights and privileges associated with marriage that we fight for equal rights.

            In fact, the original battles in the 90s were to get equivalent rights through civil unions. But it turned out that people fought against that so hard, that we have to fight for equal rights any way we can get it.

            3. There is a higher moral authority.

            No, there isn’t. Or more specifically, that line of argument actually leads to moral relativism, because there are multiple higher moral authorities. Do we follow the Torah, the New Testament, the Koran, or something else?

            The basic law of morality is to do unto others as they would want done unto them.

            4. Can I teach my children the morals I want? Can I preach those morals.

            Of course. That’s always fine. It’s the act of forcing your version of God’s word on others that’s the problem. You want to say that gay marriage is a sin and God is going to burn them all in hell for all eternity. Go ahead. You want to make the law such that two men don’t have the same rights as a man and a woman? Bite me.

          • What is Truth?

            Yes, understood. But then that was the whole point of legal civil unions. Here in the UK these were called “civil partnerships”. It conveyed precisely the same rights as marriage under the law, but was not called marriage.

            Curiously, back in 2004 when it was instituted here in the UK, many gay people rushed to enter into such unions hailing it as a milestone in equality. Nobody was saying at the time that this was somehow inferior, and refused to enter into the unions because it wasn’t called “marriage”. They recognised that this was equality.

            It was only 9 years later when certain activists started calling for redefining what marriage is. And I have never understood why. Women are called women. They don’t need to be called men to be equal with men. And I’ve never heard a women’s rights activist ever call for this! It would be utter nonsense. People can be different, but equal in the eyes of the law.

            If anything, the activists demanding gay unions to be called gay marriage are somewhat undermining their own position. The best (secular) argument against gay marriage I heard here in the UK, was from members of the gay community who said, “hang on, I don’t want gay marriage. I’m proud to be gay, proud to be who I am. I don’t want my union to be called marriage, I like that it is called something else and wear it as a badge of honour to have something unique for who I am.”

            This type of view rarely got any airtime in the media though, who I suspect were heavily influenced by hardline lobbyists who have only called for the term marriage as part of a political agenda (which is ultimately to undermine the Church). As result, the people have been presented with an entirely one sided argument – the only counter arguments to gay marriage that got airtime here in the UK were so extremely bigoted that even I didn’t agree with them!

            Sorry old boy, but read up – you are misquoting me. I said that IF there is a higher moral authority, then what humans may well decide upon themselves outside of the moral code of the higher moral authority, but it ultimately carries zero weight in the eyes of that higher moral authority. Hence my analogy with the courtroom.

            The moral relativism argument of different religions is a good point. And this is where I probably differ from mainstream Christianity. All I can say is, that I don’t know by what moral yardstick God will judge humanity based on which moral code they have followed – all I can do is look at how I (with my suboptimal view of justice as a human) feel about it, and trust that if there is a God then his judgment will be infinitely “fairer” than how I feel about it.

            Personally, I find it difficult to apply a rigid formula that you accept Jesus in this lifetime then you’re in heaven, and if you don’t you’re in hell. There are far too many variables. What about the devout Muslim who dutifully follows the Koran, but genuinely never heard the message of Christianity? What about the Aboriginals who lived in Australia after Christ had died, but long before the first Protestant explorers arrived with their Bibles over a millennium and a half later? I simply cannot believe it is as cut and dried as they didn’t choose Christ in this lifetime then they are in hell; I cannot square that kind of rigid justice with an all-loving God. If I feel compassion for them, how much more will a perfect God?

            There are then grey areas for people like yourself, where I imagine if you stood face to face before God after you die (to this temporary existence) and personally witness God then you might very suddenly believe! I hope that you get that chance to still choose God at that point. The Bible is actually silent on when the cut-off is for the decision. Most Christians assume it must be during this existence. I can only say, I don’t know. I am concerned for you in case you don’t get that chance, but ultimately that is your free will decision. My duty is merely to present the case to you, and leave you to make up your own mind.

            You boldly state that there is no higher moral authority. However, I am pretty certain you have no evidence for stating this. You can rely on human science to only a minute extent I am afraid. The simple way of demonstrating this, is to consider what % of everything that there is to know does humanity currently “know” with all of our science and technology. It will be a wild estimate of course – but what do you think?

            Personally I imagine is it of the order of 1×10^(-100); something like that. You need to recognise that whilst it is pretty impressive how far we have advanced in human terms, how can we possibly begin to have any confidence over what might or might not exist outside of detection with our frankly very limited human senses and technology. It beggars belief that the majority stance of modern science demands only what we can empirically verify within what it is willing to accept might exist. What are the chances that everything that exists is within the detection range of the human senses, and the tools we can build with the limited resources on this planet?

            That is good to hear. Sadly many of your more vocal proponents don’t share this view. I understand Canada has just passed a law which might mean that children could be removed from a family by the state, where eg the family teaches that gender is binary and scientifically definable and that you cannot actually just decide gender for yourself (any more than I can just decide I am a chicken and not a human being). Watch this space, I suspect similar laws are headed for the UK and the USA soon. Maybe not in the US until they have removed Trump!

            It is good to end on a note of agreement, as I am totally with you that the secular law should convey the same rights upon all. Hence I don’t argue that we should restrict civil partnerships within the secular law.

            Although, as an interesting sideline, if you allow the secular law to be extended to included polyamorous relationships, and say inter-biological-family relationships, then what is to stop me marrying both my mother and father, then have them gift me all of their assets as an exempt transaction for taxation within a secular union before I die? Then I can marry five of my business partners, and trade with them with the same tax protection?

            Are you not ultimately headed for a place where “marriage” is actually meaningless?

          • What is Truth?

            I replied to this earlier, but it got auto-flagged as spam as it was almost an essay length response! I will reply to each point in turn in smaller chunks…

          • What is Truth?

            Yes, understood. But then that was the whole point
            of legal civil unions. Here in the UK these were called “civil
            partnerships”. It conveyed precisely the same rights as marriage under
            the law, but was not called marriage.

            Curiously, back in 2004 when
            it was instituted here in the UK, many gay people rushed to enter into
            such unions hailing it as a milestone in equality. Nobody was saying at
            the time that this was somehow inferior, and refused to enter into the
            unions because it wasn’t called “marriage”. They recognised that this
            was equality.

            It was only 9 years later when certain activists
            started calling for redefining what marriage is. And I have never
            understood why. Women are called women. They don’t need to be called
            men to be equal with men. And I’ve never heard a women’s rights activist
            ever call for this! It would be utter nonsense. People can be
            different, but equal in the eyes of the law.

            If anything, the
            activists demanding gay unions to be called gay marriage are somewhat
            undermining their own position. The best (secular) argument against gay
            marriage I heard here in the UK, was from members of the gay community
            who said, “hang on, I don’t want gay marriage. I’m proud to be gay,
            proud to be who I am. I don’t want my union to be called marriage, I
            like that it is called something else and wear it as a badge of honour
            to have something unique for who I am.”

            This type of view rarely
            got any airtime in the media though, who I suspect were heavily
            influenced by hardline lobbyists who have only called for the term
            marriage as part of a political agenda (which is ultimately to undermine
            the Church). As result, the people have been presented with an
            entirely one sided argument – the only counter arguments to gay marriage
            that got airtime here in the UK were so extremely bigoted that even I
            didn’t agree with them!

          • Colin Rafferty

            I am sadly lacking in knowledge of internal UK politics. I didn’t even know there was an election until the day of! Most of the people here are US-based (or US-centric), so I generally leave off the “in the US” part of my comments.

            I don’t see the need for using the term marriage either. It really is all about the legal rights. Here in the US, there were multiple approaches to getting equal rights, and it’s the piecemeal aspect of States vs Federal that made the civil union laws not work, but the straight up expansion of legal marriage at the federal level work.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Your post () was deleted (again). Here’s my response anyway.

            I’m fairly certain because we have an extremely well-understood explanation of the universe around us. I’m exceptionally confident that basic science is correct, and that any belief system that contradicts it is wrong. There’s mountains of evidence of a ~13 billion year old universe, a 4.5 billion year old Earth, and common descent.

            It’s not a question of detecting things we can’t yet detect, it’s that if it cannot be detected right now, then it doesn’t have an influence. An excellent essay about this is by Sean Carroll, called “The Laws Underlying The Physics of Everyday Life Are Completely Understood” (google the title to find, no links allowed).

            It is possible that we will learn something that no one ever thought possible. But that would still have to be consistent with a 13 billion year old universe and evolution.

            And anyway, this is basically Pascal’s Wager. If it’s possible there is a higher power, that doesn’t tell us anything about what that Higher Power wants, or will do. Or why it’s morality is inherently correct.

          • What is Truth?

            I fear the trouble here is that we won’t be able to agree.

            With my “God hat” on – I don’t care how old the universe is. If God exists, he could have created the whole thing in a split second – and allowed for those who choose to be “wise in their own eyes” to interpret it as being 13 billion years old without the need for God (He even could have created the world in such a way that humans who reject Him would conclude that is 13 billion years old when it really isn’t). See the short film “The Voorman Problem” – it is about somebody in prison who claims to be a deity and that he created the universe 9 days ago, to which the psychiatric interviewer says that is ridiculous and that he remembers being a child and growing up and there is scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old etc. The “deity” then simply replies, I know I created all your memories and all the evidence…

            With my science hat on, I recognise that we simply haven’t got the faintest clue how old the universe really is, because there are so many assumptions with what happened in the past, that the rate of radioactive decay is constant in the extreme long term, that the rate of time is constant, that there isn’t an invisible bubble of “something” around our solar system at the present time that we cannot detect with our current technology, but that causes all the laws of physics to act the way they do (yet they acted very differently long ago). And so on to infinity… An intellectually honest scientist has to accept this.

            Equally, the Genesis account could be poetic language, and maybe creation really happened over billions of years. You still need God in all this, because you need a source for all the “stuff” of this universe.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Yes, I can choose to imagine that I am just a brain in a jar fed memories and experiences. I never liked Descartes’ “answer” to that problem. I prefer to believe that we don’t have an evil demon who plants false evidence, simply because the world works the same either way.

            We have multiple different ways of showing the age of the universe. We can see directly that the laws of physics are the same thousands of millions of years ago and light-years away.

            I don’t need an infinite God in all this, because the Universe itself is infinite. I don’t worry about “first cause” because quantum mechanics shows us that we don’t need a cause for every effect. We can directly measure this. Unless, that is, there is an evil demon who is sabotaging the results.

          • What is Truth?

            The big problem you have is that:

            1) You have to accept that humanity has the capacity to explain anything with any accuracy whatsoever, from our limited vantage point and with our limited tech and resources.

            2) That the way we interpret things with our brains is even valid (if your brain is just a by-product of random chance, how do you know that the conclusions it draws are even rational – maybe it is just conning you, so that you keep yourself and it alive for as long as possible?)

            3) That the evidence (religious texts etc) that actually DOES already exist, which make claims of a creator, are definitely incorrect.

            I guess I could never reach that level of faith to believe in the current findings of fallible human science alone (which is hamstrung with an infinite number of assumptions and unknowns)!

          • Colin Rafferty

            I try not to make this mistake. The mistake of arguing with someone about religion. It’s a mug’s game. I’m sorry. I’m sticking to science.

            1. Yes, I think that we can know what we know, and know what we don’t know. And explore the limits of what we can know.

            2. It’s not random chance. There’s the selection involved as well. And it’s quite possible that I am actually in a straightjacket in an asylum, and all this is a hallucination. But I’m choosing to not believe that, or that I’m just in a Matrix-like simulation. Given that assumption, I am certain that we do actually understand the world around us, because we perform actions based on that understanding, and they work. We understand quantum mechanics because we base our computer components on that understanding, and they work.

            3. I said earlier in this comment that I’m not going to talk about religion. 🙂

          • What is Truth?

            Well I wish you luck with your worldview. I hope you get something out of it. I would rather hope that we are significant beings with an eternal purpose, than that we have a temporary existence in this fallen world for a few decades (if you are lucky) and our only hope is for humanity to save itself somehow. The same humanity that brought us the Russian Gulags, the Nazi Holocaust, the Cambodian killing fields, the atom bomb, no end of synthetically created diseases for germ warfare, the plastic-riddled oceans, near total pillaging of the Earth’s non-renewable resources – I could go on and on and on.

            I personally believe that you have been very fortunate to live in a time and a society where you are safe, and free, and have relative health and wealth such that you can have a relatively pleasant existence. This has not been the norm for the vast majority of humans.

            If there is no God, there is no eternal justice. Hitler and Stalin got away with it. The countless people around the world who live their entire lives under oppression, fear, abuse, torture, they just die and there is no redemption – that is all they will ever experience. Think about that for a moment. Somebody on this planet could be tortured every day of their life, then die. And that is all they will ever know, under your worldview.

            I don’t know how anyone can want to believe that, when there is evidence of a message of hope and redemption available to us. You are lucky to be in a position you can so casually ignore it – but equally very unlucky, that you may well be taking all too lightly something of eternal significance.

            You can shrug this off as Pascal’s Wager, but you are still potentially taking that gamble. I am concerned for you, but I hope at the bare minimum even if you think I am deluded in believing what I do – that at least I have your best interests at heart (even if I am wrong).

            I can only encourage you to keep searching for truth. As a scientist, I don’t see why the possibility of higher dimensions or an infinite being is so repugnant. By not talking about religion, you might be closing down an avenue of truth in your life journey. It just doesn’t seem very scientific to blanket out one potential option so totally.

          • Oboehner

            So in this case a 13 year-old doesn’t have the maturity to consent, yet if that same 13 year old wanted a sex change… You trolls never cease to amaze.

          • Oboehner

            “I have never claimed to be a Christian, nor pretended to be one.” Just trolling a Christian news site.
            “I’m actually asking you this because I’m trying to understand your reasoning.” Horse pucky, you’re just feebly attempting to criticize it.

          • Sharon_at_home

            You did not read his post if you think Colin is a troll. He is definitely not.

            A troll comes to a site to create a disagreeable environment. Colin comes to discuss people’s reasons for their beliefs in what is going on in the world. Trolls also only stay for a short time to get the hostility going between two sides, and then moves on to another place that the Troll can instigate another fight.

            Colin is an unusual person in this day and age. He is actually trying to make an informed decision on the things that are going on in the world. This is so he can support what he decides is the most reasonable of the things he has learned and compared to what he already knows and believes. It is a very mature way of dealing with how the world is handling itself. Especially since Colin rarely gets rude to people at all, but when he does it is dependent on how he was treated first. He is not unreasonable to the people who are not unreasonable to him first.

            It would be actually helpful, not only to Colin, but to others to read your reply and have something to be able to make, possibly even change, their mind up about things.

            Other people only read these posts (without commenting) and some are more influenced by what they read than anyone here could recognize at all. When you explain why you believe in something with more than just “it’s against our religion”, it helps them to understand too, and if not change their own opinion, it could at least help to make better discussions so we can find a common ground to help us get along better.

            It comes down to whether you want the world that God wants, where people can get along and make the world a better place to live in, with less conflict. It honestly does help to provide us with good discussions here to find out more about the subjects we discuss from each other.

            God loves it when we want to expand our knowledge so he would agree with discussing things with people who disagree with us, expecting that our faith in Him, will strengthen when we try to get others to understand what we believe and why.

            Blessings!

          • Oboehner

            He’s a troll.

          • Parodyx

            His posts are well-reasoned and well-balanced. There is nothing he posts that suggests he’s a troll. He even manages to keep his composure when responding to your sneering dismissals which is more than I can say for myself.

          • Parodyx

            “I said homosexual behavior. So trying to pass laws to PROMOTE that sort of behavior is contrary to God.”

            What other kind of behavior do you expect a homosexual to have? Are you not really just saying you demand that they live loveless and sexless lives because of your religion?

          • Reason2012

            They can live whatever life they want – when the supposed activists (who defend islam, mind you) force the rest of us to get on board with it, that’s when it’s a problem.

            Now they expose everyone else’s kids and grandkids to images and ideas of homosexuality. “Shut up, it’s legal now (same-gender marriage)” – shows the real reason they wanted marriage redefined. So much for “being left alone”.

            Why can’t they stay away from everyone else’s kids / grandkids?

            To force everyone else to bow down to their own worldview, including everyone else’s kids/grandkids, is where they make it everyone else’s business, proving it was a lie from the activists that “they just want to be left alone”.

          • Parodyx

            No one’s forcing you to “get on board” with it. Just don’t oppress them, deny them service, beat them up, kill them, or call them names. Is that really so hard?

            And why is allowing them to get married a problem? Is that a “special right”? No, it’s an EQUAL right. A “special right” would be telling them they don’t have to pay taxes. You know, like churches don’t.

          • Chris

            “Yes, killing another human being is murder in the eyes of God”

            You mean like how God ordered the murder of women and children in the Hebrew Testament? You mean like that?

          • Sharon_at_home

            Chris, I’ve been taught that the reason he did that was for 2 reasons: the people he determined for death were the people who refused to look to Hm as God and didn’t believe He could take care of them, but went to false Gods instead. As the creator of those people, at the beginning of the world, (in a way) should he not be able to make changes to try to make it the world he had in mind when he created it.
            God created the world to have companionship. He loves us and he wanted us to love him. When the people chose not only to follow a false God, but did not accept that their false God was not able to take care of them the way God could by using His power. The first commandment is always about Loving God with all our hearts. That’s what He wants more than anything else. Our love and devotion to the one who helps us daily with our lives. Considering the power He has, He could have smitten the people himself, but instead He decided to find out how much trust and faith the people who did worship and praise him had and whether they would obey Him – no matter what He commanded them to do. That was shown when the men did not kill some of the things that God told them expressly to kill. The man he had commanded to lead it, did not follow the orders that God gave them because the men felt they knew better than God and that the “couple” of things he wanted to be destroyed were better left alive. They did not believe that God was able to see things and want something done because of what he knows that no one else knows, not just because. There is always a reason God does things. We may not see the reason at the time, but there is one that God knows about. When you think about life, the little things that lead up to the big things. It is because of a whole bunch of little things that create us and the way we live our lives. We can’t look back and realize that if that “one” thing had not happened, then this whole string of things would not have happened either.
            Just the fact that God could have killed this tribe himself at any time shows that there was another reason to have it done another way, doesn’t it?

          • Chris

            “The people he determined for death were the people who refused
            to look to Hm as God and didn’t believe He could take care of them, but
            went to false Gods instead.”

            Then that should have resulted in their expulsion, NOT their murder. Secondly when were little kids able to do this?

            “As the creator of those people, at the beginning of the world, (in a way) should he not be able to make changes to try to make it the world he had in mind when he created it.”

            No. You’re a parent Sharon. Do you think you should have the right to murder your own children? Would you even want such a right if it was offered?

            “God created the world to have companionship. He loves us and he wanted us to
            love him.”

            Is ordering murder the way to show this love?

            “When the people chose not only to follow a false God, but did not accept that their false God was not able to take care of them the way God could by using His power.”

            How does God choose to show this? By ordering the murder of little children and their mothers. A better way would have been for God to demonstrate care for the ones who remained.

            “The first commandment is always about Loving God with all our hearts. That’s what He wants more than anything else.”

            No one should command love. If anyone could command it then such love would be on par with a robot which was programmed to say ‘I love you’ on command.

            “Considering the power He has, He could have smitten the people himself, but instead He decided to find out how much trust and faith the people who did worship and praise him had and whether they would obey Him – no matter what He commanded them to do.”

            So God commanded His people to murder little children?

            May I ask you to do something? Go to youtube and search for a video entitled ‘God on trial – the verdict’. It says what I am saying far more eloquently than I ever could.

          • Sharon_at_home

            I have cut and pasted your reply to a word doc. so I can review it carefully and completely as we both try to do. I have to go out and it is the only way I will be able to go instead of going over this with you. You know how I love to discuss these things with you!
            Take care and Have a great Day!

          • Chris

            I found the video very confronting but also fascinating. Well worth a look.

            “Take care and Have a great Day!”

            You too.

          • Reason2012

            So it’s murder to put someone to death for their crimes? You’re not being consistent. Taking matters into your own hands to_kill someone else is murder. There’s a difference between murder and justice.

            Romans 13:4 “For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

            So feel free to cite the verses where a group of people did nothing wrong and God said to go in there and murder women and children.

          • Chris

            “So it’s murder to put someone to death for their crimes?”

            Well yes. It’s called ‘judicial murder’ for a reason. However there are several flaws with your analogy.
            1) Who gave God the right to make any laws?
            2) In a court a person has the right to argue in their own defence. When did that happen here?
            3) Little babies are NEVER executed since they cannot form intent. Yet they are ordered to be murdered.

            “So feel free to cite the verses where a group of people did nothing wrong
            and God said to go in there and murder women and children.”

            Job.

          • Reason2012

            Well yes. It’s called ‘judicial murder’ for a reason.

            No, it’s called justice for breaking laws, not revenge or murder by someone out of hate.

            1) Who gave God the right to make any laws?

            If God created all life and everything in it, why would He not have that right?

            In a court a person has the right to argue in their own defence. When did that happen here?

            Our whole life – anytime we wanted. Have a change of mind about breaking God’s laws, pray to Him admitting our guilt, and believe on what He did on the cross as paying our penalty for us.

            Unfortunately most churches teach the lie that such forgiveness is in some way earned.

            “And [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
            ‘Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.'”

            Luke 18:9-14

            3) Little babies are NEVER executed since they cannot form intent. Yet they are ordered to be murdered.

            You have yet to cite such a command from God.

            Secondly, we cannot assume we know everything and hence that, for example, every single baby born is “innocent”. What if we were to find out fallen angels (the devil and his angels for example) were sometimes born in human form, reserved unto the day of judgment? Or what if we were to find out God removed their souls instead and placed them in new born bodies? Or perhaps something else. We’d end up being foolish judging God under pretense of knowing 100% of what’s going on in the spiritual realm of God.

            How about Job? An innocent man was tormented and tortured for a bet.

            No one’s “innocent”. God can take our life at any time and we’d deserve it. We’re lucky each and every day we get to live at all, let alone get offered eternal life.

            And his sons / daughters cursed God, and Job knew it – so it wasn’t just for some bet.

          • Chris

            “No, it’s called justice for breaking laws, not revenge or murder by someone out of hate.”

            The feelings of the person committing the murder are irrelevant. If a serial killer commited his murders dispassionately would they become morally ok?

            The fact is capital punishment was introduced because it was thought that taking a life was a particularly heinous crime. But if taking a human life is so bad then the state doing the same thing is just as bad.

            “If God created all life and everything in it, why would He not have that right?”

            Because sentient life has the right to have a say in how their life is run. A dictator deciding what all their subjects will do is NOT just. People having a say in their own law is just. See the difference?

            “Our whole life – anytime we wanted.”

            This does NOT answer my argument. I asked when we could face our accuser and answer the charges. You start talking about prayer which would only apply IF you accepted the God of the bible exists. You don’t have to ask whether a judge exists – we can see him.

            “You have yet to cite such a command from God.”

            1 Samuel 15: 3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

            “Secondly, we cannot assume we know everything and hence that, for example, every
            single baby born is “innocent”.”

            To be guilty of something requires intent. No intent = innocence. Babies cannot form intent.

            “No one’s “innocent”.”

            According to the book of Job Job was innocent.

            “God can take our life at any time and we’d deserve it.”

            Which is the justification of a bully and a monster. Their victims always deserve their fate.

            We’re lucky each and every day we get to live at all, let alone get
            offered eternal life.

            “so it wasn’t just for some bet.”

            The book of Job disagrees with you. The whole situation occurred because Satan and God had a bet about Job.

          • Reason2012

            1 Samuel 15:3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

            Now, tell me what Amelek and his people did to deserve that judgment.

            And secondly, tell me what happens to the souls of infants when they die.

            And no, Job 1:1 didn’t say he was innocent.

            Which is the justification of a bully and a tyrant.

            Who did not create all of life or the universe and did not go to the cross to offer payment for our lifetime of breaking His laws and offers the chance for God to forgive and forget, then yes, it would be a tyrant.

            So, do you want forgiveness for breaking God’s laws countless times? God offers it. God went to the cross to allow Himself to be brutally mauled with metal-tipped whips, then nails pounded through His hands and feet to hang there for hours in agony to bleed out.

            Do you want forgiveness? Then you get it and calling God a “tyrant” falls flat.

            Do you not want forgiveness? Then demanding the_hell we insist on receiving makes us the wicked ones.

            You can’t just take a few verses and pretend it was some sort of meaningless bet. Job had the privilege of judging satan by not doing what satan would do were he in job’s situation. Just like Christians even now judge the fallen angels by obeying God by faith when they disobeyed God when no faith was required.

            “Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”
            1 Corinthians 6:3

            So, do you want God’s forgiveness or not? God offers it now.

          • Chris

            “Now, tell me what Amelek and his people did to deserve that judgment.”

            Infants and babies? They went gah, gah, goo, goo.

            “And secondly, tell me what happens to the souls of infants when they die.”

            Sorry
            but that’s irrelevant. If the souls of infants going to heaven
            justifies murder then it would also justify someone now going through a
            children’s hospital and killing all the little kids. After all they’ll
            go to heaven so it must be ok. Right?

            “And no, Job 1:1 didn’t say he was innocent.”

            It
            doesn’t? “There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and
            that man was PERFECT and UPRIGHT, and one that feared God, and ESCHEWED
            EVIL.” [Emphasis mine]

            “Who did not create all of life or the
            universe and did not go to the cross to offer payment for our lifetime
            of breaking His laws and offers the chance for God to forgive and
            forget, then yes, it would be a tyrant.”

            Who created a place of
            eternal torture? Who made several erroneous claims in His book which
            convinces skeptics it can’t be true? Who says in his book that He
            deceives others?

            “So, do you want forgiveness for breaking God’s laws countless times?”

            We’re
            back to what right had God to make any rules? And order people for
            such heinous crimes as picking up sticks on the sabbath.

            “Do you want forgiveness? Then you get it and calling God a “tyrant” falls flat.”

            If a bully threatens to kill you unless you do X then you may well do it. That doesn’t make the bully any less a bully.

            “Do you not want forgiveness? Then demanding the_hell we insist on receiving makes us the wicked ones.”

            We don’t insist on receiving any such thing. And your sentence makes no logical sense.

            You can’t just take a few verses and pretend it was some sort of meaningless bet.”

            From answers dot com “The only bet i can think of off the top of my head is in the book of Job. God and Satan basically make a bet that Job will remain faithful to god regardless of what happens to him. ”

            So is murdering babies always wrong or does it depend?

          • Chris

            “(although it’s strange to be in the party that’s pro all of those things
            and is the party responsible for forcing it on everyone else).”

            How is allowing someone to do something ‘forcing it on everyone else’?

      • Amos Moses

        there was a time when that may have been true ….. but for the life of me …… it seems further and further removed from the possibility of that being a reality …… one is becoming completely opposed to the other ……….. /SMH …..

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        There are no Christians among the Dems. Christians do not support blasphemy and abortion-murder and homosexual/transgender depravity.

        • Colin Rafferty

          I know plenty of Christians who are Democrats. They support socialized medicine and feeding the hungry and clothing the poor. Taxing the rich and giving to the poor. They support strong public schools and solid urban infrastructures.

          I am not a Christian, but it seems that all these things are consistent with Christian morality.

          • Chris

            “I am not a Christian, but it seems that all these things are consistent with Christian morality”

            Unfortunately that’s not always the case. Over the last few decades a special brand of fundamentalism has grown up within Christianity. It’s this brand which teaches an ‘I’m alright jack’ attitude to the poor and sick. It exults ignorance and anti-rationalism. And above all it teaches how superior these types of Christians are to everyone else.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christians do not support abortion-murder or homosexual immorality. There can’t be any Christians among the Dems. If there are, they are misguided ones – the apostates. Liberals used to be more humane, but something bad happened in the 1990’s and no liberal can be considered as Christian under the light of the Holy Scripture.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Well, I guess if your definition of a Christian is someone who denounces abortion and homosexuals, then no Christians are Democrats.

            I’m not going to try to define what it means to be a Christian, but you seem to have a very narrow view of it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Jesus said, “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (Matthew chapter 7)

            Christians are moral, being God’s people. Normal people do not support abortion-infanticide or the homosexual depravity like the Dems do.

          • Parodyx

            I am constantly amazed at this attitude some people have that if you are a Christian you can ONLY be a Republican.

  • Sharon_at_home

    “As a Christian, I believe that all individuals are made in the image of
    God and are worthy of dignity and respect regardless of their religious
    beliefs. I believe that as a Christian that’s how I should treat all
    individuals,” Vought replied”
    Doesn’t that show that he would not refer to the fact that Muslims would be condemned only after they die, according to the Christian faith, and by treating everyone with “dignity and respect regardless of their religious
    beliefs.” when he is officiating in his responsibilities?
    That’s the important thing isn’t it?

    • Grace Kim Kwon

      He only communicated lovingly what the Holy Bible teaches. God’s objective truth overrides everything. Everyone has rights to know the truth fully. Dems face the eternal condemnation because they kill the babies still in the woimbs. They still have time to repent and turn from their wickedness.

    • Amos Moses

      “That’s the important thing isn’t it?”

      not to Bernie it isnt ………

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Thing is, I heard that line from my unit chaplain in the Army… who then took every opportunity to belittle my faith and work to sabotage my ability to follow it. I don’t trust a man who looks me in the eye and says “My version of God is going to burn you for all eternity, but I have nothing against you.”

      • Sharon_at_home

        No I don’t think I could either.
        I don’t agree with the way you have been told about our God. Have you ever read the gospel yourself? Christianity and Islam – have quite a few similarities actually. They can both be peaceful (at times) and their basic theme about how to live like a good person is close to what ours are, but your Holy Book is where there are differences.
        Both religions even declare that “their” holy book is the right one, and that both books were inspired of God. Since they are different in a number of ways, it puts the question of which one truly is the inspiration of God. The way I look at it because I trust God, I won’t know until everyone else knows about the end if I am alive, and if I’m not it won’t matter to me anyway.
        “My version of God is going to burn you for all eternity, but I have nothing against you.”
        I’ve heard Muslims say the same thing to Christians.
        My version of God does not want you to go to Hell, he wants you to go to Him for salvation. If people are threatening you with Hell, tell them they are too for sinning against their own god by saying just that. It is about what you choose to follow, and is made very clear how to avoid “the pit”.
        I think you should go by what they have shown in their past, not because of how one Christian spoke to you and abused you. Not all of us Christians would be like that I hope you realize. Each person should be expected to deal with things without their beliefs in the equation. I think the only way to allow for this man’s true identity is to look at his past. Has he ever been discriminatory for someone else’s beliefs? Has he shown any favoritism in the way he deals with a mix of religious people.
        Some people are good honest people and should have the chance to be proven to be any different because of their belief. I don’t. I help everyone the same way. With Love and caring and kindness. Why would I even know someone’s religion. Not everyone is one religion in every nation. So appearance is not something anyone can base anything on without asking about their religion.
        Besides, why would I care what religion they are if they need help? They are people first when there is not knowledge of their person at all. I would be about that, not about the religion. or on anything else. I’ve probably help someone who just robbed me if he needed something because he was bleeding. I’d not hesitate to call 911 to tell them to send an EMT to save them. Even sinning against me isn’t a reason for me to turn away from someone in need. I’ve always felt that way, and I’ve always acted without discrimination to anyone.
        If I can be the kind of person I am with years of not believing and with a good reference from all that know me, would you still question my Honesty?
        The biggest memory that people tell me when I ask why they searched for me is one simple word. Kind. People always remember the kindness before they remember anything else and that goes for the parents of my friends too. It was strange, because I never gave it a thought and did not expect that to be what people remember me for.
        I do not lie. I have always had very fair skin, and would blush when I tried to lie as a young child. My brothers and sister could always get away with lying when I couldn’t so I recognized early the value of the truth.
        Is that enough information about me if I was in the man’s place?

  • Tolerance once meant to accept that others have a different truth; today they want us to throw away the concept of truth at all.

    I’m totally opposed to Popery but Joseph Ratzinger was completely right when he called this very attitude the “dictatorship of relativism”: EVERYONE who believes in an objective truth (i.e. every serious follower of a religion) is attacked under this dictatorship.

    This is why there sometimes are cases where believers have to work together against socialist secularists like Bernie Sanders.

  • Reason2012

    Here’s their doctrine about Christ from their religious book:
    “The Jews call Ezra a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (9:30)

    Those who follow islam follow teachings that claim Christ is NOT the son of God and claim that to believe Jesus is the Son of God is to be “deluded away from the truth” and “Allah’s curse be upon them” – yes, satan curses those who believe on Christ, as does the cult of islam.

    Jesus even points out that those who reject Christ are still on their way to_hell.

    John 5:23-24 “That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”

    John 8:23-24 “And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

    Those who follow islam are yes factually in condemnation unless they come to the truth of God before it’s too late (which of course happens).

    This is why we are commanded to read God’s Word ourselves, as led by God’s Holy Spirit, to verify anything anyone tells us, including what I’m pointing out as well.

    And how many were saved when the flood came?

    8.

    Out of untold millions, only 8 were saved. Be not deceived into thinking we’re “fine” believing a lie just because a huge percentage of people believe the lie. The fear of the Lord God is the beginning of wisdom.

    What hardly any churches will point out that Jesus said:
    “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that_kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into_hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.”
    Luke 12:4-5

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      sigh. Context. The passages are about polytheism, which is utterly forbidden in Islam. And when that section was written, the concept that Jesus was fully divine and part of God even when on Earth hadn’t been adopted yet. The prevailing view in the Byzantine Empire was that Jesus was a separate divine being who was wholly human while alive on Earth, and a separate God once in Heaven.

      But here, have some more quotes from the Koran. Remember, “Allah” is simply Arabic for God. Arabic speaking Christians use the word Allah in their churches:

      The Koran teaches that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do believe in God and have honored their lives with good works and moral living shall enter paradise.

      “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Baqarah 2:62]

      “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Maa’idah 5:69]

      • Reason2012

        Their books says the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. which means Christians call Christ the son of God. They do. They’re Commanded to believe exactly that. Then their book points out claiming this “That is a saying from their mouth; (in this)” means they are deluded and cursed “they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!”

        Word for word it’s claiming they are deluded and cursed for believing Jesus is the Son of God – for believing what Christ said – and this proves they do not follow Christ / God but a false God.

        We do believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Trinity: three in One. One God. They claim Christians are cursed and deluded for believing this about Christ / God.

        The Koran teaches that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do believe in God and have honored their lives with good works and moral living shall enter paradise.

        Yes, they deny Christ and teach an anti-Christ doctrine of “works earn you salvation” which again is not following God but a false god of earning salvation.

        God instead tells us we are saved by grace

        “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

        Ephesians 2:8-9

        Romans 5:6-8
        Romans 9:14-16
        Ephesians 1:7
        1 Timothy 1:15-16
        Exodus 33:19
        Acts 4:12
        Acts 20:24
        Romans 5:15-17
        2 Corinthians 6:2
        Colossians 1:13-14
        2 Thessalonians 2:16
        Titus 2:11
        Hebrews 7:23-25
        Revelation 7:10
        Titus 3:4-7
        Luke 18:9-14
        Romans 11:5-6
        Galatians 5:4
        Romans 5:20-21
        Romans 6:14
        Romans 8:1-4
        Galatians 2:21
        Galatians 3:17-18
        1 Timothy 1:9
        Ephesians 2:4-9
        Acts 15:7-11
        Acts 16:30-31
        Romans 3:21-24
        Romans 4:14-16
        Romans 5:1-2
        Hebrews 4:16

        They prove they are not following the God of Isaac, Abraham, Jacob and Moses, but some false god.

        • Chris

          Now all you have to do is show that those verses were inspired by God [no, claiming it is isn’t enough] and that they relay such inspiration accurately.

          • Reason2012

            No, I don’t have to show any such thing – the point was they are claiming to follow God / the Bible -so I show that they contradict what the Bible says, proving they’re not following God / the Bible, but a god of their own choosing.

            You rejecting God doesn’t change this fact.

          • Chris

            “No, I don’t have to show any such thing…”

            Ok. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

            Next.

            “- the point was they are claiming to follow God / the Bible -so I show that they contradict what the Bible says, proving they’re not following God / the Bible, but a god
            of their own choosing.”

            And I can show that the bible contradicts what the bible says showing that it follows a multitude of Gods. Or are you going to go the special pleading route?

            “If you wish to start a different discussion as to the proof we’ll be without excuse when we
            face God, pretending “nothing did it” instead, let me know.”

            You do know this ‘nothing’ garbage is a deception by creationist organizations don’t you?

          • Reason2012

            Ok. That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

            No, it’s irrelevant to the actual conversation. Even if God were a lie, they are claiming to be following God of the Bible, so you look at the Bible to prove their claim is not true. Basic logic.

            But again, to address this question:

            Proof of God:
            – Creation around us,
            – life,
            – instructions in dna on how to build organic machines,
            – a mechanism that can decode those instructions to understand what it is they are saying
            – another mechanism to act upon those instructions to do what they say
            – up to 2,000 prophecies in the Bible that have all come true hundreds and thousands of years later.
            – Many facts in the Bible that scientists did not figure out up until the late 1800s

            If we wish to pretend “nothing did it” for all of the above, that’s our right – but burying our heads in the sand won’t make us without excuse when we face God to answer for our lifetime of breaking His laws, AND refusing to be forgiven for it.

            And I can show that the bible contradicts what the bible says showing that it follows a multitude of Gods. Or are you going to go the special pleading route?

            Doesn’t address what I said about islamists claiming to be following the same God.

            But again, to address this question: any such contradictions have long since been explained on countless sites. Feel free to bring up five, quote several explanations given online, then prove those explanations are wrong. You’d be the first.

            You do know this ‘nothing’ garbage is a deception by creationist organizations don’t you?

            You mean you believe something created life, that it didn’t just happen? Do tell.

          • Chris

            “No, it’s irrelevant to the actual conversation.”

            No it isn’t. You made an assertion and now refuse to back it up.

            “Even if God were a lie, they are claiming to be following God of the Bible, so you look at
            the Bible to prove their claim is not true. Basic logic.”

            They are not claiming to follow the bible though. In fact I believe the Muslim assertion is that the books of the bible were improperly transmitted and therefore contain errors.

            “Proof of God:
            – Creation around us, ”

            This is known as begging the question. To call something a creation is NOT evidence it is an assumed conclusion.

            “- life, ”

            That isn’t evidence either unless you can prove that all life came from God.

            “- instructions in dna on how to build organic machines, ”

            Yep. Along with all the junk DNA, genetic diseases etc. Either God is responsible for all of it – in which case God is a monster – or God is responsible for none of it – in which case it isn’t evidence for God’s existence.

            “- a mechanism that can decode those instructions to understand what it is they are saying”

            See my answer above.

            “- another mechanism to act upon those instructions to do what they say”

            See my answer above.

            “- up to 2,000 prophecies in the Bible that have all come true hundreds and thousands of years later.”

            Yes because people couldn’t have read those prophecies and wrote the story so that they had seemed to have come true could they?

            Let’s face facts. The gospels are documents written by anonymous authors. These authors had never met or even heard Jesus. But they knew what should have happened because of the messianic prophecies and so wrote their accounts accordingly. They aren’t prophecies fulfilled. they are accounts written that way.

            “- Many facts in the Bible that scientists did not figure out up until the late 1800s.”

            🙂 No. Just no. The ancient Greeks had a much better hit record with science merely by using reason.

            “If we wish to pretend “nothing did it” for all of the above, that’s our
            right…”

            Once again that’s a deception perpetrated by creationist organisations. If you wish to keep repeating their deceit that’s your choice but it remains a deceit.

            “But again, to address this question: any such contradictions have long since been explained on countless sites.”

            Yep. They’ve been explained by special pleading, by claiming to know the intent of the authors, or by outright lies.

            “You mean you believe something created life, that it didn’t just happen? Do tell.”

            Yep. The start of life is deterministic NOT random. But you’d know this if you went to science sites and gave the apologetics sites a miss.

          • Reason2012

            Yep. The start of life is deterministic NOT random.

            Please show life being created from non-life.

          • Chris

            At the moment the beginning of that process can be shown. Look up the Miller-Urey experiment.

          • Reason2012

            So in other words they cannot show life being created from non-life, just claims of an imagined process that lead to it, then showing the supposed beginning of this supposed process. I would think again.

            The devils believe in God, and tremble.

            “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.”
            James 2:19

            It’s believing on the Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, for the payment for a lifetime of breaking God’s laws that matters. Jesus even points out many will profess to follow Him and will still be cast into_hell.

            “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
            Matthew 7:22-23

            “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
            Matthew 7:13-14

            Please read the gospels again for yourself with sincere desire to read about what Jesus said and did while He was here and think about it again for yourself.

            May God bless!

          • Chris

            “So in other words they cannot show life being created from non-life,
            just claims of an imagined process that lead to it, …”

            That’s not even remotely what I said. The first step in the process has been shown. Nothing imaginary about it.

            “…then showing the supposed beginning of this supposed process. I would think again.”

            There’s NOTHING supposed about the process. As I have already stated, the first step of the process can be shown and has been proven.

            “The devils believe in God, and tremble.”

            Well since the devils have seen God that’s hardly surprising.

  • Islam teaches that the only unpardonable sin is believing in the Christian Trinitarian God. Thus Islam teaches that all Christians stand condemned…Jews, on the other hand, their 18th Benediction is a prayer that all “heretics” (Christians) show not be found in the Book of Life – thus condemning them…So I wonder if Bernie Sanders has the same feelings towards Muslims and Jews who believe all other religions stand condemned? Or is he just pissed at Christians in classic Alinsky fashion?…

    • Trilemma

      Not all Christians believe God is triune.

      • Then by definition they are “Christian” in name only as the Nicene Creed clearly demands belief in a Trinitarian God to be a ‘Christian.’…There have been heretics every since the first century who claimed to be ‘Christian’ and were anything but “Christian” in their beliefs and rituals. Belief in a Trinitarian God is what makes Christianity unique among the worlds religions. To deny that fact and still call oneself a ‘Christian’ would be akin to one calling himself a Jew while not believing in Yahweh. Or calling oneself a Muslim while not believing in Allah…

        • Chris

          “Then by definition they are “Christian” in name only as the Nicene Creed
          clearly demands belief in a Trinitarian God to be a ‘Christian.’.”

          And you know the Nicene creed is correct because..?

          • The whole Church as well as the whole Roman Empire was being ripped apart by various christian heretical sects at the time. These heretical sects were many, and they dated back in time to the Apostolic era as St Paul was the first to write about them. These so-called ‘Christian’ sects are also known to history as ‘Gnostics.’ And to a sect, among many other strange things, they denied the divinity of Christ.

            The Roman Emperor, Constantine, who was a Christian himself called the great ecumenical to settle these questions once and for all. All the great Patriarchs and bishops were called to Nicene where both sides debated the issue[s] and in the end – every Patriarch and every bishop agreed on the divinity of Christ, and later the Holy Spirit.

            They took the Apostles Creed, which was first put together during the Apostolic era, and added to it by declaring the divinity of Christ. The whole Church agreed and signed off and the Nicene Creed became the single most important creed in all of Christendom. Even the Protestants, 1300 years later agreed that the Nicene Creed was the central creed in all of Christendom as do all the Orthodox Churches as well as the Roman Catholic Church. So there is total agreement within the one true Church of Jesus Christ on every single word of the Nicene Creed – and it has remained that way now for over 1700 years.

            Whether the creed is “right” or wrong is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the whole Church, Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant have used the Nicene Creed for over 1700 years to define the Church and orthodox teachings and beliefs…If one were to step outside of any of the beliefs within the great creed then they are, by definition, heretical.

            It was for the Church and the Church alone who set orthodox beliefs and by doing so they defined what is a Christian and what is a heretic – or christian in name only. Thus, for the Church – the Nicene Creed is correct.

            One cannot join the Boy Scouts and change the fundamental creed of the Boy Scouts to fit their own particular beliefs and still call themselves a ‘Boy Scout’ as that would make them a Boy Scout in name only as it was fundamental to the Boy Scouts historical organization to define what it is to be a Boy Scout. Every organization holds this right – and the Church is no different.

          • Chris

            “The whole Church as well as the whole Roman Empire was being ripped apart by various christian heretical sects at the time.”

            Or, and here’s a mind blowing thought. Maybe they were the ‘true’ Christians and the Christianity YOU believe in is the heretical kind. 🙂

        • Trilemma

          Here is the Nicene Creed of 325.

          We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

          And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father [the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;

          By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth];

          Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;

          He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;

          From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

          And in the Holy Ghost.

          I don’t see anything that says God is triune. It says the Father is God and the Son is God but doesn’t really say anything about the Holy Spirit. If anything, the creed says God is biune. Even after 300 years, the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed. How can Christianity be defined by something that took hundreds of years to develop? It’s true that it’s unique to believe in a triune God but that alone doesn’t make it true.

          • “The Father Almighty, one Lord Jesus Christ – And in the Holy Spirit?…That equals three and a trinity for me?

            In 381 the Church held a second great ecumenical council at Constantinople where the Nicene Creed was expanded – remember that the Nicene Creed itself was an expansion of the much older Apostle Creed from the first century. In 381 it was thought that more needed to be said about the Holy Spirit so the great creed was expanded.

            The final expanded version of the Nicene Creed that came out of the Council of Constantinople in 381, which is the creed that all of Christendom follows reads:

            “We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

            And [we believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us, humans, and for our salvation, he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, and became fully human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. He suffered death and was buried. He rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

            And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who in unity with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets. [We believe] in one holy universal and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”

            You make an excellent point and ask an excellent question when you write, “Even after 300 years, the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed. How can Christianity be defined by something that took hundreds of years to develop?”…The very fact that it took the Church over 300 – nearly 400 years to fully develop and understand Trinitarian doctrine is EXACTLY what one would expect about the nature and character of God…If God is truly God, then His nature and character by definition should be something mystical and amazing – something almost beyond our ability as mere mortal men to even comprehend. And that is exactly what we find in the great Creed…The Triune God is beyond our 3-dimensional experience – He is beyond space/time…of course then any understanding of His true nature and character should bend our minds, and that is exactly what we find in the doctrine of the trinity.

            Contrast that with any other manmade god…Take Allah for example. Allah is a 3-dimensional god whose is dominated by the desires of his flesh just as you and I are. That is exactly what one would expect from a figment of a man’s imagination – man is three dimensional and has only experienced a 3-dimensional existence. Thus he can only think and reason in 3-dimensions.

            But the true God is beyond our three dimensions – therefore He should not be restricted by our 3 dimensions. And again that is exactly what we find in the great Creed.

            The same can be said for Heaven – the abode of God. That too, given it is beyond our three-dimensional abilities to understand, should be something we mere mortals would have trouble even understanding.

            Allah’s “Paradise,” for example, is a simple 3-dimensional quintessential 7th century Arabian haram. Muhammad simply transferred what he saw in this 3-dimensional world and, in its perfected form, turned it into “Paradise” as that is the best his mind could conceive of.

            Now look at what Paul says after being blessed to see Heaven when he paraphrases the prophet Isaiah who also saw Heaven and said “No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no heart has imagined, what God has prepared for those who love Him” (1 Cor 2:9)…That is exactly what we would expect – a world that is beyond our ability to fully comprehend or even describe…

            And that is exactly what we find in our God – a Trinitarian God that is beyond our ability to fully comprehend His nature and character – His beauty and Majesty…

          • Trilemma

            Your claim is that people who do not believe God is triune are not Christians and therefore not saved. The doctrine of the Trinity took 400 years to develop. That means the apostles could not have believed God is triune and, therefore, were neither Christians nor saved.

            If believing God is triune is an essential belief for Christians and salvation, then it would have been in the Bible. The Nicene Creed is not very long. God would have inspired Paul or one of the other writers to put it in one of their epistles if God required such belief for salvation.

          • I do not claim that – the one true Church of Jesus Christ says that in it’s Nicene Creed.

            One of the weaknesses of Protestantism is that any charismatic man can stand up and become a preacher regardless of his learning and gifts. This has resulted in many – if not the majority of Protestants of any denomination being dumbed down by uneducated charismatic preachers over the centuries.

            Jesus Christ did something very very important when He established His Church. He empowered His Church with “the keys to bind and loose” (Matt 16:19). Most Protestants do not even know what the keys to bind and loose represent – many have never even heard of these keys. But these keys are immense power for the Church…”And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This is, as I said, immense power that Christ gave to His Church…

            Thus, if the Church, through its authority to “bind and loose” bound all Christians to the tenants of the Nicene Creed for all eternity, then whether or not you can discern trinitarian doctrine in the Bible or not becomes irrelevant. The Church discerned it – and the Church bound ALL CHRISTIANS throughout all time to the trinitarian doctrine that God is One manifested in Three…

            Whether you or any ‘Christian’ understands or agrees with that doctrine is, as I said, irrelevant. The Church has spoken – the Church has exercised its authority it derived from Christ Himself – and trinitarian doctrine defines the Christian. Anyone who rejects this teaching, whether they call themselves a ‘christian’ or not become irrelevant…

            I have often said that Matthew 7:21-23 is the scariest two verses in all of scripture for anyone claiming to be a Christian…”“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness’…Read these verses carefully – these people thought they were Christians. These people, to you and me appear to be powerful Christians who prophesy in the name of Jesus, they cast out demons in the name of Jesus – and do mighty works in His name. So you and I would consider these men and women powerful Christians, but what does Christ tell them – “depart from Me – for I NEVER KNEW YOU.” How shocking is that?…

            Now tell me again how trinitarian doctrine is not “essential” to be saved – as the Church, through it immense power to bind and loose – says that it is essential to one’s salvation…

          • Trilemma

            How do you know the Christians who voted for the trinitarian view are not the ones that Christ said to depart from me. The trinitarian view won out over other views because Emperor Theodosius the Great ordered it so.

          • I suppose that is a good question Trilemma…In 325 AD there was no Christian denominations, which too many Christian’s today confuse for different ‘Church’s’ as there has only been one true Church of Jesus Christ with various denominations WITHIN it.

            In 325 AD there were two schools of thought about the nature and character of Christ. This is called “Christology” and the two schools of thought were the orthodox teaching that Christ is incarnate God and a part of the Trinity. There was also the Gnostic’s who have been clearly shown over time and through their own writings and words to be heretical in many facets of doctrine as their many heretical books clearly demonstrate. They taught that Jesus was a prophet, a great man, ect but they clearly and violently denied His divinity. That is exactly why Islam denies His divinity today because Muhammad studied under the Gnostic sect at Mecca called the Haniff for 16 years before he founded Islam.

            The Universal Church at the time of 325 AD was represented by five Patriarchal Sees – Patriarchs who controlled various geographical areas as the Church grew and spread over the earth. These Patriarchal Sees were located at Jerusalem – the Mother Church, Antioch, Alexandra, Rome and Constantinople where the Roman Emperor lived and ruled…

            After a month of debate from both the Gnostic side and the Orthodox side, the whole Church, in the form of all five Patriarchs, the Roman Emperor and all the bishops and clergy there agreed on the Nicene Creed and adopted it with the sole exception of two Gnostic clergy, Arian and Eusebius who were immediately anathematized from the Church and exiled by the emperor.

            That is why every orthodox denomination within the Church has, for the past 1700 years, accepted the Nicene Creed as the orthodox creed for the Church, and why every great mind every produced by the Church, men such as Augustine, Luther, Know, Calvin, ect have accepted the great creed as being teaching by the Holy Spirit and orthodox doctrine…

            The Holy Spirit has always been present and in control of the doctrine within the one true Church of Jesus Christ as Christ Himself promised…Thus, all in Christendom have been in agreement for over 1700 years that the Holy Spirit was present that day and led His Church in true orthodox doctrine…To argue otherwise would be claiming that the Holy Spirit lacks the power to teach His Church – to lead His Church as Jesus Christ promised He would…You would be, in essence, claiming that neither Christ nor the Holy Spirit have the power to lead the Church…

          • Trilemma

            In 325, there were more than two schools of thought. At the Nicene Council, there was the view of Arius and the view of Athanasius, both of which were minority views with most in attendance being somewhere between these two views. Emperor Constantine himself, a pagan, presided over the council and approved the rejection of the view of Arius. The council, having nothing definitive with which to replace the view of Arius with, approved the view of Athanasius even though it was against the inclination of many of them. The result was what a pagan emperor wanted. Constantine wanted unity in doctrine. He didn’t care what that doctrine was. Few dared to defy the pagan emperor.

            The doctrine of the Trinity was bound by a pagan Roman emperor and not by the Church.

          • Arius was a Gnostic who represented the heretical Gnostic school of thought. Athanasius was an orthodox Christian and therefore he represented the orthodox school of thought…And no, the orthodox view was not the “minority view” as you falsely claim. It can be said that many at the great council didn’t yet fully understand the two schools of thought, but the orthodox view had been prevalent in the Church since the Apostolic era as the texts of the Apostles, what we call the New Testament, and the Apostle’s Creed, from which the Nicene Creed drew from, and the many writings of the Church Father’s prove conclusively.

            Moreover, Emperor Constantine was NEVER a “pagan” as his parents were Christians and raised him as a Christian in Britain.

            Furthermore, Constantine, as emperor, most certainly “presided over the great council” as he was the man who called it and financed it. Yet he DID NOT “approve” nor “reject” Arianism as that was left to the great council to do. Constantine merely enforced, as emperor, the findings of the council. Semantics, but important differences to point out as the great Council debated the issues and arrived at their conclusions, and Constantine merely enforced them…

            Constantine wanted “unity in doctrine” the same way he wanted unity throughout his empire. So Constantine looked at it from both a Christian point of view and from the point of view of an emperor trying to bring his empire, which was being torn apart by the Arian heresy, to a peaceful resolution. Again, Constantine left it to the Church to decide doctrine, and only then enforced that doctrine. He did not make doctrine.

            Again, by claiming “The doctrine of the Trinity was bound by a pagan Roman emperor and not by the Church” you are choosing to ignore the teachings of the Old and New Testaments, over 2000 years of Church doctrine, the teachings and leadership of the Holy Spirit throughout that time and during the great Council, and subsequently 1700 years of Church acceptance of the great creed and adherence to it. In doing so you are setting yourself up as the final arbitrator of spiritual revelation. You are setting yourself above the authority of scripture, the Church, the great Church councils, the clear teachings of the Holy Spirit and over 2000 years of Church doctrine – not to mention the teachings of the greatest minds the Church ever produced over the past 2000 years….This is the seed of heresy and I must follow the instruction of my Master at this point and “knock the dust from my sandals” and move on…I will pray for you…

      • Amos Moses

        then by definition … they are not christians ………….

        • Parodyx

          then by definition…they are not Scotsmen………….

          • Amos Moses

            the trinity is a core doctrine …… so not a christian …………… if a person does not accept God as God is ….. then He is not of the faith ………

        • Trilemma

          Where does the Bible define a Christian as someone who believes God is triune.

          • Amos Moses

            if you do not believe God correctly ….. as God has revealed His nature …… then you follow a different God ….. if you follow a different god than the God as described in the bible …… then a person is not a christian ………….. Doctrine matters ….. and the core doctrines are ….

            DOCTRINE Matters – The ESSENTIALS of christianity

            D – Diety of Christ
            O – Original Sin
            C – Canon
            T – Trinity
            R – Resurrection
            I – Incarnation
            N – New Creation
            E – Eschatology

            not believing God correctly is not believing God ……….. it is an idol ……

          • Amos Moses

            1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

            1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

            2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

            John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

            John 14:26 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.

            John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

            John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

          • Trilemma

            None of these verses individually or together say that God is a triune being. Even Muslims believe the first two verses you quoted. These verses you quoted support tritheism more than they support a triune God. Is there a verse that clearly asserts that God is triune while ruling out tritheism?

          • Amos Moses

            scripture is taken as a whole ……….. not chopped up in bits …… there are numerous things that scripture DESCRIBES ….. but does not use an actual word like “triune” …. and we have covered this before ….. Matthew 28

            28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

            all three are named …… we ONLY pray to ONE God …. and God is clearly there in THREE persons …….. Father, Son, Holy Spirit …………

          • Trilemma

            I realize that the Bible doesn’t use the word “triune” but I am asking for a verse that describes God as three in one in some way that rules out other possibilities.

            And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. – Matt 17:1 ESV

            Here, as in other places in the Bible, Peter, James and John are listed in the same verse. All three are named but that doesn’t mean they’re a triune apostle. Just because the Father, Son and Spirit are named together doesn’t mean they’re a triune god. Again, tritheism is supported by this verse too. You only pray to one god. Presumably, that’s the same god that Jesus prayed to. The Bible never instructs Christians to pray to anyone other than the Father. If Jesus is the one true god, then who is the God of Jesus?

          • Amos Moses

            God as revealed in scripture is more than one ….. Elohim …… the -im denotes a PLURAL ….. and the passage in Matthew 28 shows three as to how they should be baptized …. by all three ……. “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” ….. in order for that to NOT be idolatry ……….. they ALL have to be part of the Godhead ………. and they are ………..

          • Trilemma

            Elohim is plural to express intensification not plurality in number. If it were meant to express plurality in number, that would mean more than one god which supports tritheism again. Elohim is also used in Exodus 7:1,

            And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. – KJV.

            Obviously, God did not make Moses multiple persons in one human. Likewise, Elohim does not make have multiple persons in one god.

            If God commands you to baptize in the name of three things, it doesn’t matter what those three things are, it’s not idolatry to obey God.

          • Amos Moses

            H430
            אֱלֹהִים
            ‘ĕlôhı̂ym
            el-o-heem’
            Plural of H433; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God

          • Trilemma

            So, which is it, more than one god (polytheism) or pluralis excellentiae? And how does Elohim apply to Moses?

          • Amos Moses

            same word being used ……….. there is additional definition to elohim …. “occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates;” ….. and in context …. this is the definition used ….. Moses and Aaron were made magistrates over Pharaoh …. so plural for Moses and Aaron as magistrates (plural) ….. and in that same passage …. the word LORD is used …. typically the tetragrammaton for YHVH ……

            And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god (lower case “god”, not “God”) (Elohim) to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. – KJV.

            God is three distinct person of ONE Godhead ….. they are one as there is no disagreement between them …. they are all completely holy, holy, holy …… so not polytheism …. as there would or could be disagreement in that case ….. and there is not ……..

          • I was wondering if you would catch the fact that there were two – Moses and Aaron who were made gods (elohim) before Pharaoh…Nice job – I’m impressed…

          • Amos Moses

            magistrates …. not gods in the sense that we refer to Father/Son/Holy Spirit ….. but thnx ….

          • Trilemma

            It says God made Moses a god, not Aaron. Aaron was made a prophet.

          • Amos Moses

            they were both made magistrates ……… in context ………..

          • It would be idolatry to baptize in any name but God. Thus, “the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” are God. Not three Gods – but one Triune God…This concept, so difficult for 3-dimensional men to understand, is exactly why it took the Church over 300 years to figure out…And here you are 1700 years later and still having trouble with it.

          • Trilemma

            “It would be idolatry to baptize in any name but God.”

            Do you have a Bible verse to go with that assertion?

            If God commanded you to baptize people in the name of Peter, James, and John, would it be idolatry to obey God?

          • Okay – now you are trying, in your rebellion, to make this an argument of semantics. Which is sad in itself.

            Jesus Christ instructed His Church to “Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…” (Matt 28:19)…These ARE NOT names so much as they are actually titles for God. So your “Peter, James and John” analogy is only mocking the clear instruction and intent of Jesus Christ…

            “The Father” obviously refers to God the Father (see Isa. 66:12–13; Hos. 11:1–4 and others).

            “The Son” refers to Jesus’ Messianic claim as found in Daniel 7:13-14)
            “I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him;
            his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away,
            and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.”…One also sees two-thirds of the Trinity in these verses – God the Father called “the Ancient of Days and Jesus Christ “the Son” or “son of man.”

            The ‘Holy Spirt” or “Spirit of God” is spoken about throughout scripture, (see Psalm 51:11; Isaiah 11:2; Luke 1:35 and many, many more).

            Moreover, you are rebelling against the teachings of the Holy Church of Jesus Christ who bound all believers in the Trinitarian doctrine that is taught from Genesis to Revelations and explained in the Nicene Creed…

            The Church – the true Church of Jesus Christ was empowered by Jesus Christ through His giving of the keys to bind and loose (Matt 16:19), and led by the teachings of the Holy Spirit; “But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you” (John 14:26)…And again, we see the clear doctrine of the Trinity in this verse – a Trinity of Holy Spirit, the Father and “My Name” Jesus Christ, the Son…

            Faith comes, not from oneself but through hearing the Word of God and from the teachings of the Universal Church and its doctrinal creed…You demonstrate a lack of faith in the teachings of the Holy Spirit for over 2000 years Who teaches God is a Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit because some charismatic heretical preacher has taught you to deny the clear teachings of the Church as led by the Holy Spirit…If you, therefore, cannot discern the truth of the Trinity – of the God you purport to love, then I suggest you pray to God for discernment rather than mocking Him through false analogies and arguments of semantics…

          • “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is triune doctrine – it is in the Bible and was spoken by Jesus Christ Himself – it is a precise instruction…

      • Then they’re not Christians. God is 3 persons in one. A composite unity. You must possess true knowledge of the Father to worship in spirit and in truth.

        • Chris

          Please point to the scripture which claims that belief in the Trinity is a doctrinal belief in which is necessary for salvation.

          • Gen 1:26, John 1:1 and I could name another hundred verses that teach the Trinitarian God in the Bible. This question was hotly debated for over 350 years within the Church and volumes of books have been written on the subject first by the Church Fathers, and then by every generation after…

            Moreover, Trinitarianism is the unique characteristic of the Judaeo-Christian God. It is His trinitarian nature that makes Him unique among all the others gods around the world…To deny this fact is to deny His unique nature and makes Him no better and no more than Allah or any other 3-dimensional god created by men…

          • Richard O. Mann

            This is one of those truths that the Holy Spirit gives you. It’s not that hard to understand once your are part of the family, one with God in Christ Jesus.

          • Chris

            Really? Since one of the greatest of Christian philosophers – Thomas Aquinas – couldn’t explain the Trinity why is it so simple?

            Please explain your understanding of the doctrine. I’ll be checking to see if you slip into heresy.

          • Chris

            Genesis doesn’t mention a trinity. And John never says belief in a trinity is mandatory.

            You’ve never actually read the bible have you?

        • Trilemma

          If a child believes his dad is the smartest and strongest dad in the word even though his dad isn’t, does that mean the child is not able to love and obey his dad and have a close relationship with his dad? Why would God demand perfect knowledge before having a relationship?

          • An earthly father is quite different from God the Father. We are imperfect people in relationships with imperfect people. When someone rejects the truth of who God is (triune) they are rejecting the God of the Bible; the One who created the world and everything in it,therefore they don’t know God and His Son Jesus, the Savior of the world. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Three persons in one. Draw close to our wonderful Father for He sent His Son to die for us for forgiveness of sin and so we may possess the gift of eternal life. To reject the truth of God’s identity is exactly what pleases our enemy, Satan.

          • Trilemma

            Triune is not WHO God is, it’s WHAT God is according to many Christians. In my analogy, the child doesn’t know much about WHAT his dad is and WHAT he does but he knows WHO his dad is. Presumably, nobody can understand WHAT God is, therefore, believing God is triune cannot be an essential part of being a Christian and of being saved. The doctrine of the Trinity took 400 years to develop. The apostles could not have believed God was triune but they did know who Jesus was.

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Wow, you know nothing about Islam. I was a Muslim for the first quarter century of my life.

      The Koran teaches that the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) who do believe in God (Allah is just the Arabic word for God) and have honored their lives with good works and moral living shall enter paradise.

      “Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Baqarah 2:62]

      “Surely, those who believe, those who are the Jews and the Sabians and the Christians – whosoever believed in Allah and the Last Day, and worked righteousness, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [al-Maa’idah 5:69]

      • RWH

        When I was attending a church within the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of America, a bishop told me that the word Allah is the word used for God in the Divine Liturgy and other services of the Church. I don’t know where this moon god business came from except for people who loathe Moslems.

        • “Allah” was actually one of 360 pagan deities in the Kaaba for a thousand years before Mohammad showed up. He has three daughters which, as you know, at one time Mohammad claimed Muslims could worship them too…

          That Christians try to tie Allah back to the Babylonian moon god Sin comes from the many similarities between the two. Obviously, given that Mohammad copied his new religion from the Gnostics of Mecca known as the Haniff, rabbinic Jews and heretical Christians – not to mention the various influences of paganism prevalent in Arabia at the time. So it only made sense that he copied many of the attributes of Allah from the Babylonian moon god Sin…

          • RWH

            Richard. I will trust the Catholics and the Orthodox Christians who refer to God as Allah, the proper Arabic word for God. The word is in the service books for all of the traditional Christian groups in the Arab lands. This moon god baloney is something that evangelicals and other hateful people dreamed up. If you don’t believe me, you can consult the web pages of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of the Americas. They will be more than happy to set you straight on this. Orthodoxy was around long before Islam showed up, and the liturgy proper was pretty much formalized years before.

          • Sharon_at_home

            There are obviously 2 different Gods involved here. One who allows lust and one that does not. By having sex in paradise, that is encouraging lust here. The Christian God is about avoiding the temptation of Lust and being a better person because of it.
            No, I can’t see it being just one God because that (and other) belief alone makes it a totally different God.
            The Name may be the word for God, but it is not the same God.

          • Chris

            What you seem to be saying is that God is portrayed inconsistently. I couldn’t agree more. But we don’t have to compare the Quran and the New testament. We don’t even have to compare the New and Old Testaments. We can just compare the Old Testament with itself. In the Leviticus and Deuteronomy we find a Deity who is obsessed with the minutiae of sacrifice. But after the Babylonian exile we find one who is far more concerned with righteousness. Quite a change don’t you think? So are two Gods presented here or just one presented in different ways?

          • Sharon_at_home

            Sacrifice was always about the blood needing to be let, for sins. That is why Jesus died on the cross and there is an emphasis on the blood that ran down from the Crown of Thorns was the blood that was the sacrifice for all sins. Once Christ was dead, everyone could look for the forgiveness of their sins, without sacrificing any animals or anything else ever since.
            God does not change. Because he is omnipotent, he is all things, so when he is helping people he becomes that part of himself that can give the help that is needed.
            Chris I have the names and what they represent to what part of the bible, did you want me to list them here? I will have to go through my bible studies and stuff but it is only time consuming not a problem if you want to see the list. Let me know, ok?
            I hope everything is alright with you? Hope to hear from you again soon?
            Best wishes for a good day!

          • Chris

            “Sacrifice was always about the blood needing to be let, for sins”

            I have a real problem with the Supreme Judge obsessed with blood. How safe would you feel if you were in a court with a judge muttering ‘blood, blood, blood’?

            “God does not change.”

            But he does. Many, many times the gospel writers have Jesus saying ‘you have heard it said…but I say to you…” What is that if not change?

            “Because he is omnipotent, he is all things, so when he is helping people
            he becomes that part of himself that can give the help that is needed.”

            And when He does evil He becomes that part of Himself who can do that?

            Everything’s good here. Watched a scary movie last night and I’ll never do that again. 🙂

            All the very best to you and yours.

          • When Jesus says ‘you have heard it said…but I say to you…” He is speaking as God. He is not “changing” anything but rather He is either clarifying what was being taught wrongly by the Jews or He is setting a new law. God does not change, nor does His law. But His law can most certainly be added to and clarified by God Himself…

            God NEVER does “evil” so your question is moot…

          • Chris

            “When Jesus says ‘you have heard it said…but I say to you…” He is
            speaking as God. He is not “changing” anything but rather He is either
            clarifying what was being taught wrongly by the Jews or He is setting a
            new law.”

            Change is defined as ‘To cause to be different’. Thus to ‘give new commandments which supersede the old is to introduce change. QED.

            “God does not change, nor does His law.”

            A NEW law I give unto you that you love one another as I have loved you. Viola. The law is changed according to the definition given above.

            “But His law can most certainly be added to and clarified by God Himself…”

            The sum total of the laws have been changed. Therefore change has been introduced.

            “God NEVER does “evil” so your question is moot…”

            Is deceiving people evil? Is ordering the murder of babies evil?

          • God gave His laws to the Hebrew people who were illiterate after coming out of 430 years of slavery in a pagan country. Thus He was forced by their ignorance to bring them along slowly, to educate them slowly, to reveal Himself to them slowly….Over a thousand years later when the Hebrews returned from Babylonian Captivity they were no longer an illiterate people. Thus God was able to reveal more than just the “minutiae of sacrifice” as He was preparing His people for the coming of the Messiah and the New Covenant He was suppose to implement according to the Law of Moses…Time does not stand still, neither did the Hebrew people. Thus God was able to open up more and more to the Hebrew people and mankind in general as the millenniums passed until He reached the perfect time to reveal Himself to all of mankind while fulfilling the needs of the Law and establishing a new and better covenant with not just the Hebrew people – but with all mankind through His Church…Stop putting limitations on God – God is only limited by His children. And like any parent, He knows His children have to crawl before they can walk…

          • Chris

            “God gave His laws to the Hebrew people who were illiterate after
            coming out of 430 years of slavery in a pagan country.”

            Incorrect. There is no evidence of an exodus from Egypt. The account of the Exodus was written down during the Babylonian exile.

          • “The lack of evidence is not evidence itself” this is law 101 in every law school in America.

            Secondly you are correct that there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus at Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert…But there an abundance of archeological evidence for the Exodus at Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia…It is all there, the 12 pillars of stone, the stone table upon which Aaron built the golden calf, the great rock that Moses split in two and water gushed out – even the mountain itself has been turned pitch black by the presence of God and the fire that accompanied Him…The Saudi government forbids anyone of excavating there because they are afraid doing so will contradict the Koran. But several Christians have risked their lives and gone there and filmed it. Their videos are all over YouTube – educate yourself by watching a few.

            Moreover, in all Pentateuch – or the five books of Moses there is evidence that the books were authored so far back in history from 600 BC because those books speak about names, place names, traditions, customs, etc that had been lost to the collective memory of humanity loooooog! before the Hebrews were taken into captivity in Babylon. In other words, the authors of the Pentateuch knew things that no one on the planet knew in the 7th century BC like long dead customs, place-names, etc. So the Tübingen School of thought that first put forth that hypothesis in the late 1800s has long ago been disproven by archeology and exegesis . No scholar without presuppositions and biases still accepts that hypothesis – Try to bring your learning into the 21st century and leave that 19th century stuff where it belongs – in the 19th century with evolution and other crazy hypothesis’ that have been disproven over the past 200 plus years. LOL!

          • Chris

            “The lack of evidence is not evidence itself” this is law 101 in every law school in America.”

            But this isn’t a matter of law. this is a matter of archaeology and logic. If I say I moved mountain X, but Mountain X is still there, then this lack of evidence where it should exist, is evidence it never happened.

            When the text disagrees with everything araeology has found and there is a complete lack of evidence where it should be abundant that is evidence that it did NOT happen.
            .
            “Secondly you are correct that there is no archeological evidence for the Exodus at Mt. Sinai in the Sinai desert…But there an abundance of archeological evidence for the Exodus at Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia…”

            No there isn’t. There are plenty of claims and fake artifacts but that’s it.

            “It is all there, the 12 pillars of stone,”

            You mean the natural rock formation?

            “the stone table upon which Aaron built the golden calf,”

            Evidence please. Preferably from an archaeological source.

            “the great rock that Moses split in two and water gushed out …”

            So another natural formation?

            So the people who wrote the Exodus centuries after couldn’t have been aware of these rock formations and just given then a legendary explanation?

            I can give you countless examples of this process from folklore. Why should it be unreliable there but reliable here?

            “- even the mountain itself has been turned pitch black by the
            presence of God and the fire that accompanied Him…”

            So just another natural formation then? See my response above.

            “The Saudi government forbids anyone of excavating there because they are afraid doing so will contradict the Koran.”

            Then how does anyone know that these objects originate with the Exodus?

            “But several Christians have risked their lives and gone there and filmed it.”

            Are the films as reliable as the ones showing people unearthing skeletons of giants? they were fake. How about the ones showing the discovery of Noah’s ark/ they were fake too.

            Films mean very little. An archaeologist would immediately try to date any find NOT accept anything at face value merely because it agrees with a book.

            “Their videos are all over YouTube – educate yourself by watching a few.”

            I’m sure there are. Just like there are fakes all over the world sold tyo gullible believers. Fake human footprints chiseled into rocks containing dinosaur footprints. Fake paintings of dinosaurs on artifacts from Central America. There was even a case of a fake golden chariot wheel found in in the Red Sea. The thing that is common to all these fakes is that experts in archaeology are never allowed to see them.

            Continued in part two.

          • C’mon guy – you are starting to embarrass yourself now…”The lack of evidence is not evidence itself” is most certainly “logical,” that is exactly why every law school in America teaches it in the first class of the first semester of the first year of law school…Geez!

            If there is no “mountain” to prove you moved it is not evidence…Your analogy made no damn sense at all because the mountain “is still there.” So that is evidence you are lying and didn’t move it! Damn!…People like you can make a man lose his religion with the ignorant stuff you can say…I don’t want to appear mean – but dude step up your game…

            There is not a single archeological find in the history of man that contradicts one word of Scripture. Any archeologist will tell you that…We are arguing over your perceived LACK of evidence for the Exodus story. Again, please step up your game as this is quickly becoming a waste of my time because this stuff is obviously too deep for you…

            You have never even heard of the many archeological finds in Saudi Arabia at Mt. Sinai that confirm the Exodus event until I just mentioned them. So stop faking – you haven’t had time to search them out on YouTube and watch them – so you can’t make a coherent comment about what is or isn’t there yet…Damn man! – try to step up…

            I’m not even going to acknowledge the stupid stuff you wrote about Big Foot and whatever…Go watch the videos and then get back to me. That way you can – hopefully – then comment on the evidence reasonably, intelligently, howbeit I doubt you have that ability…

          • Chris

            Come on Guy. You’re starting to embarrass yourself with your lack of reading comprehension.

            “If there is no “mountain” to prove you moved it is not evidence…”

            I didn’t write that there was no mountain. I wrote ” If I say I moved mountain X, but Mountain X is still there,…” In other words there was no sign of movement.

            “Your analogy made no damn sense at all because the mountain
            “is still there.”” Exactly. No evidence of movement.

            “So that is evidence you are lying and didn’t move it! ”

            Exactly. A lack of evidence of movement IS evidence. I’m glad you agree.

            “There is not a single archeological find in the history of man that contradicts one word of Scripture.”

            I just mentioned two – Israel Finkelstein and John Romer. Please learn about archaeology from archaeologists and NOT apologists. I would suggest you try two books: – ‘It ain’t Necessarily So’ and ‘Testament’.

            “Any archeologist will tell you that…”

            Before embaressing yourself further go look up those two archaeologists and listen to their debunking of the Exodus and the Conquest of Canaan by Joshua.

            Please stop projecting your problems onto me thank you. I studied this stuff at the university level. I know very well what archeology says.

            “You have never even heard of the many archeological finds in Saudi Arabia at Mt. Sinai that confirm the Exodus event until I just mentioned them.”

            All you’ve mentioned are natural rock formations and a claimed table. That’s it. Film isn’t archaeology. Dating by experts is. If I gave you a film showing me finding Jesus’ body would you automatically believe it? or would you ask for the dating? The find to be examined by experts. To do otherwise is just gullibility.

          • Chris

            “I’m not even going to acknowledge the stupid stuff you wrote about Big
            Foot and whatever…”

            I never mentioned Big Foot. What i was referring to were the fakes of the Paluxy river valley.

          • Chris

            “Moreover, in all Pentateuch – or the five books of Moses there is evidence that the books were authored so far back in history from 600 BC because those books speak about names, place names, traditions, customs, etc that had been lost to the collective memory of humanity loooooog! before the Hebrews were taken into captivity in Babylon.”

            Where do I begin.
            1) moses didn’t write the Torah. look up the ‘documentary hypothesis’.
            2) Numerous things in the book of Exodus is just plane wrong. For example the place where the Hebrews crossed is known as the Reed Sea. Reeds are fresh water plants. they don’t grow in sea water. the only body of fresh water on the route described by the book of Exodus is only a few inches deep. Not exactly able to drown people is it? Then we could go on and mention how the book of Joshua mentions the Philistines but says they had always lived in the cities of Philistia. they hadn’t. those cities had been conquered from the Canaanites.

            “That hypothesis has long ago been disproven by archeology and exegesis.”

            🙂 No it hasn’t. Look up the videos by Israel Finkelstein. A modern Israeli archaeologist and debunker of the exodus and conquest by Joshua.

            The rest is just you projecting your faults onto me so I’ll give them a miss. While you’re on youtube also look up a British archaeologist named John Romer.

          • I have already spoken about the documentary hypothesis when I mentioned the “Tübingen School of thought” where the documentary hypothesis originated. I’m sorry, but it is obvious I am talking over your head…I will try to dumb this down a little for you…Because you obviously do not know – archeology blew the documentary hypothesis out of the water with such finds as the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc…

            You don’t know where the Hebrews crossed the sea because no one knows! Secondly, how do you suppose you know the route the Hebrews took when you don’t even know the correct Mt. Sinai they showed up too? Because had you known the right Mt. Sinai you would have known about the extensive archeology there that confirms the Exodus event?…Geez!

            Show me the verse in scripture which you claim says “the Philistines had always lived there?” It doesn’t exist, so save yourself the time…

            Israel Finkelstein is a minimalist archeologist who hates Christianity as proven when he got caught lying under oath in an Israeli court over the biggest archeological case in Israeli history – the James ossuary case…The mere fact you would use a known liar whose biases and presuppositions were on display for all to see in the ossuary case shows how little you know. He says what your “itching ears want to hear” and that is enough for you. You sound like an American Progressive?…

          • Chris

            “I have already spoken about the documentary hypothesis when I mentioned the “Tübingen School of thought” where the documentary hypothesis originated.”

            Yes and you were wrong. It’s obvious I’m speaking to someone who doesn’t know how logic or archaeology works.

            “You don’t know where the Hebrews crossed the sea because no one knows! ”

            I don’t have too. The word’s ‘red Sea’ are actually a mistranslation of the words “Reed Sea’.

            “Secondly, how do you suppose you know the route the Hebrews took when you don’t even know the correct Mt. Sinai they showed up too?”

            No one knows the location of Mount Sinai. There are several contenders for the mountain but no one knows which one is correct if the spot exists at all.

            Don’t blaspheme. They ban you for that here.

            “Show me the verse in scripture which you claim says “the Philistines had
            always lived there?” It doesn’t exist, so save yourself the time…”

            Read the book of Joshua

            “Israel Finkelstein is a minimalist archeologist who hates Christianity as
            proven when he got caught lying under oath in an Israeli court over the
            biggest archeological case in Israeli history – the James ossuary>

            The James ossuary? Allow me to quote a summary of the findings “In 2007 Finnish theologian Matti Myllykoski (Arto Matti Tuomas Myllykoski) summarised the current
            position thus: “The authenticity and significance of the ossuary has been defended by Shanks (2003), while some scholars—relying on convincing evidence, to say the least—strongly suspect that it is a modern forgery.”

            So there are good reasons for each position. And since when have the authenticity of artifacts been a court matter? You are trying to deceive and not being particularly good at it either.

            You sound like every other fundie I’ve read.

          • Chris

            “Stop putting limitations on God – God is only limited by His children.
            And like any parent, He knows His children have to crawl before they can
            walk…”

            Is that what Gpd was doing when He ordered the Hebrews to murder babies? Or when He deceived people?

          • Where did Yahweh “order the Hebrews to murder [human] babies?” You will have to show me that verse as it does not exist…Or where He “deceived” any people without cause?…As it too isn’t there…

          • Chris

            “Where did Yahweh “order the Hebrews to murder [human] babies?”

            1 Samuel 15: 3 “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that
            they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
            suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

            “You will have to show me that verse as it does not exist…”

            I’m sorry? What was that you wrote about a lack of evidence? “The lack of evidence is not evidence itself” this is law 101 in every law school in America.”

            Double standard?

            “Or where He “deceived” any people without cause?..”

            So deception is alright as long as there’s a reason for it? Then how do you know the entire bible isn’t a lie and God just has a good reason for it?

          • The Amalekites were Rephilim – descendants of the Nephilim. Thus they were hybrids – not humans. The whole reason for the flood epic was to cleans the world from the Nephilim who were the offspring of fallen angles and human women (Gen 6)…I’ll ask you again – where did God instruct the Hebrews to “murder human babies” which is what you claimed? The fact that you did not know the Amalekites were hybrids, which scripture makes abundantly clear only proves you have no real idea what you are talking about…You simply do not know your Bible is all this is…

            Dude – how in the hell can you say something is in the Bible, then fail to produce it and claim “a lack of evidence is not evidence itself?” You surely are not that dense?…Unlike archeological evidence for the Exodus in the Sinai peninsula, we do have our bibles. When you quote from it or argue it says something it does not – that means you are simply wrong. Because we have the evidence to prove you are wrong. There is no lack of real evidence here…You must be a child or a moron?…

            Yes! – deception is moral and right under various circumstances!…To argue it isn’t is a fool trying to win a point at the risk of making himself look incredibly stupid and naive…If you tell me you are going to my mother’s home to murder her, and ask me for directions to her home and I use deception by giving you a false route am I immoral in doing so? Or was my deception justified and therefore moral?…

          • Chris

            “The Amalekites were Rephilim – descendants of the Nephilim. Thus they were hybrids – not humans.”

            Palestinians are descendents of Canaanites. They are fully human. You’re wrong.

            “The whole reason for the flood epic was to cleans the world from the Nephilim who were the offspring of fallen angles and human women (Gen 6)…”

            A few points:
            1) There was no flood. Go to youtube and watch a video entitled ‘Noah’s flood debunked’ by potholer54.
            2) The text gives the reason for the mythical flood as the evil that mankind was doing. No mention was made of genetic purity.

          • Who the f*ck said anything about the Philistines?! And no the “Palestinians are NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the descendents of Canaanites.” Archeology has shown, as well as ancient Egyptian texts, that the Philistine’s were a Greek people who originated in the Aegean Sea area and migrated, first to Egypt where they were known as the Hyksos, and then when they got ran out of Egypt by Pharaoh Amoses in the 16th century and then migrated into Canaan…

            The Amalekites were Rephilim – not humans. Read your damn bible.

            I don’t care about any YouTube video an idiot like you may watch…There is physical evidence all across this planet that its highest mountains were once under water. The geology of the Grand Canyon was laid down during the flood epic – as well as every dinosaur fossil. I could keep going with physical evidences for a worldwide flood epic – but I am just wasting my time here…

            Because you do not know how to read your bible correctly does not mean there is “No mention was made of genetic purity” as the whole Old Testament is built around “genetic purity” of the Messiah…Genesis 6 specifically speaks about the “genetic purity” of Noah and his family because their purity was necessary if the Messiah was to ever come. That was the whole point behind Lucifer trying to pollute the human genome by creating a hybrid race through his fallen angels matting with human women. Their offspring, the Nephilim, had they been allowed to survive, would have polluted the genome of Noah and his descendants through Abraham all the way to the Messiah thus preventing His coming. That is why God destroyed the world and had to start over with Noah. And that is exactly why He later instructed Joshua and others up to king David to annihilate the Amalekites and other hybrid groups you thought were human…

          • Chris

            What I wrote “PALESTINIANS are descendants of Canaanites. They are fully human. You’re wrong.”

            What you replied “Who the [expletive deleted] said anything about the Philistines?!”

            I didn’t mention anything about Philistines in that post. And don’t swear here. They will ban you for that.

            “Palestinians are NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the descendants of Canaanites.”

            DNA disagrees.

          • How do you know what the DNA of Canaanites says since they have been an extinct people for nearly three thousand years?!!!!!!!!!!!! You’re a moron and you are causing me to cuss because you are so dense and such stupidity only frustrates me…So I am out of here! Go bother someone else…As I said earlier – men like you cause some to lose their religion because you are so frustrating. You actually think you know something when you are so dense you are talking about the DNA of an extinct people!!!!!! You are blind because you can’t even comprehend your bible which children can comprehend…You know nothing about history or the sciences – yet you want to argue with me as if you do…Damn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Chris

            DNA can be tested for thousands of years. Scientists have tested the DNA of Neaderthals. The last Neaderthal died out 40,000 years ago.

            YOU are causing YOU to swear. No one else. Take responsibility for your own behaviour. It’s the only way you’ll ever be able to change. You have been reported. You will most probably be banned. You can try and explain your behaviour to the staff of Christian News.

          • You are right – DNA can be tested for thousands of years…But what does that have to do with your claim that Palestinians, a mongol people from the Russia steppe are genetically related to ancient Canaanites from the Levant? We have no DNA from any ancient Canaanite since they went extinct over 3000 years ago so what are you using as a control sample to compare modern Palestinian DNA to in order to make that claim?

            You can “report” me all you want – that just makes you a snitch who has no ability to understand simple concepts and names.

            People like you anger me because you know absolutely NOTHING but some basics and you think you should be teaching…And nothing can stop you from attacking ancient Israel, modern Israel, the Bible or Christianity because that is your sole agenda – to attack and destroy that which is good.

            It is obvious I have forgotten more than you will ever know. But rather than showing some respect you want to act out by making crazy claims like the Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites, or Allah and Yahweh are one and the same god. Rather than showing respect by terming your silliness in more modest ways…”Do you think the Philistines are descendants of the Canaanites as many claim?”…”I have heard many argue that Allah and Yahweh are one in the same god – what do you think?”…Instead you want to teach – to preach some of the most silly things I have heard…You should report yourself for being arrogant when your learning is rudimentary at best. You should report yourself for not understanding how to form your claims and beliefs in a more friendly and humble manner rather than forming them in such a way as to feign being an expert on these matters which you clearly are not…

          • Chris

            You are becoming more and more irrational. Please stop with the swearing and blasphemy or this conversation is over and I shall report your posts. Thank you.

          • Chris

            Oh and by the way. DNA tests of Jews and Palestinians have been done. They come from the same people. They are both Canaanites.

          • That’s another f*cking lie…The Palestinians are a mixed race of Arabs (semites) and Turks (mongols) where the Turkish Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine (the name the Roman Emperor Hadrian gave ancient Israel after he ran the Jews out of their country in 130 AD). So it is physically impossible that “they came from the same people” because the Turks ARE NOT semites!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And the Canaanite people have been extinct for so long that no one knows what their DNA says because it went EXTICT with them!!!!!!!!!!! So stop lying!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Chris

            Ok. We’re done. Tank you for your time but you have become increasingly irrational and abusive. Have a nice day and before I go one last word. i forgive you.

          • RWH

            St. John of Damascus considered Islam a Christian heresy. At its early stages, Islam borrowed a lot of elements both from Christianity and Judaism. The Crusades drove a real wedge between Islam and everything else. Those that like to cherry pick the violent passages out of Moslem scriptures had better re-read the Old Testament. God commanded the Israelites to wipe out entire populations of people.

          • Because Islam borrowed so much from Christianity, John of Damascus was correct in seeing Islam, which was very new at the time, as just another heretical Christian Gnostic sect which was infecting the world during his life time. Mohammad borrowed many beliefs and rituals from Rabbinic Jews, Gnostic Christians and Arab pagans in creating his Gnostic religion.

            Show me where “God commanded the Israelites to wipe out entire populations of people?” I can show you where He commanded the ancient Hebrews to “wipe out entire populations” of hybrid humans known as the Rephilim who were descendants of the infamous Nephilim, but I know of no instructions by Yahweh to “wipe out” human populations…He did instruct the Hebrews to take certain towns and villages of Canaanites during the conquest of Canaan, but at no time did He instruct the Hebrews to “wipe” these people out. Those instructions were reserved for the Rephilim alone.

          • Sharon_at_home

            Yes He did, but if you ever spoke to someone knowledgeable about just that you would get some better answers than what I have given. I have never discussed it with my pastor and it hasn’t been a bible study that I have seen. I would need to look into it more and work it out for myself before I can comment on it beyond what I have.
            But just a note, the only thing I pointed out in this comment was that the Muslim Paradise is not the same as the Christian Heaven. Allah might be a God, but I do not agree that it is the same God on just one point.
            The Christian God dislikes lust, and has commanded to not let ourselves lust in any way. But the lust of sex is not even supposed to be thought about.
            The Muslim God on the other hand, promises 72 virgins to the men that go to Paradise and that is Only about lust. To be honest, I have read a lot of news about there being a lot of rapes in the Muslim areas. It is made to sound like if a woman is alone anywhere and men find out about it, they find her and rape her. That is honestly what I have read about Muslim men. This is not even ISIS. So lust seems to be a big part of the Muslim men’s lives. Including not resisting the temptation and the marriage first beliefs.
            That is the biggest reason why I don’t believe it is the same God.

          • ‘Allah’ was the ancient Arabic, Aramaic, Aramean, etc word for “god” as early as 500 years before the Christian era…Thus, all ancient Christian sects in and around the area of Antioch, Arabia, North Africa, etc used that term any time they spoke or wrote about ‘God’ which in the Greek was “Theo”…

            Here is where your confusion arises; There were also 360 pagan deities within the Kaaba at Mecca at the time of Mohammad. After 20 years of war, he “cleansed” the Kaaba of 359 of these gods and goddess’ and kept Allah, the patron god of his tribe and proclaimed Allah to be the one true god that Jews and Christians worship.

            As Mohammad and every other Gnostic before him did, he combined various beliefs and rituals from many religions that he preferred and put them together to form a new religion. Thus, he took from Rabbinic Judaism, Gnostic Christianity and Arabian paganism those things he liked, rejected the aspects he disliked, and created Islam. Thus, he accepted the monotheism of Judaism and Christianity, mixed in some heretical beliefs from Gnostic Christianity that he thought were orthodox, mixed in some more Arab paganism and called his one true god ‘Allah,’ which, at the time, was both the Arabic word for god and one of 360 pagan deities with the Kaaba.

            So Christians are correct when they claim Muhammad’s ‘Allah” borrowed many aspects from the pagan moon god Sin whose ancient symbol was a crescent moon going back to ancient Sumer. As Mohammad borrowed many aspects of his new religion from various paganisms around Arabia during the 7th century.

            You are also correct in claiming that SOME Christians in and around Arabia used the term “allah’ for god for over 500 years before Mohammad came on the scene.

            But you are crazy wrong when you claim the Islamic ‘Allah,’ the Jewish Yahweh and the trinitarian God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit of Christianity are one and the same god as nothing could be further from the truth…Your belief is based on a play on word-names rather than any understanding of the origins of the names, the specific characters and teachings of Allah compared to Yahweh, etc.

          • RWH

            Richard, It’s getting tiresome arguing with someone who doesn’t look up the facts. Ask any Orthodox priest. The Christians in Arabic countries refer to God as Allah. I don’t care about your etymologies. The term God in English refers to God whether someone is Christian, Jewish, or whatever. It’s the generic term. Different religious groups have different understandings of the nature of God. Traditional Pentecostals don’t believe in a triune God. You can spout this mood god stuff all you want but that is not the understanding of people in Arabic countries. I went to an Orthodox church within the Antiochian Archdiocese for three years when I lived near Wichita, KS. I know what I am talking about.

          • I’ve said multiple times now on this thread that allah was a term used by various Semitic speaking people for God upwards of 500 years before Mohammad was born. Maybe rather than trying to pass judgement you would do better to first read what I write?

            No – “God” in English, just like “allah” in various semitic languages does not always refer to the same god. That is akin to saying “car” means every model ever made and says nothing about specific models. When one uses “God” or “allah” he does so in a generic sense like “car.” When one speaks of specific “gods,” like Yahweh or Allah he is speaking about two different gods just like when one uses the term “Mustang” or “Corvette” is often speaking about different models of “cars”…And to carry the analogy further, we all know there was a car named the Edsel. If a company makes a new car today, like Muhammad did with “Allah,” and calls that car an Edsel is it the same car that was made 50 years ago or a different model? They are both “cars,” and both models are called an Edsel – are they still one and the same car? No they are not! You can’t comprehend that simple fact, thus your confusion on the subject.

            Just because you attended some Antiochian Diocese in Wichita, KS for three years means absolutely nothing to me. I’ve been studying this stuff intently for over 40 years and lived a monastic existence for over 20 years of that time where I spent my days studying…So three years in some dioceses somewhere is of little count to me personally, especially given your confusion over the semitic term “allah.”

            Moreover, Antioch is not an “Arab” country ding-dong. It was a Greek city from its foundation until the Muslim marauders took it from the Greeks in the 7th century. And the ancient Antiochian Church is being threatened today with annihilation by another group of Islamic marauders today – the same marauders you are trying to defend…Try to get your head out of the sand and stop trying to defend evil because you are just too simple to do so effectively…

          • RWH

            Richard. I’m not interested in all of your psycho-babble. I’m here to tell you that both the Orthodox and the Catholics in Arabic countries refer to God as Allah. They have always done this even before Mohamed and Islam entered the scene. If you cannot understand that simple fact, it’s unfortunate. You don’t believe me. Contact someone in the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. Metropolitan Thomas is directly under the Patriarch of Antioch, who resides in Damascus. If you are so learned, why is it that you cannot contact a primary source, instead a lot of secondary ones? Dismissing the Orthodox Church as irrelevant speaks highly of your pseudo scholarship.

          • Chris

            “”Allah” was actually one of 360 pagan deities in the Kaaba…”

            And El is merely a name for the chief Canaanite Deity, yet it’s also another name given in Genesis for Yahweh. Oops.

          • You are correct – the Akkadian word for god was “El,” with its plural Elohim. Given that the ancient Hebrews were originally Mesopotamian people who spoke Akkadian, is it surprising to see the Hebrews use the Akkadian root El when speaking about God?…Given there were no Hebrews on the planet for the majority of the time the book of Genesis covers, you do understand we are talking about the ancient Mesopotamian God El – who did not reveal His personal name, Yahweh, until He did so with Moses?…

            So you are correct in that El and Allah were ancient Semitic words-names for god. You are also correct in assuming that El and Yahweh were one and the same God. Yet you are crazy wrong when you try to argue that El and Yahweh are the same God as Mohammad’s Allah, as nothing could be further from the truth. You are simply confused about the Arab pagan god Allah of the Kaaba, who Mohammad adopted and subsequently claimed was the same one true God of Jewish and Christian beliefs. It is a simple play on names that confuses you because the nature of El and Yahweh, as well as their teachings are quite different than Muhammad’s Allah…

          • Chris

            “Yet you are crazy wrong when you try to argue that El and Yahweh are the
            same God as Mohammad’s Allah, as nothing could be further from the
            truth.”

            Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

            “You are simply confused about the Arab pagan god Allah of the Kaaba, who
            Mohammad adopted and subsequently claimed was the same one true God of
            Jewish and Christian beliefs.”

            Just like the Genesis writers adopted the title of the Canaanite God. Oops.

            “It is a simple play on names that confuses
            you because the nature of El and Yahweh, as well as their teachings are
            quite different than Muhammad’s.”

            See here’s the thing. Just because you interpret the bible one way and the Quran another doesn’t make it so.

          • I can’t understand why it is so difficult for you to understand that El and Yahweh are the same God – but Allah is a pagan Arabic deity who has NOTHING to do with El and/or Yahweh?

            The authors of Genesis did not “adopt the title of the Canaanite god” because the Mesopotamian men who authored Genesis predated the Canaanite entrance into Canaan by a full millennium. It was actually the other way around – the Canaanites, who entered what would become known as ‘the land of Canaan’ long after people were first living in Mesopotamia and adopted the Mesopotamian generic term for god, El, from the Mesopotamians. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph were Mesopotamians as there was not yet a Hebrew walking the planet. So the Canaanites “adopted” the Mesopotamian God El – it wasn’t the other way around.

            If the God of the Bible says do this – don’t do that, and has a history that reaches back in time to the antediluvian era, and Allah says the complete opposite in his do’s and don’ts and has no history outside of Mecca how are these two gods suppose to be one and the same god?…One God says don’t eat camels – the second god says to eat camels. One God was active for over 2000 years in the lives of the Hebrew people and Israel, His chosen piece of land, and the other god doesn’t know the Hebrew people, has NOTHING to do with Israel and takes his land in Arabia – not Israel. How are these two gods one and the same?…One God has seven covenants with Israel the second god doesn’t even know what a covenant is as Allah has no covenants with anyone. How are these two gods one and the same?…One God blessed the Jews and calls them His “chosen people.” The second god hates the Jews and claims his people, the Arabs, will one day annihilate the Jewish people from the face of the earth. How are these two gods one and the same?…I could keep going but my point has already been made – these are two different gods the same way Zeus and Yahweh are both “gods” but very, very different…The fact that mere semantics messes you up so badly says a great deal about your inability to understand simple concepts that are similar on their surfaces but much different when one delves into the facts and characters of these two separate gods…

          • Chris

            It is special pleading to say that because Allah [the Arabic word for God] is one of the titles of a pagan God then it proves Allah is pagan. But El – one of the titles of a pagan Canaanite God – is merely used to signify the true God.

            Both mean ‘God’ in their respective languages. Both have a similar ancestry. Therefore both are either pagan or signify the same God.

          • Wow! Simple semantics mess you up bad – don’t they?…”Allah” is both a Semitic generic term for God as well as the specific name of a specific Arabic deity from the Kaaba. El is both a Semitic generic name for God and the name of a specific God from Mesopotamia…WHEN speaking of specific gods as in El or Allah we are not speaking about the same god. No more than if we were speaking about Zeus and Allah – both of which are gods but they are two very different gods…

            The Mesopotamian God El is, according to His revelations we call the Bible, a Trinitarian God of three in one. The Arabic god Allah, according to his revelation we call the Koran, says that anyone who believes in the trinitarian God of the Bible has committed “shirk” which is an unpardonable sin. How could they possibly be one and the same god?…

          • Chris

            Wow simple logic messes you up badly doesn’t it? You can’t logically claim that the association of the name Allah with a pagan God PROVES it’s pagan origin while the association of El with a pagan God doesn’t prove its pagan origin.

            “The Mesopotamian God El is, according to His revelations we call the Bible, a Trinitarian God of three in one.”

            Correct. According to the version of Christianity which won the battle for control of the Church. What if they were heretics? What if God isn’t Triune at all?

          • El – or Yahweh presents Himself as a Trinitarian God from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelations…So the question “What if God isn’t Triune at all?” is an irrelevant question as God consistently portrayed Himself as being trinitarian since before the Flood…

            That the Jews perverted their religion during and after the Babylonian Captivity and throughout the inter-testimonial period is a given. Even Muhammad taught this fact – howbeit he had no real understanding of how or what they did specifically…Moreover, Muhammad copied over 70% of his teachings from the Rabbinic Jews. So of course he would also teach that God is One while rejecting any trinitarian doctrine or teachings just as his Jewish cousins did…That doesn’t make trinitarian doctrine wrong – it just buttresses the claim that Muhammad learned his theology from heretics, i.e. Jews and Gnostic ‘Christians’ of Arabia…

          • Chris

            “El – or Yahweh presents Himself as a Trinitarian God from the first chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelations…”

            Incorrect.
            1) That is an interpretation which the authors of Genesis show no knowledge of.
            2) God presents NOTHING since God wrote NOTHING. At best people claimed that god has said X.

            “That the Jews perverted their religion during and after the Babylonian Captivity and throughout the inter-testimonial period is a given.”

            Really? And your evidence for this is?

          • Now you are going to reduce your argument to semantics? God most certainly inspired every word of the Bible – that He didn’t physically write it but inspired men to do so is merely semantics on your part. And such arguments of sophistry clearly show you have run out of bullets…

            That the Jews “perverted their religion during and after the Babylonian Captivity and throughout the inter-testimonial period is a given” because that is exactly what Jesus Christ taught for over three years during His earthly ministry – and which archeology has now shown conclusively…Would that be enough “evidence” for you – or are you claiming you know more than Jesus Christ and 150 years of archeology in the Holy Land?…

          • Chris

            “Now you are going to reduce your argument to semantics?”

            Such hypocrisy. You wrote that the fact that Allah was the title of a pagan God proved the pagan origins of Allah. When I do exactly the same argument with El you dismiss it as semantics. Really? Double standards much?

          • Chris

            “…because that is exactly what Jesus Christ taught for over three years
            during His earthly ministry …”

            Except we have no idea what jesus taught. We only have anonymous documents written by people who never met Jesus.

            “…- and which archeology has now shown
            conclusively…”

            Archaeology has not shown any such thing. The bible, as we know it was in continual state of formation until the books for it were finally chosen. There was no perversion of belief because there was no standard belief. THAT is what archaeology has found with the documents it is uncovering.

            You seem to think that it was obvious that the books which comprise the Hebrew testament were obviously the right ones and everyone knew it. In fact even the Christian testament makes mention of books outside the cannon.

            “Would that be enough “evidence” for you -”

            Nope. The opinion you’ve given so far has been wrong on all counts.

            “…or are you
            claiming you know more than Jesus Christ and 150 years of archeology in
            the Holy Land?…”

            Neither since:
            1) All we have of Jesus’ words are anonymous documents written decades after his death.
            2) Archaeology doesn’t prove any such thing.

            Got anything else?

      • Actually, had you known your Koran and Hadith, you would have known no one is guaranteed Paradise except Mohammad and any Muslim who dies a martyrs death in jihad. Actually Allah is portrayed as being very capricious and arbitrary as Sura 29:21 tells us: “He punishes whomever He wills, and bestows His mercy on whomever He wills; and unto Him you shall be made to return.” Even someone who is a strict adherent of the Five Pillars of Islam are not guaranteed Paradise.

        Allah, although now it is accepted as the term for God in Arabic, is the name of one of 360 deities found in the Kaaba at the time of Muhammad. Allah was the patron God of Muhammad’s tribe is why Mohammad chose Allah rather than one of the 359 other deities within the Kaaba. Arabs have never had a term for “God” as they were always pagans with a multitude of gods. Because they were illiterate a term for god was never necessary. Thus, to argue that “Allah” means God in Arabic is actually not true. Thus – no person of the Book could ever be accepted in Mohammad’s version of the Jewish “Paradise” as Jews worship Yahweh and Christians worship the trinitarian God of Father, Son and Holy Spirit…And the Koran specifically says that any belief in the trinitarian God of Christianity is the only unpardonable sin…

        • Rob Goulet

          Truth! Allah is just another false deity in which ancient archeology has verified to be related to a fertility moon-god. This is why the crescent moon symbol is central to architecture and banners (flags).

          Believers in the true and LIVING God need not apologize. Revival is in the land and the call to repent and seek the truth is what will save the soul from an already condemned state. This is especially true for nominal “believers” who don’t take up the cross daily!

          Anything declaring that the historical Jesus of the Bible, the A.D. of the calendar, did NOT raise from the dead or the ONLY way to God The Father is already accursed.

          No more time to defend “educated antagonists” who simply seek to justify their ungodly ways in the name of pluralism.

          Jesus is LORD and you WILL bow to the knee some day and say that. Period. Maranatha <

          • Chris

            “Allah is just another false deity in which ancient archeology has verified to be related to a fertility moon-god”

            Really? Well then El [the name for God given in Genesis] must also be a false deity since that was the title of a Canaanite deity. oops.

      • Amos Moses

        “O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in God and His apostles. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for God is one God: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs.” (Koran 4:171)

        “They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (Koran 5:73)

        yeah …. not so much ….. it would require a denial of the christianity ….. so nice try …. but FAIL …………..

      • Sharon_at_home

        The Muslims do not believe that Jesus is the son of God. They believe that He was “just a prophet” and that God doesn’t “need” a son. So how would a Christian who has to believe in Jesus as the Son of God, be allowed in Paradise? They also do not pray 5 times a day and have a LOT of differences in the way we believe comparatively. If we don’t believe in the Allah you represent in your Koran, we are to be killed/ we will go to eternal damnation for that alone. I find it hard to believe that they feel we will go to their Paradise. Besides your paradise is not anything like our Heave. For one thing, God would not be making Heaven a place where there is sex, and lust. We won’t have bodies that can have sex in the first place, we will all be spirits not bodies as we are on earth. The idea that he would want to satisfy a man’s lust as a reason to desire shows that it is not the same God in any way. Our God does not want us to lust in any way. Yours encourages the devotion of the men by promising the 72 virgins in Paradise which is ONLY about lust.
        So no I can’t see any Christian or Jew that would “want” to go to your paradise rather than our Heaven.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          Simple, if you believe that Jesus and God are the same deity, you’re in. If you believe in three completely independent deities that coexist, you’re out.

          Oh, women who reach paradise are given one perfect man. Sort of like a Harlequin Romance.

          Unbelievers are to be killed only if they make war on Islam. Which the west has been doing for a thousand years.

          • Non-Muslims are to be hunted down anywhere on the planet they can be found and murdered by Muslims per the teachings of the bandit Muhammad. Stop lying!…

        • Richard O. Mann

          John said that all who do not believe that Christ has come in the flesh, are of the spirit of antichrist. That puts the Muslims and sadly, the Jews who don’t believe in that group.

        • Christians believe Jesus is God incarnate – Muslims believe Jesus was a mere man. That is the difference – and it is a huge!!!!!!!!!!!!!! difference….

          • Sharon_at_home

            Yes, but there are some Muslims that are converting to Jesus; Both Christian to Islam and Islamic to Christian conversions happen, so we have to keep our light shining to give the Glory to God if someone is influenced by our behaviour and converts to Christianity.

            If we treat people badly, they will not see the Goodness of Jesus and will be less likely to convert to (or even stay in) Christianity.

            God bless!

          • Well said – and correct…I lose my temper sometimes with fakes whose only agenda is to attack modern Israel or the Church or worse my God and Savior…Too many frauds for me, people who may – at best – have a very rudimental understanding of these things but insist they are somehow a scholar or expert. Internet theologians with an agenda of hate who have been schooled in attacking everything that is good and from God for their own perverse reasoning…Evil always angers me, I guess…Sorry if I allowed my frustrations to show…

          • Sharon_at_home

            No No No, no need to apologize. Believe me, I know about frustrations on this board and how far they can push us. I did not behave properly with Amos and resorted to a pretty well demeaning post that told him he was sinning because of his attitude and that God wants us to stay away from people with false religions. Oh Boy did I let it out. And regretted it so that by the next morning I re-posted with an apology. I had blocked him and unblocked him too.
            I feel like God wants me to keep trying. So I put on my armor and start all over again. lol!
            I guess that the Lord really wants Amos to see the gospel differently than he does.
            I did however find out a crucial bit of information after a long battle and Amos, and a few others here, look at Jesus as someone who was harsh with everyone, while we look at the gospel and see the Love He has for us, and the behaviour he asked us to stay with.
            It is such an incredible difference and I can’t imagine Jesus as harsh at all except when he fulfilled scriptures with the Scribes and Pharisees, and at the church with the money lenders. Every other time he showed lots of patience and love and compassion towards the people who followed him. His command to love each other is confusing to them too. It made me realize that different religions can mean a totally different Christian attitude and I really feel we have to stand up as the Christians that do not hate so freely.

            I see too many people here who say they “expect the hate to come out from the Christians” and I find that so bad that I post a note to say that all Christians are not like Amos and please believe me when I tell “you” that because I am very different than Amos et al and I want people to know what Christianity is all about, not just the one belief that is rather short of the lessons of the gospel. If we don’t change the perspective about Christians, people won’t want to come for salvation or anything else.

            Thanks for your post Richard, and for your apology. It’s nice to meet someone else that is more about defending the true meaning of the gospel, rather than the haters share their views.

            Our patience is imperative isn’t it? but there are times that it gets stretched like an elastic and at some point, it snaps back to it’s actual length – that’s when we lose our light. So maybe we should try to remember to walk away to find God’s peace – before we do snap like an elastic. God bless you Richard. Have a blessed day!

          • I learned long ago that most people who demonstrate the attitude that I saw yesterday are way past the point of speaking reasonably. Very few if any of these people will ever come to the light. But I debate them because of the hundreds of people watching in silence…Those are the people I am trying to reach, trying to help. Too many Christians, and those considering the faith lack the confidence necessary to debate these fools on an open thread like this one. So they remain silent, but I know they are there and am actively trying to reach them.

            The guy I was debating yesterday, I see he has since taken down his posts, is all too typical of liberal-progressives who have read a few books and think they are now an expert on the subject. When all they really accomplished was to allow themselves to be brainwashed by some author or organization that have nothing more than a religion built around hate – hate of Christ and hate for me as one of His followers. They are the easiest to beat down in a debate. Usually I can handle it – but that guy yesterday was so damn dumb and he kept trying to come off like he was some kind of an expert that it finally just got to me…The guy was arguing stupid stuff like the Palestinians are descendants of the Canaanites – or Yahweh and Allah are the same god because “allah” means god in some Semitic languages…How dumb is that kind of thinking?…

            I was debating a college professor the other day from Cal-Berkley who was simply a fool. He tried to use the typical scripture quotes or talking-points all schooled haters use – and when I blew them he would just continue as if I didn’t say anything simply because he had to way to reply to me intelligently. Like the fool from yesterday, this guy actually thought the Amlakites were humans so he quotes that verse where God instructs Joshua to annihilate them. I had to explain to him that they were Rephilim – descendants of the Nephilim who were Lucifer’s way of stopping the coming of the Messiah by polluting the human genome and creating a hybrid race. Neither the professor or the guy from yesterday had ever heard that before. Can you imagine?! Someone trying to teach or attack Christianity who had no idea the race of the Rephilim were hybrid-humans? Amazing – the bluster and arrogance of these people…Sometime, though, it gets to me and I start to go off like I did yesterday. Glad to learn I didn’t go off as bad as I thought I did 🙂

          • Sharon_at_home

            I’m so glad to meet someone who wants to spread the real Word of God, instead of only a part of the gospel that makes Jesus look harsh and angry.
            I also agree that if we post we should remember the fact that other people just read the comments and what we say makes a difference to them, whether we know it or not.
            You obviously know a LOT more than I do about the bible. I just joined my church 8 years ago. I did not know anything about it really. Only the Sunday School stories. I have a Pastor that is amazing at preaching the Gospel making it easy for everyone to understand, not just the people who have been in the church all their lives. I’ve learned a lot from him and his bible studies but I’ve also spent a lot of time reading the bible on my own and looking into the things I am not sure of. I always ask if what I find is what our religion believes so I am not seeing it in a way that doesn’t correspond to our church.
            While I’ve been here though, I have been being led by the Spirit for some of the replies. I don’t know scriptures by Book Chapter Verse, but I do know what they say a lot of the time; when I was in a battle of the scriptures with Amos the Spirit led me to the right scriptures every time. It was awesome!
            It truly is great to have someone else here that is willing to discuss things to help the people that are silent on these boards.
            Thanks for your reply, it started my day off with a smile, Thanks for that as well. Myself and the others that enjoy discussions will appreciate that you will not be casting stones all the time.
            Blessings!

          • You are very correct, Sharon. However (isn’t there always a however with me :D), millions of Muslims are kind and treat others as they wish to be treated and condemn terrorism. While Christianity is the largest religion in the world, Islam is the fastest growing and will surpass Christianity in a relatively short period of time.

            And, actually, Muslims do consider Jesus a prophet. But of course, like Christianity, there are many variations in the beliefs of Muslims. They have a belief spectrum much like any other religion.

            Your desire to treat others as you would have them treat you is a vein that runs through not only the religious, but the secular world as well.

            Thomas Paine, a Deist, said:

            I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy. (Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Published in three parts, 1794, 1795, and 1807)

            Be well, my friend.

      • Amos Moses

        maybe you should call this guy and explain it to him ……… my guess is he need a lawyer ……..

        Homeless man busted for breaking into Midtown church, threatening to kill all Christians

        A homeless man shouting “Allahu akbar” busted a Midtown church’s door with a wrench and threatened to return and shoot all Christians, police sources said Wednesday.

  • Richard O. Mann

    Anyone who rejects Jesus as being the way, is condemned to eternal damnation. Even Burnie Sanders. This is one reason that Christianity it so hated by the world.

    • Croquet_Player

      We get it. I, and most of the people on the planet, are, according to you, and people who share your views, condemned to eternal damnation because we don’t follow your particular version of religion. And you keep telling us we are. Over, and over, and over. I don’t hate Christianity. I hate annoying, not-nice people. Like you. (Also, it’s “Bernie” not “Burnie”, but whatever.)

      • Amos Moses

        ” I hate annoying, not-nice people. Like you.”

        because we tell you the truth … and the truth is not in you ……………

        • Croquet_Player

          This makes you no different from people of other faiths, who are also convinced they know the “truth”. You can’t all be right, but you can all be wrong.

          • Amos Moses

            you are correct ….. but there IS a right and a wrong ….. and two diametrically opposed ideas CANNOT both be right ………… and if christianity is wrong ….. as with any lie …. it is easy to disprove it …… and christianity has been around for thousands of years …… and it has YET to be proven so …. just disbelieved ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            How long a religion has been around has no bearing on whether it’s “true” or not. If it did, the Zoroastrians would have a better claim than you, because their faith is older than yours. To date, no religion has been “proven’ to be true, although they all claim they are, with equal absolute certainty.

          • Amos Moses

            “How long a religion has been around has no bearing on whether it’s “true” or not”

            right ….. but christianity and the scriptures have NEVER been proven wrong ….. EVER ….. so sure …. but a pointless point …… IF IT IS A LIE …… THEN PROVE IT A LIE ….. it is done EVERY DAY in our court system …… proving if something is a lie ……… so be my guest ………….

          • Croquet_Player

            I didn’t say it was a lie, so I have nothing to prove. I’m not making a claim. If you want to prove something is true, that’s up to you, or to anyone making a claim that something is true.

          • Amos Moses

            no … the truth is either accepted or rejected …… and your claim is this ……. “This makes you no different from people of other faiths” … so the claim is that all faiths are the same …… or all people of faith are the same ……. that is your claim ….. and you have no evidence that is true …… which BTW …… you have a faith ……. you are just too afraid to say what it is ………..

          • Croquet_Player

            Please don’t attempt to put words in my mouth. The person making the claim is the one obligated to back it up.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Logic is meaningless to the Dems because Dems’ purpose itself is evil.

          • Amos Moses

            those WERE your words …………

          • Croquet_Player

            No, they were not. In fact you used quotes around a sentence I never wrote.

          • Amos Moses

            this is the post where you did just that ………….

            disqus;com/home/discussion/christiannewsnetwork/i_understand_you_are_a_christian_bernie_sanders_angrily_erupts_during_questioning_of_nominee_who_bel/#comment-3352580333

            change the ; to a .

          • Croquet_Player

            My point is, you believe your faith is “true”. Other people, of different faiths also believe their faith is “true”, with equal conviction. So while your statement “we tell you the truth” is a good indicator of your own conviction (high) it’s not a good indicator of whether or not what you say is actually true. I think you strongly believe you’re telling the truth. But that’s not a good enough reason to think you actually are.

          • Amos Moses

            “My point is, you believe your faith is “true”.”

            nope …. i know it is ….. not the samething ………..

            “Other people, of different faiths also believe their faith is “true”, with equal conviction”

            and both CANNOT be true …… conviction of belief is not the issue …… what is believed is the issue ….. now both might be wrong …… but both cannot be right …… so if you cannot tell me how it is false then you may believe whatever you like ………. but that does nothing to help you …… and it does not make you correct in any fashion ……….

          • Croquet_Player

            You actually said I was correct earlier: “you are correct”. So you “know” your faith is true. Fine, you may think whatever you like. But that not sufficient reason to believe you when you say “we tell you the truth”.

          • Everybody in this discussion is acting irrationally. It is impossible to PROVE the existence, or non-existence of G-d. The thing is, do not assert that your religion, or no religion, is a superior belief, as it will offend somebody, for sure.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            the word of God offends ….. if you are offended ….. then gods word has done its job …… the EVIDENCE of His existence is ABUNDANT ………. it is literally EVERYTHING you see …….. and it is a superior belief ….. and if they are offended ….. so what …………..

          • You are wrong.

          • Sharon_at_home

            We can’t all be right, but none of us should be so “proud” to think that their religion is any better than another one.
            The churches that all follow the bible all worship and praise the same God and usually try to base their religion on it. The denominations that left the Catholic faith left because of conflict about the doctrine, I believe, and created other denominations so they could still worship and praise the Lord, without the problem that they disagreed with the Catholic Church.
            ” I hate annoying, not-nice people. Like you.”
            Basically, Christians should NEVER be like someone you think like this about. And believe it or not, people who would not act like those annoying, not-nice people are sinning against God for their behaviour.
            We are supposed to lead people to Jesus to teach them about the gospel and salvation from repentance of sin, so they can decide to follow God or not. We are not going to get people to listen by having a reputation of being “annoying, not-nice people” and since it is against God to treat anyone badly including sinners, please don’t consider “them” the same as other Christians who don’t use the hate of the sin as an excuse to be rude and hateful to the people. If they cannot separate the two, then they should not be in public making all of us look like hateful people.
            I for one, like to think I am a nice, pleasant person to discuss things with, rather than hurl stones at you.
            Have a good day!

          • Jason Todd

            Okay. I have had enough of this.

            Let’s get some things straight:

            The Bible does not advocate sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing as if doing otherwise is being judgmental. John the Baptist didn’t do that. Peter didn’t do that. Jesus did not do it either.

            Secondly, being a Christian doesn’t mean being nice all the time. Remember, “Christian” means “Christ-like.” And if you are going to be Christ-like, then you need to recall Jesus went into a temple with a whip, chasing people and knocking down tables. He called Pharisees “vipers” and “hypocrites” (Have you forgotten just why Jesus was crucified in the first place?).

            This neo-Christian pacifist doctrine is false doctrine.

            Read your Bible. It’s all there, black and white, clear as crystal.

          • Sharon_at_home

            “Let’s get some things straight:
            The Bible does not advocate sitting on the sidelines”
            If you mean would I go to a protest against anything. No I’m too old for crowds like that and it’s not the way I do my duty to my Lord God.
            YOU have no idea what I do to bring people to Jesus. NOT A CLUE. You have no right to even infer that I just “sit on the sidelines” you have no idea even if you base it on my posts here, you have not a clue what I do at other times.
            Yes Christ- like – He was ALSO a very kind and compassionate man who wanted us to love each other. He showed anger at the Scribes and the Pharisees because they were not doing the job of teaching the laws to the students and were actually telling them the laws incorrectly, but not demonstrating the same behaviour they expected in their students.
            Each time he had any interaction with the Scribes and the Pharisees he would do something or say something that he would explain was the fulfillment of a prophecy. What he acted like was a part of fulfilling it.
            In the case of the money changers in the church, it was also a prophecy he was fulfilling.
            When he interacted with anyone else it was done with kindness and with the large groups of people who followed him he showed them compassion.
            It’s all right there in the bible in black and white, clear as crystal.
            Excuse me, but I know the reason why he was crucified, but to be honest by connecting Jesus crucified to the Pharisees, I’d like to hear that explanation before I give you my explanation that explains why Jesus was crucified. So why did Christ get crucified according to your beliefs? Please?

          • Jason Todd

            If you mean would I go to a protest against anything. No I’m too old for crowds like that

            *facepalm*

            Yes Christ- like – He was ALSO a very kind and compassionate man who wanted us to love each other.

            So are you suggesting you are more Christ-like than Jesus?

            Each time he had any interaction with the Scribes and the Pharisees he would do something or say something that he would explain was the fulfillment of a prophecy. What he acted like was a part of fulfilling it.
            In the case of the money changers in the church, it was also a prophecy he was fulfilling.

            Excuse me, but what Bible are you reading? NIV? NLT? The Message? I want to know where such slackjawed stupidity is coming from.

          • “Is there a religious litmus test for public service Mr. Sanders?” is the question I would have asked back to Bernie.

      • Richard O. Mann

        Typical response from a lost sinner. But, you can know and act no other way than as a lost sinner. As for the misspell, I forgot to do a proof read before posting. You don’t have to accept Jesus. But, you will have to deal with the consequences of you decision. Sorry you are rejecting what has been given to you. May you be blessed and have a great life until the day you leave this life.

        • Croquet_Player

          And to people of other faiths, you’re simply a typical “lost sinner” too. I see zero evidence that any of you have cornered the market on truth, and plenty of evidence that you haven’t. You can believe whatever you like, of course, and I hope you enjoy yourself.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You must repent of supporting of the blasphemy, infanticide, and sexual depravity. All Dems do. Liberals promote only the evil.

      • poppyw

        What are you belly-aching about? The article was about a heathen senator denigrating a Christian for doctrines of his faith. As far as Christians annoying you for simply trying to impart the good news of the gift of eternal life through our Lord Jesus; count yourself fortunate that somebody cared enough to inform you. I guess you wouldn’t want to be awakened at night, if a stranger saw your house catch fire

        • Chris

          “As far as Christians annoying you for simply trying to impart the good
          news of the gift of eternal life through our Lord Jesus; count yourself
          fortunate that somebody cared enough to inform you.”

          And inform him, and inform him, and inform him, over and over and over again. Begin to sense a pattern here? Begin to think that such testimony has little to do with care and more to do with a personal need?

        • Croquet_Player

          Senator Sanders did not say anything about the man’s “doctrines”. He was, and very rightly so, questioning the man’s suitability to hold the position of Deputy Budget Director. After what Vought wrote, it’s reasonable to doubt he will be able to treat Americans of different faiths fairly and impartially.

          • poppyw

            You are ignorant of what a doctrine is. Jesus established the primary doctrine, that “No one comes to the Father except by me.” Every Christian knows this. Sanders shows his ignorance of Christian doctrine by even making this an issue. Sanders is just a Communist who is feeling nervy that after years of heathen training in our schools, that he has a greater audience.. You heathen are so pitiful.

          • Croquet_Player

            Having attended Christian religious schools for most of my education, thank you for that bit of information.

      • Jesus said He is the ONLY Way.

        • Chris

          Correction. Someone said that Jesus said that. The gospels, after all, are anonymous documents.

        • Croquet_Player

          Yes, I know. And other religious texts say other deities said other things. The point I am making here is not who said what, but the fact that people from different faiths think their particular faith is “true”. So the high level of conviction a person has is not a good indicator of whether or not the thing they believe is true. Amos is convinced he knows the “truth”, because his particular faith is true. Well, that’s fine for him and he may of course believe whatever he likes, but that’s no reason for anyone else to believe him.

      • Coach

        Actually, you do hate Christianity and you hate Christians, you literally just proved it in your statement.

        • Croquet_Player

          Well, most of my family are Christians, and quite a few of my friends, so I guess we’ll all have a good laugh about that later, thanks!

    • Chris

      Except that Christianity isn’t hated by the world. Intolerant Christians are. Bit of a difference don’t you think?

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Liberals are intolerant of Christians or any moral people.

        • Parodyx

          That’s a rather unfair generalization.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            This news is the proof. Westerners gave up Christianity and now they hate morality. Christian morality should be added to the definitions of human rights to halt the further abuses and atrocities. The English are not smarter than the Germans or the Russians. No one is.

            Mankind must not be oppressed by the Western Sodomites this century. The West thirsts for control by evil again, but it must be rejected. The West needs Christianity to do what is right and protect its own children. You guys should stop living like teenagers. Ensure some better world for next generations.

          • Dianne

            Grace, this is the TRUTH in Christ Jesus the LORD, ” I exhort you therefore, that, first of all, supplication, prayers, intercession, and giving of thanks, BE MADE FOR ALL MEN;” 1 Timothy 2:1

            The PROOF: you were not ALWAYS SAVED.
            1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
            Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
            And such WERE SOME OF YOU: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

            Romans 3:23 FOR ALL HAVE SINNED, and come short of the GLORY OF GOD;

      • Richard O. Mann

        Yes it is. Jesus even said so. The world hated Him. The world hates us. Because we are not of this world. When you say “intolerant Christians” you usually mean those who hold to Jesus being the only name given to man for salvation of the soul. He is the only way to God. All other “religions” of the world, will land you in hell after death, and eternal damnation at the end of the age. That is 100% Biblical and true. I tied many of the others. They did not work. No peace of mind and soul.

        • Chris

          “Jesus even said so.”

          Jesus was crucified. His followers suffered death. What have you personally suffered?

          “When you say “intolerant
          Christians” you usually mean those who hold to Jesus being the only name given to man for salvation of the soul.”

          No I mean the ‘Christians’ who lecture experts in a subject they know nothing about because they know their own interpretation of the bible and think that makes them an expert. I am talking about ‘Christians’ who couldn’t care less if people suffer because of their interpretation of the bible. I am talking about ‘Christians’ who talk about the authority of the bible so much that they never actually tire of telling everyone except themselves to follow it.

          • tu.mult

            If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you.

            If you were of the world, the world would love its own.

            Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. John 15:18-19.

            Yes, JESUS said it.

          • Chris

            You haven’t even come close to answering my questions. What persecution have YOU personally suffered? Have you been killed? Tortured? Exiled? Jailed? Or do you sit back, watch your Christian TV stations, listen to youtr Christian radio, and talk about how everyone hates you?

          • Mary Zika

            over and over again rejection from those who reject G-d’s word, Chris. We sometimes don’t get hired for jobs, we are mocked at, sneered at, some are even killed. This is a daily reality for Christians Chris.

          • Chris

            “over and over again rejection from those who reject G-d’s word, Chris.”

            That’s not persecution. That’s simply life. Some people are mean and some are nice. The mean ones will be mean to you.

          • Chris

            “We sometimes don’t get hired for jobs, we are mocked at, sneered at,

            this is just nasty people.

            “some are even killed.”

            now that is persecution but it doesn’t happen in the US.

      • Mary Zika

        NO! Christ is hated by the world. We who are born-again in Spirit rejoice because we are given a “free” salvation (G-d’s grace) without deserving it because we ALL are born sinners. G-d want all to be free from sin through his son Jesus who CAN forgive you your sins. We born-again Christians witness for Jesus because we are called to do this to go to all the world to spread the gospel of Jesus. So, there is no rejection of human beings as Christians as you state, but rather, you reject G-d and his Word. You are rejecting Christianity.

        • Chris

          “Christ is hated by the world.”

          Except it’s not/ Take me for example. Have I shown any hatred to you? Have I shown any hatred directed towards Christ? Hmmm? But I’m not a Christian. I’m a Zoroastrian.

    • Freeordie

      Is that why everyone is trying to get into majority Christian nations like the US?

      you aren’t too bright.

  • Reason2012

    The world loves false religions, even ones that cause their own countrymen to be slaughtered. But the world hates the truth of God, which is why they hate Christ / Christianity. Jesus pointed out this basic fact – the unsaved world continues to bear testimony to what God’s truth is with their hate towards it and indifference towards the rest.

    “If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.”
    John 15:18-19

  • Trilemma

    Isn’t Bernie breaking the No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution or trying to discriminate based on religion?

    • Amos Moses

      OUCH …. that stung ……….

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      Asking if someone can perform their job without bias is not a religious test.

      • Trilemma

        I didn’t see anything in the article that would indicate that Mr. Vought would be biased in the performance of his job. Yet, Mr. Sanders condemned him as unAmerican and unqualified for the job simply because of a religious belief.

        • TheLastHonestLawyer

          And now you now how it feels to be a religious minority in the United States.

          • Amos Moses

            and you are condemned before God and you do not know God …… and it is the same for every man on earth past, present, and future …… so we are all in the same place …………… and the only way out is Christ …………. and until He intervenes …… we are all going to stay there and be condemned …..

          • Freeordie

            BS

  • Lydia Church

    Amen!
    There is only one way to be saved and get to heaven; through Jesus Christ! He made the way by the cross, we must accept His atonement, apply it to ourselves, and be born again.
    I will proclaim this in front of any courtroom, on the rooftops, and everywhere.
    “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14; 6
    “Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” ” John 3; 3
    “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” [Jesus] Acts 4; 12
    “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus…”
    1 Timothy 2; 5
    Turn to Jesus today and you will see!
    ( :

  • George

    I actually put Sanders name on the ballot.
    If I knew his view on muslims I’d never do that!!!

    • TheLastHonestLawyer

      What, that we’re humans? That a few million of us are US citizens, many of us born here? What view exactly annoys you so much?

      • Freeordie

        Why do so many muslims believe terrorism is acceptable?

        • Chris

          Why do so many Christians believe the same? Answer my question and you’ll have yours also.

          • Freeordie

            We don’t but many muslims do

          • Chris

            Christians do. Ever heard of the Lord’s Army? The KKK? Christian Identity? Etc, etc, etc.

          • Freeordie

            Nope.

          • Chris

            You’ve never heard of the KKK? or the Lord’s Army?

            Well that’s why you can make the claims you do then.

            You can check out these groups by going to wikipedia and typing in ‘Christian Terrorism’ into its search engine. You can also look up an article on the alternet site entitled ’10 of the worst terrorist attacks by extremist Christians’. Then you can go to the Salon site and look for an article entitled ‘6 modern day Christian terrorist groups’. Or go to Huffington Post and look up an article entitled ‘Christian Terrorism’. Or just look up an article on the web entitled ‘Here are 8 Christian Terrorist Organizations That Equal ISIS’.

            I think you’ll find the articles surprising.

          • Freeordie

            No I won’t. I never said there weren’t any Christian terrorists ever now did I?
            But you have to twist what I said to push your false agenda like most lying apologists for Islamic Terrorism.

          • Chris

            No. You said you’d never heard of any. You also said there were few Christian terrorists. But then logic isn’t your thing nor is politeness I see.

          • Freeordie

            I said support, put down the crack.

          • Chris

            Allow me to enlighten you.
            KKK “Vehemently anti-Catholic,
            Klan members had an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology,
            basing their beliefs in part on a “religious foundation” in Protestant
            Christianity. Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization and began engaging in arson, beatings, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, whipping and intimidation via such means as cross burning. They targeted African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities.”

            Or we can look at the Ilaga who were an extremist Catholic group who were responsible for numerous acts of violence including murdering 70-100 people in a mosque.

            Or the Anti-Balaka groups who have forcibly converted people to Christianity and are responsible for numerous massacres.

            Or the NLFT of India which engages in forced conversions to Christianity and numerous acts of violence.

            Or the NSCN who’s motto is Nagaland for Christ. They have engaged in kidnapping, extortion, assassination and numerous acts of violence.

            Or the Maronite Christian militias who were responsible for at least two massacres in Lebanon during it’s civil war.

            The Lord’s Army in Uganda. “It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity;
            including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using
            forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.”

            Like me to go on?

          • Freeordie

            First off we are talking about the US. Second of all Christians don’t SUPPORT those terrorists either unlike Muslim support for Islamic Terrorists.
            And you are going back decades, why not Centuries to push your false agenda?

            We can both go back to the Crusades!

            You fail.

          • Chris

            I’m not. I’m talking about humans. Oh. Your the guy who can’t get logic or politeness. Never mind.

          • Freeordie

            No you are just lying

          • Freeordie

            Pew Research (2011): 49% of Muslim-Americans say they are “Muslim first” (26%
            American first)

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 33%
            of Muslim-Americans say that Sharia should be supreme to the US
            Constitution
            Pew Research (2011): Muslim-Americans four times more likely to say that
            women should not work outside the home.
            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 29%
            of Muslim-Americans agree that violence against those who insult
            Muhammad or the Quran is acceptable

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 24%
            of Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified against those who
            “offend Islam”

            Pew Research (2013): 19% of Muslim Americans believe suicide bombings
            in defense of Islam are at least partially justified

            Pew Research (2007): 26% of younger Muslims in America believe suicide
            bombings are justified.
            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 19% of
            Muslim-Americans say that violence is justified in order to make Sharia the law
            in the United States

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 25%
            of Muslim-Americans say that violence against Americans in the United
            States is justified as part of the “global Jihad

            The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015): 33% of Muslim-Americans say
            al-Qaeda beliefs are Islamic or correct.

          • Chris

            How does that answer my question?

          • Freeordie

            Because you are comparing apples to oranges that’s why.

            Large numbers of Muslims support terrorism. Almost no Christians support Terrorism.

            Feel free to prove with facts, surveys, polls or studies otherwise.

          • Chris

            “Because you are comparing apples to oranges that’s why.”

            So christian terrorism isn’t anything like Muslim terrorism? Aren’t their victims just as dead?

            “Large numbers of Muslims support terrorism.”

            Nope. According to expert estimates around two million are out of one and a half billion Mulims.

            “Almost no Christians support Terrorism.”

            evidence please.

          • Freeordie

            People who get hit by lightening might die too, aren’t they just as dead?

            I actually gave you surveys of the LARGE amount of Muslims who support terrorism.

            You give me evidence that large amount of Americans support Christian Terrorism. GO!

          • Chris

            No. You gave me a survey of people who agree with violence. That doesn’t mean they support terrorism, except verbally. Oh wait. You’re the guy who refuses to be polite weven when no offense is given. Never mind then.

          • Freeordie

            You are delusional I gave you multiple Surveys of Muslims who support terrorism.

          • Freeordie

            Large amounts of Muslims support Terrorism. DUHHHHHHHHH!

            Wait you refuse to live in reality, never mind then.

          • Chris

            Oh wait you refuse to be polite even when no offense has been given. Never mind then

  • TheLastHonestLawyer

    OK, guys? When you scream about Sharia Law, remember Mr. Vought. Because his religiously intolerant attitude is exactly what you get when you allow religious fanatics who are that dismissive of other faiths into power.

    And don’t tell me “He’s a Christian, we’re good.” Is he the same kind of Christian as you? Go look up Europe’s Wars of Religion to see how many people died over being the wrong kind of Christian.

    Someone this intolerant has no place working in a secular government.

    • Amos Moses

      “Because his religiously intolerant attitude is exactly what you get when you allow religious fanatics who are that dismissive of other faiths into power.”

      you mean like Bernie is dismissing christianity …… like Bernie applying a religious litmus test to the office ………..

      “Someone this intolerant has no place working in a secular government.”

      you are right ….. we need to impeach or recall Bernie ………….

  • Adagio Cantabile

    Dear Bernie:

    You are a Senator in the predominantly Christian United States. You would not be a Senator in a Muslim country. You might not even be alive. There are three Jews on the US Supreme Court. Rest assured there are no Jews in similar positions in Muslim countries. Jews are getting along beautifully in this predominantly Christian country. In fact, the average Jew is more affluent than the average Christian. You obviously feel not a shred of gratitude that people of your religion and ethnicity have prospered enormously in this country where you are a minority.

    An intelligent human being can distinguish his true enemies from imaginary ones.

    Christians are not your enemies. Muslims are. You attack a Christian and call him an “Islamophobe.” You are very foolish. And you are a coward. If you want to call out a real enemy, don’t call out Christians. Call out the Muslims. They have been slaughtering Jews and Christians since the days of Muhammad.

    • Parodyx

      “You attack a Christian and call him an “Islamophobe.”

      Respectfully, that isn’t what happened. Vought’s words were being questioned and he was ASKED if he was an Islamophobe, based on what he wrote. His Christianity wasn’t even on the table, even though Vought felt the need to state three times that he was, when no one was interested and it wasn’t pertinent.

      • Freeordie

        Wrong he was asked about his beliefs

        • Chris

          Wrong. He kept on bringing up his beliefs.

          • Freeordie

            Wrong Sanders kept asking him about his beliefs

          • Chris

            Nope. He prefaced many, many responses with ‘well I’m a Christian so…’

          • Freeordie

            When being attacked by Bernie. DUH!
            Are Jews Condemned?

            Well I’m a Christian….

            I KNOW YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN BUT ARE JEWS CONDEMNED?

            Well I’m a Christian….

          • Chris

            I’m talking about throughout his interview.

          • Freeordie

            And I’m talking about when Sanders was blatantly Unconstitutional in his line of questioning.

          • Chris

            Oh wait. You’re the same guy who refuses to be polite when no offense is given so why should I reply again?

          • Freeordie

            Then don’t.

          • Chris

            When given this reply.

            So you’re saying you worship your own ego and all others must agree with you. Please signify by repeating that you’re a Christian.

  • Linda Therrien

    The HOly bible , old and new testament, inform us that only through JESUS CHRIST we are save because our sins are wash in his blood. It is written in the bible and nobody can change that. All people of différents faiths can be redeemed by accepting this beautiful gift of our creator Jehova the ALMIGHT, The SON of man because God DNA fécondes the human DNA. It is so sample…the HOly bible has been written more than two thousands ago. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is simple of that. Why would someone refuse this gift because he or her is afraid of the others faiths. Who wants to live in a world where in Africa millions of people are suffering ulcers because of salvation…noon they prefer wars…….what kind of a god are you serving.

    • Chris

      “The Holy bible , old and new testament, inform us that only through
      JESUS CHRIST we are save because our sins are wash in his blood.”

      Now all you have to do is show that the bible is accurate and true.

  • Sanders’ rejection of Christians as civil leaders is actually inherent in Article 6’s Christian test ban by which mandatory biblical qualifications were also eliminated and Amendment 1’s establishment of religion. Yes, you read that correctly:

    “…Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice (achieved by Article 6’s interdiction against Christian test oaths), Amendment 1 authorized equality for all non-Christian and even antichristian religions. When the Constitution failed to recognize Christian monotheism, it allowed Amendment 1 to fill the void by authorizing pagan polytheism.

    “Amendment 1 did exactly what the framers proclaimed it could not do: it prohibited the exercise of monotheistic Christianity (except within the confines of its church buildings) and established polytheism in its place. This explains the government’s double standard regarding Christian and non-Christian religions. For example, court participants entering the United States District Court of Appeals for the Middle District of Alabama must walk by a statue of Themis, the Greek goddess of justice. And yet, on November 18, 2002, this very court ruled that Judge Roy Moore’s Ten Commandments Monument violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Despite many Christians’ protests against this hypocrisy, it was in keeping with the inevitable repercussions of the First Amendment.

    “…Christians hang their religious hat on Amendment 1, as if some great moral principle is carved therein. They have gotten so caught up in the battle over the misuse of the Establishment Clause – the freedom from religion – that they have overlooked the ungodliness intrinsic in the Free Exercise Clause – the freedom of religion….”

    For more, see online Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 9.

    Then see Chapter 11 “Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism.”

    • Colin Rafferty

      That is an interesting alternative history. Nothing in Article 6 mentions Christianity. Many religions and non-religions have Oaths — there is nothing inherently Christian about that.

      • Regardless the other religions, it remains a Christian test ban, which is precisely what it was aimed at being that at that time in history the states’ constitutions all contained Christian tests for civil leadership.

        But the real point is, the test ban eliminated mandatory biblical qualifications for civil leaders, such as found, for example, in Exodus 18:21.

        Once adopted, it became inevitable that America would be ruled by nothing but nincompoops, scoundrels, and outright criminals.

        Take nincompoops for example: The qualifications in Exodus 18:21 begins with the fear of Yahweh. David and Solomon inform us that wisdom, knowledge, and understanding all begin with the fear of Yahweh. Thus, without the fear of Yahweh, you end up with, at best, nincompoops.

        For more regarding Article 6’s Christian test ban, see online Chapter 9
        “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the
        United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

        • Colin Rafferty

          It is a ban on any religious test, not just Christian. Calling it a Christian test ban is intentionally misleading, because it is just as much a Muslim test ban, Hindu test ban, or Jewish test ban.

          “Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice” is false. That never happened in the Constitution, and certainly not Article 6.

          • It’s not misleading at all. The test ban’s historical context demands it was initially all about the States’ Christian tests.

            Does it disallow other religious tests as well? Of course. But it’s no more wrong for a Christian to say it was Christian test ban than for a Hindu to say it’s Hindu test ban.

            But all of this misses the principle point. Without mandatory biblical qualifications, anyone of any religion (such as Muslim Congressman Keith Ellison) can become a civil leader, by which legislation is invariably influenced by their religious persuasion, be it Muslim, Hindu, etc.

            For example, today’s partial-birth infanticide legislation is nearly word for word out of the Jews’ Babylonian Talmud. Now how do you suppose that occurred? By the Christians or by the Jews in leadership positions.

            Point of interest, it was Jews (Rabbi Jonas Phillips and Philadelphia’s Mikveh Israel Synagogue specifically) who were principally responsible for the removal of the test oath from the federal Constitution.

            For primary source evidence to this fact, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.”

          • Colin Rafferty

            You are claiming “Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice”. That is false.

            But I see this is really about how the Jews are to blame for all this.

            And calling your own website “primary source evidence” is BS. You can’t quote yourself to prove what you say is true.

          • I’m claiming precisely the opposite–that is, that Christianity is NOT the federal government’s religion of choice. Secular humanism, aka We the Peopleism, is the federal government’s religion of choice. This goes to prove how closely you read what I posted before responding.

            Because I cite what the Jews admit themselves makes it all about me blaming the Jews. Come on!

            I did not claim my website as primary source evidence. I pointed to my site because thereon you’ll find the primary source information, with documentation.

          • Colin Rafferty

            Sorry, I was being ambiguous. You claimed that the Constitution originally had Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice, and then that was eliminated by the First Amendment. I am saying that Christianity was never ever the Constitution’s religion of choice.

            Here’s your sentence where you said exactly that: “Although the First Amendment does not allow for establishing one religion over another, by eliminating Christianity as the federal government’s religion of choice…”.

            So where exactly are Jews saying that they are to blame for partial-birth abortions?

          • Once again, you’ve failed to comprehend what I stated and thus misrepresented what I stated. I never said Christianity was the Constitution’s religion of choice at any time. It was NEVER the Constitution’s religion of choice. Precisely the opposite.

            The elimination of Christianity as its religion of choice does not imply it was previously their religion of choice (you’ve read that into my statement), just that they eliminated it for something else.

            Furthermore, I never said the Jews said they were responsible for partial-birth infanticide. I said that today’s partial-birth infanticide legislation is nearly word for word out of the Talmud, their religious book of faith.

          • Colin Rafferty

            I’m sorry if I misinterpreted you. Which particular legislation, and which particular chapters of the Talmud?

          • Apology accepted.

            “…As it is with most things, the Jewish Talmud teaches something quite
            different from the Bible concerning when life begins. Consider the
            following quotation from The Jewish Encyclopedia, which, in turn,
            references the Talmud:

            ‘If young, by which is meant a new-born infant, it must be proved that it was not of premature birth; if prematurely born, it must be at least thirty days old to be considered a human being (Sifra, l.c.; Niddah 44b; “Yad,” Rozeah, ii. 2). But the unborn child is considered as part of its mother (Sanh. 80b); killing it in its mother’s womb is therefore a finable offense only (Mek., Nez. 8; B. K. 42b).’ (“Homicide,” The Jewish Encyclopedia, (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Volume VI, p. 453)

            “Consider also the following statements found under the heading “Abortion” in the Encyclopaedia Judaica:

            ‘…The talmudic scholars … maintained that the word “harm” refers to the woman and not to the foetus…. In talmudic times, as in ancient halakhah, abortion was not considered a transgression unless the foetus was viable (ben keyama; Mekh., Mishpatim, 4 and see Sanh. 84b and Nid. 44b; see Rashi; ad loc.)…. In the view of R. [Rabbi] Ishmael, only a Gentile [non-Jew], to whom some of the basic transgressions applied with greater stringency, incurred the death penalty for causing the loss of the foetus (Sanh. 57b)…. Abortion is permitted if the foetus endangers the mother’s life. Thus, “if a woman travails to give birth (and it is feared she may die), one may sever the foetus from her womb and extract it, member by member, for her life takes precedence over his” (Oho. 7:6). …when the mother’s life
            is endangered, she herself may destroy the foetus – even if its greater
            part has emerged – “for even if in the eyes of others the law of a
            foetus is not as the law of a pursuer, the mother may yet regard the
            foetus as pursing her” (Meiri, ibid.). …the majority of the later
            [Jewish] authorities (aharonim) maintain that abortion should be
            permitted if it is necessary for the recuperation of the mother, even if
            there is no mortal danger attaching to the pregnancy and even if the
            mother’s illness has not been directly caused by the foetus (Maharit,
            Resp. no. 99)…. A similar view was adopted by Benzion Meir Hai Uziel,
            namely that abortion is … permitted “if intended to serve the mother’s
            needs … even if not vital;” and who accordingly decided that abortion
            was permissible to save the mother from the deafness which would result, according to medical opinion, from her continued pregnancy (Mishpetei Uziel, loc. cit.).’ (“Abortion,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Volume 2, pp. 98-100.)

            For more, see “Thou shalt not kill,” the sixth in a series of free online books on each of the Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments. Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and scroll down to title.

          • Colin Rafferty

            So which of “today’s partial-birth infanticide legislation is nearly word for word out of the Talmud”?

  • Parodyx

    “Vought again sought to emphasize that he is a Christian, and Christians believe that Christ is the only way to God.”

    At this point Sanders was getting understandably annoyed with a man who kept saying over and over that he was a Christian when it wasn’t being disputed or pertinent to the question being asked. Sanders was making the point that there are more than just Christians who should also be represented. I don’t see what Sanders said as an attack on Christianity.

    • Amos Moses

      to Sanders ….. it was his ONLY point ………..

      • Parodyx

        Sanders was trying to get the guy to quit talking about his religion, because it wasn’t relevant and he already stated it three times.

        • Amos Moses

          no …. Sanders is the one WHO BROUGHT IT UP …………. try listening to the video ……..

          • Parodyx

            It’s right in the story, he was asking Vought about Islamophobia and they guy wouldn’t shut up about being Christian.

          • Amos Moses

            no ….. he asked about a blog VOUGHT wrote AT A CHRISTIAN COLLEGE …. and Sanders knew FULL WELL THE CONTENT AND CONTEXT …………..

          • Parodyx

            “So, Amos, what do you want for dinner?”
            “I’m a Christian.”
            “That’s nice, Amos, tell me what you’d like for dinner.”
            “Well, I’m a Christian.”
            “I know you’re a Christian Amos, please tell me what I can prepare for you for dinner.”
            “I’m a Christian”

            See now why Sanders was maybe getting a bit testy?

          • Amos Moses

            yeah …. more straw men ….. burn baby burn ……… love that straw ………

          • Parodyx

            No straw. I did the same thing in my example as the guy on the bench…repeat something irrelevant over and over.

          • Amos Moses

            yawn ………

          • Freeordie

            Except Sanders was asking Vought about his religious beliefs.

            “I don’t know how many Muslims there are in America, I really don’t know,
            probably a couple million. Are you suggesting that all of those people
            stand condemned? What about Jews? Do they stand condemned too?” -SEN BERNIE SANDERS.

            This is a question about his religious beliefs not his actions, not anything else.

  • Roy

    It takes “guts” to stand for Jesus Christ and Vought is standing firm and God’s glory. Yes all are condemned if they reject the only Savior, Jesus Christ.
    He died —-that all may live!

  • Amos Moses

    It Is Perfectly OK For Public Servants To Be Christians, As Long As They Do Not Believe Christian Things
    June 9, 2017

  • Angry is not quite what I would call Sander’s response. I watched the video and I can certainly empathize with his clear agitation when Vault would not directly answer his question, but instead, continued to “witness” his faith three times (and a fourth upon answering again). I completely understand Sander’s frustration.

    Religious fundamentalism (not just Christian fundamentalism) is a right in this nation, but it becomes problematic when someone is a government official and views all who were not taught the same religion as he as less than equal and good citizens. This is the problem some Christian county clerks are having now with they either reject or berate (or both) same gender couples applying for a marriage licence. Religious judgments have no place in our secular government.

    And, before I’m attacked as hypocritical, NO, Sanders was not frustrated or angry about Christianity or the fact that Vault was a Christian. His religion had nothing to do with it.

    To Sanders, it is completely irrelevant what faith a nominee happens to have or even if he follows no faith at all. All Vault had to say was that he stands by his writings as his personal opinion, but that he would be fair and equal in all to all citizens in matters pertaining to his office. Sanders was making his decision based on how Vault might judge others, and he was right to vote “no.”

    • Amos Moses

      “And, before I’m attacked as hypocritical, NO, Sanders was not frustrated or angry about Christianity or the fact that Vault was a Christian. His religion had nothing to do with it.”

      then why did Sanders bring it up ……… nope ….. Sanders agenda was religious bigotry …..

      • Trilemma

        Yup, pretty obvious.

    • Sharon_at_home

      Great to see you Hobbesian World!
      Perhaps you could answer a question for me. Did they look at his past and find out if he had ever discriminated before – it would have to be an Obvious discrimination to be known I expect, but that is what I’d want to look at first and then ask pertinent questions rather than asking him to define it farther than that he would be just, as he sounded like a very faithful Christian by what he said.
      The thing is as well, when Christians take jobs in the government not all of them are discriminatory and only follow the rules of the office he represents. It is actually the Word of God that tells us to do what the local government says to do unless it is against God. Being discriminatory (at least the way I understand it) is making a judgement about a person based on the outside, and faithful Christians try not to make judgements about people when they follow God’s Word.
      I know the “Christians” that you might always see are not acting like Jesus as the Word tells us to.
      So tell me would they go over his background to know if he has shown a bad attitude before in his business or these days, their whole life from social media.

      Showing support for one’s Alma Mater is something most people will do I think, and he was supporting their school when he mentioned Muslims because it was about a specific incident and not anything he said could have had any effect on the situation. He was just saying what their belief is, which is his belief, but it has nothing to do with the “here and now” it is about after Judgement day. That does not imply that he would discriminate before that as far as his beliefs go.
      God bless! and it’s good to ‘see’ you again.

      • Hello Sharon. Great to chat with you again.

        Frankly, I’ve never thought about his religiosity. It is not important to me because I think that everyone should be treated equally no matter what they believe and I’ve found that Bernie believes the same. He believes that anyone in a government position must act as though she believes the same as well.

        As for his religion, I’ve never heard him mention it. Bernie is truly a person who does not judge people by their religion. That is as it must be for all public servants whatever their personal beliefs. Under our Constitution, every citizen must be treated the same in matters of religion and law. That is why the Statue of Justice wears a blindfold.

        Should Bernie have empathy for Muslims and speak favorably of most Muslims? Of course, especially for Muslim Americans. Does he mean it. Yes he does. Is it misconstrued by some folks, it certainly is.

        Now, when you read or hear something that Sanders said, such as the heading of this article, be sure to understand the context and circumstance that led to the statement and analyse how this article skews it. This headline would have you believe that Sanders became angry with Vault because of his belief in Christ. It is not true and the headline is misleading.

        To shift the meaning of something someone says is to engage in propaganda, which is misinformation and disinformation. This headline is misinformation designed to increase animosity against a person who doesn’t deserve it, but that is the author’s intent.

        The bottom line is that if a law in the U.S. is contrary to what one feels her god demands, that feeling or interpretation is entirely irrelevant to our political structure. I know that is hard to accept by many folks, but keep in mind that all these anti-sharia laws currently being pushed are completely useless and a waste of time (but of course, they get votes, which is what they are designed to do). Our constitution already forbids Muslim religious laws just as it forbids Christian religious laws.

        Concerning his honesty, I can say that, unlike most other candidates, he never swings like a weathervane with changing political winds or from audience to audience. Bernie’s main concern is the economy for the working class–especially those who are struggling. He’s given virtually the same economic message to the students at Liberty University as he had to all other audiences.

        And, according to an article in the NY Times (JASON HOROWITZ, MARCH 25, 2016:

        It is a political score Mr. Sanders has been singing for the last 40 years, and he does not seem ready to stop anytime soon. Regardless of the results on the scoreboard, the state on the map, the year or even the decade, Mr. Sanders has talked with clockwork consistency about an economy rigged against the working class, a campaign finance system that corrupts politicians and a corporate media that obscures the truth.

        Having done indepth reading and research on the past 5 decades of politics (mostly following the rise of the neoconservatives and the spread of their worldview throughout the Republican Party), I can say with certainty that Sanders is correct.

        The economy, especially since the introduction of neoconservative supply-side economics under the Reagan Administration, has been steadily redistributed from the working class to the already wealthy, and now, as Sanders has said truthfully, our economic system is rigged against the working class and that we need to “make basic changes in an economic and political system in which 1% of the population owns over 50% of the wealth.”

        The bottom line is that with economic justice (a living wage for the working poor and a rising income in parity with the wealthy) and full access to schools of higher learning, then all citizens will realize economic advantages that once belonged only to those of much higher incomes, the working class would have more money to spend, which will increasing demand, which, in turn, drives industry, which generates more wealth for all to benefit.

        Religion has nothing to do with this issue. Putting food on the table and being happy IS a need for the here and now.

        • Sharon_at_home

          I know that actually from when I read the article. I didn’t think it was about religion but I do want to know if they at least looked into the man’s behaviour in other settings. Whether he truly was being discriminating about the case of the Hijab, or just saying that it was inappropriate to wear it the Christian Alma Mater; He was answering the reason why the God of Christianity and the God of Islam is not the same God because they do not believe in Jesus Christ being the Son of God. It isn’t a discriminatory remark, it’s actually just a fact to my way of looking at it.

          What Bernie wanted was to have him spell out the reason he had said the remark on Social Media. He told them it was his Alma Mater and that it was a remark directed at the Woman because she was telling everyone that God is the same as Allah. (which the name does mean) but he rejected her statement that Islamic muslims would go to heaven because of their different view on Jesus.

          That should never have been addressed IMO because it was not demeaning to the Muslim directly but at the fact that what the woman said was incorrect, and he told why he did not believe Muslims would be saved by our God. It wasn’t really a personal opinion as much as what he saw as the reason for making the remark.

          Do they look at people in these positions background to find out if they had any incidents about discrimination and shouldn’t that make a difference?

          Blessings HobbesianWorld Keep on smiling!

    • Amos Moses

      It’s not Bernie Sanders’ Jewishness that matters. It’s his secularism …
      haaretz;com/opinion/.premium-1.701196Proxy
      10 Feb 2016 … But that’s largely beside the point. Sanders’ real cultural significance isn’t that he’s Jewish; it’s that he’s secular. Opinions about Jews no longer …

      change the ; to a .

    • Reason2012

      This is the problem some Christian county clerks are having now with they either reject or berate (or both) same gender couples applying for a marriage licence.

      Not the same – it’s avoiding being forced to partake in anti-Christian acts, huge difference. No law can be passed establishing a state religion that Christians must then sometimes discard their Christian beliefs by supporting anti-Christian acts or be fired / sued or worse.

      • Sorry, but that does not make sense to me. Are you saying that even though a county clerk (government agent) has pledged to treat all citizens according to the law, that if a clerk disagrees with a law that is against her religious beliefs, she does not have to obey it?

        If this is what you are saying, then you are 100% wrong. As a Christian, she may believe and practice her religion even to being boorish and rejecting any friendship with homosexuals. But under the law, which she has sworn to uphold, she MUST treat and serve all citizens equally.

        This would be equivalent to a public school science teacher disregarding the law and teaching creationism, but not evolution. Is that where you are?

        Do you really believe that we live in a Christian theocracy?

        • Reason2012

          It’s our country’s law that they have freedom of religion – that the government cannot force people to violate their religious beliefs.
          It’s also our law that the government cannot establish their own religion via laws, which is what they did by redefining the religious institution of marriage, something that existed long before any governments or laws did. They cannot redefine something they never defined to begin with – they only offer legal aspects of this after the fact.

          Yes, the government has pledged they must treat all citizens equally, which includes Christians they’re violating by trying to force them to support sinful ACTS.

          I’m sure they have plenty of employees that follow this State Religion – so they’ll have no problems supporting such acts.

          Do you really believe we live in a atheist theocracy that trumps Christianity and can force Christians to partake in anti-Christian acts lest they be fired, sued and/or charged with a crime?

          • It’s also our law that the government cannot establish their own religion via laws, which is what they did by redefining the religious institution of marriage,

            First, I’m sure you’ve heard of the phrase, “live and let live,” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”

            Sounds kind of trite, but it is in your Bible as well.

            Secondly, the Bill of Rights applies to all citizens of the U.S. and, arguably, anyone else in the U.S. or its territories.

            Thirdly, because the Bill of Rights, and the rest of the Constitution, constitute a secular document, there are no provisions for Christianity, or any other religion, therein. The purpose for this was clear. Most of the Founders did not want a repeat of the religious strife in this country as there was in the countries they left behind.

            Thus, the 1st Amendment placed every citizen’s views in matters of religion on level ground–all are equal under the law.

            I fully understand that your Bible, arguably, states it both ways (the OT has some of Yahweh’s faithful having more than one wife and the NT is (again debatably) logically ambiguous. Christians, today, believe it is defined as one and one.

            However, because of the 1st Amendment, what your Bible says (or what you believe it says) has absolutely nothing to do with our secular Constitution and government, and nor has any other religion.

            If Christians were to be allowed to micromanage the lives of other citizens who do not believe as they, then to be fair, the government must allow Muslims and all other religions to micromanage yours. This is where religious strife enters society.

            Would you allow a group of Muslim Americans refuse to obey laws that are against their religion and demand that Christians obey their religious laws? Remember, they, too, have equal standing under the Constitution.

            In other words:

            1. Marriage is not defined in the Constitution. The Constitution is a secular document that codifies the law of the land, and that law’s purpose is to treat all citizens equally (codified by the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause), and this applies especially in matters of religious belief.

            2. A marriage licence is issued by the government mainly for tax purposes, but for all the ancillary benefits of society as well, e.g., legal family status such as rights of ownership, hospital visitations and the right to inherit property after the death of a spouse.

            The marriage becomes religious whenever a religious couple wishes it to be in the house of worship of their choice (even a mosque).

            Therefore, no religion may define how the government handles secular marriages and no secular group may dictate how religious folks may or may not marry.

            So, to believe that a government law is anti-Christian, first decide if that law applies to ALL religions and non-religions. If it does not apply to all, then it is discriminatory. If it does, then you cannot call the law or its application, anti-Christian.

            And to ensure that all citizens have the same rights, then Christians must tolerate secular marriages and secularists must tolerate religious marriages. That is NOT the establishment of a religion.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage existed before any government ever did – so to claim America defined marriage is patently false.

            And secondly, we have a Constitution that protects religious beliefs so that the government can not override everyone else’s religious beliefs and force them to support ACTS that are contrary to their beliefs.

            So standing up to others forcing Christians to perform anti-Christian acts is not “micromanaging the lives of other citizens”. Quite the opposite. It’s making sure they do not micromanage all Christians’ lives.

            Try getting a muslim baker to bake a cake or make t-shirts for a “draw muhammad” contest, or a black baker to bake a cake or make t-shirts for a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering, and when they obviously do not, and it’s their right to deny that request, it becomes clear as it’s no different when they try to force Christian to support anti-Christian ACTS as well.

          • Marriage existed before any government ever did – so to claim America defined marriage is patently false.

            Your definition of marriage is a RELIGIOUS definition derived from the Bible. It is what YOU belive. It is not what everyone believes. The government must be fair to everyone, even atheists. We ALL pay our taxes to support this government so we should ALL be treated the same in the eyes of the law.

            Why can’t you understand that our government and institutions of religion are two, separate things?

            Is the government forcing you to do acts against your beliefs? Take a look at private businesses. Suppose you run a cash register in a drugstore and someone wants to check out and pay for some condoms. Suppose your religious belief is that people should not use condoms.

            But you’ve been hired to a store that sells condoms. You knew that going in. The owner insists that you must treat all customers as equals. Do you sell the condoms or do you quit? That is your choice.

            No government is forcing you to do anything against your religion unless that act harms or burdens someone else.

            If you are a government agent, they you took an OATH to treat all citizens equal under the law (that includes the attitude you display to them). Either honor your oath or quit. The government is NOT forcing you do approve a marriage license for a same gender marriage.

            How about in the case of public schools? If every government agent was allowed to follow his religious beliefs even in his official capacity, then, since many Christian teachers believe they should be allowed to proselytize to students–and were allowed to do so–how would you feel if a Muslim teacher in a public school started teaching kids Islam and leading Islamic prayers? In the next class room, a Christian is teaching Christianity and creationism and leading students in prayer.

            What would you think of the above? Are both cases equal? My guess is that the Muslim teacher would be thrown out on his ear and the Christian teacher would be praised.

  • Amos Moses

    Bernie Sanders Proposes Bill Forcing Christians Holding Public Office To Wear Scarlet Cross
    June 10, 2017

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—Bernie Sanders is doubling down on his condemnation of Christians holding public office as “hateful.” According to reports from within the U.S. Senate, the Senator from Vermont proposed a bill Friday that would force Christians holding any kind of public office to wear a visible scarlet cross on their clothing at all times, in order to clearly identify themselves as hateful bigots.

    Dubbed the Hateful Bigot Identification Act, the bill would require anyone believing in salvation through Christ alone to wear the cross, in order that co-workers and citizens could immediately identify and disregard the opinions of the disgusting, backwards, religious public servants.

    “We have to know who to take seriously, and who’s a dangerous threat to our society,” Sanders said as he introduced the bill on the Senate floor. “By separating Christians from the rest of us, we’ll have finally achieved the religious liberty and tolerance the founding fathers dreamed of.”

    Sanders also stated that other religious people, such as Muslims, would be excluded from the act. “We’re only worried about the Christian bigots here,” he said.

    The Senate is projected to vote on the bill next week.

  • poppyw

    Bernie Sanders should be censured for applying a religious test on this nominee. Only Christians are subjected to these kind of denigrating remarks. I’m watching you other Senators. If you don’t punish Sanders, you will be complicit, as well. “What a man sows, that, shall he also reap.”

  • Amos Moses

    Gays Against Sharia March Branded ‘Islamophobic’, Will Be Picketed by LGBT Activists

    WOW ….. Bernie …. YOU SHOULD be jumping on this ………………..

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.” John 6:44

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    Jesus said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    He also declared in John 3:18, “He that believeth on Him (the Son of God) is not condemned, but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    He is the subject of the prophets’ testimony: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, Jesus expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). “Written in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me” (Luke 24:44). “… we have found him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote … Jesus of Nazareth …” (John 1:45). “You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46). “To him all the prophets witness …” (Acts 10:43).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    He is the subject of the Holy Spirit’s testimony. “But when the helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me” (John 15:26). “He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and revealing it unto you” (John 16:14).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be witness to me” (Acts 1:8). “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him (Acts 8:35). “Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). “We preach Christ crucified” (I Cor. 1:23). “the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us” (2 Cor. 1:19). “For we did not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). “I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ ..” (Eph. 3:8).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you; and you shall be witness to me” (Acts 1:8). “And daily in the temple, and in every house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ” (Acts 5:42). “Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this scripture, preached Jesus to him (Acts 8:35). “Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). “We preach Christ crucified” (I Cor. 1:23). “the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us” (2 Cor. 1:19). “For we did not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). “I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ ..” (Eph. 3:8).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    1. CHRISTIANITY IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST

    Christianity is not a summary of good works which individuals, families, congregations and nations should perform. The emphasis of Biblical preaching is not love, social issues, miracles, holiness, soul-winning, decisions, revival, prophecy, gifts, but a living person, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. Other Biblical topics must take their place complementary to him. The centrality of Christ’s person and work is the unifying theme of the entire Scriptures.

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    He is the subject of the prophets’ testimony: “And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, Jesus expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). “Written in the law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning me” (Luke 24:44). “… we have found him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote … Jesus of Nazareth …” (John 1:45). “You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of me” (John 5:39). “For if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me” (John 5:46). “To him all the prophets witness …” (Acts 10:43).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    “But when the helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will testify of me” (John 15:26). “He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and revealing it unto you” (John 16:14).

  • Randolph Reynoldson

    “Someone has figured out a very simple but effective way of testing every minister. The false preacher is always reminding us of what we must do. His message is constantly focused on man and is ‘do-centred.’ The true preacher keeps reminding men of what the Lord Jesus Christ has done for us. His message is focused on the Saviour and is ‘done-centred’.”

  • Dianne

    Vought spoke the TRUTH according to God’s word. Sanders will be eternally condemned if he continues to reject that TRUTH.

  • dennis

    Thanks Bernie, good to hear the truth spoken in such a calm and measured manner..

  • portlandeastside

    And Matthew 12:30….You either accept Christ or reject Him…He did not leave another choice. Just as Mohammed left no other choice: there are 527 verses in the Quoran that give specific instructions/advice commanding abuse (or worse) towards Christians and Jews.

  • Mary Zika

    Wow, Sanders is persecuting this man as a Christian, however, he is rejecting G-d’s word. Sanders feels that this nominee is really not someone who this country is supposed to be about,” he said. Aren’t we not set up on Christian principles? Yes we are. However, the world is not run on Christian principle and rejects God. hmm food for thought.

  • Doug E

    If Sanders brought up Religion, other than a simple statement of faith,and then sought to destroy the candidate based entirely for his faith, the Senator attacked the man on not just Public, but Federal property,. for a posistion he is otherwise capable of fulfilling. That is called Religious Discrimination..

  • ISA41:10

    Liberalism is HATE!

  • veritas

    God is a righteous judge and if you are not covered by Jesus’ blood, our passover lamb, God will have to judge you guilty of sin, because we all sin. People have been deceived, but they also like darkness more than the light.
    Unbelievers will soon get so many prophecy fulfillments that many will become believers, but that time period will be the 7 year tribulation. You will soon find out Bernie and might even become a Believer yourself. Al-lah is not the same God as the God of the Old and New Testament. Mohammed had delusions and demonic encounters. He was a cult leader, he is the founder of a cult, like Scientology or the Mormons. There is only one Belief and that is Judeo-Messianic Belief, based on the Torah, the Prophets of the Old Testament and Yeshuah Meschiach.