Talk:John Hagee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.

Contents

[edit] These were comments above the TOC

Hagee is now preaching that Iran has nuclear weapons, and that the US and Israel must invade. Doesn't this disqualify him from being 'a man of God?'

John Hagee also preaches a message of hate and intolerance for anyone of Islam. This is not an exact quote, but on the topic of Islamic studies programs at universities, he says that these are set up and funded for the sole purpose of creating a generation of anti-americans and anti-capitalists. This is a very dangerous message, as these programs at american universities are established in order to promote tolerance and understanding of cultures other than our own, and reduce the risk of ignorance and hatred for non-christians. If the people of the congregation only "know" what they are taught by this minister, then they are doomed to ignorance, and this country truly is in trouble. But it will not be the trouble that he speaks of. It will come down to a war waged in our own country by the evangelicals against anyone who is not.

first, in answering the person above, there is a signifigant amount of evidence from the Qu'ran and other various sources that Hagee and various ministers (Such as Ron Parsely I think )often use to attack Islam which, for the most part, is often higly legitimate at least in some fashion, so if we could locate some actual quotes on his take on Islam presenting a little bit of some evidence he provides, that could go in there under a sub-topic perhaps. Secondly, that quote at the bottom doesn't seem to make much sense, did he really say that or did he say "Or you will offend the world and please God"? Homestarmy 16:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


RE the above - "often higly legitimate at least in some fashion" what the hell does that mean followed up with "presenting a little bit of some evidence" - forget it he is a nut ( Hagee I mean - he has no evidence ) whoever wrote this is ( let's be kind ) ....


And there is eviidence from the Bible that could be used 'legitimately' to attack Christianity. The problem with Hagee is he picks out the parts of both the Bible and the Koran that suit his relgio-political agenda. I just hope he's wrong about Iran.--Ckav 05:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One could take many passages of the bible and pervert the intent of the overall message. The same can be said of the Koran (however you wish to spell it). If one were to make an effort to understand what the Koran says (as well as the Christian Bible), the overall message is a message of reverence of God, acts of kindness, and tolerance for others (the Koran respects and holds in high esteem the phophets of the Old Testament--as well as those who believe it). Problems are created when zealots spew forth hatred and bigotry, and use their religion for justification--an unbelievable act of blasphemy! This is a message unfortunately uttered more times than not at the Cornerstone Baptist Church, by Mr. Hagee. Which truly makes one wonder: what would the "Prince of Peace," Jesus Christ, thinks of John Hagee? Where is the love, tolerance and understanding (all hallmarks in the life of Christ), in John Hagee's message? Truly a shame. I witnessed Mr. Hagee on many occasions. Technically, he has a magnificent voice, and great technique. Although his face may be made for radio--his cadence, delivery and vocal inflection are all unparallelled. ...if only the message... To me, he appears to be more of a Neo-Conservative Republican activist operating under the veil of a Christian Church. Which brings up the question: Are any of the church tithings finding their way into replublican coffers? Perhaps it's time for an audit.

Yea, the thithing thing is unfortunently a grave flaw in Mr. Hagee's message, both Biblically and supposedly greed-related, but other than that, what other examples of Hagee spewing "Bigotry and hatred" do you have? I'd hardly call the thithing thing such an example, can you name any specifics? It always seemed to me that whenever Hagee gets on the topic of other religions doing horrible things, he always seems to condemn the actions rather than the people :/. But then again, I haven't seen every single episode of him preach.....Homestarmy 17:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

"Bigotry and hatred?" How about the fact that Hagee is advocating an attack on Iran right now, and also says that the UN is the tool of the Anti-Christ? Homestarmy, I think you need to make a distinction between your faith and real-word facts. Otherwise, I worry that you are skewing all of your articles and edits towards your particular (unprovable) belief-system. --72.225.252.105 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, I haven't seen every single episode of him preach. I get bits and pieces of it from TBN occasionally. I know first hand some of his stuff is silly, the tithing thing like I mentioned above, the whole "God sent Katrina!!!111!!11oneone!!!1" thing, but beyond that, I really don't live off the guy's sermons. I just happen to know a little about him. If he's advocating a sneak attack on Iran, and says the U.N. is a tool of the anti-christ, then the second is a violation of Matthew 7:1 if he's asserting something about the people of the U.N., and the first is probably jumping the gun a whole lot. So therefore, assuming that what you say is true, I would be skewed in this instance alright....against Hagee's message. But you'll need to cite individual episodes or something so that they can be mentioned in the article, or hey, even put them in now without a citation, I don't care much because it doesn't seem fanciful that a man could mess up the Bible's message (especially when he seems to of done it before), maybe somebody will source what your saying properly eventually. My particular provable belief system mandates that I "test everything", and Mr. Hagee is certainly a valid target, so if critisisms are laid out fairly and accuratly, and now that you've been specific, you may lay out those 2 things you mentioned immedietly.(Without the "He's a bigot!" part though). Finally, there is no "my" articles, I don't do much for this one, the only one's i've created are listed on my userpage and don't even have anything to do with Christianity, and having them be "my" articles would violate WP:OWN. Homestarmy 17:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have watched his program many times and what you've written is rubbish and completely erroneous. - Anonymous


Yeah I know what you mean - they are being far too kind to him.

[edit] Chart of payroll thing

Ok, this same person has put that thing on 2 people's articles so far (or at least 2 that I remember seeing on my watchlist)and as far as I can tell no information is actually inside the article that has been added from it. What is the point? Because if there is none, that link needs to be deleted, is it even proper style for links to lead to notepad documents for download? Homestarmy 22:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links


This looks to me like a personal webpage.....but hey, critics have a right to speak too, it's just I dunno if this falls under proper citation categories. Homestarmy 16:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Latest mass edit

I am hesistant to revert such a large amount of work, so I figured i'd try to discuss it first. I saw waaaaay more quotes than were necessary, including a bunch which just looked like advertising and should probably be removed, that "beliefs" thing looks like it should be condensed, and all the external links were changed, whats up with that? Homestarmy 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

answer:
FYI...the "beliefs thing" is from Hagee's website... MOST of the quotes were deleted as I too agree that it was too much. Lastly, ALL the external links were NOT changed...Some were added. 1:13 pm CST June 30, 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.24.104.150 (talk • contribs) .
It's just the spaces in the beliefs part seemed so wide it looked very odd. The edits also deleted a fair amount of sentences, which I thought was suspicious since there were no edit summaries. Homestarmy 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure I know what you're talking about...Most of the information was cited & came from biography's from Dr. Hagee. The original biography had A LOT of inaccurate information. If you wish to edit anything, you're more than happy to do it. (Obviously)I'm not quite sure what an "edit summary" is. Also, the beliefs section is word for word from Dr. Hagee...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.24.104.150 (talk • contribs) .
I was watching the stream of edits last night as well, and I was waiting for the inevitable removal of every negative comment. Instead, it looks like you've done a fantastic job of bringing the article into a more balanced state - thank you very much for fixing it up! There are many style issues that can be easily fixed, you may want to read the style guide at WP:MOS when you have some free time. I'll try to fix some of it when I get a moment, and Mr. Homestarmy has all the tricks memorized as well and will assist you.
The edit summary thing he was talking about is in a little box below the big white box where you're making your edits. You would typically put a couple of words in there to summarize what you just did. So for example when you inserted the list of his books, you'd write "created list of works" in the edit summary box. This lets people see what your intent was, instead of trying to guess it from what you did. You may also want to create an account when you get an opportunity - it allows you to set all sorts of preferences - it's easy and you don't have to give out any personal information what-so-ever, not even an e-mail address. Again, thanks for your contributions. Kuru talk 22:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, to get things started sorting all this out, I would like to suggest putting "beliefs" under the ministry section, because it says "we believe" which I take to mean Cornerstone church and the ministry rather than Hagee personally. Homestarmy 00:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm...have to respectfully disagree there...seeing as how Hagee is the founder & CEO of Cornerstone

Probably. I'm still not sure if that's the church's ethos or his, though. I just removed the book list and replaced it with one more to the style used in other articles - the one that was in there was a cut & paste from his site, which is a no-no for non-quotes. I sourced the Amazon hardback publish date for each book as well. Kuru talk 01:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Wholesale removal of biography

The recent unsigned mass edit removed the separate biography, including information about Hagee's first marriage, which I have restored. Bregence 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good call on your part. Homestarmy 18:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless you site a reference, I don't think that information about him commiting adultery should be put on there...Where's this letter??? Also, AGAIN you are wrong. Hagee's 1st 2 children (Chris & Tish) are from his first marriage. (Hence why it was cleaned up.)

Well at this point he's commited adultery whether admittedly odd looking unsourced information is in the article or not, remember, "And if he marries again, that man has commited adultery"....but some of the information you removed seemed to have nothing to do with the subject. Homestarmy 04:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


"but some of the information you removed seemed to have nothing to do with the subject." Such as??? I think removing the INACCURATE information about which mother his children came from was a darn pretty good call...

Also, Homestarmy, it would be nice if YOU as well included your source...what scripture EXACTLY were you quoting? Is it from the new testament or the old testament? --Laces 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This would indeed be the New Testament, you know, that book with the stuff about the new covenant and the thing about the whole "Do not get divorces" bit? I could turn to Malachi 2:16 though, where God says that He hates divorce. Anyway, it's Matthew 19:9, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."" But really its no big deal, we all sin, is it so horrible that John Hagee is rendered as a man rather than somebody with perfect ethics? Unless of course Hagee getting divorced then really was a matter of marital unfaithfulness, I mean it's certainly not unheard of or anything, but you never seemed to indicate this possibility. As for information you removed, you seemed to of blanked the entire paragraph concerning Hagee founding the Church of Castle Hills, in addition to removing the existance of his other marriage. Fixing where the children came from is no problem, but trying to remove mention of their existance and of the other wife is not. Homestarmy 04:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the point...where is the "proof"? Where is the link to this "open letter" that he submitted to the church? The only pages on the net that I could find about it was from Hagee hate sites. That's why it was left out... I couldn't verify even that he founded the Trinity Church...that information was on wikipedia only... I would rather have a biography that is correct.--Laces 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the open letter bit I can understand you deleting, it is indeed quite a scandalous sounding claim and certainly deserves citation if its supposed to be in the article. Does Hagee's ministry have any statement to the effect of "This is the only church Hagee founded" or anything to that effect which would contradict the Castle Hills part? Homestarmy 17:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. I didn't think that it was very relevant & didn't even remember that it was in the original, however if it is true, then that is fine. I made a mistake. --Laces 17:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


At one time I really enjoyed Hagee. The best there was in my opinion. However, over time I noticed a change ( quite sudden ) - he seemed far more interested in tithing $ and extremely interested in all things pro-Israel and the End of the Earth ( Apolycalypse-ish )- he appeared to become overwhelmed with not dying before the End, kissing Israel anywhere they wanted and more and more money. I am surprised to see some of the negative stuff here - his first two kids are a complete surprise to me - after years of adoring the guy and gradually feeling embarrassed by him. Not that I felt uneasy about his change - similar to Christopher Hitchens.

Hmm, I started questioning Mr. Hagee's message in a similar manner, though I did have some help from the internet....ah, I remember that day well, there I was walking about thinking about Christianity, then suddenly, it hits me. Tithing.....there wern't any specific rules on that in the NT, were there? After checking the internet it all started to fall into place... Homestarmy 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

is everyone missing the obvious here, where in 1 tim. paul states that one qualification to be a bishop (pastor) is to be the " husband of one wife". regardless of the adultery issue, this fact alone disqualifies him from pastoring ever again and thus God's hand of blessing is NOT on his church nor ever will be!!!!!

Eh, that sounds more like a Pauline church issue rather than a God-will-smite-you issue :). Homestarmy 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tithing & hypocrisy

I have never seen "Christians" as judgemental & hypocritical than when John Hagee's name is mentioned. I suppose in order to be a pastor, one would have never had to use drugs, have an alcohol problem, been divorced or sinned of any kind. No??? Then why does Hagee's past seem to come up so often when his compensation is talked about? If you really examine your heart you will see that it comes right down to jealousy (which BTW is a sin.) Who cares if Hagee makes a lot of money?

I don't see anyone complaining that Donald Trump makes too much money...Why is it that if a pastor who started from nothing builds a ministry, write bestsellers, has a television network, is broadcasted all over the world, and donates millions of dollars is paid well? There are pastors right here in San Antonio that have bigger & MORE homes than he does & no one ever mentions them. However, Hagee chooses to have a backbone & actually ANSWERS questions about the Bible & moral issues instead of dancing around the question. This infuriates a lot of people...especially the one's whose pastor's never mention current events & how the Bible should apply to common, everyday life.

Hagee never defends himself, he never even makes mention of the "controversies" surrounding him. He just goes right on, preaching the word of God. Jesus did say that the world hated him & the world will hate us too.

Also, Homestarmy, you are exactly wrong. In Genesis 14:20 & Hebrews 7 we see Abraham tithed to Melchizedek, this was before the Law! Tithing was practiced before the law.

Another example of tithing before the Mosaic Law was Jacob, in Genesis 28:20-22. The law simply adopted tithing...

Now, despite what we've seen, if we were no longer under the law, then we are allowed to murder, right??? Obviously not! You see, what it means, not to be under the law, is that we are no longer ensured eternity by following it alone, but through the redemptive work of Christ...

In Matthew 23:23, Jesus says that “we should tithe” -New Testament.

Take a close look at Heb 7:8(KJV) And here [earth] men that die receive tithes; but there [heaven] he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.

Notice the present, perpetual tense.

Hebrews was written 70 years A.D. and the apostle Paul by the unction of the Holy Spirit tells us that the Lord receives our tithes today!

Psalm 24:1, 89:11, Haggai 2:8, 1 Corinthians 29:11, 10:26 verify explicitly that God owns everything… According to 1 Chronicles 29:12-14, we see that everything we have, including money, comes from God. The conclusion is that, we are stewards of what is entrusted to us, just like a company car, it’s your to use, but never belongs to you. In other words we’ll be entrusted with however much God knows He can trust us with. [1] --Laces 02:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tithing was never supposed to be practiced by Christians in the manners of the modern church today, I looked those OT verses up myself when I realized the commands I heard Hagee giving did not have direct correspondants in the New Testament, they refer to some sort of practice where large amounts of food, money, drink, or something to that effect was stored up for a long amount of time I think, and then basically the equivalent of a huge party was held or something like that. Other instances of tithing before Levitical Law are not relevant to us anyway, it is the year 2006, that whole "Do not fall under the curse of the Law" speal wasn't metaphorical I assure you. Matthew 23:23 also does not contain the words you have quoted, and whether or not you feel the whole verse somehow sums up that message, certainly is suspicious. Hebrews 7:8 as you write it is talking about people recieving tithes, no relation to God recieving anything, the verses surrounding it are referring to an exchange between Abraham and Melchizedik. God owns everything, but that doesn't mean that He cannot control our money unless we give 10 percent of it to the church, He controls it all whether we choose to be greedy with it or not. (Not an excuse to be greedy of course) I have no objection to giving money to the church, we are after all commanded to be, you know, generous, but I see no support for Christians having a direct obligation to give a set-in-stone 10 percent of their income as a tithe on a regular basis, or else face the wrath of God because TBN says so. God is not a slot machine, you do not put in the quarter, pull the lever, and then have the benefits of tithing rain down upon you the more you put into the machine.
And on the judgemental and hypocritical accusation, i'd say look who's calling the kettle black, except that would be judgemental of me. You know that whole "Test everything" verse? That wasn't a joke or some obscure new-age metaphor. The claims of Hagee deserve to be tested just like the claims of everyone else, with the standard of what's actually in the Bible as a whole, not just a few nit-picked verses. Homestarmy 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War-Monger

Look at the bull-like stupidity in this man's eyes. He mindlessly supports the bloodthirsty and barbaric activities of the IDF, and for what reason? I suppose only God knows. Seriously, does this guy ever watch Alex Jones, which is broadcast from nearby Austin, Texas? Maybe then he would get a clue. Pathetic. Matthew A.J.י.B. 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

OOOooookaaaay...... Homestarmy 15:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)



Well, since you brought it up...First of all Alex Jones is an idiot, why would anyone watch him to get information when it's printed in the Bible? Second of all, this isn't a political forum.

Sign your posts, O anonymous one. Alex Jones is an investigative journalist. Calling him an 'idiot' doesn't change the facts. Printed in the Bible! Hahahaha! You make me laugh. Why would anyone get any information from anywhere when its printed in the Bible? My goodness. I'm just so enlightened now--I don't think I'll ever read another book again, but my dear old severely-mistranslated King James Bible. Hell, I think I'll throw away all of my newspapers and science textbooks, and just sit in a dark dank hole clutching my Bible, because, gosh darn it, the only truth in the entire universe is in that Medieval collection of mistranslated Hebrew texts and Roman religious documents! Halelujah! Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, in any event, what does the Bible have to do with Hagee's support of the IDF? Alex Jones is a Christian, and he is more realistic about the IDF's war-crimes. Also, there are many Orthodox Jews in Israel who are totally against the actions of the IDF. In fact, 40% of Israelis currently oppose the military actions in Lebanon. Matthew A.J.י.B. 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Somehow the second part of this had disappeared, so I will re-iterate it. What does the Bible have to do with it? These are modern issues were discussing. You don't just cite 'the Bible' when there is clearly nothing relevant to the IDF's activities in the Bible. Matthew A.J.י.B. 17:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can be more realistic than someone else about something, but simply having a realistic tone about a topic doesn't that you are, in fact, stating things more factually than the other side. And on the Bible thing, why not try the NIV? :) Homestarmy 22:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] two pages: John Hagee and John C. Hagee

Hello,

I was repairing disambiguation links You can help! and noticed there are two pages regarding this individual: John Hagee and John C. Hagee. The former has far more information than the latter, and there is much duplication of info. In fact, the second page is so short that it almost qualifies as a stub. Rather than going thru the whole process of putting merge tags on the two articles, blah blah blah, I'm just gonna manually merge info from the shorter article into the longer one, and change the shorter one into a redirect.

Please note that I am not taking any position regarding the information I am moving here. I am neither for nor againts the subject of this article, and in fact have never heard of him. :-) So.. if you disagree with something I add to this page (taken from the other one), please remove it. I won't argue; I won't be watching the page. Thank you for your patience! --Ling.Nut 22:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor?

Is it proper to refer to him as "Dr Hagee?" He has two honorary doctorates and does not seems to have earned any. --24.12.206.109 20:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The Honorary Doctorate article seems to say that it depends on the person's wishes, though it points out that if the reason for the doctorate wasn't based on a "tangible" enough grounds or something that it just wouldn't be necessary. Homestarmy 22:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] My.opera.com

I removed a line that stated that John Hagee had been called a Christofacist by the website community my.opera.com. A community bulletin board with some postings calling someone something isn't quite NPOV. I am sure I can find a community bulletin board that calls John Hagee the third incarnation of Christ, or Satan's Sous Chef. If the classification "Christofacist" is used by say the President of Iran, the P.A., or someother newsworthy person or group, and it is reported in a recognized news medium, then it should be included in this article. rhmoore 02:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

BIBLICAL SUPPORT? Hagee states the following: "That Christians have a Bible mandate to be supportive of Israel and the Jewish people, to demonstrate to the Jewish people what they have not experienced from Christianity for 2,000 years... the love of God."

Where in the Bible does it say that Christians should support Israel? It is true according to Romans 9 through 11 that God continues to be covenant with Israel. It does not seem to be true though that as a Christian I have a special obligation to support Israel. If it's in the Bible then I will relent but unless found, this article should expressly state that no such biblical evidence exists and Hagee is merely citing his own opinion and not bibilical supported fact.

Yea, Hagee's probably pretty off-base with that comment. But I don't see the need to get all angry about it, I mean if you think about it considering all the anti-semitism there was we probably do owe Israel something, and there's nothing wrong with demonstrating the love of God. Sure, there's no obligation, but I think there'd be a stronger case for showing that Hagee is wrong by citing good sources that say he's wrong, do you happen to have any? Homestarmy 17:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A threat to world peace

I believe John Hagee is a threat to world peace. He is inspiring Christians to go to war with Muslims. There are no Muslims in his ideal world. He is even inspiring Christians to look for foreigners in their neighborhoods, and isolate them, be supicious of them, and even (God forbid) get rid of them. He is saying that the foreigners may have bombs in their suitcases, and they might blow away the cities of the United States. What this man is preaching has nothing to do with Christ or Christianity. Christ preached to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us. Christ also said that those who take the sword will be annihilated by the sword. According to Jesus, all people in the world are the children of God, the heavenly father. I request all people of good will to identify John Hagee's message as a threat to world Peace, and make a stand against him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnkunnathu (talk • contribs) .

Hold up, where does Jesus say all people are the children of God? I specifically remember something about there being children of God, and children of iniquity, but not children of iniquity also always being children of God. Homestarmy 02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, God sees all human beings as His children although not all people see God as their father. The children of iniquity are those children of God who do not see God as their father.

Well then, what do you make of John 1:12, "yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God". It seems to me that its a bit clear that children of God are only those who have recieved Jesus. Besides, John Hagee doesn't seem to be saying that the only solution is to go to war with Iran, just that it will be likely because, you know, Iran hates the U.S. . A whole lot. And so do pretty much all fundamentalist Muslims come to think of it..... While we should love our enemies, we were commanded to take up the sword by Jesus, even though it is true we will likely die by it, and besides, we aren't at war just yet, there might be another solution. Preferably, one based on evangelism rather than a nuclear winter..... Homestarmy 13:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Become children of God" (John 1:12) means accept God as father. All human beings are God's children by birth. That is their birthright. However, due to ignorance, only a few people realize this. The majority of the people in the world live far away from God like the prodigal son. In the eyes of the prodigal son's father, he has always been his son-- whether he is at home or with the pigs. When people realize this (or receive the teaching of Jesus), they accept God as their father, repent, and come back to God, their true father. Thus they become God's children. This is a transformation from ignorance to the realization of truth. Jesus taught that the heavenly father loves all people alike. Regardless of whether they are righteous or wicked, God gives them rain and sunlight. Jesus challenged us to accept God as our role model, and love our enemies. Jeus is asking us to see all people in the world as our brothers and sisters because God sees all people as his children. If they hate us, the solution is not to hate them back. The response to fundamentalist Islam is not fundamentalist Christianity. Do you think the world will be a more peaceful place without all the Muslims? Our fight should not be with "flesh and blood" to quote Paul. Think for a moment. Those millions of people who are Muslims are Muslims because they were born Muslims. They are all just people like us. It is not their fault that they were born in a Muslim country. Let us not spread hatred, brother! It is possible for all of us to share this earth regardless of our religious beliefs and cultures. We should not be so stupid as to annihilate each other in the name of our beliefs. How beautiful it is to see brothers living together! Let us make our heavenly father happy by living together happily and peacefully!

I'm not trying to scare you off or anything, but i've got to take issue with many of the things you're saying :/. John is pretty clear in the surrounding verses that first he's talking about John the Baptist, who "himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light." and then says that "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world." The next paragraph is talking about this light, who "was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him". Since this light was soon coming to earth, and the only person John was prophecying the arrival of was the Messiah, and since Jesus is also God and therefore was present for creation, the person being talked about here isn't just "God", because the part of the trinity to descend to the earth and be the Messiah was Jesus. So I think its very clear that it means those who accept Jesus and believe in Him personally are children of God. Whether babies can become saved even when their being born is another debate for quite another day, but I don't think that everyone who is ever born accepts Jesus as Lord the moment their born, otherwise, everyone would be Christians. You can't just stop being saved through Christ through "ignorance" :/. Nextly, Jesus did show how much mercy God intended for the world, but because God is also a being of infinite goodness and justice, he "hates all who do iniquity" (Pslam 5:5:), there certainly isn't anything about God loving everyone with the exact same love, and remember, both the rain and the sunlight are fallen with the rest of sinful creation, the rain can carry acid in it which burns all whom it touches and erode the barriers men set up to stop floods, and the sunlight burns people after enough exposure. God certainly wouldn't give people gifts that are defective due to sin. Jesus did challenge us to do something, to "Be perfect, just as your heavenly father is perfect", but it is a goal that we cannot possibly acheive due to our imperfect nature. While we are commanded to "love your enemies", what about the enemies of your friends? We don't have to hate the enemies of our brothers to go to war with them, though once again, evangelism would be a preferable solution to the conflict. (This would likely require airdrops of gospel tracts, since Iran sort of kills most of the evangelists it gets its hands on, but I think it can work....) Moving on, fundamentalist Christianity is the only solution to basically anything, do you think that the only type of fundamentalism Christianity offers is the "Godhatesfags.com" variety? If so, then i'm afraid we aren't working with the same definitions. The world might be more peaceful without Muslims, though fundamentalist Christianity doesn't demand we just "remove" them all from existance, evangelism is supposed to be the main weapon of sorts here. Nectly, our fight isn't just against "flesh and blood", Islam is not exactly The Religion of Peace (tm), and I have heard there is some corrolation between the Islamic concept of their messiah and the concept in revelelations of.....the antichrist. So there's certainly the possibility of spiritual warfare going on here as well. Those millions of people who are Muslims aren't Muslim merely by being born to Muslims, its because their families and society demand their compliance with Islam. That's certainly not like me, my parents didn't demand my compliance with Christianity, I decided to read my Bible one day for myself and eventually decided to get saved. It's true, however, that its not their fault that they were born in a Muslim country, but it is partly their fault when they have "WE HATE AMERICA!!!" rallies and burn effigies of our president. When John Hagee warns people of the coming conflict, its true he can get a bit...melodramatic about it, but whether Hagee preaches or not, the hatred is already there, and Islamic nations have no qualms about continuing it. Next, while its possible to share the earth, why would we want to? This might require us to simply stop evangelizing, to stop obeying Jesus's explicit orders, just to maintain a balance of population. Your right, however, anihillating each other isn't the answer, but somehow I don't think Hagee necessarily strives for us to anihillate Iran by whatever means necessary no matter what. "Our brothers" can only refer to our brothers in Christ, not everyone on the planet. Our heavenly father would prefer us to obey Christ's command to make disciples of the world and spread the faith, and unfortunently, most adherants of other religions tend to get a bit.....angry about evangelizing to them. Homestarmy 19:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear friend, Thanks for taking the time to write all these information in detail. I realize that I have failed in convincing you that our world is really a family with all human beings as God's children. You still hold on to your belief that only those people who have a certain belief about Jesus belong to your family, and all the others are outsiders. That is OK. I agree that you have absolute right to hold on to that belief. I respect and love you as a human being, and I respect your right to hold on to a belief that is dear to your heart. If a certain belief about Jesus is the mark of a Christian, a certain belief about Mohammed is the mark of a Muslim. Just as your belief is dear to you, a Muslim's belief is dear to him. Just as you have absolute right to hold on to your belief about Jesus, a Muslim has absolute right to hold on to his belief about Mohammed. Can we all just accept the right of others to hold on to beliefs that are dear to them? Can we at least follow the golden rule: Do to others what we expect from them. Why don't we let the Muslims live in their world with their beliefs? Can we follow the simplest of rules: Live and let live!

The problem with live and let live when applying it to other people's beliefs is that we simply have to make disciples of others, not just because Jesus commanded us to, but because of the consequences if we don't. If a Muslim died today without being saved, his own works wouldn't save him from the infinite justice of God, which when it comes down to it is basically what Islam tries to do, get people to be saved by having "more good" than bad works. While most Muslim nations abhor evangelism anyway, we can still share the truth in love despite this. Christians don't need to worry about being persecuted or killed by Muslims because we're saved anyway, (And because we can help out our brothers in many circumstances) the problem is all the people who get caught in the crossfire, because fundamentalist Islam opposes everyone else, not just Christianity. Solutions to this problem can be....complicated, especially because Iran sort of wants to have its finger on the button :/ . Homestarmy 13:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Following the command of Jesus to make disciples of others, and thinking of the consequences if we don’t, you set out to give them the truth and salvation and heaven. What if they do not want your truth, salvation and heaven? You go to a Muslim offering the true way to obtain salvation, but he politely refuses saying: “Friend, I really appreciate your kindness and concern, but I choose not to receive your help.” What is the best thing you can do in that situation? If you are truly a disciple of Jesus, you will leave him alone. You wouldn’t want to force your truth and salvation and heaven on somebody who doesn’t want them. Remember that Jesus only knocks at the door; he doesn’t force into anybody’s heart and life. Today the Islam world is not welcome to America. “Please leave us alone!”they are crying aloud. The Islam world doesn’t want the truth and salvation and heaven offered by America. Dear brother, the Islam world is suspicious of the Christian West since the time of the Crusades. They think that although we are offering them heaven, in reality we have a hell for them. The gap has recently been widened further by the various activities of the Christian West. People like Hagee are only widening the gap further by their hate-filled sermons. “Blessed are the peacemakers; they will be called the children of God.” First the Christian West needs to show heaven in their life and activities; then the Islam world will come to them requesting for heaven.

Well, of course, if you've shared everything you can and they say no, there's obviously nothing more you can do. Often times evangelism has a delayed reaction, someone might refuse on the spot right after you've evangelized to them, but once they've had more time to think about it they may come to Christ, its sort of like planting a seed. I don't think John Hagee has ever advocated we "force" Christianity on people, just that we should watch out for Iran, World War Three, whatever. However, you have to understand, Islam itself actually teaches specific things about Christianity, pretty much all of which are wrong. There's all sorts of preposterous allegations, including assuming the trinity is tritheistic, most Muslims aren't in a position to refuse Christ because they don't really know what Christianity is, and our definitions of who Christ is are very different. But don't worry, I wouldn't want the "salvation and heaven" offered by America either, living out the American dream indeed, our streets aren't exactly paved with gold over here. This salvation is compleatly tied to Christianity and Christianity alone, it is not defined by borders of countries. Hagee's sermons only have hate because he is talking about alot of hate, but he didn't make the hate, Islam made it first. It's not like people haven't tried to make peace with Islam, its been tried for centuries, but it never works. Hagee does sometimes go a bit overboard, like often suggesting pre-emptive attacks that aren't really amazingly peaceful, but nobody is perfect, and most of what he says concerns the lack of peacemaking in Islam today anyway. Nobody can show heaven in their activities because nobody is perfect, and our works alone don't ever appear to of impressed Islam, whether any nation controlled by Christians was opposed to them or not. Finally, we don't necessarily need the "Islam world" to come to us, after all, we are supposed to make disciples of all the nations, not just Islam, and right now, there are so many unsaved people in the world that in terms of efficiency, I don't see why we would need to concentrate specifically on the Muslim world right now. Homestarmy 16:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I was happy to read your comments because we agree on several points. We both are more similar than different in our ideas. Although we sounded totally different from each other first, the more we communicated we realize that we agree in several points. I believe any disgreements in the world can be smoothly talked out if there is a willingness on the part of both parties involved. For Hagee, America and Israel are on one side and the Islam world is on the other side. He finds the root of this rivalry back to Isaac and Ishmael. This is a racial struggle for him. There are Christians all over the world-- even in the Islam nations. There are also Muslims all over the world --even in USA and Israel. Hagee does not see himself as a Christian propagating the good news of Christ. He is on the side of America and Israel standing against the Arab world. Hagee needs to ask this simple question to himself. If Jesus were in his place, would he have made the same kind of sermons? Would Jesus have encouraged America to go to war with Iran?

Hmm, one of the problems though is that its a bit hard to confront the other side in this debate face to face, generally because for the Christian side it isn't easy to show up in a televised debate on, say, Al-Jazeera, and for the Muslim side, many people there either assume we're far too much like "infidels" to bother talking to, or they know what they have to say really wouldn't be appreciated too much by a nation with western values. (I've seen a few translations of internal arabic interviews with Muslim type preist folks, it can get scary) Although it is hard to believe that such a set-in-stone diametric relationship exists between the Muslim and Western world, (Or, more precisely, the Western World + Israel) most of the protests and complaints from the Muslim world reinforce the idea of this relationship very clearly, all the "DEATH TO THE INFIDEL!!!" signs and chants don't really help. Hagee is probably referring towards the idea that the descendents of Ismael became modern-day arabs, but I don't necessarily remember any of his sermons concerning that actually going so far as being racist about it :/. I do have to admit, Hagee does take a rather long amount of time focusing on the conflicts in the world rather than evangelizing, though I do think he's done it occasionally, not sure how effective his message is, but he really seems like one of those apocalyptic type preachers who really sees a whole ton of importance in the events leading into Revelations, so i'm not sure I can blame him for focusing on it a bunch. He does certainly seem to be on America and Israel's side against the Arab world, but you know, the Arab world has a pretty big supermajority of citizens who see their fight as against America and Israel, so Hagee might not be so wrong to call attention to the danger at hand. Not sure what Jesus would say in Hagee's place, but I do know this, by the time America goes to war with Iran, Jesus' second coming will probably be rather soon, so we might find out then..... Homestarmy 21:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

People have been indefinitely waiting for Messiah to come and solve all the problems in the world --Christians for the last two thousand years, and Jews even more than that. A heaven to come in the future --never in the present. People always lived in misery and hopelessness believing that heaven would come only in the future. Jesus also lived in a world in which people were eagerly waiting for the messiah and a heaven on earth. Jesus challenged people to open their eyes and see heaven in the present. God has always been ruling this world. We are living in God's world. But our blindness does not let us see this truth. The universe and everything in it belongs to God. God loves all human beings unconditionally as his children. God is eagerly waiting for you to return to Him. When you accept a human being as your brother, you are accepting God as your father. Think of the older brother of the prodigal son. He was unwilling to accept his brother when he returned. In effect, he was unwilling to accept his father who accepted him. If you cannot consider a human being as your brother or sister, because he belongs to another religion, you cannot consider God as your father either. When you are raising your sword at a human being, you are raising the sword at your heavenly father. The world is the family of God. Those who realize this become the children of God in the true sense. The others, though they are the children of God, have not become the children of God yet.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.160.170 (talk • contribs).

Are you User:Johnkunnathu, or someone new? I just see an IP address and I wanted to know if/when I respond. Homestarmy 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am.

But I means was 70.240.160.170, who made the last big comment, you when you wern't logged in? Homestarmy 12:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I had to log in whenever I made the comment. I am the only one so far responded to you.

So I guess 70.240.160.170 was some random person then? the diff is here:Homestarmy 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact I am the one who wrote this. Maybe because I used a different computer to log on.

Oh....well, didn't we settle the children of God thing already? I have class in a few minutes, so i'll be able to give a bigger response in a bit. Homestarmy 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, maybe it was slightly longer than a bit, but i'm here now anyway. When the Messiah comes, it really depends on your point of view who's problems will be solved, obviously for those who are left behind, the problems will compound quite a bit when God's justice is poured out on the world. And I disagree that people live in hopelessness and misery while we wait, the entire reason we can wait at all is because of the hope that lies within us, and although persecution has come across many Christian's path, I gotta tell ya, America for one has oddly defied the norms and provided a fairly, well, non-miserable place for Christians (And most everyone else) to live. I don't have any idea where the "challenged people to see Heaven in the present" thing comes from, the only thing close to it is to be on your guard for when Jesus comes back to gather up His flock, so I really don't see any Biblical (And come to think of it, no Qur'anical) support for Jesus challenging people to do what you say He did. Nextly, if "our blindess" doesn't let us see the truth of God's supremacy, you must mean "our" to the exclusion of yourself, since "our" would imply both you and I are both blinded. I think we settled the love thing up above, I assure you, the "Hates all who do iniquity" verse is no abstract metaphor. And no, you are not necessarily accepting God when you "accept" any human as your brother, because you haven't defined "accept" here, if you mean the mere human acknowladgement, that certainly isn't Biblical, only when someone actually joins the Body of Christ do they become our brother, and even then, I don't see where you're getting the part about your acceptance also accepting God. (And once again, I don't think the Qu'ran supports that either) On the prodigal Son, the older son was merely not accepting his father's decision, not his father personally, or if he was, that certainly isn't mentioned in that parable as far as I know. And once again, you've messed up technical usage of words here, I certainly can consider someone to not be my brother and also accept God, the question is whether or not God, in turn, will accept my name into the Book of Life on judgement day. Of course, I have no idea what definition of "God" you're going by, so far, it doesn't sound like any definition i've ever heard of. On to your analogy I think i've showed I don't see why I should accept it as true, and John 3:16 most certainly does not say that "Religious tolerance is the way, the truth, and the light, whosoever accepts even the most ardent sinner and hater of God as his brother will gain eternal life", nor did the person who actually spoke the real John 3:16 ever become a hypocrite, who would at first say that only those in Christ are our brothers, then go back on His word and say what you have said. If He did, then i'm afraid we aren't dealing with the same definitions of Jesus. Homestarmy 00:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You noticed that I have a different understanding of God, and it is different from all the different definitions you are familiar with. John, the apostle, affirms that nobody has ever seen God. The truth of God can never be understood by any human being. It is only natural that each human being will have a different understanding of God, whom nobody has ever seen. Also nobody can claim that his/her understanding of God is the only true understanding of God. Moreover, as one grows up, his/her understanding of God will also change. Once we understand this basic thing, we will be open to all human beings’ experience and understanding of God. Jh 3:16 says that God loves the world. It does not say God loves Christians/good people/Americans. It says clearly that the object of God’s love is the world. Believe in Christ primarily involves believing what Christ said. Christ said that God loves and does good to all people in the world regardless of whether they are righteous or sinners. Those who believe this will also do in the same way —love all people and do good to all people. John says in his epistle, if you say you love God, but you can’t love your fellow being, you are a liar. How can you love the invisible God if you can’t love a visible fellow being? In the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus offers us several contrasts. Look at the heartless thieves who rob their fellow being and leave him at the roadside bleeding to death in contrast to the Samaritan who was willing to help a fellow human being although he belonged another caste/religion that despised him. The Samaritan was willing to see a human being in need as his brother, but the priest who belonged to the wounded person’s caste/race/community was not willing to see him as a brother. Jesus asked us to follow the example of the Samaritan; but is this what Hagee asks people to do?

Don't think that i'm ignoring you, I just have quite a deal of work to do in school right now :/. Homestarmy 23:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i'm back again. If we both have a different understanding of God, I have to ask, what basis is your definition on? You seem to state many things about God as fact that don't seem to be grounded on anything in particular. With John, remember, even Moses didn't see God technically, yet we don't say that Moses knew absolutly nothing of God, and while human beings could never understand God compleatly, we don't need to in order to form enough of the picture. A comparison would be with the study of atoms, we keep unravelling more and more layers of the fundamental components of the universe, and yet we will probably never have a compleate understanding of it. And yet, we know certain things are factual, for instance, they form into atoms, and will bond with other atoms in only certain ways. Assuming the atom is infinitly complex, (After all, I suppose God could of created components for atoms to an infinitly small degree, how would the layers end exactly anyway?) this is somewhat analogous to how we can understand God, we know that He is infinitly good and is the judge of the universe, and that His Son came and died for our salvation. Does this mean we claim to know everything about God? Each human being doesn't have a compleatly different understanding of God, if that was true, only at best a single human being could be saved, since only one would be allowed to know a definition in which Jesus Christ was His son, with all the qualities the Bible tells us of him. (And, thusly, everyone else in the world might as well believe in a rock for salvation for all the good it would do, nobody would know Christ at all.) While our understanding of God may change as we grow up, I find it difficult to see how you can claim this "basic truth" will allow us to understand all other human's experiences, when you have already stated everyone's idea of God is compleatly different. John 3:16 says that God loves the world because despite our wickedness, God still wishes to save us all, for "He [God] is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." but 3:16 only says that God loves the world, not everybody in the world, otherwise, what about where it says that He hates all who do iniquity? Nextly, belief in what Christ said alone certainly doesn't make you a Christian, anyone can believe that what Christ said was good, but it doesn't mean someone acts on what He said and becomes saved. Can you tell me this verse where Jesus says explicitly that God loves and does good to everyone in the world no matter what, as far as I know, that's not anywhere in the Bible. John didn't merely say "if you love "a" God", he would of been talking about the God, and once again, i'd like to see this verse as I don't recall any verse worded the way you say it is. People loving everyone is very different than God having to love everyone, since we are all imperfect, we are commanded even to love our enemies since we are not in a position to judge them, but God never sinned and knows everything, and He alone therefore knows exactly who deserves condemntation. Finally, the Samaritan didn't necessarily see the person as his brother, he simply wanted to help out, God has given every one of us a conscience, so we know how to do good, even if we don't believe in God or are not confronted with the needs of a brother. Now getting onto the subject of the article, Hagee does not seem to be ignorant of the hatred and virulence Muslim countries hold for America, Hagee doesn't ask us to hate them back, but rather, to defend ourselves. At least, most of the time, sometimes he gets a little bit, well, too exited about defending and starts telling us to attack first, but nobody should be expected to be perfect.... Homestarmy 21:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You know, I just realized, the pre-emptive strike quote is not well-referenced. How exactly do we know he even said it anyway, I just removed it because all there was was (July 19, Washington D.C.) basically, that's certainly not a reliable way to source anything. Homestarmy 01:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the typo in "a God". I have corrected it.

Let me tell you this verse where Jesus says explicitly that God loves and does good to everyone in the world no matter what. Please read the following passage carefully and understand exactly what Jesus wanted his listeners to understand. "Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so? Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Let me paraphrase this passage. "You have heard the saying that it is good to love your friends and hate your enemies. But this is what I have got to tell you: Love all people including your enemies. That is what your father in heaven does. He raises his sun on all people --both good and evil ones. He gives rain to all people-- both righteous and unrighteous. If you claim to be the children of this heavenly father, you have to accept Him as your role-model, and do exactly what he does. Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who persecute you." Brother, this is the God I believe. This God sees every human being as His child whether they call Him father or not. That is why I am able to see every human being as a brother to me. I don't care if they can see me as a brother. Any human being is a brother/sister to me because he/she is also a child of my heavenly father.

As I think we discussed early on, both the sun and the rain are fallen with the rest of creation, although God certainly created them to be perfect, the rising of the sun and the falling of the rain are not perfect gifts from God at the moment, God has simply made them happen anyway. For example, lets say you have two people, one of which is in the middle of Africa during summer, and the other is living up in Canada during the winter. The person in Africa will likely want the rain to come, and will see it as a great boon during the scorching African summer, but the sun, when it comes out, makes the heat nearly unbearable, and even evaporates some of the water that the African would need for survival. Now, take the person in Canada, he would certainly want the sun to come, and come often. Since Canada is not a third-world country, running water is plentiful, as he would have plumbing of course. The sun would warm the earth and stave off the sub-zero temperature, in addition to making the mountainous environment look just plain awesome. But the rain, when it comes, would block the sun, causing temperatures to drop, making the rain probably be freezing rain, which would of course freeze on everything. Then, the temperature would probably freeze the pipes, which would certainly make the Canadian not consider the rain to be a gift at all. It is an example of situational circumstance, and while I can understand how you would draw the idea that God giving people both rain and sun means that He gives gifts to everyone, neither the rain nor the Sun are perfect, and at the moment, certainly aren't like gifts from God since they each have a nasty habit of messing things up rather badly depending on where people are. But now you've said that God sees every human being as his child whether they call Him Father or not, but up above, you said "If you cannot consider a human being as your brother or sister, because he belongs to another religion, you cannot consider God as your father either.". Which is it, are we all children of God, or are some not really His children? Homestarmy 04:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

You asked for a passage where Jesus claims that God loves and does good to all the people in the world, and that is what I provided. That passage is not about rain and sunlight, it is about God's love to all. You ended with a question implying that I am contradicting myself. "Which is it, are we all children of God, or are some not really His children?" No, my brother, I am not contradicting myslf. God loves all human beings as His own children. However, not all people realize this. Until they realize this, they are not living as God's children although they really are. Take your time and think about this. Pray about this. Ask God to reveal the truth about this. Open your mind before God.

The passage would indeed be about more than rain and sunlight if the things mentioned there represented perfect gifts from God being rained upon everyone, but as I think i've showed, God giving everyone rain and sunlight is not necessarily love for everyone. Think about it, when God wants to give someone a blessing, will it come with any catches or technicalities that make it imperfect? No, when God gives people blessings, they actually bless in all circumstances, rather than only blessing a few and being the curse of others. I implied you contradicted yourself because the way you worded your sentences made it sound like you said those who did not consider everyone to be brothers were certainly not children of God, as opposed to children of God who merely don't know it yet. However, I maintain that whether we are children of God or not is independent of how we view ourselves, anyone who is not truly a child of God could consider themself to be one all of their life, but that wouldn't make them right, which is the real issue. The truth has already been revealed to us in God's word, and speaking of which, i'd really rather not, but if you insist, i'm quite willing to demonstrate with a rather large collection of verses that God does not in fact love everyone as His children (Who, therefore, would then all go to heaven by default), but i'd rather not start listing off verses, as I don't think simply telling you a whole bunch of verses is going to convince you of much if you don't agree with any of them, much less all of them. Finally, whether we "open" our minds to God or not, everything we think is open to God's omniscence like a book, (Since, of course, He will judge everything) if God wanted to know something about what we think, then He already would of known it :). Homestarmy 22:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

So finally, the difference between our views is very clear. You believe that "God does not in fact love everyone as His children" and you are ready to quote any number of Bible verses to support your belief. You challenged me to produce at least one verse that says God loves all people alike. I produced the cardinal teaching of Jesus Christ about God that He does not distinguish between righteous and sinners when he gives them blessings, but you refuse to admit its real sense. My brother, I admit my failure. I can't convince you that God loves all people alike. May God guide you and help you. As long as your heart is as hard as rock with your beliefs, even God can't help you to understand the truth. Try to open your heart a little bit and think of other possiblities. Your mind is filled with all the junk-beliefs that you accumulated from your childhood. This is exactly what John Hagee believes. He believes that God loves only those born-again Christians who hold certain beliefs. I rest my case here. Hear the truth if you have ears to hear-- God loves all people regardless of how they are. All human beings are created in God's very image. When you believe this, you will start treating every human being as your brother or sister. That will make life so much different for you-- a transformation from hell to heaven.

I've shown twice now reasons I at least consider convincing that the verse you chose doesn't say that God showers gifts upon everyone no matter what, and they are reasons which are tied intristically with God's nature as an infinitly perfect being. Would an infinitly perfect being send His children defective presents that can kill just as much as they can help people? I believe, along with what the Bible says, that God is a being of perfection, and I do not see how it is possible for an infinitly good God to want to send people gifts which first off are defective and imperfect at present, and secondly as a sign of love for everyone, no matter how unjust and horrible they are. If God is infinitly good, how could He tolerate sin? It would be like a judge who told a criminal "I see here you've commited 13 murders and robbed 57 people. But hey, you worked for Greenpeace for 15 years, that's pretty awesome, and besides, its not like you commited genocide or anything, i'll just let you go, have fun continuing to be a murdering theif!", and I do not think God is truly that unjust that He would refuse to acknowledge people's sins. How could God be both infinitly powerful and yet not infinitly Good, the infinite power would corrupt Him absolutly if He is not infinitly good. The "Cardinal teachings of Jesus Christ" you propose are represented by one single verse are not explicitly in this verse at all, you are simply interpreting God's action of causing the rain to fall and the sun to rise as gifts, when the verse does not explicitly call them gifts. Nextly, i'm still a minor, and haven't even really been very fundamentalist for a year yet, I haven't "Accumulated" much of anything, and I seriously doubt John Hagee believes what I believe, since he's a mandatory tithe kind of guy and I certainly am not. If a Christian is "born again", they are God's child irregardless of what particular beliefs they hold, especially since some of those beliefs are things we are free to hold different opinions on, and God would love them whether their a transubstantionist, predestination type person, Dispensationalist, Post-Millenialist, or whatever, as long as they have truly accepted Christ's free gift of salvation. Nextly, whether people are shaped in God's image or not doesn't matter, can you imagine how angry an infinitly perfect God must be that His image is being used worldwide to commit wars, murder, rape, and all sorts of unspeakable horrors? God does not merely stop at the superficial qualities of man and declare them "good" simply because we are made in God's image, He knows everything that is both on the outside and inside of us. Finally, I know of not a single justification for the idea that only those who accept everyone in the world as brothers are the only one's allowed in heaven, I don't even know of any religions at all which teach that idea, and I certainly don't see anything like that anywhere in the Bible. Homestarmy 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/h/Talk%7EJohn_Hagee_e577.html"