Evangelical Leader Called out for Hypocrisy on Live TV

The Doctor

No daniel, none of the commandments ever are applicable with actual christians. The man called Jesus, that his followers proclaimed to be the christ aka messiah, made it very clear as any theological scholar will tell you that all that came before the new covenant was to be left behind, that includes blood sacrifice and the 10 commandments.

If you abide by those 10 rules you may as well go to rabbinical school and convert to the Hebrew faith and cult-ture.As that is the faith built upon those commandments. Remember that time they say they committed genocide against a city state that worshiped a golden calf instead of their god? Yeah real nice faith all about fostering brotherhood towards your fellow man.

John Owens

"Blessed are they that do His commandments that they may have right to the Tree of Life..." Revelation 22:14

Howard

Rev. Burns, that needs an AMEN.

John Owens

...and thank you.

John Owens

I salute you.

Dawn Pisturino

I believe that America is under the wrath of God right now, and things will get worse before they get better.

The Rev. Brother Robert Barker

Rev Burns: You make accusations but offer no evidence. Why? Because there is none. But conservative, fundi Evangelical Christians have become sociopaths.

Since Evangelical Christianity began infiltrating politics, officially in the late 1970s, there has been a disturbing trend to limit or remove rights from those who don’t meet the conservative idea of an American. Many of these initiatives come in the form of “religious freedom” laws, which empower discrimination, while other legislation targets immigrants who believe differently. The result has been a sharp division in American culture, and the redefinition of Christian theology.

Evangelical speaker, author, and university professor, Tony Campolo, said Christianity was redefined in the mid-70s by positions of “pro-life” and opposing gay marriage. “Suddenly theology fell to the background,” he said. And somewhere in the middle of all the change, Evangelical Christianity crossed the line of faith and belief to hatred and abuse. Those who cruelly implement the actions of their faith are oblivious to the destruction they cause to their religion, or the people their beliefs impact. Is it fair to call it sociopathic?

Psychology Today listed sixteen characteristics of sociopathic behaviors, which include: Untruthfulness and insincerity, superficial charm and good intelligence, lack of remorse or shame, poor judgment and failure to learn by experience, pathologic egocentricity and incapacity for love, unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations, specific loss of insight, and general poverty in major affective reactions (in other words, appropriate emotional responses).

We see examples of these kinds of behaviors in church leaders and followers. Franklin Graham, for example, stated that immigration was “not a Bible issue.” His stand fits well with his conservative politics and vocal support of Donald Trump, but his callousness toward immigrants and those seeking asylum in the United States goes against everything he says he believes (Lev. 19:33-34, Mark 12:30-31). Yet, Graham doesn’t see one bit of irony between his political stance and his religious belief. Nor does he seem to notice the horrific casualties in war-torn countries these immigrants are desperately trying to flee.

Pastor Roger Jimenez of Verity Baptist Church in Sacramento said after the Orlando, Florida terrorist attack on a gay nightclub, “The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job!” This “minister of God” showed no compassion for the families of the men and women who died. He appeared incapable of laying aside his religious beliefs for even a moment of shared human connection to a tragic event.

And recently, Kim Higginbotham, a minister’s wife and teacher with a master’s degree in special education, according to her website, wrote a public blog called “Giving Your Child to the Devil.” She claimed, “Being a disciple of Jesus demands our relationship to him be greater than our relationship to our own family, even our own children.” She listed Matthew 10:37 as justification, which says, “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.”

In a self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, martyr’s rant, she claims her son turned his back on God, and she was left with no other option but to abandon him. It turns out her son is gay and – it turns out – the day the diatribe was posted was his wedding day. Sharon Hambrick, a Christian writer, posted a wonderful response to this mom.

But mostly, rather than calling these people out for sociopathic behavior fellow Christians agree. Many of the comments on Higginbotham’s website say, “So sorry for your loss,” or, “Praying for you and your son.”

It’s common for us to avoid cognitive dissonance, when our beliefs dictate one thing, but our experiences show us something else is true. We call this living in denial, and we all do it on one level or another. But when we choose our “truth” while coldly watching a fellow human being suffer, we’ve crossed a line of mental health.

The 2016 election demonstrated an especially high level of insincerity, shamelessness, poor judgment and pathological egocentricity among Christian evangelicals. James Dobson, who once said of Bill Clinton, “Character does matter. You can’t run a family, let alone a country without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world,” and then said of Donald Trump, “I’m not under any illusions that he is an outstanding moral example. It’s a cliché but true: We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.”

The evangelical Christian message is loud and clear. They care for no one but themselves. Their devotion is to the version of Christianity they have created, which calls for ruthless abandonment of immigrants, women, children – even their own – and anyone else who doesn’t fall inline with their message. Social justice, which is mentioned in Bible verses over two thousand times, has been replaced with hardline political ideology. Principle over people. Indifference over involvement. Judgment over generosity.

Every generation redefines what it means to be, or belong to a religious group. Religious ideologies, interpretations, and doctrines are fluid. But whatever it is, or whatever it becomes, is made by the people who belong to the religion and what they collectively decide to make it.

Reprinted with permission from the author.

Tim Rymel, M.Ed., is the author of Going Gay (2014), and the upcoming book, Rethinking Everything When Faith and Reality Don’t Make Sense (2017). He is a former minister and a member of the American Psychological Association, APA Division 15 Educational psychology, and the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual Issues. Buy Going Gay at: http://GoingGay.net. Follow him on Twitter: @TheRealTimRymel

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2017/05/has-evangelical-christianity-become-sociopathic/?fbclid=IwAR36Cnjm5v4Jtisaa6G33YxhsjnPTi8Stx7-9BfJfD0J9lF5wlM4gptE2VQ

The Rev. Brother Robert Barker

The bible thumpers on this site have the attitude that if they quote a few verses of the bible they have trumped the arguments against them. However, the bible is ONLY for them the final authority not for those who do not hold to it as god's final word on all matters. To those of us who understand the true history behind the bible and how it came to be what it is understood to be to fundi-evangelicals the bible is no authority at all and is therefore easily dismissed and ignored as nonsense and no argument.

Many rank and file Christians sincerely believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I know I used to believe it was when I was a Christian. And from recent conversations with many sincere Christians I know this is currently true for many believers. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of “revelation” and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.

The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.

According to Professor John Crossan of Biblical Studies at DePaul University the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity, needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered “holy” and thus “the word of God” and which ones would be excluded and not considered the word of God.

Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action – MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the “word of God” into existence. (I wish to thank Brian Show for pointing out in his rebuttal to this article that the final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn’t finish editing the “holy” scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine! This fact is revealed in the second counter-rebuttal to Brian Show’s first rebuttal to this article. This counter-rebuttal makes the following important statement and backs it up with FACTS – “Therefore, one can easily argue that the first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for church use.” Of course, I’d like to express my deep appreciation to fellow Deist Peter Murphy for the great research work he did in order to write such a great counter-rebuttal!)

In the landmark work by H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. I, pages 462-463, we read,

It (the Council of Nicaea) marks the definite entry upon the stage of human affairs of the Christian Church and of Christianity as it is generally understood in the world to-day. It marks the exact definition of Christian teaching by the Nicene Creed.

Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new “holy scriptures.” It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which “holy” books would stay and which would go.

Compare the man-made origins of Christianity and its various dogmas to the simplicity of Deism. Deism is belief in God based only on reason and the creation itself. It makes no claim to false “revelations” as all of the “revealed” religions do. To Deists, proof of the Designer is in the design.

To quote Thomas Paine, "Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone. This is Deism. But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach itself to such wild conceits. . . .The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.

Instead then of studying theology, as is now done out of the Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted and the authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to the Bible of the Creation. The principles we discover there are eternal and of divine origin; they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of theology.

We can know God only through His works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of His power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of His wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face."

On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine’s response fits perfectly with this page regarding the origins of the Bible.

"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.

But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Mahometans calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so. The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.

The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.

You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself.

It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too? No.

Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don’t is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?

For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. It is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not. It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: –

You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.

The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea – that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.

The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the creation proclaims him with all the attributes of a God.

It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) ‘Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.’

That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.

What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.

In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.

As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.

You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.

When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."

This post by Robert L. Johnson originally appeared at World Union of Deists.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/08/the-bibles-ungodly-origins/?fbclid=IwAR0ZNRzTA96ReE9fqxHfVNRkqMnku6DmfZDPiMjjppmRmM2-1H6-pvoJJUE

John Owens

Good call.

Dawn Pisturino

The Democratic Party defies GOD and everything that Jesus said, while claiming to be the only true Christians (I've had this conversation with members of the Left before.) Jesus never told anyone to break the law. He said to TRUST in GOD. My advice is to pray like you've never prayed before for the salvation of our country. The article also discounts the fact that there are numerous BLACK Christians across America, many who belong to the Republican Party since the Democratic Party has woefully failed them.

Howard

Rev. Paul. Please post your fixing of this situation, thank you

Rev. Burns

If he comes back? Wow! OK, I think that says all that needs to be said, any real Christian will know Satin is at work there.

John Owens

I would agree GOD and Jesus are not Republicans. Neither are they Democrats or socialists. They are Theocrats.

Dawn Pisturino

I don't know any Christian who says GOD and Jesus are Republicans. That is ludicrous. On the other hand, the Democrats DEFY every tenet set forth by Jesus.

John Owens

I don't know why this man, Perkins, or anyone else thinks he is so special, or has any special knowledge, but even Jesus referred people to the scriptures, Jon. When Paul talked about the "holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation," he was speaking of the Tanakh (erroneously called OT by most of the world) and it is in the scriptures we find the commandments, which must be kept (as a way of life) to show love for God and fellow humans (1 JOHN 5:2-3) and have right to the Tree of Life (Rev 22:14).

The world talks about Jesus all the time, but His own central message was the Kingdom of God. That was what most of His preaching and teaching explained. Not arguing. Just saying.

flugo

Excellent!

Dawn Pisturino

The idea that Jesus would vote or belong to any political party is ludicrous.

Reverend Krystina S.

You are right, Dennis E. Loucks. Jesus asked us to Turn the Other Cheek (criminal judicial reform.) Love thy neighbor (social welfare programs.) Flipping tables of money lenders and usurers (Consumer financial bureau and consumer protections and restrictions on Wall Street.) Unto Caesar his due (taxes simple and for positive purposes.) Caring for our fellow human beings is NOT insular, it is HUMANITARIAN towards every living being on Earth! Yes, the point IS TO WELCOME THE DOWNTRODDEN!!! That is What Jesus Would Do, and What Jesus Would Have US DO.

Reverend Krystina S.

Jesus was anti-capitalist. One of his only acts of aggression was towards those who were making money at the Temple. All of his actions and all of his words would show that he was a socialist, in terms of caring for all others as ourselves and not enriching ourselves at the expense of others (and our souls.) His Commandment that we LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS OURSELVES is exactly an open, modern "Social Welfare State."

John Owens

If you will define socialism, you will see that Jesus never addressed that. It is ridiculous. Most of you oppose any thing remotely resembling belief in God or religion when it comes to government, yet you want to remake Jesus in the image of Che Guevara or Mao Zi Dong.

John Owens

Howard, I don't mind pissing them off, because they are so ignorant and smug in their indoctrination, and if there is a national calamity or civil war, my chances of survival are MUCH better than theirs. They choose to be chaff.

Stephanie Willey

John Owens is the perpetual troll here. And the SPLC speaks the truth about Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council.

John Owens

I am NOT the arbiter. Never claimed to be. If they tell you any majority of fundamentalists follow ANYBODY, they are lying, because uniting fundamentalists is like trying to herd cats, and they are too diverse and independent to follow one leader. I don't call that "expertise". I call that common knowledge in fundamentalist country. If you were listening to somebody besides a propaganda front for the hard left, you might know that.

Reverend Krystina S.

Wikipedia: "A hate group is a social group that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society. According to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), a hate group's "primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization."[1]

In the US, two private organizations that monitor intolerance and hate groups are the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)[2] and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).[3] They maintain lists of what they deem to be hate groups, supremacist groups and anti-Semitic, anti-government or extremist groups that have committed hate crimes. The SPLC's definition of a "hate group" includes any group with beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people—particularly when the characteristics being maligned are immutable.[4] However, at least for the SPLC, inclusion of a group in the list "does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity."[5] According to the SPLC, from 2000 to 2008, hate group activity saw a 50 percent increase in the US, with a total of 926 active groups.[6] Recently[when?] the term alt-right, short for "alternative right," has come into usage.[7][8] This broad term includes a range of people who reject mainstream conservatism in favor of forms of conservatism that may embrace implicit or explicit racism or white supremacy. The alt-right is described as "a weird mix of old-school neo-Nazis, conspiracy theorists, anti-globalists, and young right-wing internet trolls—all united in the belief that white male identity is under attack by multicultural, "politically correct" forces."[9] "

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary does NOT have a definition of Hate Group. HMMMMM. I know the SPLC by their actions. And by their avowed perspective. And by their avowed purpose. A hate group, for sure.

John Owens

The Southern Poverty Law Center is NOT the arbiter of what is hate speech. Sorry. "Glorified hate speech?" SPLC is really stretching the truth.

Howard

The following comment came from Wikipedia; The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs.

Michael

Please remember that free speech is the cornerstone of our Country. The problem we have today is that we can amplify our freedom to speak and it's related message. Depending on the issue and personal preferences, a well planned, amplified message is designed to be heard. Hearing these amplified messages can cause a reaction or emotion which can be further amplified using simple technology like this forum. Powerful people can create loud messages! Divisive issues most often have equally loud Pro/Con messages. Southern Poverty Law Center is a Business entity whose mission is to create very loud messages that generate legal debate and litigation. They have the right and freedom to do this. John is correct in saying that SPLC is "not the arbiter of what is hate speech". They may think they are, and promote themselves as such by design (loud amplified messages) but they are not. The exact same thing can be said about President Trump. Words coming out of either SPLC or Trump should never be considered fact simply because they say it or declare it on a website.

I have no issue with anyone's personal position on divisive topics. I'm concerned about the lack of factual civil debate in this Country and what it is doing to us as a society. In this case you're amplifying a presumption of "glorified hate speech" when in fact the group is asserting only a negative position or as ironically stated by you "the group's overwhelmingly negative attitude". A negative attitude does not equal "glorified hate speech".

Val jester

For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 1 Cor 1:18

Val jester

Great comment Bruce. Liberal and conservative Christians approach scripture and consequently their respective political ideology from two different directions. The conservative Christian opens Scripture and what they read helps to form their political beliefs. Liberal Christians open the Bible with a preset political ideology. When they find that the Bible disagrees with their political ideology, they engage in amazing feats of hermeneutical gymnastics in their attempts to convince others that the Bible really does not say what it says. The “great commission” for many liberal Christians becomes a crusade against Biblical inerrancy instead of the pure and simple gospel of Jesus and him crucified. Sadly many Christians mistake “God loves everyone” as tolerance towards behavior that Scripture clearly describes as sinful. God indeed loves every single person. God is also a just God that will not be mocked (Galatians 6:7) This loving God will send people to hell that he loves dearly but whom refused accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior and to follow his gospel as set forth in his word. (Justification and Sanctification) Biblical precepts are not open to emotion or political opinion. It simply does not matter what you want to believe. What does scripture say? How does Jesus want each of us to live? After healing the soul and the body, Jesus often said: Go and sin no more…” There is a righteousness that Gods righteousness requires God to require of each and every one of his children. This righteousness and these answers are clear and available with an open Bible at the foot of the cross with a humble and contrite heart. In the end, I do not believe that liberalism and Biblical based Christianity can exist in the same person. Liberals do go to church but the churches most generally service and validate their preconceived political ideology.

Reverend Krystina S.

Amen, Daniel R. Thomas. What Would Jesus Do? It is our responsibility to care for those in need. Period.

John Owens

I thought most of the people here were adamantly opposed to any mixture of church of state. You can't have it both ways.

John Owens

The travel ban does not extend to modern day Israel. Also, most evangelicals do not have expensive homes or airplanes or live in fortified compounds. Reality might be a good thing for you to consider.

Tam

Jesus would come to the US by obeying the laws of the land.

Reverend Krystina S.

Mark, you speak well. The middle east is restricted with travel, for sure! Jesus would NOT be what most evangelical HypoChristians believe and espouse, whether Prosperity Doctrine or Cult of Personality, or even Sectarian. These are ChristoFascists and ChristoRacists, as evidenced by their so-called political "Nationalism," which is a fascist and racist ideology. I am ashamed to say my faith, and prefer to say I "Follow the Jesus Way." Whatever happened to the Social Justice Movement, with intra and interfaith leadership?

Robert Tucker

Mark, Nazareth is in Israel. You do know this right? You base your claims on false information. How should anyone take you seriously?

John Owens

Owens is right. You must be fixated on Trump. From whence the 80% figure? Never mind your other mindless comments.

Stephanie Willey

Having studied the issues carefully, I must disagree with you, Kirk

James Daughton

To Kirk: painting with a wide brush is never a good way to make a cognizant point, however, the caller made some cognizant and point on statements. Statistically speaking a third of those who call themselves evangelicals are people of color. Yet, the caller was specifically calling put those who preach the gospel and then live a rich, luxuriant life style. Many of those preachers are preaching prosperity gospel, which is way off the true Christian path. And, once again with statistics , white evangelicals have been voting a certain way and supporting candidates who will push an agenda of non inclusion and lack of sympathy for the poor and the needy (and needy aren't always economic, think of the ill). So, yes, the caller's points deserve recognition. Also, let us just say that people's actions are not intentionally driven by bigotry; their consequences are still the same and anyone who supports or perpetrate such actions is, themselves, guilty.

Minister Teresa

John 3:16 is Jesus simplified. We are to spread that message. Organized religion, politics and world issues become secondary and will be problematic until the end of time. They are all human issues and we should pray that we make the best daily decisions possible and then rely on faith for the rest. Love, peace, and joy are from God's grace placed on our hearts.

Ben

Now. Now. Your white privilege is showing.

Loren

Protest all you want, but one thing stands out. Trump and his minions are racist.

burningfeet 57

The caller addressing evangelism is spot on! Evangelism = Hypocrisy! Tony by the way is a LIAR!