Michael Coren: Ten Lies About Christianity

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Michael Coren, a television host, radio personality, syndicated columnist, author, and speaker. His TV show The Arena airs on Sun News Network in Canada. He is the author of Why Catholics Are Right, which was on the Canadian best-seller list for three months. His new book is Heresy: Ten Lies They Spread About Christianity.

FP: Michael Coren, welcome to Frontpage Interview. Let’s begin with you telling us why you wrote this book.

Coren: The most direct and practical answer is that the publisher, Random House, asked me to do so. The last one, defending Catholicism, had sold more than 50,000 copies, and so a large, secular publishing house had realized what a hunger there was out there for books explaining the Christian position to a mass audience. I wanted to go beyond the Catholic Church, to the attacks on universal Christianity and Christians. There are lots of books about prayer for example – perhaps too many! – but very few that respond to all of the most common attacks on the Christianity. I always take an eclectic approach. So as well as history and theology, I cover science and abortion, the Da Vinci Code and biographies of great Christian writers, and so on. It’s supposed to be a handbook of Christian self-defense if you like.

FP: Share with us why and how Christians and Christianity are under attack in our culture. What are some of the lies and myths about Christianity and Christians?

Coren: The book takes on the most common and toxic of the attacks on Christianity: Jesus didn’t exist, Christians oppose progress, are scared of science, they’re obsessed with abortion, they’re racist and supported slavery, Hitler was a Christian, and so on.

Continue reading at frontpagemag.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

"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."

Excerpted from "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
- Vladimir
  
  So what's your point? What do you want to happen? Do you want the U.S. Constitution thrown out? Do you just want to criticize it? If so, why?
  
  There is a procedure for amended it. Are you trying to drum up support for an amendment? Just what are you advocating?
  - ORB
    
    His point is obvious to those who are willing to see!
    
    I suspect but have no way to prove it that the framers of the Constitution were thinking only of the different Christian denominations when they wrote the Constitution and approved the 1st Amendment. They were unable to look 200 years in the future and see the influx of Mohammedans, Buddhists, etc.: therefore we have a problem that was not foreseen.
    
    Sadly the Federal courts have an obvious bias toward Jesus Christ and His Church!
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
      
      Orb, actually if you read the Chapter cited above, you will see that the framers were NOT thinking of only the Christian denominations, based upon prime source quotations and documentation (provided). In fact, whereas Buddhists, were not cited, there many in the Sate ratifying conventions who objected to Amendment 1 because it would open civil leadership to Mohammedans, among others.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      George Washington
      (1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)
      
      The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong…." He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, "a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118. According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite–Francis Adrian Van der Kemp–were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Thomas Jefferson
        (1743-1826; author, Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom; 3rd U.S. President, 1801-1809)
        
        … And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. … error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. … I deem the essential principles of our government . ..[:] Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; … freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected. (Thomas Jefferson, "First Inaugural Address," March 4, 1801. From Mortimer Adler, ed., The Annals of America: 1797-1820, Domestic Expansion and Foreign Entanglements, Vol. 4; Chicago: Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1968, pp. 144-145.
- http://www.OnlyWay.com David McElroy
  
  Good point, Ted! Pagans are being given the upper hand while Christianity is denigrated and expelled from public view.
  We do not even have equal rights with those of non-biblical faiths. Christianity is on the verge of being illegal! We must secede to succeed. I will have no king but Jesus!
- martin
  
  total nonsense!! FOUNDING FATHERS said, "OTHER RELIGIONS ARE FALSE" and never intended to place a pagan man made religion to replace "CHRISTIANITY" what deception!!!
  - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
    
    Provide your evidence and documentation.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Martin, whether one said it or not, not ALL of them said it or believed it.
- keyboardshark
  
  "True or False: The Founding Fathers of The United States were Christians who formed a government based on godly principles.
  
  That's a more complex answer. The "revisionist left" would like to make them secular and the "religious right" would like to make them saintly. Let's take a look at some of the more prominent Founding Father's beliefs . . . in their own words.
  
  John Adams
  
  The second President (or tenth if you consider John Hanson the first) wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:
  
  The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
  
  However, Adams is often quoted as saying, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" However, here's the complete quotation in an April 19, 1817, letter to Thomas Jefferson:
  
  Twenty times in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion at all!!!" But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell.
  
  As a Unitarian, Adams flatly denied the doctrine of eternal punishment believing all would eventually enter heaven. (Many Unitarians reject the Trinity and most accept all religions as valid expressions of faith.) But being a good Unitarian, he was certainly open to the teachings of Christ
  
  Jesus is benevolence personified, an example for all men. . . . The Christian religion, in its primitive purity and simplicity, I have entertained for more than sixty years. It is the religion of reason, equity, and love; it is the religion of the head and the heart (Letter to F.A. Van Der Kemp, December 27, 1816).
  
  During Adam's administration the Senate ratified the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion." Some view this as "a smoking gun" that America was not founded as a Christian nation, while others argue that it was simply a concession to the Muslim nation (when the treaty was renegotiated eight years later, Article XI was dropped).
  
  Samuel Adams
  
  Samuel Adams organized the Boston Tea Party, and served as Governor of Massachusetts, a delegate to the Continental congress, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence.
  
  In his 1772 work, The Rights of the Colonists, Adams wrote:
  
  II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
  
  The right to freedom being the gift of the Almighty…The rights of the colonists as Christians…may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.
  
  In his Last Will and Testament he wrote:
  
  Principally, and first of all, I resign my soul to the Almighty Being who gave it, and my body I commit to the dust, relying on the merits of Jesus Christ for the pardon of my sins."
  
  TO READ THE REST: http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
  - keyboardshark
    
    To Summarize:
    
    "So, were the Founding Fathers Christians?
    
    They were certainly godly men who believed in a supreme being, but not everyone would subscribe to the Apostles' Creed.
    
    Three things do seem clear to me:
    
    First, we must always check our sources before making any claim•or passing one on.
    
    Both revisionists and the religious right have tried to make the Founding Fathers fit their ideology. It gives neither side of the debate any credibility when quotations are found to be fictitious or grossly out of context.
    
    For instance, I've seen articles proclaiming that Jefferson claimed to be "a real Christian" while conveniently avoiding his opinion that belief in Christ's divinity was "dung" (see contexts above).
    
    Second, we must be careful with labels, especially "Christian."
    
    One author claims that 51 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence held a "Christian worldview." He doesn't go on, however, to define what he means by Christian worldview. Would Jefferson and Franklin, who admired Christ's teachings, be included in the 51?
    
    And third, we should be grateful that the Founding Fathers•whatever they believed•were so intent on making religious liberty a right for those of us who do subscribe to the Apostles' Creed and those who don't.
    
    Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
    
    James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785."
    
    © 2003 James Watkins http://www.jameswatkins.com/foundingfathers.htm
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
      
      "Recognizing the Bible and Christianity’s influence upon society is not the same as legislating and adjudicating according to Yahweh’s law. One only needs to look at the record to know there has been a dearth of the latter since the Constitution’s ratification. In order to conclude the Constitution is a Christian document, today’s Christian Constitutionalists have severed the framers’ words from their actions. To date, the battle between Christians and secularists over the Constitution has been a war of quotations – and there are plenty to go around for both sides, often from the same framers. Take James Madison for example:
      
      'Educated by Presbyterian clergymen, Madison, as a student at Princeton (1769-1772), seems to have developed a “transient inclination” to enter the ministry. In a 1773 letter to a college friend he made the zealous proposal that the rising stars of his generation renounce their secular prospects and “publicly … declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects and began the study of law. The next year he entered the political arena, serving as a member of the Orange County Committee of Safety. Public service seems to have crowded out of his consciousness the previous imprints of faith. For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern a practicing Christian. Late in retirement there are a few enigmatic references to religion, but nothing else….
      
      'Scholars, nevertheless, have tried to construct from this unyielding evidence a religious identity for Madison. He is such a commanding figure in the founding period’s controversies over religion’s relation to government that a knowledge of his personal religious convictions is sought as a key to his public posture on church-state issues. The very paucity of evidence has permitted a latitude of interpretation in which writers have created Madison in the image of their own religious convictions. To Christian scholars Madison is a paragon of piety; to those of a more secular bent he is a deist.47
      
      "The only means of determining whether the framers were Christians is to compare their actions to the Word of God:
      
      ' 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 [anomian – lawlessness].' (Matthew 7:21-23)…."
      
      Excerpted from "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YAHWEH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
      - keyboardshark
        
        If we dissect the lives of each founding father, we are sure to find some statements or actions that do not appear to line up with God's Word. In fact, if I dissect my own life, and honestly look at all my actions and statements from the past, I can guarantee that I will find more than a few that were contrary to God's Law.
        
        So does that mean that neither I nor the founders were Christian? If the standard is perfection, we would have to say yes. But that is not how it works, We are all sinners, including Christians, but a Christian's sins have been covered by the blood of Christ. While a true, born-again Christian will always strive to eliminate as much sinful activity from their lives as possible, they will never even come close to God's standard–perfection.
        
        We cannot know the heart of another man, so we cannot determine whether indeed they have been born again. If they are living in profligate sin, then it would be strong evidence that they had not been born again, but beyond that, we have to leave it with the Lord.
- bighoss
  
  You posted that comment about the statue of Themis in the discussion following the online item above. A relevant reply to your post was as follows:
  
  "The good news is that whatever is forbidden with regard to the expression of the Christian religion is also forbidden to other religions. The statue of Themis is what First Amendment jurisprudence would characterize as a non-religious expression employing a figure that has a religious origin, but which is no longer seen as religious."
  
  I concur, since I find no evidence anywhere that there is any cult of Themis operating anywhere on this planet, whereas there are multiplied millions who continue to subscribe to the 10 Commandments, which are associated with current Judeo-Christian beliefs.
  
  The dog you sent out on this one just won't hunt, Ted.
- myth buster
  
  I'm still waiting for you to obey the Biblical command to submit yourself to the authority of your bishop. I refuse to accept that any ecclesiastical court that does not consist of either bishops or judges appointed by bishops is legitimate.
WillytheGeek

The same thing happened to the JEWS when God told them not to have any other gods before him. The USA has done the same thing SOLOMON did. Now there is going to be hell to pay. GET OVER IT!
- eVERMYRTLE
  
  This is the first time that any Religion has so determinedly been set against. And mostly by outsiders, people who are not even citizens. These outsiders are even suing us when they are displeased with what we do. The only thing that even comes close was the hate directed against the black people
  
  All I ask is: if any other religion or belief will leave me alone with my religion, I will honor them the same way. But that is not their aim, they want ti force us to accept their religion. IT WON'TWORK!!
msjallen

Our country was never set up as a Theocracy but as a Republic. Apart from the best form of government; Theocracy, a Republic is the next best. The foundation of the Jewish Nation began through regeneration and eventually became naturalized (must have the lines of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – The Patriarchs). Since the Jews were a spiritual Nation founded on regeneration it was necessary to have something comparable known as “The Church” after Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. A spiritual nation made up of ALL believers in the world; The Church Age. Our country was not founded on regeneration but a secular society where we are free to worship God as individuals. God does not deal with us as a nation compared to the way He dealt with Israel during the Age of Israel. I believe that God works with each “age or era” differently and since we are in the Church Age there is not a Nation that is a Theocracy ruled by God. God works with individual believers in this Age to bring each of us to spiritual maturity and the more spiritual mature believers there are in this country the more our country will be blessed by God.
- Deep_Thinker
  
  Theocracy is the best form? HAHAHA. Here comes the thought police. I guess homosexuals and paganists should be put to death.. There goes freedom of religion.
  
  Dispensationalism at its finest!
  - msjallen
    
    When Jesus Christ reigns on the earth a thousand years it will be a Theocracy. The Nation of Israel was a Theocracy. Dispensationalism is the best way to understand how God works with believers throughout the ages.
    Romans 16:25 1 Corinthians 2:6 1 Corinthians 2:8 1 Corinthians 3:18 Ephesians 1:21 Colossians 1:26 Titus 2:12 Hebrews 6:5
    Romans 11:25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery–so that you will not be wise in your own estimation–that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
    Titus 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
    Hebrews 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
  - Vladimir
    
    Dear Deep_Thinker,
    What is dispensationalism and why do you think it is bad?
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      GOOGLE – try it out.
      - Vladimir
        
        I did. I won't ask you without my little buddy, Google. Still don't know what problem you have with it. I'm after knowledge. Not interested in arguing.
    - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
      
      "Dispensationalism: A Fundamentally Flawed System" —> http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/klettdispie.htm…
      
      "Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence)" —> http://bit.ly/JTbnDM
      
      "What is Dispensationalism?" —> http://www.inchristalone.org/WhatDispensation.htm
      
      "A Biblical Refutation of Dispensationalism (1 of 2) The Application of the Scriptures" AUDIO —> http://bit.ly/IJuAST
      - Vladimir
        
        Oh, my!
      - msjallen
        
        If believers understood Dispensationalism they would understand how God works with all believers through the different ages.
        Age of the Gentiles — from Adam to Abraham
        Age of Israel – from Abraham to the birth of Jesus Christ
        Hypostatic Union — from the birth of Christ until the Day of Pentecost
        Church Age — from the Day of Pentecost until the Rapture — the Church Age interrupts the Age of Israel and the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is given to the Church Age believers.
        Tribulation – from the Rapture until the Millennium – This goes back to Daniel's 70th week and ends of the Age of Israel.
        Millennium — from the end of the Tribulation until the end of time – This is when Israel will be the center of the nations of the world with Jesus Christ reigning on the Throne of David.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        Dispensationalism embodies far more than men made artificial divisions of God's mandates and grace i.e. "dispensations". You are either unaware of that or intentionally obfuscate that. I think it is the latter.
        
        1. Dispensationalism tends to a Kierkegaardian conception of faith.
        2. Dispensationalism is destructive to ability to grasp the unity and significance of the biblical story.
        3. Dispensationalism taints mindset with leanings towards Arminianism.
        4. Dispensationalism embraces a horrendously insufficient view of the new covenant in Christ's blood and undermines the atonement of Christ as evidenced in your views.
        5. Dispensationalism embraces what must be considered a blasphemous idea of a return to a system of priests and sacrifices of bulls and goats.
        6. Dispensationalism, in destroying the unity of God's redemptive purpose in the Church, minimizes the singular, all-encompassing headship of Christ.
        7. Dispensationalism tends toward a real ethnocentrism as regards Israel (which springs from a veiled materialism).
        8. Dispensationalism tends to downplay the Christocentric nature of all reality.
        
        Source: http://bit.ly/JTbnDM
      - msjallen
        
        There are many interpretations of history from different aspects: military, political, etc. However, the best is from the Bible – especially Dispensations. It is the most accurate interpretation of history.
        Eph 3:9 and to make known (teach) to all church age believers what is the dispensation of the mystery which has been hidden from the ages (OT) in the God (Lord Jesus Christ) who created all things;
        Titus 2:12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age,
        Hebrews 6:5 and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM
        
        1. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ claim that their system is the result of a “plain interpretation” (Charles Ryrie) of Scripture, it is a relatively new innovation in Church history, having emerged only around 1830, and was wholly unknown to Christian scholars for the first eighteen hundred years of the Christian era.
        
        2. Contrary to the dispensationalist theologians’ frequent claim that “premillennialism is the historic faith of the Church” (Charles Ryrie), the early premillennialist Justin Martyr states that “many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise.” Premillennialist Irenaeus agreed. A primitive form of each of today’s three main eschatological views existed from the Second Century onward. (See premillennialist admissions by D. H. Kromminga, Millennium in the Church and Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology).
        
        3. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ attempt to link its history to that of early premillennial Church Fathers, those ancient premillennialists held positions that are fundamentally out of accord with the very foundational principles of dispensationalism, foundations which Ryrie calls “the linchpin of dispensationalism”, such as (1) a distinction between the Church and Israel (i.e., the Church is true Israel, “the true Israelitic race” (Justin Martyr) and (2) that “Judaism … has now come to an end” (Justin Martyr).
        
        4. Despite dispensationalism’s claim of antiquity through its association with historic premillennialism, it radically breaks with historic premillennialism by promoting a millennium that is fundamentally Judaic rather than Christian.
        
        5. Contrary to many dispensationalists’ assertion that modern-day Jews are faithful to the Old Testament and worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Hagee), the New Testament teaches that there is no such thing as “orthodox Judaism.” Any modern-day Jew who claims to believe the Old Testament and yet rejects Christ Jesus as Lord and God rejects the Old Testament also.
        
        6. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ assertion that the early Church was premillennial in its eschatology, “none of the major creeds of the church include premillennialism in their statements” (R.P. Lightner), even though the millennium is supposedly God’s plan for Israel and the very goal of history, which we should expect would make its way into our creeds.
        
        7. Despite the dispensationalists’ general orthodoxy, the historic ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church affirm eschatological events that are contrary to fundamental tenets of premillennialism, such as: (1) only one return of Christ, rather than dispensationalism’s two returns, separating the “rapture” and “second coming” by seven years; (2) a single, general resurrection of all the dead, both saved and lost; and (3) a general judgment of all men rather than two distinct judgments separated by one thousand years.
        
        8. Despite the dispensationalists’ general unconcern regarding the ecumenical Church creeds, we must understand that God gave the Bible to the Church, not to individuals, because “the church of the living God” is “the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
        
        9. Despite the dispensationalists’ proclamation that they have a high view of God’s Word in their “coherent and consistent interpretation” (John Walvoord), in fact they have fragmented the Bible into numerous dispensational parts with two redemptive programs—one for Israel and one for the Church—and have doubled new covenants, returns of Christ, physical resurrections, and final judgments, thereby destroying the unity and coherence of Scripture.
        
        85 more substantiated points against false teachings of Dispensationalism here: http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/
      - myth buster
        
        Do you even read what you are posting? The quotes you lifted rebuke you as much as Dispensationalists. If the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and Church Fathers sound in their teaching, why do you deny that the Anointing of the Sick effects the forgiveness of sins (James 5:14-15)? And why do you reject Apostolic Succession, following so-called pastors who are neither bishops nor presbyters because they have not received the Laying of Hands from a bishop? Indeed, they are not even deacons, for deacons, too, must be ordained through the Laying of Hands.
        
        Concerning the creeds, the Nicene Creed here cited as authoritative confesses "One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins," and if Baptism effects the forgiveness of sins, then it is not by faith alone. Nor can you conclude that the Creed was wrong, for Scripture, too, professes that Baptism saves (1 Peter 3:21).
      - msjallen
        
        Paul taught dispensations. Ephesians 3:2 …if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of God’s grace which was given to me for you… (1st class condition) This means that Paul has himself taught the dispensations. Dispensations are periods of human history (categories) expressed in terms of Divine Revelation or viewpoint. God administers the human race. The human race is an estate. God administers that estate in a certain way. God’s administration means delegation of authority in each Dispensation. God appoints the administrator (believers). [Rom 3:1-2; Acts 15:14] Administrators may fail or succeed; regardless of which, God’s plan moves on. Esther 1:2, 2:8 “And it came to pass”, indicates God’s plan is always carried out. There is only one administrator for each Dispensation: 1 Sam 12:22 For the LORD will not abandon His people on account of His great name, because the LORD has been pleased to make you a people for Himself. Every Dispensation involves revelation which was not given in the previous Dispensation, as well as a recognition of that which was.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM
        
        10. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing each of the self-contained, distinct dispensations, the Bible presents an organic unfolding of history as the Bible traces out the flow of redemptive history, so that the New Testament speaks of “the covenants [plural] of the [singular] promise” (Eph 2:12) and uses metaphors that require the unity of redemptive history; accordingly, the New Testament people of God are one olive tree rooted in the Old Testament (Rom 11:17-24).
        
        11. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of redemptive history into several dispensations, the Bible establishes the basic divisions of redemptive history into the old covenant, and the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15), even declaring that the “new covenant … has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete is ready to disappear” (Heb 8:13).
        
        12. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ frequent citation of the King James Version translation of 2 Tim 2:15, “rightly dividing” the truth, as evidence for the need to divide the biblical record into discrete dispensations, all modern versions of Scripture and non-dispensational commentators translate this verse without any allusion to “dividing” Scripture into discrete historical divisions at all, but rather show that it means to “handle accurately” (NASB) or “correctly handle” (NIV) the word of God.
        
        13. Because the dispensational structuring of history was unknown to the Church prior to 1830, the dispensationalists’ claim to be “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” by structuring history that way implies that no one until then had “rightly divided” God’s word.
        
        14. Dispensationalism’s argument that “the understanding of God’s differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies” (Charles Ryrie) is an example of the circular fallacy in logic: for it requires understanding the distinctive character of a dispensation before one can understand the revelation in that dispensation, though one cannot know what that dispensation is without first understanding the unique nature of the revelation that gives that dispensation its distinctive character.
        
        15. Despite the dispensationalists’ popular presentation of seven distinct dispensations as necessary for properly understanding Scripture, scholars within dispensationalism admit that “one could have four, five, seven, or eight dispensations and be a consistent dispensationalist” (Charles Ryrie) so that the proper structuring of the dispensations is inconsequential.
        http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/
      - msjallen
        
        Continued…
        Means accumulative. Promises found in any Dispensation that are grace promises are always applicable to any believer in any dispensation. (Isa 41:10) The ultimate in Dispensations is the application of Doctrine to experience, so that at all times your life is personally oriented to life. If you understand the chronology of times you don’t confuse “Law” with “Grace”, you are trying to make the “Church Age” world a “millennial” world and so on.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        95 THESES AGAINST DISPENSATIONALISM
        
        16. Despite the dispensationalists’ commitment to compartmentalizing history into distinct dispensations, wherein each “dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose” and includes a “distinctive revelation, testing, failure, and judgment” (Charles Ryrie), recent dispensational scholars, such as Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising, admit that the features of the dispensations merge from one dispensation into the next, so that the earlier dispensation carries the seeds of the following dispensation.
        
        17. Despite the dispensationalists’ affirmation of God’s grace in the Church Age, early forms of dispensationalism (and many populist forms even today) deny that grace characterized the Mosaic dispensation of law, as when C. I. Scofield stated that with the coming of Christ “the point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation” (cf. John 1:17), even though the Ten Commandments themselves open with a statement of God’s grace to Israel: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (Exo 20:1).
        
        18. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ structuring of law and grace as “antithetical concepts” (Charles Ryrie) with the result that “the doctrines of grace are to be sought in the Epistles, not in the Gospels” (Scofield Reference Bible – SRB, p. 989), the Gospels do declare the doctrines of grace, as we read in John 1:17, “For the law was given by Moses; but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ,” and in the Bible’s most famous verse: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” (John 3:16).
        
        19. Contrary to the dispensationalists’ historic position that the Sermon on the Mount was designed for Israel alone, to define kingdom living, and “is law, not grace” (SRB, p. 989), historic evangelical orthodoxy sees this great Sermon as applicable to the Church in the present era, applying the Beatitudes (Matt 5:2-12), calling us to be the salt of the earth (Matt 5:13), urging us to build our house on a rock (Matt 7:21-27), directing us to pray the Lord’s Prayer (Matt 6:9-13), and more.
        
        20. Despite the dispensationalists’ vigorous assertion that their system never has taught two ways of salvation (Couch), one by law-keeping and one by grace alone, the original Scofield Reference Bible, for instance, declared that the Abrahamic and new covenants differed from the Mosaic covenant regarding “salvation” in that “they impose but one condition, faith” (SRB, see note at Ex. 19:6).
        http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        MessAlien,
        
        What a rubbish… What is your anti biblical assertion of golden calf of "free will" have to do with vast majority of arguments presented against your remonstrance dispensationalism falsehood? Nothing as usual and stop playing Russian roulette with the Bible for the sake of your pride and ego.
      - myth buster
        
        Revelation 3:20 rebukes your denial of the existence of free will. How so? It is the believer who answers the door to his heart, which Christ is knocking at; Christ does not enter before the believer opens the door to his heart. Calvin's arguments, and yours as well, are a straw man directed not at orthodox Christianity, but at the heresy of Pelaganism.
        
        Do not be deceived, I am not arguing in favor of Dispensationalism, but I do say that Calvanism contradicts the Bible, and that Calvanism is the heresy that is opposite Pelaganism. Every heresy has a diametric opposition that is also a heresy. In the case of Dispensationalism, the opposite heresy is Judiaizing.
      - myth buster
        
        However heretical you declare Dispensationalism to be, Preterism is even more heretical. At least Dispensationalists actually believe in a real Second Coming and Resurrection of the Dead, whereas Preterists do not. If you say, "The Resurrection of the Dead has already taken place," despite the fact that the bodies of the saints remain in their tombs, you do not really believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
      - tbone
        
        I have no problem with Dispensationalism. It is in fact, what the bible teaches if read in context.
      - tbone
        
        We are now under the Dispensation of Grace.
      - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22306708/Jn6.37.png Despeville
        
        TBone,
        
        Then you really need to understand that dispensationalism is about 160 years old and came to existence in Plymouth, UK and not in Jerusalem in Palestine.
        http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/
        
        Problems With Dispensationalism: http://www.inchristalone.org/ProblemsDispen.htm
  - Ron18691
    
    Generally speaking I really don't believe that the majority of Christians believe that way. Like any other thing there are the few who are dissenters. We as Christians don't hate the gays or the pagans. We love them. You can love someone but hate what they stand for. My savior Jesus tells us to love the sinner but hate the sin. Although I'm a Christian I am not sinless despite what a majority of non Christians believe. The only difference between myself and them is my sin has been covered by the blood of Christ whereas theirs is not. If a non believer would just pick up the bible and read thru it they could understand our point of view.. Am I telling you to become a Christian? No, I will let that between you and God. However I am asking you to educate yourself on the Christian belief before assuming things. I'll leave with this quote God Loves People More Than Anything!!! God Bless
    Ron
    - Faith
      
      Thank you. This is the shortest, and very wise comment. Saved through faith & grace alone. I see how many waste their time with big words, when all you need is the Gospel. God bless you Ron!
- http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
  
  Once again, Ms. Allen:
  
  "Not all theocracies are Christian. Some are Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and some are secular. There is no escaping theocracy. A government’s laws reflect its morality, and the source of that morality (or, more often than not, immorality) is its god. It is never a question of theocracy or no theocracy, but whose theocracy. The American people, by way of their elected officials, are the source of the Constitutional Republic’s laws. Therefore, the Constitutional Republic’s god is WE THE PEOPLE.
  
  "People recoil at the idea of a theocracy’s morality being forced upon them, but because all governments are theocracies, someone’s morality is always being enforced. This is an inevitability of government. The question is which god, theocracy, laws, and morality will we choose to live under?"
  
  Excerpted from "The Preamble: WE THE PEOPLE vs. YHWH" at http://www.missiontoisrael.org/biblelaw-constitut….
  - msjallen
    
    I was only thinking of God as the ruler of a nation and do not consider Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, as Theocracies. They are secular in their government. We are a secular nation with many Christians and people of different religious beliefs but we are not a Christian nation even though our founding fathers used Biblical principles in setting up our government. If we were a Christian nation we would not allow any other faith in our country.
    - tbone
      
      Iran is the textbook definition of a Theocracy. It doesn't have to be the God of the bible to be a theocracy, its a form of government. The Old Testament Israelites were under a Theocracy until they decided they wanted a king. Then they became a Monarchy.
  - msjallen
    
    Also, morality is not spirituality. Spirituality is far greater since we get it from Bible Doctrine. We should take establishment values from Bible Doctrine and apply them to our lives and all other things will fall in place. Morality does not require the filling of the Spirit. Unbelievers can be moral; like living by an honor code in the military. We can’t use morality to measure the Christian way of life; we are to use the Bible. Anything the unbeliever can do is not Christianity and unbelievers can be moral.
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
      
      You've missed or have chosen to ignore the principle point of what I wrote.
    - tbone
      
      Unbelievers can be spiritual too. You hear New Agers always saying they aren't religious, but spiritual. We must get a grip on our terminology. There are many unbelievers who put most Christians to shame by their good deeds and behavior, but we must not equate good works and outward signs of goodness as indicators of a true born again believer in Jesus Christ. A true born again believer is nothing more than a sinner saved by the Grace of God through acceptance of the blood of Jesus Christ as propitiation for our sins. The regeneration starts from within.
    - tbone
      
      msjallen, I would advise you to study the scriptures and seek discipleship from someone who is well read in the scriptures in order to get a better handle on what you believe as a Christian. I am not telling you this to attack you in any way. I just see a lack of understanding and hope that you can unite with other knowledgeable believers who can help you. I had to go through a crisis of faith myself before I was able to actually admit that I was unaware of some of the things I thought I knew about the bible and what it means to be a believer. God bless you in your search.
  - Evermyrtle
    
    You are correct, it can come from worship of any god, our GOD or any false god.
    - Evermyrtle
      
      Actually it is not what we want. It it pertains to "What is the truth." It is sort of like the Constitution.The truth about it is coming out like never before. We can see these things, we may not like it, but it does not have anything about what we want or what we like. That will not change the facts.. It is there whether we like or not. The Point, he is pointing out the truth. "GET OVER IT!"
- blackhawk
  
  Thou shalt have NO Gods before me.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    They did create him as a petty, jealous deity, didn't they?
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Theocracy is hardly the best form of government. It uses absurd doctrine as the basis for law. Are you prepared to start stoning people on work on the Sabbath?
  - tbone
    
    In this, I wholly agree with you Jeff. At least you are willing to think about this in a critical way.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      tbone, best be prepared to be lambasted for that comment.
Chris

A whole book about being victims? He doesn't offer proof to support any of his claims just word wrangling. Same old same old.stuff – nothing happening here – move along please.
Vladimir

To Ted R. Weiland, you stated msjallen missed or is ignoring your principle point. So what's your point? What do you want to happen? Do you want the U.S. Constitution thrown out? Do you just want to criticize it? If so, why?

Do you want us to get behind you in a movement to destroy the U.S. Constitution? There are only two groups I'm aware of attempting that, socialists and jihadists. Are you in sympathy with either of these groups? The Constitution is an impediment to these groups but is a SAFEGUARD OF OUR FREEDOMS. I repeat, what is your goal?
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Ted has stated many times he does want the Constitution thrown out.
  - Vladimir
    
    That's a relief. Then why is he always bad mouthing the Constitution?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      He bad mouths it because he wants it thrown out. I think you misread my previous post.
      - Vladimir
        
        Yes, I did misread it.
- Dennis
  
  You as well are missing his point ..i think….It is no mans law is better than YHWHs(GOD) we as man think we are better think we know all think we can do better than our creator.The fact is this is why our world in part is crap.YHWHs law is the only law that we need.Period.End of story.All you people worship the constitution as if it is a god but this is the very problem.Turn back to YHWHS law and follow it.Not mans doctrines or laws.The constitution is not a safeguard of our freedoms.It is in fact being used to enslave us.For when you follow mans laws you see what you get.His goal is to wake you up to the fact that YHWH the creator is all we need and its his laws we should follow.I think thats what hes trying to say anyway.I do not presume to speak for him but this is my understanding.Turn your faces back to YHWH.Humble yourselves before him and if this was done we would be far better off.Peace
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Then stop being a hypocrite and start stoning people who work on the Sabbath.
    - Pastor Dwayne
      
      That's a lot of stoning to do , he that is without sin pick up the first stone and start throwing!!
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        95 THESES: http://againstdispensationalism.com/95-theses-2/
    - Deep_Thinker
      
      Jeff, you bring up an interesting point. Why is it we adhere to the other commandments and not that one?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        People adhere to issues that fall inline with their personal beliefs.
- tbone
  
  Vladimir has a point Ted. ( BTW I like saying your name Vladimir…. it's kind of cool the way it rolls of the tongue. lol)
Vladimir

Ted R. Weiland said, "Not all theocracies are Christian. Some are Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, Buddhist, and some are secular." A SECULAR THEOCRACY? That's an oxymoron.

Why doesn't Ted R. Weiland preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, like normal preachers who are trying to bring people to Jesus Christ? Why is he tearing down the one document that guarantees our religious worship is free from government intervention? Does he want the government to dictate that Christianity is the only religion allowed? How's that working in England where the Anglican Church is the state religion? England is overrun with Muslims.

What does Ted R. Weiland want and why does he want it?
- Evermyrtle
  
  After reading about Theocracy the good and the bad. i looked the word up and this is what I found
  
  The meaning of "Theocracy"
  
  1. A government in which GOD or "a god" is recognized as the supreme civil ruler and divine or religious laws are taken as the laws of the state.
  
  2. a government by priests
  
  3. a country or nation having such a government
  
  Now you can know that ted is not the uninformed one.!!!!!!!!!!
  - Vladimir
    
    Evermyrtle, you just proved my point. Are all Ted's disciples nutty? Secular is secular and a theocracy is what you just enumerated. THEY AREN'T THE SAME. THEY ARE OPPOSITES !!!!!!!
  - keyboardshark
    
    Evermyrtle says: "The meaning of "Theocracy"
    
    1. A government in which GOD or "a god" is recognized as the supreme civil ruler and divine or religious laws are taken as the laws of the state. "
    
    Yes, that is all well and good, as long as the recognized "god" is the God of the Bible. I would be entirely in favor of the Bible being the basis for all laws of the land. But what would happen if future rulers decided that Allah was actually the "god" that we needed to follow? Do you see the slippery slope a theocracy would pose? That is why we have a Constitutional Republic rather than a theocracy.
    - Vladimir
      
      Amen.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Key, unless you are willing to start stoning people who work on the Sabbath, you are not willing to live under the laws of the bible.
      - keyboardshark
        
        What is the Law of God? It is the whole Bible, not just the Old Testament or the New Testament. In other words, in order to determine what God's Law contains, we must search both Testaments to arrive at our conclusion.
        
        Or to put it another way, we can agree with God's Laws without invoking the same punishment as specified in Old Testament Israel. For example, does God consider it sinful for a bride to not be a virgin on her wedding night, i.e. she had sex before marriage? Yes. Should we consider it sinful as well? Yes, we should. Are disobedient children acting sinfully in God's eyes? Yes. People working on the Sabbath? Yes again. Should we, as Christians, consider those acts sinful? If God does, than yes.
        
        But does that mean we should stone the perpetrators of these sins? I believe the answer is no. Why? Well, let's look at John 8:3-11:
        "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
        
        4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
        
        5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
        
        6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
        
        7So 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.
        
        8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
        
        9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
        
        10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
        
        11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."
        
        The Pharisees were right. Moses in the law had commanded that such should be stoned. So then why wasn't the woman stoned? Jesus knew the Law perfectly, as He is God and so wrote it. Why didn't He allow the scribes and pharisees stone her? Surely they, as the religious ruler of the time, had the authority to do so. Why didn't HE stone her if that was indeed the Law? Remember, Jesus Himself called it a sin ("…go, and sin no more.")
        
        Obviously, something had changed when Jesus came on the scene to live among us. We find our clue in Hebrews 7 & 8:
        
        "11If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
        
        12For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
        
        13For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
        
        14For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
        
        15And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
        
        16Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
        
        17For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
        
        18For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
        
        19For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God."
        Hebrews 7
        
        "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
        
        7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
        
        8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
        
        9Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
        
        10For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
        
        13In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."
        Hebrews 8
      - keyboardshark
        
        PART 2
        
        So we can see that something has changed. Not God's moral Law, because we can see that Jesus considered the woman's actions sinful. But the death penalty for these sins, as specified in the mosaic law, has been altered. Under the New Covenant, we would have to consider the death penalty too harsh for these offenses (but not for killing another person, as this Law came before the Mosaic Law-Gen. 9:6 and has not been modified).
        
        When Jesus came to earth to pay for our sins, it was as if the death penalty we all deserve for our sins, typified by the Old Covenant stonings, had been removed. Even though the salvation program has remained the same through Old and New Covenant times, it was only when Jesus physically arrived on the scene that it was fully realized. Trusting our salvation to Christ removes that death penalty from us, but does not change our responsibility to obey the Law.
        
        Romans 5 also illustrates the removal of the death penalty for believers by Christ's payment for sin:
        
        "17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
        
        18Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
        
        19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
        
        20Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
        
        21That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord"
        
        Also, looking at the Sabbath day in particular, we read about Jesus contending with the Pharisees, who were experts in the Old Testament ceremonial laws, about the meaning of the Sabbath:
        
        "23And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
        
        24And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
        
        25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
        
        26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
        
        27And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
        
        28Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."
        
        And there is an account of a similar dispute in John 5 when Jesus healed the lame man at the pool in Bethesda (verses 1-20). The Jews were even ready to kill Him because they believed He had broken the Sabbath:
        
        "8Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
        
        Obviously Jesus, as God, the sinless Son, would never break the Sabbath laws, since He wrote them, so we must conclude that He had instituted a change in those Laws
- Dennis
  
  Vladimir really? The constitution guaruntees that the first commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before YHWH" is broken.Get a clue.It has nothing to do with stopping government intervention and all to do with allowing anyone to worship anything.Christians are so blind.They keep saying this is YHWHs country really? If we are his why do we worship everything under the sun here as we are commanded not to then? and its the very document you keep holding up as something great that allows this.Id suggest before you attack that you simply do some research.I use to be like you then i woke up.The information is out there you just have to be wiling to put your arrogance and pride away long enough to see.
  - Vladimir
    
    Dennis, it is obvious that Ted called you up and had you register on this blog so you could defend his position because he's giving me the silent treatment. However, I think you are embarrassing him. You make even less sense than he does.
    
    Ted, I forgive you for lying to me and saying that one of the original apostles advocated preaching the word of God for filthy lucre.
    - http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland
      
      "…there are no such things done as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own [deluded pagan Mormon] heart." (Nehemiah 6:8)
      
      If I show you where in the Bible Paul promoted preachers being financially supported by the church (including Paul taking it himself), will you admit that the Mormon Church is in error and repent of your cultism? If not, I have no intention of wasting time on your foolishness (Proverbs 26:4).
- tbone
  
  Amen and Amen Vlad. Go get him.
http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

Being a christian is not first or foremostly about being an American. It is about being saved and knowing God. [John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."] Being an American is about upholding the constitution. Because the christian church was the very predominant religion of the 250 men considered founding fathers, (see http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp… Founding Fathers ) it is not hard to see why our nation is still after 237 years influenced by christian values. And what horrible thing have christian values provided? If you look at the crime statistics since prayer and the Bible in public schools were prohibied by the courts you will see that they have risen steadily. We now have more people in prison that any other country. Coincidence? I don't believe it is. __
Marilyn

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 1:12-13 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become the children of God–13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.
John 3:35-36 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Where have I heard this before?
  Asclepius. Believed by the Greeks to have once lived as a man and raised to a god after death. He was fathered by a god – Apollo – but with a human mother (Coronis, a beautiful maiden of Thessaly). He was raised by the centaur Chiron in a cave and from him learned the art of healing. But Asclepius committed the unpardonable sin of raising a man from the dead, enraging Hades for cheating him of dead souls. Zeus, afraid that Asclepius might render all men immortal, slew him with a thunderbolt. Apollo interceded on behalf of his son and persuaded Zeus to make Asclepius the god of medicine. As an immortal, Asclepius was able to cure the sick from the realm of the gods.
  
  Certainly, for centuries, sick people went to the temples dedicated to Asclepius hoping for a cure. It was said that those who came to Asclepius on crutches went away dancing happily. Famous temples of the god were at Pergamum, Epidaurus, Cos and Rome. Full participation in the healing program involved sleeping inside the temple compound – in effect, the first hospitals – where 'holistic' treatment involved massage, baths and dream interpretation. Fortunate individuals did indeed experience a "healing miracle" and gave testimony to the cure effected by this Greek god.
  
  The early Christians attacked the cult of Asclepius with great venom, indicating a close rivalry between the two cults and a certain embarrassment among Christians repeatedly being told that Asclepius had already done all of Jesus' tricks – and had done them better.
  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
  
  Apollonius of Tyana.
  
  Apollonius was born during the reign of Augustus Caesar in the year 3 BC at Tyana, in Asia Minor. His parents were wealthy and Apollonius was educated first at Tarsus, and then at the Temple of Asclepius at Aegae. At sixteen he became an adherent of Pythagoras and a wandering ascetic. In his desire for knowledge he travelled to most of the known world. According to legend he performed miracles wherever he went and was listened to by adoring crowds.
  
  Apollonius claimed to receive revelations from the gods. In truth, he probably learnt techniques of mystical deception from the Brahmins of India and the Magi of Babylon. In Ephesus he correctly warned of a plague and also claimed to have had a vision of the assassination of the Emperor Domitian. In Rome he supposedly brought the daughter of a consul back to life. Nero apparently expelled him from the city but Vespasian, Titus and Nerva all sought his advice. Hadrian collected his letters and writings. The great Emperor-philosopher Marcus Aurelius admitted that he owed his philosophy to Apollonius:
  
  "From Apollonius I have learned freedom of will and understanding, steadiness of purpose, and to look to nothing else, not even for a moment, except to reason."
  
  Apollonius’s neo-Pythagorean philosophy embraced the sharing of goods, a condemnation of cruelty, and compassion for his fellowman. He taught in many of the centres of learning of the Greco-Roman world. Stories about him abounded, such as when in his mother’s womb, his mother was forewarned by an Egyptian god of her portentous off-spring. He reputed lived to be one hundred years. His followers claimed he was taken up into heaven. In Tyana a temple was built and dedicated to him, and statues of him resided in other temples.
  
  Julia Domna, the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus, commissioned the philosopher Philostratus to write the biography of Apollonius, using the notebooks kept by Damis, a lifelong companion of the great sage. This book appeared in 210 AD.
  
  But by the 4th century an established Christianity began attacking Apollonius as a charlatan, a black magician, and the anti-Christ. The Church was, after all, basing its claims of Jesus' divinity upon the miracles that he is said to have performed – but Apollonius performed the same miracles earlier and called them not miracles but expressions of natural law!
  http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/wordofgod.htm
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Where have I heard this before?
    Christ and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura. Both Christ and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.” Jesus was called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.” Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful. Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Where have I heard this before?
      Dionysus was born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger. He was a traveling teacher who performed miracles. He “rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.” He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification. Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25. He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine. He was called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.” He was considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.” He was identified with the Ram or Lamb. His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” intimates he was hung on a tree or crucified.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        IF JESUS, THEN WHY NOT HERCULES?
        
        If a person accepts hearsay and accounts from believers as historical evidence for Jesus, then shouldn't they act consistently to other accounts based solely on hearsay and belief?
        To take one example, examine the evidence for Hercules of Greek mythology and you will find it parallels the "historicity" of Jesus to such an amazing degree that for Christian apologists to deny Hercules as a historical person belies and contradicts the very same methodology used for a historical Jesus.
        
        Note that Herculean myth resembles Jesus in many areas. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, the mother of Hercules, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Similar to Herod who wanted to kill Jesus, Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Like Jesus, Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Similar to Jesus who died and rose to heaven, Hercules died, rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. Hercules gives example of perhaps the most popular hero in Ancient Greece and Rome. They believed that he actually lived, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him.
        
        Likewise the "evidence" of Hercules closely parallels that of Jesus. We have historical people like Hesiod and Plato who mention Hercules in their writings. Similar to the way the gospels tell a narrative story of Jesus, so do we have the epic stories of Homer who depict the life of Hercules. Aesop tells stories and quotes the words of Hercules. Just as we have a brief mention of Jesus by Joesphus in his Antiquities, Joesphus also mentions Hercules (more times than Jesus), in the very same work (see: 1.15; 8.5.3; 10.11.1). Just as Tacitus mentions a Christus, so does he also mention Hercules many times in his Annals. And most importantly, just as we have no artifacts, writings or eyewitnesses about Hercules, we also have nothing about Jesus. All information about Hercules and Jesus comes from stories, beliefs, and hearsay. Should we then believe in a historical Hercules, simply because ancient historians mention him and that we have stories and beliefs about him? Of course not, and the same must apply to Jesus if we wish to hold any consistency to historicity.
        http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Where have I heard this before?
        
        Zoroaster was born of a virgin and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.” He was baptized in a river. In his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom. He was tempted in the wilderness by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30. Zoroaster baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.” He cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man. He taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse. He had a sacred cup or grail. He was slain. His religion had a eucharist. He was the “Word made flesh.” Zoroaster’s followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 AD and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Jesus was referred to as the chief cornerstone (i.e., capstone) – a reference to an Egyptian pyramid. The chief cornerstone of the pyramid is same symbol for Horus, the Egyptian god and savior. Like the Egyptian pharoah, Jesus was called a shepherd who rules the nations with a staff. Horus was a popular Egyptian god who was the son of Osiris and Isis. Osiris and Horus were both solar deities. Osiris was the setting sun, Horus the rising sun. Jesus is the rising Son and the morning star. The pharoah was considered to be an incarnation of Horus (also known as "Amen-Ra," the sun god). In the same way, Jesus is considered to be the incarnation of his heavenly Father. Horus was the lamb of God who took away the sins of the world. Horus had an adversary named "Set". Jesus' adversary was "Satan".
        The story of Horus can be found in "The Egyptian Book of the Dead (also known as the "Papyrus of Ani") written over 3,000 years before the birth of Christ.
        Identical Life Experiences
        (1)It is written that both Horus and Jesus existed before their incarnations.
        (2)Horus was born of the virgin Isis on December 25th in a cave/manger.
        (3)Horus' birth was announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
        (4)
        The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following prophecy: "Out of Egypt have I called my son." (Matt. 2:15)
        (5)
        He was a child teacher in the temple and was baptized by Anup the Baptizer when he was thirty years old.
        (6)
        He had twelve disciples and performed miracles such as feeding bread to the multitude and walking on water.
        (7)He raised one man, El-Azar-us, from the dead.
        (8)He transfigured on a mount.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        (9)He also had titles such as the "way, the truth, the light, the Messiah, God's anointed Son, the Son of Man, the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the Word, the Morning Star, the light of the world.
        (10)He was "the Fisher," and was associated with the lamb, lion and fish ("Ichthys").
        (11)Horus's personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father."
        (12)Horus was called "KRST," or "Anointed One.
        (13)He was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected.
        (14)
        The adoration of the Virgin and Child is connected with both the adoration of Isis and the infant Horus and the adoration of Mary and infant Jesus. In the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis, the original "Madonna and Child."
        (15)
        Concerning the writing of the Gnostics, C. W. King, a noted English author, says: "To this period belongs a beautiful sard in my collection, representing Serapis,…whilst before him stands Isis, holding in one hand the sistrum, in the other a wheatsheaf, with the legend: 'Immaculate is our lady Isis,' the very term applied afterwards to that personage who succeeded to her form, her symbols, rites, and ceremonies" (Gnostics and Their Remains, p. 71).
        (16)
        Osiris, Isis, and Horus are the principal trinity of the Egyptian religions. God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Christian trinity. Dr. Inman affirms the Egyptian roots of the Christian trinity "The Christian trinity is of Egyptian origin, and is as surely a pagan doctrine as the belief in heaven and hell, the existence of a devil, of archangels, angels, spirits and saints, martyrs and virgins, intercessors in heaven, gods and demigods, and other forms of faith which deface the greater part of modern religions" (Ancient Pagan and Modem Christian Symbolism, p. 13).
        (17)
        Dr. Draper says: "For thirty centuries the Egyptians had been familiar with the conception of a triune God. There was hardly a city of any note without its particular triads. Here it was Amum, Maut, and Khonso; there Osiris, Isis, and Horus" (Intellectual Development, Vol. I, p. 191).
        (18)
        Dr. Draper stated: "Views of the Trinity, in accordance with Egyptian tradition, were established. Not only was the adoration of Isis under a new name restored, but even her image standing on the crescent moon reappeared. The well-known effigy of that goddess, with the infant Horus in her arms, has descended to our days in the beautiful artistic creations of the Madonna and Child." (Conflict, p. 48).
        (19)
        Mrs. Besant believes that Christianity has its main roots in Egypt: "It grew out of Egypt; its gospels came from thence [Alexandria]; its ceremonies were learned there; its Virgin is Isis; its Christ, Osiris and Horus."
        (20)
        There are two stories connected with Horus that is analogous to stories found in the Old Testament. The hiding of the infant Horus in a marsh by his mother undoubtedly parallels the story of the hiding of the infant Moses in a marsh by his mother. When Horus died, Isis implored Ra, the sun, to restore him to life. Ra stopped his ship in mid-heaven and sent down Thoth, the moon, to bring him back to life. The stopping of the sun and moon by Isis recalls the myth of the stopping of the sun and moon by Joshua.
        
        "Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power." – Horus, (Book of the Dead, Ch. 173)
        "Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once." – Jesus, (John 13:31-32)
        http://www.near-death.com/experiences/origen046.h…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Where have I heard this before?
        
        Romulus is born of a vestal virgin, which was a priestess of the hearth god Vesta sworn to celibacy. His mother claims that the divine impregnated her, yet this is not believed by the King. Romulus and his twin brother, Remus, are tossed in the river and left for dead. (A “slaughter of the innocents” tale which parallels that of Matthew 2:13-16). Romulus is hailed as the son of god. He is “snatched away to heaven” by a whirlwind (It is assumed that the gods took him), and he makes post mortem appearances. In his work Numa Pompilius, Plutarch records that there was a darkness covering the earth before his death (Just as there was during Jesus’ death according to Mark 15:33). He also states that Romulus is to be know afterwards as ‘Quirinus’; A god which belonged to the Archiac Triad (a “triple deity” similar to the concept of the Trinity).
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Where have I heard this before?
        
        Both went to their temples at the age of twelve, where they are said to have astonished all with their wisdom. Both supposedly fasted in solitude for a long time: Buddha for forty–seven days and Jesus for forty. Both wandered to a fig tree at the conclusion of their fasts. Both were about the same age when they began their public ministry:
        
        “When he [Buddha] went again to the garden he saw a monk who was calm, tranquil, self–possessed, serene, and dignified. The prince, determined to become such a monk, was led to make the great renunciation. At the time he was twenty–nine years of age… “Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age.” (Luke 3:23). Both were tempted by the “devil” at the beginning of their ministry: To Buddha, he said: “Go not forth to adopt a religious life but return to your kingdom, and in seven days you shall become emperor of the world, riding over the four continents.” To Jesus, he said: “All these [kingdoms of the world] I will give you, if you fall down and worship me” (Matthew 4:9). Buddha answered the “devil”: “Get you away from me.”
        
        Jesus responded: “…begone, Satan!” (Matthew 4:10). Both strove to establish a kingdom of heaven on earth. According to the Somadeva (a Buddhist holy book), a Buddhist ascetic’s eye once offended him, so he plucked it out and cast it away. Jesus said: “If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out, and throw it away;.” (Matthew 5:29).
      - Pastor Dwayne
        
        And Jesus said My Kingdom is not of this world, Hmmmmmm?????? OK so instead of ten lies Jeff has come up with 20 lies!!
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        Jess does not have to come up with lies… He is a lie.
      - http://youtu.be/zjgBhpanOfQ Despeville
        
        Jeff… :)
  - tbone
    
    ok now you'e just being rebellious Jeff. You need to turn to Jesus Christ. He is your only Hope.
Winston

It should be a clue to those trying to understand what a "Christian" is and is not, by asking a person what faith they are. When they say, "I am Catholic", or "I am Baptist", or "I am Methodist", …. you get the picture by now… they are not sincere Jesus followers, but have indeed fallen for the lie of Satan because they've become "followers of men", rather than followers of Christ Jesus. A sincere Christian would respond with "I am a Bible-based follower of Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God – so, I am Christian". Not only that but they'd be what I call a "fully-orbed Christian" in all they they are, live, work, play, etc.. all the time.
- myth buster
  
  Christian was a name given to us by our enemies, which we embraced . Catholic was a name given to us by one of our own, which we likewise embraced. It is the dividers which say things like, "I am a Lutheran," or "I am a Calvinist." Was Luther crucified for you? Was it in Calvin's name that you were baptized? Be warned, even saying "I belong to Christ," in a way that promotes division among the brethren is denominationalism, and just as much rebuked in Scripture.