Columnist Susan Estrich wondered in her Dec. 23 column who is someone like Phil Robertson to call homosexuality a sin? Maybe she doesn’t know the Bible well enough to know that her Phil Robertson quote comes from a quote from the Bible. So, to me, she just called the Bible “hate speech.”

She frames the debate over what constitutes sinful behavior as the tolerant versus the intolerant. She wrongly equates tolerance with acceptance and approval. She says that if you disapprove of someone’s sexual behavior on moral or religious grounds, you either hate them or fear them. She says that you must agree that all sexual behavior is morally acceptable or be branded an intolerant bigot.

Some self-appointed theologians even declare that it is unchristian to call homosexuality a sin. But this is not merely a “personal view” of Phil Robertson. This view is based on the clear teaching of the Old and New Testaments and reflects the teaching and practice of historic Christianity. This view is still the dominant view among practicing Christians worldwide.

Has the campaign for sexual tolerance become a campaign to bully ordinary Christians into recanting their beliefs and coercing them to endorse the left’s morality and beliefs?

The inclusiveness of Christianity is not that all sexual behavior is morally acceptable. It is that all of us are sinners, Jesus loves all of us and died for all of our sins, and all who repent of their sins and believe in him will be saved.

Pastor Scott Pearson

Cornerstone Baptist Church


(97) comments


You see no absurdity in "proving" the Bible is true by using a verse from the Bible?

Belief in God or in any religion is just that - belief.

Assuming that one's belief is fact has been the downside of religion over the eons.


Wheezy, not sure if this question was for me, but if it was, where did I attempt to "prove" that the Bible is true by using a verse from the Bible?


If only the religious amongst us would provide absolute proof without any reason to doubt, then they’d have valid arguments.

But, as it stands, their beliefs, is simply based on myth’s.

Their books of myths are just an ingenious accumulation of writings, assembled throughout the ages in books.

Rational thinking people see their religious beliefs and books of myths, as nothing more than mass mind control.

Just stop and think, what better way to control the masses?

No need to literally imprison them, especially when there’s a much more effective method that could be utilized, which causes them to feel good, and all while their minds are being imprisoned.

Simply convince the masses that if they’ll just continue rendering unto Caesar (wealthy elites) that they’ll be justly rewarded and given entrance into some fantasy world.

And, all while Caesar (wealthy elites) has been living and enjoying a real life fantasy world all through the ages, and continues to.

The one that they’ve promised the masses, but only if, they’ll wait, and continue rending unto Caesar.

Now, that’s what you call, the most ingenious con ever perpetrated against humankind, besides, what the Right pulled off, starting with the inception of the reagan!


"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mathew 28:19 KJB Yes there is a Trinity.

Depends on your faith.


Actually, it doesn't depend on your faith. There either is a Triune God or there isn't. You are conflating belief with truth. Truth is truth whether or not you believe it or even know it.

If you are of the Catholic faith, you believe in a triune God.

If you are of the Muslim or Jewish faith, you do not believe in a triune God.

You believe in a triune God. My friend Mohammed does not. Are you claiming that Mohammed's truth is not the truth, even though you don't believe it or know it? Quite the opposite, deedub. And not all Christians believe in a Triune God, either.

As our priest told us: "It is important to realize that none of us can have direct knowledge of God. His characteristics can only be described by analogy, and no analogy is perfect."

He also stated that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the God of Abraham.



You are still conflating beliefs with truth. Once again, there either is a Triune God or there is not. Could the Muslim be right and the Christian wrong? Certainly. Could the Christian be right and the Muslim wrong? Certainly. Can they both be right? Certainly not. Truth is always truth regardless of beliefs, no matter how sincere those beliefs may be. For example, It was once believed that the Sun was the center of the universe. Those that believed it were quite sincere, but the truth of the matter was that the sun was not the center of the universe.

As far as those that deny a Triune God and say they are Christian, I would disagree. This goes back to what I have been posting about when it comes to the teaching of the Apostles as the original deliverers of the Christian faith. What they taught defines the Christian faith. Believing anything else, while perfectly fine to do, is not Christianity. I have met many people that say they are Christian, yet deny that Jesus is God, that he died on the cross for their sins, that He was resurrected, that He is the one and only way for salvation in heaven, etc. I simply say to those people that they have a misunderstanding of what it means to be a Christian. Of course, that usually illicits a bunch of outrage and controversy, but there is nothing controversial about that. The counter-example that I use is that if a person identified themselves as an atheist, but then went on to say that Jesus was God, and that He was their personal Lord and Savior, I would say to that person that they misunderstand what it means to be an atheist. Nothing controversial about that either. Unfortunately in our world today, people think they can define a word to mean whatever they want it to mean, regardless of its historical or traditional definition, and then get upset when someone calls them on it.

No, deedub, I am not conflating anything.

You can feel free to disagree with those other religions. It does not make you right, nor will it make you welcome. Not everyone wants to duel with you, deedub. Everyone in this country is free to practice whatever religion they wish to.

They claim it's christianity. Ergo, it is. Move on, stop trying to engage me in conversation, and quit arguing. You will not convince me, nor those of the other faiths. We will not be able to make you comprehend their beliefs as well.

Good day.


and delusion is delusion no matter how much you try to dress it up as truth.


Well, excuse me, UT. Since you engaged me first in this conversation, I didn't realize that I wasn't supposed to engage back.

Last thing I am going to say to you here: I can claim a T-bone steak is a buttermilk pancake, but it doesn't make it one.

Odd, deedub, since the time posted for me was 8:05am , and the time you posted was 8:58 am, both on the fifth of January.

You can claim all christians believe in a triune God, however, it doesn't make you right. The fact you deny it after being presented with facts simply makes you not very truthful. In fact, there are a significant number of them in the Quad Cities, deedub. Try educating yourself. Mormons are the first example. Jehovah Witness the second, Christ Science, for starters. Even the Oneness Pentacostals don't believe in the Trinity. How many more would you like stated here? Scientology is yet another.

You made an erroneous statement below, I corrected it, you attacked, I now named them clearly. If you would research christianity and the trinity a bit more, you would find even more churches that don't believe in the trinity. I realize you consider yourselff a religious scholar, I'm just trying to explain to you and provide you with a list of Christian churches that don't believe in a trinity. You are conflating belief with truth. The truth is.....a very significant number of christians, don't believe in the trinity, and they know they are correct, just as you claim that you know there is a Triune God.

Your pancake isn't a t-bone, as you claim.... They are still delicious blueberry pancakes. Sorry. But I hope these facts help you on your spiritual journey.


Really GNC, are we going to do this? On January 4th at 9:06 PM, you replied to one of my posts, hence, you engaged me in this thread first. I didn't realize that I would not be allowed to post anything back to you after that. Look, I don't have anything against you, so please, please let go of your usual "you attacked" stuff. We are just two people having a discussion. Nothing more, nothing less. No attacks here. I thought we were past that stuff a long, long time ago.

To your points, Mormons are not Christians. Neither are Jehovah's Witness', Christ Scientist's or Oneness Pentecostals. Everyone of them has a different doctrine of Christ than what the Apostles taught. By definition, that means that they are practicing a different religion than Paul. Simon Peter, James, Matthew, John, etc taught. I mean no ill will in stating that. It is simply a true statement that they practice a different religion than what the Apostles taught and lived. It's not Christianity. It goes both ways too because I have actually had Mormon's and JW's sit down with me and try to tell me that I am wrong. It didn't bother me in the slightest.

As far as Scientologist's being Christian, WHAT?!? That is quite amusing since in L. Ron Hubbard's early writings, he claimed that Jesus wasn't actually real, but that the idea of Jesus was simply an electronic implant in our minds from a device called the "R6" device or some such thing. Yeah, I am going out on a limb here, but I am going to say that Scientology has nothing to do with Christianity.

Have a good night. It's sleep time.

GNC? I'm not a vitamin store.

I posted at 8:05. you engaged me at 8:55, I responded back at 9:06. Therefore, using common sense, you engaged me in the thread first, as you directly replied to me.

Not sure where you get your information regarding all of those other churches, but they all claim to be Christian. You don't. Who do I believe? Millions? or you.

Even in regards to Scientology, if you would take the time to research it, you would see that they consider themselves christian as well.

Here are the facts: you do not tell Mormons, JW's, CS, or pentacostals that they are not christian - because as my friends will tell you, and prove to you, they are. Feel free to go to the Hall of the local Jehovah WItness' or the local LDS temple, and tell them they aren't Christian. They will be more than happy to educate you - as will the Christ Scientists. Travel a bit, and so will the Oneness Pentacostals. I highly doubt a Scientologist, upon reading your comments, would even speak with you, as your motives are suspect. No religion likes to be trashed, which is what you are doing.

I'm not sure who or what you are, or why you think I'm a vitamin store.

I can tell you, that you aren't going to do this. Stop it, immediately.

You have a problem with religions claiming to be christian, and a non-member such as yourself calls them out, don't tell me, tell them, since you refuse to listen to fact. Apparently, you feel you are a religious scholar, and apparently, each of those churches feel otherwise. Real christians don't attack other christians, so cease and desist.

Since you call me GNC, shall I call you VitaminWorld, or do you prefer GreatestGrains or HeritageNaturalFoods?

I'm a christian, have attended both the LDS temple and Kingdom Hall in Davenport, and I can assure you that they are Christian, and like I said, they will be more than happy to explain this in terms you should be able to understand.

Good day.


That is great that you have attended the LDS Temple in Davenport. Perhaps the next time you are there, you can ask why the Morman church teaches that to get into Heaven one must believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. This is direct from Brigham Young:

"no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding-up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are -- I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent” (Brigham Young, October 9, 1859, Journal of Discourses 7:289)."

I am sorry, but that isn't even close to Christian doctrine. Anyone that must elevate their belief in Joseph Smith above their belief in Jesus Christ as it relates to their salvation is not a Christian.

As for JW's, they deny the deity of Jesus Christ, they deny the Resurrection, they deny salvation by grace, etc. These are all rejections of essential Christian doctrine. By definition, this makes their religion a non-Christian one as well.

Like I said before, you can call a T-bone steak a buttermilk pancake, but it doesn't make it so. With or without blueberries.

Vitaminboy, why would I ask a question I asked before? I don't argue with uneducated people such as yourself. If you don't believe that, fine. However, you are wrong, Same with the Jehovah Witness'.

If I were Jewish or Muslim, I would believe that Jesus is a prophet. Wouldn't make me wrong, either.

You continue to flame here. Apparently you aren't educated in christian doctrine. Catholics and protestants alike acknowledge that the LDS and other religions I mentioned are Christian. You are actually the only person I'm aware of that is that foolish. Your quote from Brigham Young does nothing to validate your claim - in fact, if anything, it validates me. The mansion where God and Christ indicate two persons, not a triune God. Big leap on your part, and completely wrong, according to ALL practicing LDS.

Apparently, in addition to you never speaking to actual LDS, and misinterpreting whatever article you "googled", you have done the same with the Jehovah Witness'. What you feel is the "definition", is YOUR definition, and that of whatever fundamentalist church you attend. It is not the teachings of mainstream, who embrace the sects I listed.

Ignorance of a subject on your part does not make it false. Your church not recognizing a religion as christian that others do doesn't make it non-christian, it makes your religion a bit suspect.

Enough with your faux examples. I'll take the word of educated religious scholars of the catholic church, members and pastors and leaders of the churches I mentioned prior, over someone that uses google as the source of their religious doctrine.

You are wrong. You have not ever spoken with members of ANY of these religions, or you wouldn't continue to make a fool of yourself.

Begone, find another article to flame....tell your lies elsewhere. You are a sad sort of person, that cannot admit when he/she makes a mistake, and it's sad you are too lazy to pick up the phone and talk to the appropriate religious leaders of the various organizations.

When you can name the religious leaders you've spoken with, and demonstrated that they have suddenly become non-christian after all the years they've been in existence, perhaps people will listen to you.

In fact, this is taken from the JW main website:

We come from hundreds of ethnic and language backgrounds, yet we are united by common goals. Above all, we want to honor Jehovah, the God of the Bible and the Creator of all things. We do our best to imitate Jesus Christ and are proud to be called Christians. Each of us regularly spends time helping people learn about the Bible and God’s Kingdom. Because we witness, or talk, about Jehovah God and his Kingdom, we are known as Jehovah’s Witnesses.

For your further education, Ms/Mr Deedub, perhaps this link will broaden your horizons and educate you a bit:

This link explains in simple words, for what reasons JW are Christian, and even explains in simple words your false Triune God requirement for being a Christian.

Here is a link to the main LDS, explaining why they as well are Christians. Instead of being a cafeteria christian, spreading lies about other religions, read up.

I'm sure you state that they still aren't, even though BOTH tell in . It will demonstrate to all of us exactly how unchristian you are if you do.

Here is a quote, that describes your comments perfectly:

The purpose of this article is to help you understand why some people make this accusation. Knowing that, perhaps you can be more comfortable and knowledgeable in dealing with such views when you hear them expressed. But remember that the spirit of contention is always un-Christian (see D&C 10:63). This article is meant to provide information and understanding rather than ammunition for disputes.

(D&C 10:63: 63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much acontention; yea, bSatan doth cstir up the hearts of the people to dcontention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do ewrest the scriptures and do not understand them.)

In fact, deedub, the LDS summed it up perfectly. In case you don't want to read the LDS article:

Under either of these two definitions, Latter-day Saints qualify as Christians. However, if a special definition is created under which Christian means “only those who believe as I do,” then others might claim Latter-day Saints aren’t Christians—but all this would really mean is that while Mormons believe in Christ, we don’t believe exactly as they do. Excluding us in this way by inventing a special definition for the word Christian is like defining a duck as an aquatic bird with a broad, flat bill, webbed feet, and white feathers, and then concluding that mallards aren’t ducks because their feathers are the wrong color.

Sounds like your own church is "quacked".


Or three gods...

God forbid you obey the laws of the land, which establishes a separation of church and state.

Marriage is a legal contract This contract is what Scott is attacking. A completely secular contract between two persons in no way affects Scott or any other Christian, or anyone of any religion or no religion at all.

The constitution guarantees a separation of church and state, due process and equal protection (and rights), under the first and fourteenth amendments.

Scott is free to rant and rave, however, the rest of us are free to ignore him, and pursue our "God Given" Equal Rights (not separate but equal). When Scott and his church call for discrimination against a group of people, it can many times be either a hate crime or a criminal act. You can hate the sin, you cannot violate federal law.


deedub, as I have said before, I am just fine with you believing what makes you happy. If you need to find a rational in the bible justifying the trinity, good for you.

I would think you would be aware of the fact there are several different "bibles". The Roman Catholic bible contains scriptures NOT found in the Protestant bible. Luther did not believe they were "inspired", so he took them out. Does he get to do that? The Puritans also added and took out books they liked or didn't like. Some of the oldest versions of the bible were Coptic. They contain different books as well. So, which one is the correct version? And those who follow the wrong version? What's up with that?


I am aware, I just didn't fully understand what you were trying to question. I'm still not fully certain, but I'll try and address what you have here, but please understand that the answers are not always easy and simple enough to fully flesh out here. I have read a couple of dozen books dealing with these questions and many others over the years, so although my answers will be short, and sometimes simple, in reality they are anything but. Kind of hard to condense volumes of biblical scholarship to a paragraph or so. If you are really interested, there are volumes of work to look at.

1) Yes the RC bible has the Apocryphal books, and Protestant bibles do not. Why? Simple answer: Apocryphal books were not written by any OT prophets in the Hebrew language and were not claimed to be inspired by the authors. For these reasons and others they were not recognized for inclusion in the Tanakh (or OT) by the jewish culture, and that is also why Luther did not want them to be included. As a result, Protestant bibles today use the Jewish Tanakh (OT) - which did not include the Apocryphal books. The Jewish people that actually lived under the Mosaic Covenant were who Luther looked to in how to regard the Apocrypha, and not the RCC of the 16th century. Interestingly enough, the RCC did not formally recognize the Apocryphal books as Canon until after Luther died in 1546 at the Council of Trent. Before that, they were included as supplemental, but non-canonical books in the RCC bible. Some believe that the only reason the RCC elevated those books to Canonical status was as a final poke at Luther in death.

2) The early Coptic bibles were translated from the Greek Septuagint, which also included the Apocryphal books. The Septuagint was a translation of the Hebrew bible into Greek. There was dispute during the translation and compiling of the Septuagint because of the inclusion of books that were not part of the Jewish canon, namely the aforementioned Apocryphal books. While the Coptic and other Eastern Orthodox churches chose to keep the Apocryphal books, it still doesn't mean that those books were ever part of Jewish Canon. Again, that is why Protestant bibles do not carry those books today.

I hope this answers your questions, and I do realize that I probably do a total injustice to the scholarship available on this topic, but this forum is what it is: limited in time and space. To answer your last question(s), I would say that just as we should look to Apostolic authority when it comes to the NT, we should look to Jewish authority and the Tanakh when it comes to the OT. That is why I don't view the Apocrypha as canon.


Yes, it is a complicated issue. So, basically we have a bible for 1500 hundred years, inspired by god. But the folks who put it together got it wrong. Luther decides it's wrong and takes out a bunch of books because HE decides they are not inspired by god. So, for 1500 years it was wrong. The Roman Catholic Church, who STILL use that bible, are/were wrong? Was Luther inspired by god to take Maccabees et al out? The Coptic's got it wrong too, huh? And the Greeks, and Russians? Thank goodness for the Protestants, who FINALLY got it right. So, what we have is a situation in which Christians, can not even agree on what the bible is, let alone how to interpret it. But we are to believe what it says, when we can not even agree on what it is?


I am not sure you read what I posted, since your response doesn't seem to follow with what I posted. For 1500 years, the RCC did not include the Apocryphal books as Canon. Luther didn't remove them from Canon. The addition of them as Canon was not done until after Luther's death. Luther was opposed to making them Canon for many reasons, not least of which is because not even the authors of those books ever claimed them to be inspired. If you have issues with the RCC bible — or even the Coptic bible — you should be asking why they included as Canon non-inspired books, not why Luther didn't want them included. For some reason, though, you seem to be hung up on Luther and Protestants. Is there a larger issue with Protestants at work here?


Could you point out where in the Old Testament, or the New Testament any writer makes a claim their writing is "inspired" by god? Thanks.



I could point to dozens of places where the OT and NT authors claimed inspiration, but even if I do so, you will just dismiss it as you have everything else I have posted, so I truly wonder why you even ask me this question.

To be perfectly frank, what confuses me the most about your position and others here, is this: I get that you don't believe what the bible teaches, but you go one step further and deny that the bible is actually teaching what it is teaching. Why is it so difficult to simply acknowledge that the bible has specific ideas and concepts that it teaches? I just don't understand that. For example, in regard to Mormonism, I have read the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. I make no attempt to deny what those books are actually trying to teach about God and Jesus, I simply believe that what they teach is wrong. There is a distinction there, that for some reason you do not make.


You are incorrect, I do not dismiss anything. You claim belief in the bible, which is fine. But you can't even say what the bible is. For you it is one thing, for RC it is another. So they, according to you, do not follow the bible, but an erroneous facsimile. According to you they are using the wrong one as the extra books are not "inspired". Does this belief in an erroneous bible have any consequences for them? You claim the Apocrypha isn't inspired, cause Luther said they weren't inspired. Who inspired Luther to make that change? Here you state there are dozens of places where the authors claim inspiration. OK, I believe you. But can you point out in every book where it's author claims Devine inspiration? No, you can not. So, they should be removed as well, right? There are also other writings from the era which claim Devine inspiration, shouldn't they be added?
Did Luther claim Devine inspiration, that he should remove 7 books, or did he make that decision based on other criteria, possibly having to do with subjects in those books which he did not agree with? And if he did claim Devine inspiration, why should we believe him? What I see, is convolution, distortions, gymnastics, and arbitrary decisions and choices so you can make YOUR beliefs work for you. Which is fine, for you. But to expect others to believe such convolutions is silly.


You say that you do not dismiss anything, and it was wrong of me to assume that, but I do have some doubt that you are fully reading what I post. I cover most if not all of your latest objections in earlier posts. To keep things all together, I will go through this again, point by point, and I may have some questions for you:

1) "But you can't even say what the bible is. For you it is one thing, for RC it is another. So they, according to you, do not follow the bible, but an erroneous facsimile. According to you they are using the wrong one as the extra books are not "inspired"". ----- This has nothing to do with what I say, but with what the Jewish people said over 2000 years ago. I am simply affirming the books that the Jewish people included in the Tanakh. The Apocrypha were never part of Jewish Canon, and still aren't. In the Jewish faith, Malachi is the last book of the Tanakh, and the last book to claim Divine inspiration. The Apocrypha were rejected by the Jewish people for inclusion in the Tanakh for many reasons, inspiration being one of them. Why the Apocrypha were added to the Greek translation of the Tanakh 800 years after Malachi, why the Coptic church made those books canon 1000 years after Malachi, and why the RCC decided to Canonize those books 2000 years after Malachi is the issue here, because the authority for the Tanakh goes to the Jewish people of 2000+ years ago. My question for you is this: Why should the Apocrypha be included in the Old Testament when the Jewish people clearly rejected them for inclusion over 2000 years ago?

2) "Does this belief in an erroneous bible have any consequences for them?" ----- Remember that biblically speaking, the New Covenant in Christ takes precedence over everything else, but if RC's follow something in the Apocrypha that prevents them from properly acting out their faith in Christ, I can certainly see that as a possibility, but that would be true for anyone, not just RC's. See Matthew 7:21-23.

3) "You claim the Apocrypha isn't inspired, cause Luther said they weren't inspired. Who inspired Luther to make that change?" --- I have not made the claim that the apocrypha aren't inspired because Luther said they weren't. Please go back and re-read my earlier posts. I posted that Luther didn't want them included for the same reasons I gave you in answer number one above. They were never a part of the Jewish Tanakh. When it comes to the OT, the Jewish people of 2000+ years ago are the authority. I am not sure how to explain that any better, and I am not sure why it is at all controversial that the Jewish people and the Jewish Tanakh should be the authoritative source for the OT books. As I posted a couple of times earlier, the real question is why the additional books of apocrypha were added much later on.

4) "Here you state there are dozens of places where the authors claim inspiration. OK, I believe you. But can you point out in every book where it's author claims Devine inspiration? No, you can not. So, they should be removed as well, right?" --- No, I don't think I can. Not that it isn't so. I simply do not know every word of the bible by heart, and I am not going try and skim through it all tonight to find a reference in each book. Maybe the quick and simple answer is this: Authority for determining what constitutes a book of the OT goes to the Jewish people. Authority for what constitutes the NT books goes to Apostolic authority. Both the OT and NT are considered holy scripture, and we have these two biblical teachings in regard to scripture (and) biblical prophecy: 2 Timothy 3:16 (All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness) and 2 Peter 1:20-21 (But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God).

5) "There are also other writings from the era which claim Devine inspiration, shouldn't they be added?" --- Which books are you referencing here?

6) "Did Luther claim Devine inspiration, that he should remove 7 books, or did he make that decision based on other criteria, possibly having to do with subjects in those books which he did not agree with? And if he did claim Devine inspiration, why should we believe him?" --- No, Luther did not claim Divine inspiration for wanting to remove 7 NT books. He was also wrong to remove them because he ignored the Apostolic Authority for the NT books. He no more gets to go against Apostolic authority in regard to the NT than anyone else does. Again, I ask, though, what's the whole hang up with Luther? Is there something more at play here?

7) "What I see, is convolution, distortions, gymnastics, and arbitrary decisions and choices so you can make YOUR beliefs work for you." --- First, it is not arbitrary to go back to the beginning of something to try and understand it correctly. Second, I whole heartedly agree that it seems convoluted, but that is what happens when people come along hundreds and in some cases thousands of years after something is handed down and then try to change it into a hundred different permutations. That is one reason that I was very much like you when I was younger, I didn't grow up in a Christian home, but about 15 or so years ago, I decided to start studying the history of Christianity and the bible. Why? As I posted earlier, I am a nerd. For me, once I realized that to truly understand these things, you have to go back to the original teaching and original authority, it became much more clear. Not crystal clear. Just more clear. Which led to my belief in Christ.

I believe you have left out the other 5-10 Catholic Churches (Ecumenical, Maronite, Evangelical, Universal, etc), as well as LDS, FLDS, and other nontraditional churches that don't fit into your version of Christianity. LDS/FLDS has the book of Mormon, additional prophets, saints and angels.

Since most of the Quran is a repetition of the OT, shouldn't you also take those passages remaining into account as well? Just curious.


Do you really want to go over each and every holy book in the world? I don't really think that you do. If that was the case, then you would undoubtedly have undertaken steps to investigate all of this for yourself. There are hundreds of available works that go into greater detail that I or anyone else could provide here. I have spent 15+ years reading and learning as much as I can about the history of Christianity and the Bible. One, because I want to know as much about the history of my faith as I can, and two, because I am a nerd. Just ask my wife.

Average Joe

The fact that your religion espouses bigoted and discriminatory views doesn't make them any less bigoted or discriminatory.

"The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and these are ignorance, superstition and incompetence." -Elbert Hubbard


But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. For it is written, "AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD." So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God. Romans 14:10-12


Sorry spirit, I fail to see how you derive the idea of a "trinity" from the versus you quote. They speak not a all of a triune god, they speak of separate, individual entities, father, son, and some sort of ghost. Taken at face value you could easily make the argument for three gods, but a trinity? Not so much.

Also, you fail to point out the correct bible. As I suppose you know there are several. None of which was composed until several hundred years AFTER the death of Jesus. That's longer than this country has been in existence! So, why do you believe in a trinity, when it is obviously an idea which early christians came up with to keep from believing in many "gods"? And just who decided what composes the bible? And which one is the correct one?


Jesus did say that he is the son of God, that's why some of the Jews wanted to stone him. There are three persons in the Godhead, Father, Son and Spirit (or Ghost) mentioned in the Bible, maybe you should try reading it sometime.


Jesus NEVER said the words "I am the son of god" Others said it of him, or implied it. He agreed, more or less, when it was said of him. But HE never said those words. I know quite a bit about the bible, unlike you, it seems. Yes, I understand what you want to convey about the trinity. But that isn't the question, is it? Where in the BIBLE is it mentioned? Hint. It isn't. The idea came way after, so the christians didn't have to believe in multiple gods. Nothing on the several different bibles? And which is the REAL one?


"Jesus NEVER said the words "I am the son of god"".

I get what you are trying to convey here, but it is quite a claim to state that Jesus NEVER said that. That assumes that every word ever uttered by Jesus is recorded in the New Testament, and I am sure you aren't trying to assert that.

That aside, as someone who knows quite a bit about the Bible, surely you are familiar with Jesus' declaration in John 8:58: "Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I Am". In the Jewish culture of 2000 years ago, Jesus claiming to be "I Am" would have been a flat declaration that he was God.


Yes of course I am familiar with the verse you site. I was, and am, only correcting what spirit wrote, "Jesus did say that he is the son of God". No, he did not. Such a statement would have been noted, would it not? What, you think the writers of the bible just forgot to write it down? As said before, you can believe what you want.


Ok, it seems like you are wanting to be extremely literal here, so let me ask you a question: Let's say my Dad is Tim Terwilliger (names have been changed to protect the innocent). If I refer to my father in a way that makes it clear who my father is without actually saying "I am the son of Tim Terwilliger", is that enough to satisfy your requirement that I am the son of Tim Terwilliger?


Yet he is the Son of god.


The "3 gods"- Father, Son and Holy Spirit mentioned in the Bible stories was a dilemma for the early Christian church, which was adamantly against polytheism.

The concept of a "three-in-one" Trinity was developed hundreds of years after the Bible writings to maintain the "one God" idea. It is not defined in the Bible.


First, let's understand that although the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, the concept of the Trinity in scripture is clear. In the same way, although the words "omnipotent" and "omniscient" are not in the Bible, the concept of God's omnipotence and omniscience are also quite clear in scripture. I assume no one is going to argue that the idea of God's omnipotence and omniscience are not Biblical.

Second, the idea of a Triune God was originally a dilemma for Jews who, as monotheists, first took issue with the idea of Jesus being God, and later with the idea of the Holy Spirit.

Third, the concept of the Trinity was not developed hundreds of years after the New Testament writings. It was there from the beginning according to scripture and Apostolic teaching, and was simply affirmed in a formal way at Nicea in response to Arianism. There is no doubt that there were some in the early days of Christianity that tried to deny the full divinity of Christ (and to lesser extent the Holy Spirit), but these were heresies that rose up in opposition to NT scripture and the teaching of the Apostles. Nicea and other Ecumenical councils affirmed the teaching of the Apostles. Nothing more, nothing less.

If one takes a whole view of scripture, it is evident that the Trinity is Biblical, and can be made in a simple 3 point argument:

1) Scripture teaches that there is only one God.
2) Scripture teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God.
3) Scripture teaches that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and co-eternal.

The argument above clearly outlines the concept of a Triune God, even without using the word "Trinity". To argue anything else, is to argue semantics.


Never the less, the bible takes precedence over "councils" or "creeds". And as I have said. It is NOT in the bible. So, the belief in the trinity is NOT biblical. But you sure can believe what you want to believe. And you do not address which bible is the correct one either.


You are mostly correct, but you can't get around the fact that #1and #2 are logically mutually exclusive, therefore the post-biblical "3 in one" explanation.



You are correct that the Bible takes precedence over councils and creeds in the sense that councils have to base their affirmations on what the bible teaches, and that creeds have to based on the teaching of the bible. I don't see anything controversial about that. The Apostles set in place from the very beginning of their ministry everything that has been affirmed in the various councils and creeds. Whether or not a person believes in God, Jesus, the bible, etc., it shouldn't be controversial to look to Apostolic authority over any other authority when attempting to understand Christian concepts as originally taught. Why would you think any different?

You keep asserting that belief in the trinity isn't biblical. I presented a logical 1,2,3 argument showing that it does. You have stated that you know quite a bit about the bible, so you undoubtedly know that the bible affirms the following:

Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and co-equal. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. There is only one God. If this is not a description of the Triune God, then I would like to get your take on what it could possibly be. What other description fits those concepts?

I see you keep asking this vague question about which bible to use. I am not sure what you are hung up on. If I choose to use any bible - in any language - they will all affirm the same things about God, creation, Jesus, sin, salvation, etc. Help me out here. I really don't know what you want answered.



There is no logical issue with #1 or #2. Let me see if I can use an analogy to help with that along the lines of mind, body and soul. This is somewhat based on the philosophy of mind/body dualism, but as a Christian who believes in everlasting life, I add a third aspect (soul) to the philosophy:

I am Deedub. There is only one Deedub, but within Deedub there are three distinct parts. There is the physical Deedub that exists as flesh and bone and blood here on earth in the realm of matter (or nature, if you will). There is also the immaterial Deedub that exists not in flesh, blood and bone, but in the realm of my mind (my consciousness). There is also the everlasting Deedub that exists as my soul, that is distinct from my body and my mind. These are the three separate, distinct parts that make up the one and only Deedub, yet they are also all contained in the one and only Deedub and always have been.


Oh boy, deedub, now you are writing your own bible? Your explanation of the trinity using yourself as an example as having several parts to yourself would be considered heresy, I bet you know that. Teaching on the trinity is very exact. Not three parts to one being. Three individual, separate persons. Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Not "parts of a whole". Complete and whole, separate and individual in and of themselves. At least get your examples correct.


Since I am not attempting to change biblical doctrine, nothing I posted is even remotely close to heresy. You may want to learn the meaning of heresy.

Yes, scripture is quite detailed in recording how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons. It is also quite detailed in recording that there is only one God. There is only one way to reconcile that, and that is to understand the ontological difference between a "person" and a "being". The philosophical details regarding ontology are too great to try and post here, so feel free to look into it yourself.

I really don't see how there is such an issue of one God existing in three persons (or states or forms, or whatever you want to call it). First, because an omnipotent God can exist in any way desired. That's what you get with omnipotence. Second, because it is a scientifically accepted fact that even in our material universe, bound by the physical laws of our universe, there is more than just one state of matter. Take something familiar to all: water. Water is always water. There is one and only one water. It is always H2O, but it can exist (most commonly) in three states: liquid, solid (ice) and steam. Those are just the 3 commonly occurring states of water. Scientific research indicates that there may be as many as 18 separate, distinct states of matter. Certainly if we can have the possibility of having as many as 18 different states of material existence for water - all while still being water - there can't be that much issue with the Trinity.


Looks like you have done your homework, I'm impressed! Well done!


I meant that as a compliment.


Do all the mental gymnastics that you want.
"One God equals three Gods" will never be logical or rational - it is a leap of faith.

And, back to the original subject, personal faith is what matters, not choosing a few selected prohibitions from hundreds in an ancient religious text to justify national laws in a country whose constitution forbids a state religion.


I'm not doing any mental gymnastics at all. I'm using sound, philosophical arguments. I'm not the one that came up with the idea of dualism. I am sorry if you don't approve of the use of philosophy. Your response brings to mind 3 quick questions:

Isn't the belief in God itself a leap of faith? Does that mean that belief in God will never be logical or rational? Does that make your beliefs illogical and irrational?

Not to be ungracious here, but you do know that most of the criminal laws in our country that have dealt with morality - from its inception to today - are selected prohibitions derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs. That is an entirely different thing than having a "state religion".



You attributed to me the attempt at mental gymnastics. Of course, you didn't actually address what I posted. You simply dismissed it. Dismissal isn't a rebuttal. All you did was make an assertion without an argument. If, as you say, personal faith is all that matters, why do you dismiss my personal faith without a reasoned argument?

Perhaps you could also explain why my use of an expanded dualism is faulty. Do you deny the possibility of the mind/body duality, and if so, why?


Yes. Belief in God is unquestionably a "leap of faith".
And our laws unquestionably came partly from traditions and religions and laws of other countries, but the Christian religion, especially this guy's extreme and self described version of it, is no more the law of this country than the country of England is.

Especially, as I said before, if you are going to pick and choose which of the biblical rules still apply.


I often see people post about this picking and choosing of biblical rules, and I have tried to offer explanations for many things here in the past, but that tends to be long and tiresome. The short explanation of things is that OT laws were in three forms: Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial. The Ceremonial and Judicial laws were intended for the Jewish people of the time who were living under the Mosaic Covenant. The Moral laws were intended for all people. Since I am a Gentile living under the New Covenant, I am not bound by the laws of the Mosaic Covenant that deal with Ceremonial and Judicial issues. I am still bound by the Moral laws, however.

Again, this topic is waaay too long to go into here, but there are a plethora of resources that deal with this subject. If you truly want explanations for this, you can find them.


Sorry, doesn't work. Jesus was adamant! "Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose." Matt 5:17 Fairly straight forward. He does not make any distinction between "Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial" laws. Yet YOU do. Again, as with the trinity, you are ascribing intentions and meaning where none exist, that have no biblical reference at all. Still waiting for the "real" bible info.


You have stated that you know quite a bit about the bible, yet you make a mistake here of context that is very basic. You conflate the "Law" with the individual laws contained therein. Think of the Law as the Old Covenant (OC), and Jesus as the New Covenant (NC). When Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law - capital "L" - but rather to fulfill it, he is speaking to a very specific thing. He is replacing the OC with the NC. Context is important. The Law was put in place as a covenant with the Israelites as a means to keep them separate from other cultures and nations of the time, as well as a means for the people of the nation of Israel to be justified in the eyes of God until the Messiah would come to fulfill the law. When Jesus says he is the fulfillment of the Law, he is saying that He is the final means if Justification in the eyes of God. He is the fulfillment of the promise of God to reconcile man with Him. Because Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law (OC), we are no longer under the OC, but under the NC. This is why all of the Ceremonial and Judicial (or Civil) laws that the nation of Israel was bound to obey are no longer in effect for those who have come under the NC. The moral laws, however were intended for all people. If you have any questions about how this fits into the NC, Paul writes extensively about this. I would highly recommend getting yourself some sort of reference material to help with understanding bible verses within the larger construct of the bible as a whole. You can find all kinds of information about this online if you actually want to learn about this.


Ten harms of SSM.
Short term.
1Taxpayers, consumers and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships.
2.School would teach unnatural relationships are identical to natural ones. Like what is happening in Mass. public schools.
3.Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. Bakers and photographers being sued for not catering to ssm.
Long term impact.
4.Fewer people would marry.
5.Fewer people would remain monogamous.
6/ Fewer people would remain married for a lifetime.
7.Fewer people would be raised by a married father and mother.
8. More children would grow up fatherless, ssm would create a "family" where children would be deliberately deprived of a father and in some cases a mother.
9.Birth rates would decline.
10 Demands for legalized polygamy would increase.

Source "The top ten harms of same-sex "marriage".
by Peter Sprigg


These are silly.


Yet true.

Not true, bordering on lies. Complete silliness. You are at the least uninformed.


UT, just because you don't agree does not make them lies.

1. They already subsidize heterosexual relationships. To not subsidize all marriages violates the US constitution, 14th amendment, for starters.
2. It's not unnatural (it happens in nature all the time, in fact). It was taught in the 70's and 80's when I was in public school. Gays exist. Why shouldn't people be taught that all men are created equal and have equal rights. Again. Constitutional right.
3. That's a lie. You are free to hate, and turn people away. Those cases have not been heard, or are on appeal. It all depends on if they are a private or public facility. Gosh durn constitution and nation of laws! You do not have to cater to ssm. That's you, spirit-warrior.
4. Odd, since that's a complete fabrication. No churches are forced to marry people, and less and less people were getting married before MA and VT allowed it. The number of marriages are actually on the increase, since 18 states now recognize SSM. You also forget that this is a legal marriage, not a church wedding. Many churches performed holy matrimony for SS partners prior to any state allowing SSM.
5. Provide facts here, since actual studies prove the opposite.
6. More straights (over 50 percent) get divorced than SSM (under one percent). Those statistics completely contradict your assumptions.
7. There are more single mothers than full families in many places. That started back in the 70's, more than 30 years prior to the first SSM.
8. Are you claiming that two women would not ever have any male figures around (hint - they both have fathers, uncles and/or brothers), and two men would never have female role models (they too have mothers, aunts, sisters, cousins etc). This has not only been shown to be false, it also has proven to be a "so what" issue. Two men or two women that are raising a child in a loving household are doing excellent jobs raising children. In fact, those kids come out with many advantages that parents of opposite sex marriages.
9. Birth rates have been falling for the last 20 years. Not true. It may actually raise the birth rate, since the children won't be stigmatized.
10. SSM is a constitutional issue. Polygamy is a whole separate issue. I guess I can point out the obvious - that if you continue to hold gays out as second class, we will once again start discrimination by race and religion. Somehow I don't thing you would like it if the state refused you the right to marry your wife because of your religion, or her race.


1.SSM is not real marriage.
2. yes acting unnaturally is well, not natural.
3.Actually there has been people who have at least been threatened with lawsuits for not catering to ssm and there was either a baker or photographer in I believe it is new Mexico that is facing litigation for his/ her refusal to cater to ssm. So it's not a lie.

4 through 10 are more like predictions at this point but there's no real reason to expect them not to happen eventually.
FYI, god is the one who created marriage one man/ one woman and that is the natural order of things, just like gravity, etc. and no man can change that.

1. Yes, it is. Both legally (US Constitution/State Constitution) and Religiously. Just because you don't believe it is real doesn't mean it's not. It is a real marriage legally in 18 states, with the numbers climbing monthly.
2. You don't determine what's natural. If it occurs in nature, it's natural. There are gay animals. You lose. Makes you well, unnatural.
3. It is a lie. As I stated, none of the lawsuits have been heard, and if any of them have been heard, the first appeals haven't been heard. So no, there have been no lawsuits that have worked their way through the entire legal are wrong, three out of three times.

10. Polygamy and SSM have nothing to do with one another. Polygamy is a heterosexual activity for now, predominately practiced by christians (FLDS and some LDS). That's a big failure on your part, condemning gays for your christian polygamist behavior.

God did not create marriage (as in a religious deity, specifically of the Abrahamic beliefs (Judaism, Christians, Muslims), nor Hindu, Shinto, etc. Marriage is a contract between two people. Not one man and one woman. In fact, thousands of years before the christian era, there were marriages performed between two men quite frequently. That's the natural order and the historic facts, in our recorded history (just like gravity), and you and your church cannot change those facts.

Zhou Dynasty (c. 1046–256 BC) China
Roman Empire (c. 27 BC–476 AD) Pythagoras and Nero, Emperor Elagabalus married his chariot driver Hierocles. Both Greeks and Romans celebrated for these royalty.

A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on 16 April 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova. That union was blessed by God, as it was the sacrement of Holy Matrimony, performed by a priest.

SSM is legal in many countries, and in fact, most of them are Christian, if not wholly Roman Catholic.

Those are the facts, available to anyone willing to do a modicum of research.


Interestingly, polygamy was the norm in the old testament. It was required in some cases. For example, if a man't brother died he was required to marry his brother's widow. It happened for lots of reasons. So, since it was encouraged in the bible, shouldn't we bring back the practice? After all, Jesus said he did not come to change the law.


Just because a man was to marry his brother's wife, doesn't mean that he was already married.
That's right, Jesus didn't change the law. "Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they two shall be one flesh?" Matthew 19:4-6 KJB

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Genesis 2:24 KJB.
Notice one man and one woman, not a multitude of wives. God may have allowed a man to have more than one wife, but it's not his will.


I think this applies to Gay marriage as well as religious beliefs:

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Gay marriage doesn't harm you in any way, it just doesn't. That why they failed to get a Stay in Utah because to get a Stay you have to prove harm will be done without it and they have never once proven that to be true in a court of law

I find it Ironic that these States by making Laws that were unconstitutional opened the door for Gays to get this before the Courts where they have won case after case after case .... If you dorks had left well enough alone they wouldn't have gotten the 'in' they needed to get it heard before the courts .....

The biggest favor the Religious Right ever did for the Gay Community was pass their unconstitutional "Defense of Marriage" laws .... And that just drips with Irony ... Especially to someone like me who warned you guys that this would end up being the ultimate result of those inane and unnecessary laws .... The UNANIMOUS Iowa Supreme Court decision should have been your first clue that these laws were undeniably unconstitutional which is what a UNANIMOUS decision implies


What was hateful?

How does it hurt you? You've ignored that question at least twice now. How does it hurt you?


UT you have ignored my question... What was hateful in the letter?

Yes, I ignored your question, and will continue to, until you answer the question that I and several others asked you. Everyone else asked you prior to you asking me.

You tell us how it hurts you, and I will tell you every hateful statement. It would do you wonders to actually meet the "pastor" in person. You would understand why he's referred to as hateful, disingenous and dishonest if you would do that.

I'm sure that's something else you are unwilling to do.


Folks who are saying this letter is "hateful" could you please reference the hate for me?


I wouldn't say hateful but parts seemed a bit dishonest to me ... for example

" She says that you must agree that all sexual behavior is morally acceptable or be branded an intolerant bigot."

Which she clearly didn't say .... he's putting words in her mouth at best or is telling a lie (AKA a Sin) at worst

Simple as that


People like you pastor make me proud to call myself an Atheist. If all you and your bible can preach is hate and contempt for American`s because of how they were born, I hope your religion burns in he\l.


You just might be better suited doing your preacher-mans job in Kansas with the WESTBORO freaks who derive great joy demeaning gay Americans while protesting at our troops funerals.


I'm so confused. Man is made in gods image. But homosexuals made in god's perfect image are bad an deserve damnation!!!

Think about it!!!!

Edgar Pearlstein

"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household" (Matt. 10:35-36).


Edgar in your opinion saying homosexuality is wrong and against God's will is what? Hate Speech? Personal Opinion? You see it didn't say anymore than you have any problem with studios blacklisting communists?


Have you considered, that the people who are closest to following the Bible are Muslim extremists? Also, God must love homosexuals since he made so many of them.


There is too much emphasis from hardcore Christians on homosexuality. Even if homosexuality is looked down upon biblically, it is mentioned only a handful of times. In contrast, ideals such as giving to the poor, equal opportunities for all, urging the affluent to not be prideful and to be generous, and being overall good people are fundamental principles in the Bible. As a Christian individual, I prefer to focus on loving others and not hating/directing anger towards those whom are different than myself. Because of this, I am perplexed when we, as Christians, are expected to be on the "right." This pastor refers to the "left" as if they are acting in a way contrary to Christianity, when in fact, the left represents the most significant beliefs, values, and principles exhibited biblically through Jesus himself. It seems to me that for the betterment of Christianity, pastors, parishioners, and believers alike must set their priorities straight and discern to understand the true message of God's word and His plan for us on Earth.


Actually the reality of the matter is, the homosexuality issues are simply wedge issues that the right exploits, in attempts at furthering their goal of keeping the country divided.


Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


Ever notice this is always ignored like none of it exists? No one dares debate it, they just pretend like it doesn't exist

It's amazing how compartmentalized some people's minds can be .... Just for reference

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance:
"When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance"


Yes, I have noticed this. But think about it... what CAN they say? I mean, really. They would either have to admit they do NOT follow the bible, or admit the bible is wrong. So? They ignore it.


Kinda like they ignore the 8 years of Bush/Cheney like it never even existed and basically for they exact same reasons as above .....

Or like they way they ignore the FACT that Bush Cheney lied to EVERYONE about Iraq ....

They are dishonest people because they can't even be honest with themselves and therefore cannot be honest with anyone else either ....

coffee cup
coffee cup


"Who Would Jesus Shun?"


Always interesting to hear "self appointed theologians" adamantly defend their unyielding interpretation of a couple of particular verses from rules written for an ancient civilization while ignoring the hundreds of others that anyone could "quote from the Bible".

I wonder if Pastor Pearson really follows all the "clear teaching" of the Bible, which also commands him to take a shovel with him into the woods when he needs to defecate, or to avoid sitting in any chair that a menstruating woman has sat in during the past week, or if he prohibits people "who have flat noses, or are blind or lame" from coming to his altar, or if he advises parents to stone their "stubborn" children - just a few of the numerous requirements if he is going to quote the entire Bible.

Most mainline protestant churches have figured out that the Bible was not dictated by God and cannot be taken absolutely literally. Even the Pope of the glacially changing Catholic Church is offering some signs of enlightenment, even if he hasn't changed any doctrine yet.

Pastor Pearson, along with the duck guy, seem to adhere to the theology of "The Bible says it, I Believe it, That Settles it!", which makes for a cute bumper sticker but fails under the slightest of scrutiny.


If you think the gay rights movement is about churches, your world is very small. I don't care whether any particular church says gay sex is okay. I care if you try to legislate it by treating homosexual relationships differently LEGALLY. A church should teach what its people think their particular god wants them to teach. People can be a part of that church or not. Churches, whether it's the Religious Right or the Taliban, simply should not be able to make their particular beliefs the law.


If you don't agree with the progressive's you will be scorned, impugned and destroyed, This Christian WILL NOT turn the other cheek any more. I have found out that these progressives are the most intolerant people I have ever dealt with and they are getting progressively worse. What they accuse us of doing they themselves are the worst. Mr Robertson was asked his religious views and he expressed them...............and if you like your Oamacare you can keep your Obamacare;PERIOD
I hope all you had a very Merry Christmas and Dominus Vobiscum!!!!


Keep up the good work pastor pearson.Jesus said we would be prosecuted for our believe's for he's not of this world.


Jesus said you'd be PROSECUTED? Actually Jesus never said you'd be PERSECUTED, and just who is persecuting you? Jesus said not a word about homosexuality. He did say a lot about loving your neighbor etc cetera... Rather than being persecuted, your hypocrisy is being pointed out to you.


Jesus is part of the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God used holy men to write down his words, the Bible. What did God say about unnatural lust in the Bible? "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one towards another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompence of their error which is meet." Romans 1:26 & 27. KJB. Unnatural behavior is a sin, may Lord came to save people from their sin. People can be forgiven and they can be freed from the bondage of sin (like sodomy), if they really want to.


Could you point to the place in the bible which mentions the trinity please? Also, where in the bible are we told which books should be in the bible? Also, which bible? Is the protestant bible the correct one? Or is it the Roman Catholic one? Or possibly the Coptic one? Or Greek? They can not ALL be correct can they?


Accepting that they were holy men for purposes of this discussion, they were still men. Man is fallible. Unless your contention is that God possessed them. However, the Bible taught me that God supports free will of man; it's the devil that is in the possession business. So maybe the Bible is just a collection of books, inspired by God but written through the lens and hands of fallible men. That would certainly explain the consistent positive themes amidst the contradictory specifics riddled throughout its pages.


Have you read Zealot: The Life And Times Of Jesus Of Nazareth? It is a fascinating look at the historical era of Jesus. Good read.


"All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him." Matthew 14:26 KJB

"But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, ..." John 14:26


I know that's the lesson I took from Jesus: reflect the intolerance of others after a certain point.


Painfully reflective of the masking we attempt to apply to issues that stem from the branching of light and dark.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.