Update To High Point Church Story

Sister Toldjah has an update which suggests High Point Church didn't so much dis a Gay man's lifestyle and family after his death by refusing certain requests, they just weren't so all fired up about having teh Gay thrust upon them. Can't fault someone for that.

Cecil was not a member of High Point Church, yet this church selflessly and sacrificially ministered to his family in the wake of his death, preparing and delivering food for the family and one hundred relatives and friends, along with many other expressions of kindness. The church offered to produce a video retrospective of Mr. Sinclair’s life for use during the memorial service. When the family provided the pictures to the church it was then that the church learned of their intention to make the memorial service a celebration of Cecil Sinclair’s gay lifestyle. According to a statement on the High Point Church Web site, one of the photos provided by the family showed a man touching another man inappropriately, along with other unsuitable photos.

The family also requested that “an associate of an openly homosexual choir” officiate at the service and that the homosexual choir sing during the service. “It became clear to the church staff that the family was requesting an openly homosexual service at High Point Church—which is not our policy to allow,” the statement on the church’s Web site said. After initially agreeing to host the memorial service, the church informed the family it could no longer do so based on the direction the family wanted to take it. The church then secured—and paid for—another location for the memorial service, which the family declined. The church also produced the memorial video without the inappropriate photos.

Comments

[Fred Beloit]

OK, OK. I no longer despise this chuch's decision-makers and I apologize. However, I may continue to view them with suspicion.

[Phoenix]

Yeah, too bad on the church. I feel for what this must have cost them in terms of public relations and money.

But I want to know what “an associate of an openly homosexual choir” is. Lead castrati? nah.... gay or not, everyone values their nuts. But darn, I'd love to hear them sing descant, "The Old Rugged Buns".

[Cindi]

speaking of nuts lmao Phoenix!

[seekeronos]

Obedience to the word of God is more valuable than any sacrifice:

"--- And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. ---" (1 Samuel 15:22)

That goes especially for trading on PR or use of money - I reckon if I were a deacon or in some other position of trust at that church -- I'd have put the brakes on offering to pay for the service to be held elsewhere out of church funds.

Even if it is doing a nice thing, it is still tantamount to endorsing the gay lifestyle by paying out of the church's money for the event at anther facility, or using church resources to produce the (cleaned up) video. Not the best testimony, to give the appearance of supporting wickedness.

"---
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog (here, 'dog' is a euphemism for gays, due to the common nature of their physical unions), into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
---" (Deuteronomy 23:17-18)

Of course, they will be reviled by the homophiles and LGBT activists regardless if they outright rejected them or had not even tried to be conciliatory.

[chris]

"Obedience to the word of God is more valuable than any sacrifice"

Nutball alert!!

Incidently, why does God hate miners and Peruvian churchgoers so much?

Amen!

[seekeronos]

He doesn't hate them, not at all. In fact, He loves them dearly - enough that He left Heaven to come down here to earth - and die a horrible death so that they might be redeemed from sin.

Perhaps it was time for them to go home to be with the Lord, or perhaps for some of them, their day had come:

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27, KJV)

Remember well this: we have ALL sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Though Jesus died for our sins, our present sinful fleshly bodies must first die, before we can be resurrected (according to the promise) unto life everlasting.

For some, they will be resurrected unto life everlasting; others, who have rejected the words of Jesus... they will be resurrected unto judgment, and then eternal damnation in Hell, which shall be cast into the Lake of Fire which burns forever (Revelation 20:15).

Tell me Chris:

Is your name written in the Lamb's Book of Life? How shall you escape the damnation of Hell?

[chris]

It's all so simple for you bible-beaters, huh? Ignorance IS bliss.

[bloodrage bob]

bold talk there, chrissie. *mighty* bold. *mighty* brave.

but are you willing to be a TRULY brave liberal secular freedom-fighter? you ready to REALLY put your ass on the line in your fight against old-timey theocratic blather?

super! then let's hear you - or your fellow liberals - let's hear you bitterly bash **islam** for their blind, unthinking, lemminglike obedience to *their* little book o' lies. call THEM "ignorant". "backwards". "barbaric".

for some reason, liberals never seem to include islam in their anti-religion rants. in the controversy above, a christian church isn't too comfortable embracing/honoring a dead homo. they'd prefer not to do so, you see. naturally, you attack them for this. how awful! those horrible people!

the followers of islam **KILL** homos. and uppitty women. and secular liberals who refuse to convert to islam. and when they get tired of that, they abuse animals.

let's see you bash that, tough guy.

[chris]

Let's here more about evil FDR and his Social Security #'s.

[bloodrage bob]

wellwellwell, the liberal pussed out. had a chance to show *real* spine, guts, backbone, honor, consistency, intellectual honesty ..... and ran away like a little bitch.

ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?

[charles]

"ok, show of hands: who DIDN'T see that coming?"

*waves hand in air* ooh, ooh, ooooh choose me mr kotter

[chris]

spine? guts? run away? Here's a newsflash, redneck. This is the internet, there is no running. You 'necks need to get out more.

Meanwhile Charles has to share a woman with a goat and some muslims.

It isn't easy for you patriots, is it?

[seekeronos]

Seems that chris al-BoobInStanford is eager for the al-Khilafah (the Caliphate) to take its rightful place as masters of the world.

But, given chris al-BoobInStamford's ultra-liberal, infidel past... it makes me wonder if old chrissy-poo won't be among the first that are marched out in the deep of night by the mullahs to be conveniently hung from a traffic light or burned at the stake, or have a wall toppled over on top of him - that is, after he is violently raped by a gang of jihadists.

Them turbo-muzzies have a weird way of indulging in their sin while somehow being "above" it. I guess that is one other thing that the libs and the muzzies have in common.

[templar knight]

"Well, well, well, the liberal pussed out...."

Of course, bb! When you mentioned Islam he pissed his panties. He'll kiss their butts up to and including the day they chop his ugly mug off. Just shows the total lack of any character on chrissie's part.

[Micah]

Perhaps High Point Church should have said,

“We consider it our privilege to host the upcoming tribute to Mr. Sinclair, his family and friends will be most welcome in our church. However, we have a responsibility to act in accordance with our congregation and our understanding of Biblical teaching. We do not wish to dwell too specifically on the romantic nature of Mr. Sinclair’s personal life, but to celebrate the full blessing of his life. If however, our position is offensive to you - we would be willing to refer you to another place of worship who appears to have availability for a service on Tuesday morning. It is called, ‘Al Akbar Mosque’. The admin office for the mosque was quick to advise, however, that Shirah Law MAY BE exacted against any homosexual planning to attend the memorial service and that female attendees will be detained in a separate area of the building apart from the men. Burkas will be required. Any non-Muslim will be considered an infidel and could be subject to beheading by sword (not guillotine - rough break). Because of the 104 F heat, the office suggested the memorial service be held during morning prayers @ 5 AM cst). For more information, please contact Dr. Oman Bin Laden @ 123-456-7890. Best regards, HPC

[Tom in Houston]

High Point cancelled the service after the Dallas Morning News ran an obit mentioning his partner and that the funeral would be at High Point Church. Did they call the family and ask them to talk to them about the service? Investigate the Gay mens chorus? I don't think so. I think they just cancelled the service. Then basically called the deceased and his partner 'like murderers'. And then they wonder why people think they are a bunch of haters.

I'm glad and not surprised that the family refused the 'hush money' offered by High Point. Their dignity isn't for sale. The public pronouncements of prayer and money were (in my opinion) motivated by public relations concerns, not by genuine concern. Praying AT someone is hateful. And basically calling the deceased 'like a murderer' is hateful.

They have the right to behave like they did. But in one fell swoop, High Point continued to give ample and convincing evidence to the millions of Americans who think that High Point and their ilk hate Gay people.

You do your side no favors when you defend the indefensible.

The family should have known what High Point was. Now everyone knows. And it is, in my opinion, the utter negation of Christain charity and goodwill. May God forgive them. Many never will.

[Capitalist Infidel]

These people join a church that they know disagree with their lifestyle and then when the church does something to prove that they disagree with their lifestyle they're shocked??? The hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of people like Tom in Houston is stunning!

[LOL]

gay or not didn't this soldiar die protecting our freedoms?

Pathetic that you neanderthal wingers can't show decency for someone with substantially more courage than you will ever have. But it's not surprising

[Tom in Houston]

Infidel,

Believe it or not, there are actually people in this world that don't believe that every evangelical hates Gay people. By the way, I wasn't aware that High Point was anti-Gay (although I would have suspected it). High Point has apparently some affiliation with Lakewood Church of Joel Osteen here in Houston. Lakewood really hasn't mentioned the issue. Furthermore, the same official of High Point Church that offered to do the ceremony apparently made the offer after he met Mr. Sinclairs' partner. So I think the family had every reason to believe that High Point wasn't anti-Gay.

The deceased was not a member of the church. His developmentally disabled brother was. And that is probably the saddest part of this story. Did High Point think about their fellow church member? Doubtful. How do you think he is going to deal with this? I pray that he has not been as traumatised by his church abusing his brother and his family in their time of need as I am afraid he has been.

High Point's behavior is disturbing on so many levels.

[templar knight]

This guy was not killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, dufus. He was a veteran of the Gulf War, I give him that, but he didn't die in combat, so quit suggesting that he did. If I remember correctly, the guy was in the Navy. He was awaiting a heart transplant when he died. So there. You never research anything before you start your slander, LOL. Typical Leftist idiot. And that's not surprising, either.

[templar knight]

Look, Tom, you may or may not be gay, but let me clue you in on something. Just because a church doesn't want to perform a service for a gay person doesn't mean they hate gays, per se. And if the leaders of High Point Church declined to have a service for an openly gay guy, that is well within their rights, and I don't see why you continue to whine about it. There are plenty of places for non-belivers to have funerals, just as there are places for them to get married as well. Many liberal churches also provide facilities(don't they) for funerals, or do they just like to criticize their conservative breathern?

This little story has more legs than a millipede, and in my mind is now being driven by people on the Left with an agenda. An anti-Christian agenda, at that, although that is not the least bit surprising. I advise all gay people to go to the local mosque, and see what treatment they receive there.

[seekeronos]

A church is not bound to be men-pleasers nor be "politically correct".

There may be some ins and outs to this story that haven't been fully disclosed (nor would I expect our supposedly impartial MSM to do the public any favours by telling the whole truth) - but from a biblical standpoint, that church was not only within its rights to refuse to provide service for an unrepentant, openly gay man and his partner, but they had a moral obligation not to celebrate the life of an unrepentant sodomite in the house of the Lord. Even if said gay man was related to a member of that church.

The focus of (any true Christian) church is on Jesus, not on gay men.

They did the correct thing: once they found out that this guy was what he was, they withdrew their involvement and offer of service. If there was a matter of "hush money" involved for the sake of PR, then that was a bad move: for the people of God must do better to stand unabashedly against evil and sin.

Now on the other hand, if they wish to invite those gays in, and are willing to hear a sermon inviting them to repent and turn to Christ, that is another issue.

If that church want to visit gay men dying of HIV related disease in hospitals or hospices or in their homes to share with them the hope that Christians have in Christ, that is another issue - by all means, do so -- for they need to hear the gospel of salvation.

But if they are looking for a church to put a stamp of approval on their sin, then they should not look at a fundamental, Bible-believing, Holy-Spirit powered, Christian church to do so.

There are plenty of other false or unfaithful, disobedient churches that will be more than happy to take their money - the UU's, many congregations within the PCUSA, and I think about half of the Episcopalian churches in the USA (the church with that blasphemous heretic, Bishop John Shelby Spong) to name a few.

[LOL]

i see you still dont have a life TK. Big surprise

[Phoenix]

I'm confused. On his death bed, a serial murderer is visited by a man of God, preacher, priest, and offered the chance to enter heaven by accepting Christ. A serial pedophile same. But a guy who is gay and committed no murders, no slaughter of innocents, no child rape doesn't get that chance? Do men of God who roam hospital wards or Hospice ask first if the dying is gay? And if the answer is 'yes' he passes by their room?

[Not My Problem]

Phoenix, let me deconfuse you:
If the church then also had a memorial service in which they glorified pedophilia or murder, and had it officiated by an acknowledge pedophile with a choir of pedophiles, you'd be closer to the mark. This gay man, with or without a priest, had the chance to to enter heaven by accepting Christ, whether he did so is known only to him and God. The church is under no obligation to glorify or promote the gay lifestyle as acceptable.

[Capitalist Infidel]

Tom in Houston

It surprises you that church's disagree with the homosexual lifestyle? You're either incredibly stupid or you're lying.

[bloodrage bob]

i'm with the church on this one. the article says the family intended the memorial service to be "a celebration of [the dead guy's] gay lifestyle", & planned to show pix/video featuring gays "touching themselves inappropriately".

we go to the acid test, the "turn it around & see if it flies" proof. will the tolerant liberals approve of a pedophile's memorial service featuring his favorite kiddie-porn pictures? his pedophile buddies waxing nostalgic about "that awesome junket we took to thailand in '97 where we could score 9-year-olds for just $20"?

will they allow a KKK guy to have *his* memorial service to feature rants about black folks and jews, and ending with a flaming cross? a wife-beater service in which his buddies chuckle about that time where "he done broke 4 of her ribs!"?

no? not ok with that? the church "has the right" to restrict *those* kinds of services, because they go against the spirit of the church? because services like that would make churchgoers uncomfortable, or even **offend** them? i for one am deeply offended by celebrations of homo behavior thrown in my face. does that not matter here? why not?

[seekeronos]

Phoenix:

The preacher or layman who is visiting the sick and dying in the hospital (who are working according to the Spirit of Redemption who lives in all who truly call upon Christ's name for salvation) certainly should NOT be screening people about whether or not they are/were gay.

All sin is sin in God's eyes, and Christ died that we might be forgiven of all and any sins we committed.

My point with the HPC was that as a church, they have a right and a duty to refuse service to _celebrate_ patently ungodly and wicked behaviour.

[Tom in Houston]

By the way, I seriously doubt you'll win many converts by comparing a middle aged man in a Gay relationship to a pedophile, murderer, or a Klansman. Do you really want that to be the evangelical statement to the world? And you wonder why people are turned off by that?

[bloodrage bob]

and yet, tom, i couldn't help notice you avoided the central question in my post: does a church have a right to censor memorial services that are contrary to/will offend its members? pedophilia is a sexual choice and/or predeliction, just like homosexuality is. are you saying a church can ban a service based on *one* of those choices, but not another?

no, you didn't say that, did you. you didn't "say" much of anything substantive at all, really. you mere chose to criticize the way the question was framed, rather than go on record with a choice you might be held accountable for. how very .... "liberal" of you to do so. you certainly won't win many converts *that* way.

[Phoenix]

Oh screw the church. They have every right to do what they want. If the family wanted to show movies of the dead guy and his lover smooching - YUK. That's tacky as hell.... to us. But if the attendees were friends of the couple and if many were gay or lesbian, it wouldn't have been a big deal. Still, I side with the church. It would be very interesting to know if the minister of that church absolved, blessed, or forgave the gay guy on his deathbed and only objected to the service because of its celebratory nature.

Back to my question. Take RELIGION out of the matrix. Can a gay guy receive Jesus, the Lord, the Holy Trinity or whatever on his deathbed if the dying gay guy says: "I'm sorry I was a queer. I hope Jesus will forgive me?"

YES .NO .Circle one.

[Cindi]

Yes Phoenix he/they can be forgiven. The same as I can be forgiven for say abortion/adultry and the likes. The church is not against homosexuals what the are against is the sexual aspect of the relationship. Should I have confessed to Jesus Christ that I committed adultry I would be forgiven if I took the steps to remove myself from the behavior. Not an easy task, the flesh is weak. And honestly we don't know what one has confessed to should they be given the chance to repent.

The closer you are to the spirit the more is expected of you.
I will tell you this, what kept me away from my church was the sins I was involved in. The better I understood how my sins seperated me from the good of all the Christian body the better I was to understand my objections to my church which by choice is Roman Catholic. But that is neither here nor there, we all when called know just what our sins are.

I will not pretend to know what Gods will or desire is for anyone, I only know how liberating surrender is.

OOD'S WILL..........NOT MINE.

[TheSpartan]

"the article says the family intended the memorial service to be "a celebration of [the dead guy's] gay lifestyle", & planned to show pix/video featuring gays "touching themselves inappropriately"." What defines inappropriate touching? Holding hands? Hugging? Do you think they were planning on showing pictures of their weekly circle jerk?

"OOD'S WILL..........NOT MINE."

Who's Ood?

[seekeronos]

"--- Can a gay guy receive Jesus, the Lord, the Holy Trinity or whatever on his deathbed if the dying gay guy says: "I'm sorry I was a queer. I hope Jesus will forgive me?"

YES .NO .Circle one. ---"

(YES) --- with a qualification: that gay man (or any other soul for that matter) receiving Jesus as his Lord and Saviour would truly need to trust in Jesus for the forgiveness of sin. It is not a matter of absolution by some other intermediary (priest/preacher/minister/etc) but a _personal_ contract with the Saviour: that (a) Jesus did everything when He took sin and was nailed to the cross with it and (b) we accept that we are no-good, low down filthy sinners without a hope in this world or the next, save for Jesus in part (a).

Although I might add that death often comes in a manner that does not allow for much equivocation or otherwise a decision to "get in the Kingdom at the last breath"... it is better to make a decision to receive Him and live for Him today (if you haven't already received Him as your Saviour and King).

"--- For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. ---" (2 Corinthians 6:2, KJV)

[TheSpartan]

Riddle me this, in all seriousness why is it that evangelicals site the KJV as THE bible? I mean it was written 1600 years after Christ's death at the behest of a monarch. Is it because it was written in English?

[Cindi]

Who's Ood?

Posted by: TheSpartan | Monday, August 20, 2007 at 08:32 AM

Sorry TYPO....was supposed to say GOD's

[chris]

Actually, the Bible was written in AMERICAN. And clearly God BLESSES America.

[Cindi]

Riddle me this, in all seriousness why is it that evangelicals site the KJV as THE bible? I mean it was written 1600 years after Christ's death at the behest of a monarch. Is it because it was written in English?

Posted by: TheSpartan | Monday, August 20, 2007 at 09:22 AM

Because you can get them at the dollar store? ;)

[chris]

"Because you can get them at the dollar store? ;)"

Hahaha!! Now THAT was a good one!

[TheSpartan]

"Because you can get them at the dollar store? ;)"

You ever notice how most stuff at the dollar store isn't even worth that much?

[bloodrage bob]

"oooooooowhhh, this book doesn't have any answers!!" - homer simpson, faced with a crisis, flipping frantically through the bible.

[seekeronos]

"--- Riddle me this, in all seriousness why is it that evangelicals site the KJV as THE bible? I mean it was written 1600 years after Christ's death at the behest of a monarch. Is it because it was written in English? ---"

Speaking for myself, I prefer the KJV (King James Version or "Authorized Version") for the simplicity of its language (it has been proven to be understood on a 5th grade level), for the unequivocal meaning of its words, and because it is based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, and the Greek Textus Receptus, making it far more trustworthy than most modern English "translations" which use the corrupted Hort & Wescott Greek (H & W were both occultists and involved in other heresies in the 19th century).

The KJV has stood the test of time, and was the de facto English Bible for nearly 400 years.

Millions of English-speaking Christians still use it. In fact, it still remains among the best selling version of the Bible in the world.

For comparison, there is also the Majority Text based bibles, like the EMTV - but I believe that God has preserved His word into the King James Version - for speakers of English. In German, I can read the Luther Bible ("Die Bibel", publ. 1545), or the Reina-Valera (1569) in Spanish. I am looking forward to the upcoming publication of a Japanese MT/TR based bible as well.

If the language changes so substantially that the meanings of the English used in the KJV are completely lost, and God permits a few more centuries to pass before King Jesus returns to the reign on Earth, then it is possible that another version may arise with His Divine guidance.

Most importantly, I must mention: While in-depth biblical scholarship would not be complete without learning some of the Greek and Hebrew (from the MT and TR), it is all for naught unless the disciple has the Spirit of the Living God dwelling within him (or her), that same Spirit which first inspired those holy ancients to "write down those things" in the Book, the same Spirit who divinely preserved those words to us, and the same Spirit who convicts of His Word, and moves and converts us by those words to sanctified and godly living.

[seekeronos]

A longer detailed FAQ on the KJV can be found here:

http://www.bible-truth.org/FAQ-BibleVersions.html

[templar knight]

Well, well, it seems some here are due for a fall. seek, I admire your patience and compassion for the unsaved. God bless you.

[TheSpartan]

So you like it even though heathens like Shakespeare may have helped to write it?

[chris]

Looks like God is about to get angry with the Mexicans in the Yucatan in the next 12 hours. Such wicked Mexicans! Repent!

[bloodrage bob]

oh what the heck: it's monday & i'm bored. let's have a religion fight.

i learnt how to diss organized religions from good ol' (paranoid narcissist but sharp as a tack) dad. ever seen the prehistoric cave paintings of lascaux, etc.? amazing talent. also proof of quite a few things: discipline, hard work, and a soul just as human and complex as yours & mine.

and yet, the men who painted those amazing pictures are doomed to burn eternal hellfire blah blah blah, along with all their friends, and family, and every single human being born before 30 AD or so.

**along** with everyone born since who never heard about christianity, for whatever reason. brave, noble, kind, caring, magnificent humans - some of them, surely - cast into the fires of hell *through no fault of their own*. just like they do in islam.
that's a *bad* thing, you see: islam is a barbaric death cult. do we really want to have anything in common with it?

why would god create thousands of generations of his children, literally billions of people, just so they could be doomed to eternal damnation for something they had absolutely no control over? that logic, as the sage said, is "either random or it's mean. either way scares me."

then too, why are the romans - easily the most practical, advanced, most common-sense people the planet has ever seen outside of the founding fathers - why are they seen as barbarians merely because they were polytheistic? romans lived in nice homes with running water and central heating under the rule of law (sometimes), while monotheistic middle-easterners lived in tents among their goats and sheep and slaves. so *who* again were the barbarian rubes? the romans were quite tolerant to other religions, so long as their devotees behaved. ALL middle-eastern religions insist that they & they alone have it right. a quick glance at history shows that middle-easterners are notoriously stubborn and intolerant, and entirely unable to get along with *anyone*. the region's been at war constantly for 6000 years. peace came only at spearpoint, and lasted only as long as the big strong man lived. WHY again are their religions allowed any credence?

there. THAT oughta perk up the conversation.

[Phoenix]

I think you shut it down, BB. :) It's happened before aplenty right here, and it comes up aplenty. I have to say, compared to some blogs where the 'Christians' rule, it can get bloody. But here, there is a lot of respect - despite the blog's built-in snark and hilarity factor [Thank you, Cindi...The Dollar Store...hahahaha!] nobody here thinks less of anyone for their beliefs.

I will add this to my question: What kind of religion can absorb wicked behavior and at the end of a lifetime of such behavior grant that person a ticket to heaven for a few uttered words of remorse? That and hearing some women pray for their kids to win a baseball game is what turned me. Oh, and predestination. That did me in.

[seekeronos]

For BB:

For starters, this is not about "organized religion". That sort of thing kills people deader that doorknobs, and leaves people as spiritual wrecks.

Jesus Himself contended against the religious phonies of His time on earth -- the Pharisees (Hebrew/Aramaic legal "experts" who knew every jot and tittle of the oral traditions that would eventually become the Talmud) and the Sadducees (Hellenistic Jews who were roughly comparable to Deists or UU's in our time) ... and He always brought them back to the truth - the black and white message of the gospel.

God is capable of saving even those cavemen, those Romans, and those famous Hottentot Bushmen who never heard the gospel. How exactly He will do it, is a part of His divine plan.

I can speculate that those who died never having heard the gospel shall be resurrected after the conclusion of the Age of Grace but before the Millennial Kingdom of Christ, to live long enough to hear the gospel for themselves. I'm still compiling scriptures to properly suss this out, so it is conjecture on my part.

I base it on the principle that God said that "He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to eternal life". In order for God to keep that promise (contingent upon people hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and then making a decision based upon it), He would need to do some supernatural act that is at this time, not easily discerned.

The thing that we (who live in the present day with full access to God's word) ought to be concerned with, is what we do now, now that we have heard the Gospel.

Do we believe Him who Created us, or do we call Him a liar, and mock His sacrifice to redeem us back to the Father?

[TheSpartan]

"Do we believe Him who Created us, or do we call Him a liar, and mock His sacrifice to redeem us back to the Father?"

I vote for mock, sorry.