The Tiny Bible of the Theological Left: Read it all in 5 minutes!

I came across this from 2011 and wanted to re-post it.  It started off as a tongue-in-cheek exercise, but I just kept thinking of more and more examples until my fingers cramped from typing so much.  Seriously, the more you think carefully about what they teach and claim to believe about the Bible the more obvious it is that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.  

—–

There used to be a video store near us that rented movies with objectionable parts removed so the whole family could watch them.  I remember thinking, “What a time saver — you can watch Pulp Fiction in 5 minutes!”

In the same way, you can read the Theological Liberal Bible in about that time, and that is barely an exaggeration (although in this case there are no objectionable parts — at least to believers!).  Thomas Jefferson famously made his own religion with his “Jefferson Bible.” Theological Liberals just go many steps further.  I’m pretty sure this post is longer than their Bible.  Seriously, think about all the things they have to leave out:

First, they must delete the many warnings against false teachers.  There are loads of those, even in the Sermon on the Mount that they think they like but don’t really understand.

Matthew 5:17–18 has to go from the Sermon on the Mount because it shows how Jesus fully supported all the Old Testament.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Then they need to delete various passages that warn not to add or remove anything from the word of God.

They must cut the 100+ passages passages explicitly or implicitly teaching that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  You can’t have that while you’re busy teaching that all religions lead to the one true God.

They must delete the ~3,000 verses and surrounding texts that claim to directly speak for God.  In their hypocrisy many will claim that God is still speaking to them – such as with the UCC slogan “God is still speaking;” – but they don’t believe the original claims made in the Bible.  They treat it as a purely man-made book.  Why should we believe He is speaking to them in a reliable way?  Are we to believe that God has always been a 21st century far Left politician and was just waiting until the culture drifted his way before He was brave enough to speak?

All the claims that the Bible is the word of God have to be cut.  Psalm 119?  Gone.  2 Peter 3:16?  Gone.  And so on.

The beginning of Genesis must go, because they worship Darwin more than God and they “know” how we really came into being.

The countless passages in the Old Testament commanding us not to worship other gods.  For those of you who have actually read the Bible, you know how hard it is to go more than a couple pages without that warning or without reading about the horrible consequences of disobeying it.

The whole book of Joshua, because they think it would have been genocidal for God to clear out the promised land — even if the Canaanites had sacrificed babies and committed other atrocities for 400 years.

The messages about Adam & Eve, Sodom & Gomorrah, Noah and Jonah have to go, of course — as well as Jesus’ unapologetic commentary on them and his treatment of them as real events.

The whole Exodus passage, because they can’t believe that those miracles happened or that God would judge Pharaoh and the Egyptians.  And most of the wilderness experience and the Tabernacle creation must be removed, because they don’t think God really did miracles like providing manna or gave guidance to the Israelites.

The whole book of Judges, because they think God wouldn’t really punish Israel for cycle after cycle of turning from him and worshiping false gods.

Psalm 139 is out, because it teaches how we were knit together in our mother’s wombs by God.  And the same goes for all the other passages acknowledging the humanity of the unborn, such as when John the Baptist kicks in the womb of Elizabeth when Mary, pregnant with Jesus, comes to visit.

All the do not murder / do not shed innocent blood passages have to be cut to support unrestricted abortion rights.

The book of Daniel, plus all other prophetic works, because their stunning accuracy leads theological Liberals to say they must have been written after the fact.  They seem to think that the proper Christian worldview is that Bible writers were big liars, so how could you possibly include those books?  After all, their god could never know the future like the God of the Bible.

Most or all of Paul’s letters, because they think he was a homophobic misogynist who could not have spoken for God.  There goes nearly half the books of the New Testament plus a big chunk of Acts.

The story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac, because they think God wouldn’t do that.

All the animal sacrifices, because PETA opposes those and God wouldn’t really command blood to be shed as payment for sins.

All the passages about God having the Northern Kingdom and then the Southern Kingdom taken into captivity for disobeying him and worshiping other gods, because the god of liberal theologians would never do that!

The beginning of the book of Acts, because it has Jesus there after a physical resurrection.

All the passages about judgment and Hell (that’s a whole bunch of the red letters, btw).

All the Gospel presentations in Acts, because they never mention how much God loves us unconditionally but they continually mention that Jesus died and rose again for our sins and that we are commanded to repent and believe.

1 Corinthians 15, because it claims that Jesus was physically resurrected.

Most of the passages about the crucifixion being God’s idea, because that would be divine child abuse.

All the claims for Jesus’ divinity.

All the claims for the virgin birth.

All Jesus’ miracles, because they “know” those couldn’t have really happened.

All the Gospel accounts of Jesus rising from the dead.

All the passages saying Jesus died for our sins.

All the passages about sinners and how humans can’t be good on their own.

All the passages about Satan and demons (there are more than you might think).

Most of the passages about human sexuality, marriage and parenting, because they view that version of God as homophobic, misogynistic and hopelessly politically incorrect.

All passages about God’s wrath.

They even have to take out Leviticus 19:18 (” . . . love your neighbor as yourself”) because they dismiss the rest of Leviticus with their flawed “God hates shrimp”argument.

Pretty much all of Revelation, and especially chapters 2-3 where Jesus addresses the faults of many churches.

And so many more!  Truly, they are the original Dalmatian Theologians, claiming that the Bible is only inspired in spots and that they are inspired to spot the spots, or Advanced Dalmatian Theologians, where God is also changing spots and adding/removing spots, and, oddly enough, He is only telling theological liberals and progressives.

Leave a comment with others I missed and I’ll update the post.

So what’s left? Roughly a dozen verses, which they take out of context or just plain misinterpret.  Examples:

  1. Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged. They don’t have time to read the next 4 verses that explain how He meant not to judge hypocritically – which, ironically, is exactly what they do when they use that verse in isolation to judge you.
  2. Matthew 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. They use that to oppose capital punishment, among other things, even though it is hard to turn the other cheek if you are the victim of murder and to apply it would mean you’d oppose not only capital punishment for murderers but any punishment at all.
  3. Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ They love mentioning the least of these to justify asking Caesar to take from neighbor A to give to neighbor B, but of course that isn’t what Jesus meant.  And they ignore the other language of eternal judgment in the passage.  Oh, and they are pro-legalized abortion and pro-taxpayer-funded abortion, which means they are pro-abortion.  I can’t reconcile that with helping the “least of these” or with loving your neighbor.

Seriously, we have a precise, highly technical theological term for people who hold those views about the Bible: Non-Christians.  Run, don’t walk, from their “churches.”  Highlight their errors until your throats are raw and your fingertips are calloused.  It is the loving thing to do for scores of their church members headed towards Hell.  Jesus didn’t die on the cross for us to ignore those who claim his name then lie about him.  He didn’t call us to be politically correct.

Spotting false teachers based on what they preached about today

I’m not a fan of letting Hallmark tell churches what to preach about (i.e., Mother’s Day / Father’s day sermons).  Just preach the word and the right themes in the right balance will come through.  But I certainly don’t object to anti-abortion sermons on Sanctity of Human Life Sunday.  The don’t murder / help the weak / forgiveness is possible themes are throughout scripture and are legitimate topics any day.  Taking a human life without adequate justification kills God in effigy and attempts to usurp his role as the author of life.  People who have been involved in the abortion process need to hear the good news that they can be forgiven for those deeds.  And we should always strive to help the “least of these” (and if the unborn about to be killed aren’t the least of these, then who could be?).

Not surprisingly, pro-abortion false teachers not only skip the Sanctity of Human Life Sunday theme, they worship man instead of God by preaching about Martin Luther King Jr. instead of Jesus.  Here’s a prime example by pervertedradical pro-abortionist, false teaching, race-baiting Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” CurrieAnswering The Call: A Homily For MLK Sunday On Isaiah 49:1-7.  They didn’t worship Jesus (they never do), they worshiped MLK.  Did he do some good things?  Sure.  But he also did some very bad things.  And either way, he should not be the object of worship.  (Then again, neither should Charles Darwin, who the wolves also worship on an annual basis.)

Of course, Chuck left out the fact that King thought homosexuals could and should change.  The Left is busy trying to pretend that King would have changed his mind.  Isn’t that a great way to do history?!

Here’s a sample (you can go to his blog and see the program that actually had a picture of MLK).

In churches and synagogues and mosques…in schools and our houses of government…in community centers and union halls…the people of our nation gather this weekend to honor once again the legacy of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

No, in real churches we gathered to worship Jesus.  My pastor had a fantastic sermon on Hebrews 10 this morning.

And who cares what they do in mosques and synagogues?  Oh, right, Chuck spreads the lie that all religions lead to God, in direct contradiction to what the Bible says over 100 times.

. . . Leading a non-violent revolution of social change, his words shaped the history of our time.  The walls of white supremacy could not withstand the reading of the Gospel message when preached by Dr. King.  Jim Crow, so powerful and full of pride, crumbled when confronted with the weapon of love unleashed by Dr. King and all those who participated in the civil rights movement.

King would probably never stop throwing up if he knew what wolves like Currie had done to make abortions legal.  Despite what Currie has falsely claimed, King never supported abortion, which kills blacks at a rate three times that of whites.  And that rate will go up if Currie’s dream of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions becomes real.  Rich, mostly white, mostly male abortionists kill more blacks in a week than the KKK ever dreamed of.  As morally reprehensible as they are, the KKK is pro-life, so they are better than people like Currie.

. . . Those who are called to prophetic ministry often run from the task.  Moses did.  He argued with God.  I think you have the wrong person, he said.  There must be someone better.  Jesus himself was burdened deeply by his calling.  Like King, he knew his path would end in death.  At times he became frustrated and other times required solitude for reflection.

That would be funny if it weren’t so blasphemous.  Only a fake like Chuck would say that Jesus ran from his task.  Jesus was fully God and fully man.

Even if we are not called to be a Moses or a King we are still called to be followers of Jesus.

Chuck’s Jesus is not the real Jesus.

. . . We still need that sense of revolution today.  Some use that term and think of violence but we are called to non-violence.

Chuck & Co. are pro-abortion, the ultimate violence.

We need to be revolutionaries to make sure that everyone is free.  We know this is not the case.  The very voting rights that Dr. King fought for are under attack.

That is a lie.  Voter ID is one of the most common sense measures of all time.

Gun violence and domestic violence and political violence threaten too many the world over.

Especially in places with Leftist politicians putting restrictions on guns.

People are enslaved by poverty the world over.  Climate change threatens existence.

Another lie.  What really threatens existence is abortions, to the tune of 3,000+ per day in the U.S.

. . . At the same time, all of us should examine how we are living our lives.  Do our lives in this moment of history serve God fully?  If not, what changes can we make in what we do and how we act to better live out our Christian faith.

Maybe Chuck could start with not taking taking little girls to gay pride parades.

The only good news is that based on the pictures Chuck shows of his combined churches, there appear to be a couple dozen very old people attending.  Hopefully the UCC will continue to shrink (must be the ejector seats!).

Praise God that there are real churches for people authentically seeking Jesus and the Gospel!

P.S. Via An Addendum to my Pastor’s Sermon Today:

Despite the enormous work Martin Luther King Jr. did to free African-Americans, black babies are being murdered at an alarming rate under the guise of freedom.  Abortion is the number one killer of African-Americans.  I believe The Radiance Foundation puts it best when they say, “The inhumanity of slavery has been replaced by the inhumanity of abortion.”  79% of Planned Parenthood facilities are located in minority neighborhoods.

Do false teachers ever get any verses right?

I ask that in all seriousness.  No matter how simple the passage, they always seem to miss the most obvious truths.  A recent example is from false teacher Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie in Duck Dynasty Crew Invited To Church.*

No one should be using the name of the Prince of Peace to intentionally tear us apart.

But where does the name Prince of Peace come from?  This is the only reference in the Bible:

Isaiah 6:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Jesus came to bring peace between sinners and their God.  It wasn’t the kind of peace Chuck and other false teachers allude to.

And how can Chuck quote this verse while explicitly denying Jesus’ deity in this passage?  And to Chuck, this had to be a false prophecy, but he thinks Jesus is dead.  How could He then reign on the throne of David?  So why quote the prince of peace portion?

As usual, nearly every biblical reference that these wolves make is theological train wreck.

And even if the verse referred to the kind of peace Chuck thinks it does, how could a radical pro-abortionist like him use it with a straight face?  Crushing and dismembering innocent human beings is as opposite of that kind of peace as you can get, yet Chuck supports the Democrats’ official policy of unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions.

Run, don’t walk, from false teachers like him.

* Of course, Chuck’s views on Phil Robertson are completely wrong as well. But that is to be expected, as Phil knows that the Bible is the word of God and Chuck thinks it isn’t.

Parts of the Pachyderm

A favorite updated for your reading pleasure.  If you haven’t encountered the “parts of the elephant” argument yet, you probably will.  Even some people who claim the name of Christ use it to bolster their “all paths lead to God” mistake.

 —

IMG_0098

Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason has an excellent piece called the Trouble with the Elephant.

The ancient fable of the blind men and the elephant is often used to illustrate the fact that every faith represents just one part of the larger truth about God. However, the attempt is doomed before it gets started.

In the story, multiple blind men feel different parts of an elephant and describe it in different ways.  Someone who is not blind then points out the truth to them.

The typical application of the story is that religious pluralism is true – i.e., we’re worshiping the same God in different ways.

A good question to ask anyone who repeats this parable is, “Where do you fit into the story?”  If he is one of the blind men, then why would he have anything to offer you?  If he claims to be the person with sight, then what are his qualifications that he understands this world and you don’t?

Note that the blind men are describing different parts of the elephant, but it is still an elephant.  But if one religion says God is personal and another says He is impersonal, then they can’t both be right.  You can’t be an elephant and not an elephant.  I wrote more on the irreconcilable differences in the essential truth claims of religions in Religious Pluralism is Intellectually Bankrupt.

In a sense, the whole story is self refuting.  While the principle message is that we can only know a certain piece about God, the message itself claims to have the big picture.

It also has a rather odd premise: The “real” religion would be to follow every religion.  That way you’d have the whole elephant.

The only way the parable would work is if the elephant described itself to the blind people – sort of the way the God reveals himself to us in the Bible.  As Koukl says:

If everyone truly is blind, then no one can know if he or anyone else is mistaken.  Only someone who knows the whole truth can identify another on the fringes of it.  In this story, only the king can do that–no one else.

The most ironic turn of all is that the parable of the six blind men and the elephant, to a great degree, is an accurate picture of reality.  It’s just been misapplied.

We are like blind men, fumbling around in the world searching for answers to life’s deepest questions.  From time to time, we seem to stumble upon some things that are true, but we’re often confused and mistaken, just as the blind men were.

How do I know this?  Because the King has spoken.  He is above, instructing us, advising us of our mistakes, and correcting our error.  The real question is:  Will we listen?

Remember that if the elephant illustration is true, then Christianity is false.  The Bible teaches 100+ times that Jesus is the only way to salvation.  This is an argument that no Christian should use.

The theological Leftists are like the Nazi “German Christians”

I realize that is a strong statement, but I really don’t mean it as hyperbole.  As I’ve been reading a biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the impact of the Nazis on the German churches I see so many similarities with the Leftist shills in the U.S. today.  The “German Christians” were the sanctioned “church” in Germany but obviously led by non-believers, just as the Leftist “churches” deny the essentials of the faith while reflexively propping up the current administration.

It is fascinating how quickly false teachers like Chuck “Jesus is not the only way” Currie come out with the Democratic talking points.  Obama’s mishandling of the Syria situation has been so severe that people have seriously wondered if he was doing it on purpose to reduce our standing in the world.  Yet until Russia bailed him out, this is what we got from false teachers like Chuck:

There is a legitimate moral imperative for the international community to take limited military action that disrupts Syria’s ability to use weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets.

via Lines Must Be Drawn In Syria

But after Putin “solved” the problem (assuming you are naive enough to trust Putin . . .and Assad . . .and that even if Assad gave up all of his WMDs that he couldn’t re-arm in 15 minutes . . . and that they couldn’t kill countless civilians with traditional means . . . and so on) we immediately get an about face from false teacher Chuck that just happens to have all the Democratic talking points.

President Obama addressed the nation regarding the on-going crisis in Syria tonight.  He spoke in deeply moral terms about the world’s responsibility to protect civilians from the use of chemical weapons and other WMD.  Barack Obama is no George W. Bush.

So as long as Assad kills the children with knives, as Obama and Chuck support via unrestricted, taxpayer-funded abortions, things are fine.  Or guns.  Or nearly anything else.  Just don’t use chemicals!

And it wouldn’t be complete if you didn’t blame Bush — several times!

The current president has argued that a military response is needed to deter Syria from further attacks against civilians using chemical weapons but at the same time we now know the president and Secretary of State John Kerry have been negotiating with the Russians on a proposal to place all of Syria’s WMD under international control so they can be destroyed – a long sought goal.

Oh, it was totally a long sought goal — provided that you consider Russia’s several days old offer “long sought.”  It was so long sought that Chuck forgot to mention it when calling for war less than two weeks ago and it was never mentioned by Obama until after Russia made the offer.

President Obama is seeking with intention to avoid military conflict as a first resort whereas President Bush used the pretext of 9/11 to invade Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with those terrible terrorist attacks.

More Bush-blaming.  Hey, champ, Obama has been in office almost 5 years now.  Time to take responsibility.  Oh, and Bush has been proved right on all his reasons on Iraq, and he had the support of the UN, and dozens of countries and loads of Democrats like Hillary on record denouncing Hussein.

At the same time, President Obama is honoring the democratic institutions of our nation by calling on Congress to debate the path forward in Syria.  Balance is being restored between the three co-equal branches of government – balance under assault since the start of the imperial presidency.

Yes, once he realized that even most people on the Left (except fake Christian leaders like Chuck) opposed him he punted over to Congress.

And what hypocrisy to pretend that Obama hasn’t run roughshod over the balance of powers!  Once again, it is Bush’s fault.

The worldwide Christian community has been nearly unanimous in arguing against military action in Syria.

Uh, except for Chuck, in his editorial above.

 There are many good arguments not to engage in this conflict but  I believe very seriously that the world does have a responsibility protect those who cannot protect themselves.

Unless they are in their mother’s wombs or even 10% left in side the mother (i.e., “partial-birth abortion,” aka infanticide), in which case Obama and Chuck want the government to fund the destruction of the unwanted human beings.

And it would be fascinating for Obama and his “German Christians” to explain why we need to arm Syrians (not to mention Al Qaeda, but that’s a different issue) with assault weapons to protect them from their own government but they want to impose gun restrictions here in the U.S.  Presumably the answer is that we can totally trust our government and they would never turn on us with the power of the IRS, or eavesdropping, or more . . .

Don’t be fooled by the politics-disguised-as-religion fake churches led by people like Chuck.  Study the Bible all you can and follow the real Jesus, and stand up for the truth.

Side note: A great analysis of Obama’s speech: As confused as his policy.  Too bad he isn’t as eager to get to the truth on Benghazi.

And then almost in the same breath, Obama then acknowledged that a diplomatic solution had arisen, despite two weeks of beating the drums for war. Just after arguing that only the US military could solve the problem, Obama said that he was turning to Russia for a potential solution. Not only that, but he also announced that he had asked Congress to hold off on a vote to authorize military action until the Russia and UN track played itself out.  This change was necessitated by the fumbling of his Secretary of State, even though Obama himself had just called the UN “hocus pocus.”

So what was Obama asking of the American people? Nothing. What new and convincing information did Obama bring to the American people?  None.  What new argument did Obama make to shift the strong momentum against military action? He had none.  There was nothing new in this speech from Obama that hadn’t been argued at length in his six broadcast-network interviews the day before, or that his White House and State Department hadn’t offered in the previous week before the speech.

And most oddly, despite having the attention of the nation on the eve of 9/11, Obama never bothered to mention either the devastating terrorist attacks from twelve years ago or the sacking of the Benghazi consulate on the previous anniversary, which took place on Obama’s watch.

Missing the point on Matthew 25

I find several common themes of those who reflexively quote Matthew 25 (“Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.”).  It is a great passage that many sound teachers use properly, but false teachers abuse it regularly.  It is the pet verse of the Leftist writers and commenters at the Sojourners’ blog but they never get it right.

1. They don’t speak up for the 3,000+ of “least of these” who get killed in the womb every day because they are unwanted by their parents. They support the party whose platform calls for more abortions via taxpayer-funding. Who could be more vulnerable than those being killed for being unwanted?  If they applied this properly then they are killing Jesus in effigy by supporting abortions.

2. They don’t understand the context of Matthew 25: It is written to brothers and sisters — i.e., fellow believers — those in the church, not everyone else.

3. They think that lobbying Caesar to take from neighbor A by force to “give” to neighbor B qualifies as obeying Matthew 25. But take that to its logical conclusion: Would it qualify as obeying to lobby the government to make other people visit those in prison on your behalf, as also mentioned in that passage? Of course not. Jesus told you to do those things yourself.

4. They don’t read to the end of the chapter, because they typically deny this part:

41 “Then he will say to those on his left,‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.  . . .45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Do all those quoting Matthew 25 to justify forced wealth redistribution as a Christian act also affirm the truth of eternal punishment?

Do they think He will really return and glory and make a final judgment of people?

If you want to argue it is good public policy to do certain things, then feel free. But that is not what Matthew 25 means.

Matthew 25:31–46 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Normally I wouldn’t recommend this . . .

. . . but I encourage Bible-believing Christians to visit the Sojourners’ blog and comment there.   Yes, I know they are led by Jim “the Gospel is all about wealth redistribution” Wallis and they live a lie each day, pretending to be centrists — and Christians — when they are really to the left of the Huffington Post.

But oddly enough they are letting Bible-believers post comments now without moderation.  I’m not sure if it is because they moved to a Facebook comment format or if their moderators changed.  Either way, there are several solid commenters there and we often outnumber the Leftists!  So be sure to visit and comment or at least “like” the comments you agree with.  It is great to know that visitors who read the comments will see some balance and the truth.

The commenters are often used to an echo chamber (they know that Sojo is really a Leftist front) so they go into full freak-out mode when their assertions are politely but thoroughly debunked.  I have had multiple theological Liberals get so frustrated with having their arguments annihilated that they deleted entire threads that they started!  Think about that: If you were winning a debate would you delete the thread?  It just happened again on this post where a Leftist calling God a “she” was referring to Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, etc. as Christ-followers and great theologians.  I need to start copying those before they get deleted!  (Unfortunately, if the originator deletes a comment then the replies go with it.)

So be your usual polite, fact-based, Bible-based selves and weigh in when you have time, or at least “like” the comments you agree with.  It is a great opportunity to stand up for the truth and expose their dark, anti-biblical views.