unworthyservant

With all the political upheaval in the US today, I thought I'd mention a story that has pretty much slipped through the cracks. It's the investigation of Chris Krebs. For those unfamiliar with Mr. Krebs, he was the Director of Trump’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). Trump fired Krebs in November 2020 after he defended the integrity of the 2020 election. Now in 2025, he has ordered the DOJ to begin an investigation of Krebs. Trump himself said he was targeting the former public servant for saying the 2020 election was not rigged. In the order to investigate him, Trump said “Abusive conduct of this sort both violates the First Amendment and erodes trust in Government, thus undermining the strength of our democracy itself.” As the administration's top cybersecurity official, he was a key witness during Congress’s investigation into the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol. In his testimony he said that Trump and Republican officials “lied to the American people about the security of the 2020 election.” This so upset the Trump campaign that Trump’s campaign attorney, Joseph diGenova, said on Newsmax that Krebs “should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” Well, they can't draw and quarter him or take him out at dawn and shoot him, so they are having him investigated by the DOJ. So, is it acceptable in the US for someone to be be investigated for speaking out as an expert in election fraud on election fraud just because his opinion doesn't align with the claims of the President? That's the only reason given for the investigation.

Seriously! Yes, they did! I only mentioned this one instance because it's what the post was about. Are you suggesting that I should have listed everyone who has ever been banned by Facebook in a post that isn't about them? Seriously? And just FYI, the Post was not banned over the Hunter Biden laptop story. Facebook simply took the story down for a few days until the fact checkers checked it and the Post revised it to eliminate the unsubstantiated parts.

I've always been curious as to why a "married" couple running around naked is sinful. As for modesty, there was no one else there to see. God obviously didn't have a problem with them being naked until after the famous "eating of the fruit". At least He never admonished them to clothe themselves. The fruit was "the knowledge of good and evil", indicating that before eating it, they had no concept of good and evil. The old saying is ignorance is bliss and it seems that Adam and Eve were blissful until sin entered the picture. The original sin, in reality was disobeying God. He had only given one command at that time and that command was not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. We are told that Adam and Eve were created in God's own image. That's another conundrum in itself, as we can't really know what the image of God actually is. That said, men have always used this passage to try to explain God in light of human attributes and vice versa. This has led to much push back from non-believers, making the point that man has tried to make himself in some ways equal with God. The quote that's often attributed to Voltaire says "In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since." So, the whole story has created much debate and consternation solely based on a literal reading of the story. That's why I prefer to take a more nuanced approach to the entire debate. That is, I admit there are things I don't understand and will not until God reveals them in His time. As for the creation story, I don't know if it's meant to be a literal blow by blow, day by day account or a metaphorical one, using a garden and fruits as an analogy to man choosing the knowledge of good and evil as shared by Satan over God's commandment and thus seriously damaging his relationship with God. Note that God didn't sever the relationship but punished Adam and Eve via banishment from the garden. The bright side is that it's not necessary to accept or believe either reading in order to serve God and follow Christ.

I've often wondered the same thing. Personally, I list the pre-tribulation rapture in the category of things that may or may not be accurate, so I have no opinion on it's validity or lack thereof. That said, I've always been curious about the time spent debating the apocalypse and what folks get from discussing it. Without getting into the details, I believe the entire debate over the apocalypse and the rapture as a whole is unnecessary if we aren't planning on being here for it. And since we know that the end is closer today than it was yesterday, shouldn't we as Christians concentrate on those things which Christ taught us to do (which shouldn't be controversial at all) and leave all the extracurricular discussion for when we get to Heaven? But wait, then, presumably we'll know the answers anyway. It's debates like the ones concerning pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib rapture that divide us into an estimated 45,000 denominations. Why can't we just come together in those things on which we should agree (specifically doing what Christ taught). Since he never taught any of those theories why should they divide us?

In the runup to the 2020 election, a small right wing news organization called the Epoch Times saw an opportunity and seized it. They directed millions of dollars in advertising toward supporting the Trump campaign and published dozens of articles in it's newspaper parroting almost every Trump talking point. They published so many stories that proved untruthful that they were banned from advertising on Facebook, but that didn't deter the far right faithful who flocked to support the organization. Now, what started some 20 odd years ago as a small, insignificant organization primarily geared toward a campaign against the CCP, had become one of the country's most successful and influential right wing conservative news organizations. They were the #2 poster of pro-Trump ads (behind only the Trump campaign) on Facebook before being banned. The Epoch Media Group also operates the New Tang Dynasty (NTD) television network. According to their tax documents, between 2019 and 2021 their revenue grew by 685%. Their unwavering support of the Trump campaign brought them a bonanza of contributions from big money right wing supporters and they now claim to be the country's 4th largest newspaper by subscriber count. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calls it one of his most trusted news sources. Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) recited the history of the Epoch Times into the Congressional Record. As a nonprofit, The Epoch Times is exempt from most federal taxes. Its mission, according to tax filings, is independent journalism, “outside of political interests and the pursuit of profit, for the public benefit and to be truly responsible to society.” Many on the left have decried that the organization has become a right wing PAC and should register as such but authorities have yet to look into the issue. In recent years the Epoch Times has denied any affiliation with the Falun Gong despite the two groups ongoing financial and organizational ties and the fact that the entire Epoch Times board members and most staff are Falun Gong practitioners. The non-profits behind both organizations share executives and provide grants and services to each other, according to tax filings. And the newspaper, along with it's digital production company and the heavily advertised dance troupe Shen Yun, make up a nonprofit network that the leader of the religious movement calls “our media.” So, who is the Epoch Times and who controls it? The Falun Gong (or Falun Dafa) are a religious organization that has been persecuted by the CCP for decades. The Epoch Times was formed by members of the Falun Gong in 2000 as a small, free propaganda newsletter, in opposition to the CCP. Falun Gong literally means "Practice of the Law Wheel" (Dharma Chakra) which refers to a series of five meditative exercises aimed at channeling and harmonizing the "qi" or vital energy. The Falun Gong is based on the teachings of Li Hongzhi. He first published what has become the groups "canon", in two books the "Teachings of Falun Gong" in China in 1992 and Zhuan Falun" in 1993. Followers consider his writings sacred. They cover a range of topics from spiritual, scientific and moral issues to the metaphysical. Translated their core principles are supposedly based on truthfulness, benevolence and forebearance. The term "Falun" or Buddha Fa, is a great high level of the "Buddha School" in which "assimilation to the supreme nature of the universe" is the foundation of their practice. In this concept, one must practice to upgrade one's mind and nature by abandoning "negative attachments" and "assimilating oneself to Truthfulness-Compassion-Forbearance". The term "Practice" refers to the five meditative exercises that are said to purify and transform one's body. Li asserts that this world is beset with evil, disease, and immorality and only under his guidance can one attain perfect health and personal salvation. The teachings of Falun Gong makes a distinction between fojia, Buddha School, and fojiao, the religion of Buddhism as well as between the Dao School (daojia) and the religion of Daoism. Falun Gong incorporates their own version of each. Thay incorporate the practices of Qigong that involves movements and/or poses combined with controled breathing in the pursuit of spiritual "transcendence". Li also teaches the segreation of the races and rejects modern medicine. From the beginning, Li has asserted his absolute authority over the transmission of the teachings and the use of healing powers of Falun Gong: he said in Changchun that only he is possessed of these right, and any who violate are to be expelled. Falun Gong practitioners see Li Hongzhi as the "enlightened teacher" or master whose writings and teachings carry unique spiritual authority. Some have said that Li claims top be the "sovereign god whose Fa powers are thousands of times stronger than that of Sakyamuni and Jesus Christ". I can't seem to find a specific quote where he said this, so make of iy what you will. Even before stepping into the political limelight, Falun Gong attracted a good deal of public attention. Its popularity has steadily grown at a grassroots level, not only in China, but also in countries such as Australia, Canada, Switzerland, and the United States. It has undergone an unprecedented period of growth since becoming involved in US politics. So, how did such an organization become so intertwined in American politics and why have so many right wingers, including many Evangelicals, been so swayed by them? Does anyone have any insights?

I've seen them on occasion. Never knew anyone who had one. I figure that since God told the Israelites in Leviticus 19:28 "28Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD", He might not look kindly on them to this day. Some will say that the Old Testament Law isn't incumbent upon Christians today, but I always like to err on the side of caution. God surely won't judge us for refraining from something that He warned against, so, as for myself, I'll remain tattoo free.

From what I see right now, the government is just as full of rich folks as it has ever been. If anything, the gap between those rich folks and the average working person has widened. Wealth inequality is higher in the US than in practically any other developed country. Over the years, amid a trend of economic deregulation, privatization of financialization, erosion of labor market institutions and declining tax progressivity, the wealth gap has widened significantly. Today, the top 10% of earners control 2/3 of the total wealth in the US while the bottom 50% hold only 2.4% of the wealth. The top 1% hold an estimated $49.2 trillion in wealth! It is those who control this enormous wealth who control our government at the highest levels. I believe their underlying agenda is to find ways to use their political power to increase their own portfolios whether or not those actions benefit the poor. That's how, in many cases, they obtained the wealth in the first place. But we live in a Democratic state and we keep voting for them. As long as they can keep getting elected, they can continue the trend.

I don't claim to know all there is to know about tariffs. I know they vary widely across the globe. I don't believe anyone can accurately predict how well they will work or if they will backfire unless one can also predict the trends of all the related factors that will ultimately come into play, including but not limited to how other countries react and how the markets react, not to mention all the Geo-political factors that are so unpredictable in this moment.

I don't care what denomination the church in question is. I apologize that I can't recommend a specific one, but it sounds to me as if your best option is to find another church where you can worship without the stress you describe. It sounds like you have gotten nowhere with the offending parties at this one.

If you are speaking to me, it sounds as if you may have gotten the wrong idea about my political leanings. I noted that I don't believe propaganda either on the right or the left. I always research to find the truth and report it no matter which way it leans politically. Just because I call out the "disinformation" on the right in this instance doesn't mean that I necessarily agree with the left on any other issue. That's reading way too much into my comments on a single subject. For that matter, I don't believe that either party has interest in religion either. I believe that what Billy Graham said about the right applies to both sides. Both sides are interested only in whether they can manipulate religion for their own political purposes. I also believe that neither the right or left wings in American politics has done a very good job running the country for quite some time. That said, what I believe the most is that to take a hard stand on either side, with politics as divisive as they are these days, might tend to compromise one's Christian testimony with those on the opposite political spectrum. A hard core right winger might have a hard time accepting the Gospel from someone who has expressed hard left wing political views and vice versa. So, I just try and find the truth behind every issue that I choose to comment on, regardless of the political bend of said truth. That said, one of the biggest problems I see with politics and political parties is that both parties are run by rich donors (and oft times candidates) who assure us that they are standing up for the average Joe (or the poor and middle class) but their track record shows that their policies, by and large, end up benefiting themselves and their rich counterparts. There have been a few exceptions but recently I don't see many. I am reminded that in every instance where Christ talked about a rich man, the rich man was not the good guy or did not follow Christ. The lone exception is Zacchaeus, the only rich man that Christ said received salvation. And the reason He said that is that Zacchaeus gave away his riches (or a goodly part of them) to the poor as, Christ taught. He also returned fourfold to those whom he had taken their money through "false accusation" (in the KJV). I wonder what would happen to the government and politics if poor folks quit supporting rich folks who attended Ivy League schools and know nothing of the lives of poor folks except what they learned in school? I wonder a lot of things but in reality, we must play with the hand we are dealt and I choose to believe neither side until I research and find the truth or lack thereof in what they say. I take it topic by topic. I will support either side when they are truthful and will call out either side when they are not. It's not about right or left it's about truth. I believe it's the way Christ would have wanted it. Christ, in all matters, was about the truth. And I don't have time for time to enlighten me so I'll rely on God and His word for that.

Interesting point about the disagreement between the Pharisees and the Essenes over the over the dating of Pentecost. That would make a great thread for a discussion in itself. You also note that the Pharisees did not always dent the Greek scriptures. I hold out that they didn't always and there's no evidence suggesting that they never denied them. Thus the question, did Paul exhort us to study them?

Correct. You speak of non-canonical, meaning not a part of the "canon" approved by modern churches. Actually the word canon wasn't even used in context of religious scriptures, meaning a set of accepted or authoritative texts, until the late 18th century. The question wasn't if they were "canonical" or not (obviously they are not, thus the controversy). The question was did Paul urge Timothy (and by extension all Christians) to study them. In other words when Paul said "all scripture" did that mean the Apocrypha as well. Taking into account there was no "canon" in those days and that Paul was a Pharisee and the Pharisees were known to read the apocryphal books, it seems entirely possible.

I tried reading the Gospel of Thomas once. I found it way too rambling for my taste. All I know is that from what I've read about the apocryphal Gospels, none of them contain any teachings of Christ during His ministry that are not already covered in the ones in the New Testament. They put a slightly nuanced spin on the ones we already know but they contain no new ones. That said, I don't feel the need to read them in their entirety. Of course this discussion is about Old Testament apocrypha and whether Paul was calling them scripture and extorting Timothy to study them.

Just to add a note, Jude quoted the Apocryphal Book of Enoch Jude 1:14-16. "14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, 15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. 16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage."

You say the media that "we" have been shown lately we can't trust". How I substantiate my post is research to find the truth behind the media stories that we can't trust. I don't ever trust any single source on anything unless that source is God or Jesus Christ. And I don't rely on strictly right or left leaning sources. I read both any many in between on most subjects before commenting. I read all your far right commentators, didn't I? I check the bios on the authors of what I'm reading whenever possible. As I noted, I also checked the bios on the sources you mentioned but didn't quote. I even shared a few of their quotes. That's as first hand as info gets. You ask how I substantiate the things I post, well, many are well known facts and reported widely if you just look beyond right wing extremist sources. I shared with you quotes with dates, and context of the quotes from both sides so as not to take them out of context. You indicate that you and I differ as to why and whether the Russians have a right to do so. I say, as I tried to show, that you differ with most every reputable source on the subject. I simply quoted reliable and unimpeachable sources and showed how the only ones that agree with your logic are either Russian sources or extreme right wing commentators with a decided pro-Russian bend. I showed the well documented Russian bias of the two you mentioned, so as to show that their opinion is bent toward Russia. It's not I with whom you disagree but the facts as iterated by the UN, the EU, NATO and even the Russian President himself, not to mention every reputable fact checking organization I could find. I try to always believe the proven facts and my opinion is based on research on both sides to find those facts. It's a slippery slope when you base opinions on unreliable, biased or otherwise compromised sources. Ditto, when you base them on just one side of any issue. I still don't know exactly where you get your information. (aside from the couple of sources that I've already shown to be extremely biased) To the best of my recollection, you have quoted no fact that can be backed up and verified as truthful by independent research. I believe that as a Christian, if I make a statement that upon scrutiny can be proven false, (as the ones which I mentioned) then it might negatively affect my testimony and it's certainly not worth it to espouse some political agenda. Let me quote one last source that I personally have always found to be reliable. The Reverend Billy Graham said in an interview in Parade magazine "The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it". Personally, I make sure neither they nor the left will manipulate me because I'll not share the propaganda on either side unless I can prove the validity of their claims beyond a reasonable doubt and will try to point out the true facts if they propagate false claims.

Again, I ask to who or what you believe to be the "deep state". And yes what PNAC proposed was put into action when Dick Cheney and others joined the Bush administration and advised him on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They were thought to be the one's who convinced Bush that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That proved to be untrue. How did those wars work out after all was said and done? I still can't find anything they wrote or proposed concerning Russia and Ukraine. Could you please provide details? I am familiar with Colonel Macgregor as a frequest guest on the Tucker Carlson show. I know he's made more than his share of unsubstantiated claims in his day. such as, in 2019, on the Conservative Commandos radio show, Macgregor alleged that George Soros was financing the transportation of foreigners to the United States, purportedly to destroy American culture. Of course he had no evidence to back up his claim and it has since been debunked my most every reputable fact checking service. In 2014, appeared on Russian state-owned network RT after the first invasion of Ukraine, where he called for annexation of the Donbas region and said residents of the region "are in fact Russians, not Ukrainians. By that same logic, should Cuba invade Puerto Rico because they are not Anglo Americans but Hispanic? In an October 2021 speech to the Serbian American Voters Alliance, Macgregor blamed America's problems on what "the Russians used to call certain individuals many, many years ago, rootless cosmopolitans". "Rootless cosmopolitans" is a Russian anti-semantic term He has spoken in support of Russia on many occasions and said of the current conflict that he believes Russia should be allowed to seize whatever parts of Ukraine it wants. Shortly after the war began he said "The first five days Russian forces I think frankly were too gentle." Veteran Fox News Pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin called him "an 'apologist' for Putin". Liz Cheney described Macgregor as "the Putin wing of the GOP". Everything I can find that he has said about the conflict from the beginning is in line with Russian propaganda and disinformation. Sorry, but I tend to not believe Russian propaganda regardless of who repeats it. It's just not had a good track record for truthfulness. As for Scott Ritter, first, he is a convicted sex offender. He was convicted in 2011 of arranging sexual encounters with authorities posing as children in an underage sex sting. He served 2 years for that conviction. Just last year his home was raided by the FBI where they confiscated boxes of evidence relating to an investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. He has espoused many conspiracy theories in his time and has long been known as an avid supporter of Russia. Of course he has taken Russia's side on the conflict. I just prefer to get my information from those who are just a little less biased and who can provide solid unimpeachable evidence for their views and not from those known to parrot Russian disinformation. You say you "overheard things" that let me know how they worked. Just what did you hear and how do they work? Sorry, but I'll not base any opinions on undisclosed things you heard.

It was just a handful of territories that were included.

Say what? What in the world does the kabbalah have to do with the price of eggs in China much less the subject at hand? Please clarify.

Who was asked to help whom? And where is your evidence that "we" set up the coup in 2014? I asked for references. Where do you get the intel that we set up the coup? Do you have some source of insider information from the CIA? That first statement is not true. (Kinda sounds like Russian disinformation) Let's talk about that UN process and the details. In February and March of 2014, Russia invaded Crimea and then annexed it illegally. On Feb. 22nd, the elected President, Viktor Yanukovych, was ousted. On Feb. 27th, Russian special forces with no insignias seized and took control of key strategic sites across Crimea. At first Russia denied involvement, claiming it was Crimean separatists who wanted to join Russia. Later after western media showed footage that proved they were Russian troops, Putin finally admitted it. On March 12th, those armed special forces occupied Crimea's Parliament. They forcibly dismissed the elected Crimean government officials and installed the pro-Russian Aksyonov government. It was the illegally installed Aksyonov government who then, on March 15th, announced the "Crimean Status Referendum", declaring Crimea's wish to become part of Russia. The very next day they announced that it had passed overwhelmingly with no that there had been a vote much less what that vote was. One day later on the 17th, the illegally installed government declared independence and formally requested to join Russia. Based on this, the very next day, March 18th, Russia formally incorporated Crimea as the "Republic of Crimea" and quickly militarized the country and warned against any outside interference. Most countries the annexation and declared it to be a blatant violation of international law. The annexation led to the other members of the G8 suspending Russia from the group. The United Nations General Assembly also rejected overwhelmingly the referendum and annexation and adopted a resolution affirming the "territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders". So, the UN never recognized the annexation as legal. Quite the opposite! Do you know something that the rest of us don't? You follow that with the statement that "'we' had promised never to move NATO to Russia's border." That is more Russian propaganda. There is no agreement that limits where NATO can go or what countries can or cannot join. Any European country can apply for membership. SOme Russian authorities claimed in the early 90s that a "oral agreement concerning no Eastward expansion of NATO but when interviewed about the issue, even then President, Mikhail Gorbachev denied it. Everyone knows that a treaty can't be altered by "oral promises" and NATO and US leaders agreed with Gorbachev that no such promise had been made. When Russia brought it up again in 2021 leading up to it's latest invasion, NATO leadership not only declared the decision to limit the expansion of NATO has never been taken, but that its adoption would entail a change in the fundamental documents of the alliance, which has never even been discussed. If such an agreement had been made, please explain the joining of NATO by Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in 2004. Just what killing was going to be stopped by not allowing Ukraine into NATO? The only killing I can think of is that related to Russia's invasion of a sovereign country. To what killing do you refer? Protect who from what encroachment? The only encroachment that I have seen was on the part of Russia. By PNAC, do you refer to the "Project For the New American Century"? They disbanded in 2005. While you can still view the website there are no articles published after 2005. What are you suggesting that they said about the subject and could you please provide the article as I cannot find it.

I've read a little of the history. I know that according to the Council on Foreign Relations, "It was Ukraine’s ties with the EU that brought tensions to a head with Russia in 2013–14. In late 2013, President Yanukovych, acting under pressure from his supporters in Moscow, scrapped plans to formalize a closer economic relationship with the EU. Russia had at the same time been pressing Ukraine to join the not-yet-formed EAEU. Many Ukrainians perceived Yanukovych’s decision as a betrayal by a deeply corrupt and incompetent government, and it ignited countrywide protests known as Euromaidan. Putin framed the ensuing tumult of Euromaidan, which forced Yanukovych from power, as a Western-backed “fascist coup” that endangered the ethnic Russian majority in Crimea. (Western leaders dismissed this as baseless propaganda reminiscent of the Soviet era.) In response, Putin ordered a covert invasion of Crimea." I know that at the time, Putin put the blame on the CIA, as did the Russian News Agency, TASS. I also know that every reputable news agency that I can find both domestically and in Europe debunked those claims as Russian disinformation. Do you have credible knowledge that Putin's claims are legitimate? That was the first time any nation had launched an unprovoked attack on another European country since WWII. I As for the things that have happened since to which you refer, please enlighten me. (Besides the fact that they elected a comedian as President. That I know)

Protecting itself from what? A regime led by a former comedian with no military ties with NATO? And just curious, who is this shadow government that you speak of anyway?

So, they are only a threat to Europe as proven by their incursion into the independent state of Ukraine and their insistence on keeping the territory they have seized and it's rich mineral deposits for themselves? I guess at least Trump is trying to negotiate half of the remaining natural resources for the US. Screw Ukraine, it's all about us. Let's not forget, Putin was a KGB agent in the Soviet Union when it fell, much like Hitler was a soldier in WWI when Germany was defeated.

I believe your friend is probably speaking of "gematria". It is an ancient numerology system. According to Aristotle, it was used in the the Pythagorean Era with the Greek language. The first documented evidence use of it in the Hebrew is from around 800 BCE. It was used in the Talmud and Midrash. It is still used by Jewish scholars today. It's a quite confusing system and would take some time to master, I'm sure. It involves reading words, phrases and sentences as numbers and assigning numerical instead of phonetic values to each letter of the Hebrew alphabet and comparing the numbers with other words, phrases or sentences. Quite mystic if you ask me. The only other numbering system with which I am familiar is the one from Strong's Concordance where it assigns a number to every Hebrew and Greek word found in the Bible for easy reference. The numbering system found there has been used by pretty much every Hebrew lexicon since it came out.

Good point. I guess I thought the term was well known whether one's denomination believed it or not.

The passage you quote is totally out of context. I never said that "the only thing required to obtain eternal security is a simple question of faith" as a statement of fact but as part of a question on the tenant of "Eternal Security". As for how I see faith and/or belief, first let me say that I believe the example of the devil, while I understand the use to illustrate your point, is a unique outlier for comparison purposes to us mere mortals. My opinion is there are five basic groups of people on Earth. Those who have never heard the Gospel and they are becoming far less common. Second, those who have heard and denied it. Third is those that heard the word, believed, at least long enough to make a confession of faith but then returned to their sinful life. Fourth is those who heard the word, believed, made a confession of faith and are attempting to live a Christian life but are being misled by what they are being taught by false teachers and prophets. The fifth group are those who have heard the word, made a confession of faith and are doing their best to live a Christian life based on the Commandments of God and the teachings of Christ and thus are not swayed by the teachings of men. Christ said in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." for a reason. There are many ways that lead one down that broad path to destruction but only one way to "life" in Christ. Thus, "few there be that find it".