58 Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM."
...which clearly shows that Jesus was never created.

1 Corinthians 15:45-47

"And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven."

Because if you believe the above verse is true, then you are close to realizing that God is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit!

Jesus Christ - the Beginning of the Creation of God
The God Kind creates the God Family
Some believers think that the Word, Jesus Christ, was a created being. Revelation 3:14 is one scripture that is wrested in attempt to support this position.
"And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Revelation 3:14, KJV)

This verse has been twisted to mean that the Amen, the Christ, who is also the Beginning, the Alpha as well as the Omega, came into being at his birth. It is true that Revelation 3:14 does not say that Jesus is the beginner of the creation but the beginning of the creation. So what does this verse mean? Of what is Jesus the beginning? In Ephesians 3:14-15:
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named."
The whole family is named God. Jesus Christ is the beginning of the God family. He is the " . . . firstborn among many brethren" (Romans 8:29). Before Jesus' birth God was not a family with shared genetics. Before the birth of Jesus God (Elohim) was a kind of being.
Kinds Become Families . . . Genetically Related
In the beginning "God created . . . every living creature after their kind . . ." (Genesis 1:21). The first two dogs were not a family, but a kind. Once they produced offspring they became genetically related, but each a different genetic mix of the first two. In the beginning God (Elohim) was a kind of being. There were two beings of that kind, but only one kind. As it is written:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1)
Angels Apparently Not Inter-Related
The angels are not really God Kind. They have one god-like attribute (spirit composition), but not "God genetics." It even would seem that they do not have genetics at all or at least are not a genetic mix, but were all individually created as it says of Lucifer "Thou [wast] perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, . . . " (Ezekiel 28:15). Possibly each of the various angel kinds are genetic clones.
Eve, the Mother of all living (Genesis 3:20), the Mother of the God Family
Jesus said to the Pharisees, quoting Psalm 82:7 "I said, ye are Gods . . ." (John 10:34). Why could men be called gods (Elohim)? Because they were of the same genetic pattern even though that pattern was filled with flesh.
Elohim the kind decided to multiply and be Elohim the family. God is using the Adam kind to do this. And like the first female horse was the mother of all horses except herself and the first stud, so Eve is the genetic mother of all except herself, Adam and God the Father. Eve is the genetic mother of Jesus Christ! But
"We are the offspring (Greek, genace, genetics) of God" (Acts 17:29).
"I (Jesus) am the root and the offspring (genace) of David" (Revelation 22:16).
"Levi . . . paid tithes . . . yet in the loins of his father Abraham" [Hebrews 7:10].
This is genetics!
Jesus is the root—the root has the genetic seed to produce the offspring! The genetics for David came from Jesus Christ. But when? At creation! Eve got her genetics from Adam. This allowed a genetic mix. That is why man can be called gods. We are God genetics in dirt—mortal. We need these genetics in immortal bodies to be spiritual God kind! Jesus is the first with mixed genetics, the beginning of this awesome creation of God, the God Family! Jesus is also the only one with genetics of God the Father. (only-begotten; mono-genace, only-genetics).
The God Family Is Created
When Jesus was born as a spirit being, God became a spiritual family. Jesus was the Son of God in the flesh, but he became a born-again God spirit being at his resurrection. Notice Romans 1:4:
". . . and declared to be the Son of God with power . . . by the resurrection from the dead."
God is now not only a kind, but also a growing Family!
Jesus Christ is the Beginning of the creation of God, which creation is a Family of genetically related spirit beings. Praise God!

Did God create the universe and everything in it in six days? Perhaps. But the universe and the earth have been around a lot longer than those who interpret the Bible literally say it has.
Answer
With the Creation account in the King James version, a point of confusion may be where the word 'heaven' may be taken to mean the atmospheric heavens of the earth, but as this was created on the second day it can't be the same 'heaven' that was created on the first day:-
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
Earlier, the creation account in Genesis 1:1 in the King James version translates the Hebrew word 'shamayim' into English as 'heaven' in the singular:-
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
However, other versions have translated it as 'heavens' plural:-
(ASV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(CEV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(GNB) In the beginning, when God created the universe,
(LITV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth;
(MKJV) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(NET) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(WEB) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
It does not mean the stars of heaven, which were made only on day 4 of Creation Week:-
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Gen 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
Gen 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
In Genesis, God created everything, but in the New Testament John says the Word created everything, and later on Paul says Jesus Christ made every single thing. This means the Creator was Jesus Christ:-
Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word [Jesus Christ] , and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Col 1:14 In whom [Jesus Christ] we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Col 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Col 1:16 For by him [Jesus Christ] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

So, the universe and all the planets were created on the 4th day of Creation Week by Jesus Christ.
Another Answer
Science may say that the sun and stars were formed long before the Earth, and that the planets are as old as the Earth, but this question seems to require a biblical answer. Therefore the appropriate answer seems to be that, according to Genesis 1:14, God created lights (the sun, moon, stars and planets) in the firmament which was already in place above the Earth, on the fourth day. While the question is framed in the modern knowledge that the universe is much greater than the Earth we live on, the ancients merely thought of the stars and planets as lights suspended above the Earth.

"God did not make death, and he does not delight in the death of the living. . . It was through the devil's envy that death entered the world" (Wis 1:13; 2:24).

God is glorified through Jesus Christ, in Jesus Christ we have life, Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. The Father is glorified in the Son. Its one God working in a trinity, in sync, united, as one, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for us

Who said anything about hate? That is an unfair accusation. I do not hate Mormons nor any person in any other religious sect. I hate false teaching and deception, but not people.

Yes let us discuss the history of visibly sinful heretics,

Heresy is proposing some unorthodox change to an established system of belief, especially a religion, that conflicts with the previously established opinion of scholars of that belief such as canon.[clarification needed] It is sometimes confused with apostasy which is disaffiliation from orthodoxy and blasphemy which is defamation of orthodox opinion.
The study of heresy is heresiology. The founder or leader of a heretical movement is called a heresiarch. One who espouses heresy is called a heretic.

her·e·tic
Pronunciation: \ˈher-ə-ˌtik, ˈhe-rə-\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a dissenter from established religious dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine :

Suppression
In 1147, Pope Eugene III sent a legate to the Cathar district in order to arrest the progress of the Cathars. The few isolated successes of Bernard of Clairvaux could not obscure the poor results of this mission, which clearly showed the power of the sect in the Languedoc at that period. The missions of Cardinal Peter of St. Chrysogonus to Toulouse and the Toulousain in 1178, and of Henry of Marcy, cardinal-bishop of Albano, in 1180–81, obtained merely momentary successes. Henry's armed expedition, which took the stronghold at Lavaur, did not extinguish the movement.
Decisions of Catholic Church councils — in particular, those of the Council of Tours (1163) and of the Third Council of the Lateran (1179) — had scarcely more effect upon the Cathars. When Pope Innocent III came to power in 1198, he was resolved to deal with them.
At first Innocent tried pacific conversion, and sent a number of legates into the Cathar regions. They had to contend not only with the Cathars, the nobles who protected them, and the people who venerated them, but also with many of the bishops of the region, who resented the considerable authority the Pope had conferred upon his legates. In 1204, Innocent III suspended a number of bishops in Occitania; in 1205 he appointed a new and vigorous bishop of Toulouse, the former troubadour Foulques. In 1206 Diego of Osma and his canon, the future Saint Dominic, began a programme of conversion in Languedoc; as part of this, Catholic-Cathar public debates were held at Verfeil, Servian, Pamiers, Montréal and elsewhere.
Saint Dominic met and debated the Cathars in 1203 during his mission to the Languedoc. He concluded that only preachers who displayed real sanctity, humility and asceticism could win over convinced Cathar believers. The official Church as a rule did not possess these spiritual warrants.[6] His conviction led eventually to the establishment of the Dominican Order in 1216. The order was to live up to the terms of his famous rebuke, "Zeal must be met by zeal, humility by humility, false sanctity by real sanctity, preaching falsehood by preaching truth." However, even St. Dominic managed only a few converts among the Cathari.
Albigensian Crusade
In January 1208 the papal legate, Pierre de Castelnau was sent to meet the ruler of the area, Count Raymond VI of Toulouse. Known for excommunicating noblemen who protected the Cathars, Castelnau excommunicated Raymond as an abettor of heresy following an allegedly fierce argument during which Raymond supposedly threatened Castelnau with violence. Shortly thereafter, Castelnau was murdered as he returned to Rome, allegedly by a knight in the service of Count Raymond. His body was returned and laid to rest in the Abbey at Saint Gilles. As soon as he heard of the murder, the Pope ordered the legates to preach a crusade against the Cathars and wrote a letter to Phillip Augustus, King of France, appealing for his intervention—or an intervention led by his son, Louis. This was not the first appeal but some have seen the murder of the legate as a turning point in papal policy—whereas it might be more accurate to see it as a fortuitous event in allowing the Pope to excite popular opinion and to renew his pleas for intervention in the south. The entirely biased chronicler of the crusade which was to follow, Peter de Vaux de Cernay, portrays the sequence of events in such a way as to make us believe that, having failed in his effort to peacefully demonstrate the errors of Catharism, the Pope then called a formal crusade, appointing a series of leaders to head the assault. The French King refused to lead the crusade himself, nor could he spare his son—despite his victory against John of England, there were still pressing issues with Flanders and the empire and the threat of an Angevin revival. Phillip did however sanction the participation of some of his more bellicose and ambitious—some might say dangerous—barons, notably Simon de Montfort and Bouchard de Marly. There followed twenty years of war against the Cathars and their allies in the Languedoc: the Albigensian Crusade.
This war pitted the nobles of the north of France against those of the south. The widespread northern enthusiasm for the Crusade was partially inspired by a papal decree permitting the confiscation of lands owned by Cathars and their supporters. This not only angered the lords of the south but also the French King, who was at least nominally the suzerain of the lords whose lands were now open to despoliation and seizure. Phillip Augustus wrote to Pope Innocent in strong terms to point this out—but the Pope did not change his policy—and many of those who went to the Midi were aware that the Pope had been equivocal over the siege of Zara and the seizure and looting of Constantinople. As the Languedoc was supposedly teeming with Cathars and Cathar sympathisers, this made the region a target for northern French noblemen looking to acquire new fiefs. The barons of the north headed south to do battle, their first target the lands of the Trencavel, powerful lords of Albi, Carcassonne and the Razes—but a family with few allies in the Midi. Little was thus done to form a regional coalition and the crusading army was able to take Carcassonne, the Trencavel capital by duplicitous methods, incarcerating Raymond Roger in his own citadel where he died, allegedly of natural causes; champions of the Occitan cause from that day to this believe he was murdered. Simon de Montfort was granted the Trencavel lands by the Pope and did homage for them to the King of France, thus incurring the enmity of Peter of Aragon who had held aloof from the conflict, even acting as a mediator at the time of the siege of Carcassonne. The remainder of the first of the two Cathar wars now essentially focused on Simon's attempt to hold on to his fabulous gains through winters where he was faced, with only a small force of confederates operating from the main winter camp at Fanjeau, with the desertion of local lords who had sworn fealty to him out of necessity—and attempts to enlarge his new found domains in the summer when his forces were greatly augmented by reinforcements from northern France, Germany and elsewhere. Summer campaigns saw him not only retake, sometimes with brutal reprisals, what he had lost in the 'close' season, but also seek to widen his sphere of operation—and we see him in action in the Aveyron at St. Antonin and on the banks of the Rhone at Beaucaire. Simon's greatest triumph was the victory against superior numbers at the battle of Muret—a battle which saw not only the defeat of Raymond of Toulouse and his Occitan allies—but also the death of Peter of Aragon—and the effective end of the ambitions of the house of Aragon/Barcelona in the Languedoc. This was in the medium and longer term of much greater significance to the royal house of France than it was to De Montfort—and with the battle of Bouvines was to secure the position of Philip Augustus vis a vis England and the Empire. The battle of Muret was a massive step in the creation of the unified French kingdom and the country we know today—although Edward III, the Black Prince and Henry V would threaten later to shake these foundations.
Massacre
The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.
The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His reply, recalled by Caesar of Heisterbach, a fellow Cistercian, several hundred years later was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."[7][8] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.[9] What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."[10][11]. The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000.
After the success of his siege of Carcassonne, which followed the massacre at Béziers, Simon de Montfort was designated as leader of the Crusader army. Prominent opponents of the Crusaders were Raymond-Roger de Trencavel, viscount of Carcassonne, and his feudal overlord Peter II, the king of Aragon, who held fiefdoms and had a number of vassals in the region. Peter died fighting against the crusade on September 12, 1213 at the Battle of Muret.

Pelagius (ca. AD 354 – ca. AD 420/440) was an ascetic who denied the doctrine of original sin, later developed by Augustine of Hippo, and was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism. He was well educated, fluent in both Greek and Latin, and learned in theology. He spent time as an ascetic, focusing on practical asceticism, which his teachings clearly reflect. He was not, however, a cleric. He was certainly well known in Rome, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life as well as the power and persuasiveness of his speech. His reputation in Rome earned him praise early in his career even from such pillars of the Church as Augustine, who referred to him as a "saintly man." However, he was later accused of lying about his own teachings in order to avoid public condemnation. Most of his later life was spent defending himself against other theologians and the Catholic Church.
Pelagius was born about 354. While his exact birthplace is not known, the Encyclopedia of World Biography states that, "wide spread evidence indicates that he came originally from the British Isles."[1] He was referred to as a "monk" by his contemporaries, though there is no evidence that he was associated with any monastic order (the idea of monastic communities was still quite new during his lifetime; solitary asceticism was more typical) or that he was ordained to the priesthood. He became better known c. 380 when he moved to Rome to write and teach about his ascetic practices.[2] There, he wrote a number of his major works — "De fide Trinitatis libri III (On Faith In The Trinity: Three Books)," "Eclogarum ex divinis Scripturis liber primus (Excerpts Out Of Divine Scriptures: One Book-a.k.a. Chapters)," and "Commentarii in epistolas S. Pauli (Commentary On The Epistles Of Saint Paul)". Unfortunately, most of his work only survives in the quotations of his opponents.
In Rome, Pelagius became concerned about the moral laxity of society. He blamed this laxity on the theology of divine grace preached by Augustine, among others.
Around 405, it is said that Pelagius heard a quotation from Augustine's work Confessions, 'Give me what you command and command what you will.' This verse concerned Pelagius because it seemed from this verse that Augustine was teaching doctrine contrary to traditional Christian understandings of grace and free will, turning man into a mere automaton.
When Alaric sacked Rome in 410, Pelagius and his close follower Caelestius fled to Carthage where he continued his work and briefly encountered St. Augustine in person. He is subsequently in Palestine as late as 418.

Jack, you asked why Christians did not acknowledge Mormons and others as being valid expressions of Christianity (in so many words). You now have an answer.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

John 5:26-27 "For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man."

Philippians 2:9-11 "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

Romans 14:11 "For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God."

John 5:30-32, 36-37a "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true...But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me..."

Romans 15:6 "That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."

Romans 8:32 "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?"

1 Corinthians 11:3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

Matthew 3:17 "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Luke 3:22 "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Mark 1:11 "And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

John 10:36 "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Matthew 16:16b-17 "...Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven."

1 John 4:15 "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God."

Romans 8:34 "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

Ephesians 1:20 "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,"

Colossians 3:1 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God."

Hebrews 1:3 "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 10:12 "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;"

Hebrews 12:2 "Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God."

1 Peter 3:22 "Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."

Romans 5:1 "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:"

Ephesians 3:17 "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,"

Ephesians 1:20-22 "Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,"

Matthew 10:40 "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

John 1:29, 34, 36 "The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world...And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God...And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!"

1 Corinthians 1:27-31 "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord."

1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"

Psalms 119:11 "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee."

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Romans 2:28-29 "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that ofthe heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

John 14:6-20  6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 7If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. 8Philip saith unto him, Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 9Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father? 10Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. 11Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. 12Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15If ye love me, keep my commandments. 16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. 18I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. 19Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. 20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

Its the sin of heresy that throws people out of communion with fellow Christians. This might seem unpleasant to an observer, I understand why some might think this type of shielding of Christianity is extreme. Yet, its best that others are warned against the sin of heresy when someone who claims that they are a Christian contradicts the Gospel. Surely such a warning is better than "making nice" and pretending nothing is significantly wrong as a person or group strays from the actual messages of the Gospel. Basically, a Christian would do someone great injustice if we support beliefs that will land them in a cult. So, the sin of heresy breaks up our unity and its not tolerated in great degrees--no matter how sweet it sounds to just "follow one's heart."

The money changers were NOT Christians, they were Jewish.

And Christians do not worship in temples.

Um, just a quick history lesson.

The name given by the Chumash tribe of Native Americans for the area now known as Los Angeles translates to "the valley of smoke". because of the smog from native campfires. Owing to geography, heavy reliance on automobiles, and the Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex, Los Angeles suffers from air pollution in the form of smog. The Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando Valley are susceptible to atmospheric inversion, which holds in the exhausts from road vehicles, airplanes, locomotives, shipping, manufacturing, and other sources. Unlike other large cities that rely on rain to clear smog, Los Angeles gets only 15 inches (381.00 mm) of rain each year: pollution accumulates over many consecutive days. Issues of air quality in Los Angeles and other major cities led to the passage of early national environmental legislation, including the Clean Air Act. More recently, the state of California has led the nation in working to limit pollution by mandating low emission vehicles. Smog levels are only high during summers because it is dry and warm. In the winter, storms help to clear the smog and it is not as much of a problem. Smog should continue to drop in the coming years due to aggressive steps to reduce it, electric and hybrid cars, amongst other pollution reducing measures taken.
As a result, pollution levels have dropped in recent decades. The number of Stage 1 smog alerts has declined from over 100 per year in the 1970s to almost zero in the new millennium. Despite improvement, the 2006 and 2007 annual reports of the American Lung Association ranked the city as the most polluted in the country with short-term particle pollution and year-round particle pollution. In 2008, the city was ranked the second most polluted and again had the highest year-round particulate pollution. In addition, the groundwater is increasingly threatened by MTBE from gas stations and perchlorate from rocket fuel. With pollution still a significant problem, the city continues to take aggressive steps to improve air and water conditions

The Catholic church does not comprise the sum total of Christian belief and thought.
To determine what the Bible teaches about a subject, you must study ALL of the Scriptures that address that subject, not proof-text the ones that fit your preconceived mindset.

Jack wrote :

There is only one God
and then said that Jesus is a created being.

WHY I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS DIVINE (GOD IN THE FLESH)

There are those who think it is quite amusing to counter every post with mockery, derision, ridicule, scorn, and veiled insults. It is a pity that they are so shallow that they have to amuse themselves at the expense of everyone else. I suppose they think that by bringing everyone else down, they raise themselves up higher. Nothing could be further from the truth. They blaspheme, mock and hold in contempt things which others value and hold dear and they have no sense of dignity nor decorum.

No, its not just man made law-- sometimes "following one's heart" in deciding what is sinful is not enough, just look at the life devastating slop coming out of those who study the Quran.

No we CANNOT simply "tune into God" and expect that we will make the right choices in accordance with our religious traditions. No we CANNOT simply "live the life you believe" and think that everything will turn out ok. There needs to be well informed consensus. No man is an island, in my humble opinion. There is a lot more to loving than most realize at first glance. We all have a TREMENDOUS amount to learn about what constitutes real love.

The Holy Spirit works among people and between people and this fact can't be overlooked. "Freedom of choice" has led those who claim to be Muslims to killing those they "claim" are infidels.

Arius's concept of the Word
This question of the exact relationship between the Father and the Son, a part of Christology, had been raised some 50 years before Arius, when Paul of Samosata was deposed in AD 269 for his agreement with those who had used the word homoousios (Greek for same substance) to express the relation of the Father and the Son. The expression was at that time thought to have a Sabellian tendency, though, as events showed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined.[citation needed] In the discussion which followed, Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria responded with an explanation, which posterity has been inclined to interpret as vacillating. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favor of the opinions later championed by Arius. But this settlement was so unsatisfactory that the question would have been reopened sooner or later, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, and Patriarch Alexander undertook its defense in another.
Arius endorsed the following doctrines about The Son/The Word (Logos, referring to Jesus, see the Gospel of John chapter 1):that the Word (Logos) and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
that the worlds were created through him, so he must have existed before them and before all time.
However, there was a "once" [Arius did not use words meaning "time", such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist, before he was begotten of the Father.
From "Thalia" Arius poem about his views of Jesus.
…"And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God’s own being (kat’ hypostasis), For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him".
From "Thalia": "At God’s will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior".
That God's first thought was the creation of Jesus Christ, so time started with the word in Heaven.
From "Thalia" " In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia). For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father.
What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning".
Translation and introduction by AJW
2.Rev.3:15 "These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God "The Bible"
Everything else came though Jesus Christ because he was the only begotton.
3.(Colossians 1:15-17) . . .He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All things have been created through him and for him. 17 Also, he is before all things and by means of him all things were made to exist", The Bible.
From "Thalia" "Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father’s will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others"
This main idea started great division in the early congregations.(280bc till today.)
The subsequent controversy shows that Arius's avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning.
Arius obviously objected to this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who also studied under Lucian. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But so far as we can understand his language on a subject that Athanasius admitted was beyond his power to thoroughly comprehend, Arius taught that the Logos was changeable in essence, but not in will. Arius drew support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius's statement that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and that he owed his existence to the Father's will. But the theological speculations of Origen were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why in this, as well as other controversies, the authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.

jack, its splitting hairs if they schd. each other or not if they play each other,

However, we have an entire country now of people who largely think that the death of a child is better than the struggle and sacrifice a child's parents might have to make.

That's a problem, it called moral relativity, where sin becomes a matter defined by what's good for the moment but not always what is good in general.

I agree that the problem is to find a standard so people can't just excuse whatever they want by relying on their own judgment. When you're tempted, that can get pretty flexible

but if u play/beat nobody all year, well that should be looked at.

Jack,
Health insurance costs are so high right now many small businesses can't afford to have any option for their employees.

ok oregon is in the drivers seat to win the pac10 and now they bring back there running back that sucker punched another player and then tried to go into the crowd to fight the fans, well i guess u could say thats odd timeing, oh well i guess its all how u look at it.

"If you're happy with your current healthcare provider, you may keep that provider. No one is making us take a public option."