Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) broached the subjects of God and damnation in his remarks on Friday to the 2026 Republican Party of Texas State Convention, characterizing Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico as a radical blasphemer in desperate need of prayer.
Preempting possible criticism by the media over his discussion of Jesus and "standing up for God," Patrick noted that "it's James Talarico who decided to bring the Bible into this election — and let me tell you, that's not a Bible I've ever read. I've never seen so much blasphemy from anyone running for office."
'That's the darkness.'
Democrat state Rep. James Talarico is a part-time Presbyterian seminarian who has, among other things,
Talarico has desperately attempted in recent weeks to adopt a less radical, less effeminate persona. In addition to posing with meat — after having previously clutched pearls over animal welfare and the impact of meat consumption on "climate change" — he recently walked back some of his more provocative theological claims.
RELATED: Democrats can’t escape their trans problem
In a 2021 speech protesting legislation that prevents male athletes from playing on girls' K-12 school sports teams, Talarico stated, "God is both masculine and feminine and everything in between; God is nonbinary."
In an interview last month, Talarico called some of his previous religious statements "cringey comments" that were "meant to be deliberately provocative."
Lt. Gov. Patrick evidently isn't buying what Talarico is selling, stating on Friday, "Let me tell you what, I'm going to pray for that guy because when he loses the Senate race, if he campaigns against God as he's been doing, he's going to hell for sure. That's what we're up against. That's the darkness."
Talarico responded to Patrick on X, writing, "For decades, Dan Patrick has sold out the poor, the sick, and the vulnerable to enrich his donors. Love feels like blasphemy when you worship power."
Paxton recently stated that his Democratic opponent — whom he has referred to as "Tofu Talarico" and "Low-T Talarico" — "is a threat to our values, our way of life, and the future of Texas."
A pair of recent polls indicate that the race is unnervingly close. While Paxton was up 45%-43% in a recent Quantus Insights poll, the two candidates were dead even in a Siena University poll earlier this month.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
One of the most common objections to Christianity is simple: The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible. If that is true, why do Christians believe it?
Christians believe the Trinity because it is the inevitable conclusion of what Scripture teaches about God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.
The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism.
The story begins in Genesis.
The Jewish Scriptures, what Christians call the Old Testament, taught something unique among the religions of the ancient world. Pagan nations treated their gods as physical beings within the universe. Israel taught that God created the heavens and the earth. God was not part of the system. He brought the system into existence.
God is therefore not made of matter, not located at one point in space, and not one deity among many. He alone existed from eternity. Everything else had a beginning.
Israel was repeatedly tempted to compromise with the polytheistic religions around it. Time after time, the prophets called the nation back to the worship of the one true God. Through Isaiah, God declared, “I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 45:5).
The God of Israel was understood to be eternal, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good. These are not properties material deities could possess.
That raises an obvious question. If Christians inherited this uncompromising belief in one God, how did they arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity?
John opens his Gospel with these words: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).
John then tells us that all things were made through the Word. The Word is distinguished from God, yet the Word is also called God. John 1:3 says all created things came into existence through Him. If all created things were made through the Word, then the Word Himself cannot belong to the class of created things.
Then John tells us, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:14). The eternal Son of God became incarnate as Jesus Christ.
RELATED: Don’t let ‘Disclosure Day’ doom you to spiritual death by discourse
The New Testament repeatedly presents the same pattern. At Jesus’ baptism, the Son stands in the water, the Spirit descends as a dove, and the Father speaks from heaven. The three are clearly distinguished from one another, yet elsewhere in Scripture the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identified as God.
Jesus commanded His disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19). Baptism is done in the name of God. Paul gives a Trinitarian benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14. Jesus, the Lamb of God, sits on the throne of God.
Jesus also claimed an existence that preceded Abraham: “Before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). His words echo the divine name revealed to Moses. The Jews understood the implication and tried to stone Him for blasphemy. Elsewhere, they accused Him of making Himself equal with God.
Scripture also attributes personal qualities to the Holy Spirit. The Spirit teaches, speaks, guides, gives life, and can be grieved. He is not merely an impersonal force.
The early Christians therefore found themselves committed to three truths taught by Scripture:
Deny any one of those truths, and you contradict the Bible.
Over the first several centuries, as pagan polytheists converted to Christianity or challenged it, the church debated how best to explain the doctrine of God from Scripture.
The Gnostics denied that Jesus was truly incarnate. They taught that He was a spirit who only appeared human. In doing so, they denied the incarnation.
Another early controversy involved Sabellius, who taught what later became known as modalism. According to this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely different manifestations of the same divine person.
The church rejected this because Scripture repeatedly distinguishes the Father, Son, and Spirit from one another.
Then came Arius, who taught that the Father alone is eternal and that the Son is the first and greatest creature.
As Christians reflected on the biblical evidence, the church clarified its teaching: The Father is eternally unbegotten. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father. The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and, in Western theology, from the Father and the Son.
The doctrine can be summarized simply: God is one “what” — one divine essence — and three “whos” — three distinct persons.
The church eventually summarized the biblical teaching as one God in three persons. Not one God and three gods. Not one person appearing in three forms. One God, three persons.
RELATED: Contentious theological debate erupts about Mormons over War Department faith list
The doctrine of the Trinity is therefore not an arbitrary invention. Nor is it a concession to polytheism. It is precisely the opposite: a refutation of polytheism. The doctrine preserves the full teaching of Scripture and answers the questions Scripture itself forces us to ask about God.
What is striking is how often modern religious movements that spin off from Christianity repeat ancient errors. Some deny the full deity of Christ, as Arius did. Others collapse the distinctions among the persons, as Sabellius did. Still others deny Christ’s full humanity or full deity. Some even teach polytheistic material gods.
What has united Christians across denominations and centuries is their shared commitment to the biblical doctrine of God. By contrast, new religious movements often claim allegiance to Scripture while introducing another authority that corrects, supplements, or supersedes it.
When Jesus called people to believe in Him, He did not require them to master centuries of theological debate. But neither did He leave them free to invent their own Jesus. They were to believe true things about Him and reject false things about Him.
A person may sincerely use the name “Jesus” while holding beliefs about Him that contradict the Jesus revealed in Scripture. The issue is not sincerity but identity. Not, “What do I feel?” but, “What does the Bible say?”
The question is whether the Jesus a person believes in is the Jesus revealed in the Bible or a Jesus drawn from some other source.
The church’s long debates about the Trinity were not abstract philosophical exercises. They were answers to the most important question any person can ask: Who is Jesus Christ in the Bible?
There is a peculiar kind of intellectual cowardice that disguises itself as "skepticism."
Instead of asking questions, engaging with evidence, or — God forbid — actually picking up the phone, it fires off a dismissive post and lets the crowd do the rest.
To Jones, it is highly possible that this anomaly indicates 'the corridors of a ship.'
Lately, the target of this cowardice is a man named Andrew Jones. His offense? Daring to propose that a boat-shaped formation in the mountains of Eastern Turkey may just be the remains of Noah's ark.
Jones, whom I recently interviewed over video chat, will be the first to tell you he is not an archaeologist.
What he is, however, is the project coordinator for one of the most methodical investigations of a potential archaeological site in recent memory — one being conducted by geologists, geophysicists, soil scientists, and archaeologists with decades of experience between them.
Jones has lived in Turkey since 2020, building relationships with Turkish universities, navigating government permitting processes, and assembling a team capable of doing this work the right way.
And for all that, he is being rewarded with mockery on the internet.
For many critics, Noah's ark research begins and ends with one man: the late Ron Wyatt.
Wyatt, a Tennessee nurse anesthetist turned amateur biblical archaeologist, has become the universal escape hatch for anyone who doesn't want to engage with legitimate, peer-reviewed Noah's ark research.
Never mind that Wyatt also claimed to have found the Ten Commandments and the Ark of the Covenant. For critics, he has become a kind of all-purpose scarecrow: Invoke Ron Wyatt, roll your eyes, and the conversation is over.
One of the strangest things about the criticism is the assumption that Ron Wyatt somehow created the Durupinar story from whole cloth.
In reality, the site's Noah's ark connection predates Wyatt's fame by decades.
It was discovered in 1959 by Turkish Army Captain Ilhan Durupinar during an aerial NATO mapping mission. A Turkish-American ground expedition followed in 1960, covered in a spread in Life magazine. This was documented, publicized, and treated as a legitimate subject of inquiry before Wyatt was anywhere near it.
The site itself is a boat-shaped impression in the earth about 18 miles south of Mount Ararat. It passes the eyeball test. It doesn't look natural.
But more importantly, it sits in a valley loaded with Armenian and Urartu historical artifacts, such as abandoned churches and old graveyards.
Just recently, according to Jones, a Turkish archaeologist visiting the site found pottery fragments.
"Maybe 50 feet away from the site, he [found] pottery just laying on the ground where the locals are plowing," he recalls.
The archaeologist dated the fragments to the Early Bronze Age and Late Chalcolithic. "This is the age you're looking for for Noah's Ark," says Jones. "If you're doing biblical chronology, they would place it during that time period."
Jones is careful not to overstate the significance of these finds, noting only that they demonstrate human activity during the same time period as Noah's ark.
These aren’t irrelevant, peripheral details. They’re central to the flood story. Because if the biblical account places Noah's landing in the region of Ararat, which it does, then the valley floor below Durupinar is precisely where you would expect civilization's earliest post-flood fingerprints to be.
Which brings us to the first target of the critics: the site's location.
Wes Huff, a Christian apologist with a significant online following, recently posted a lengthy critique of the Durupinar project.
He claims that "the modern site of Mount Ararat has only been called that since the 13th century" and that "the broader issue is that the precise location of Ararat remains unknown."
This is the kind of claim that sounds clever and smart if you don't actually know anything about the subject.
When the Bible says Noah's ark came to rest in the "mountains of Ararat," it is describing a region: the Armenian Highlands. And the Durupinar site is squarely inside the highlands. This is not a fringe interpretation. It's basic historical geography.
The word "Ararat" in the biblical text is not a reference to a single volcanic mountaintop. It is a transliteration of Urartu, the ancient kingdom that spanned what is now Eastern Turkey, Armenia, and Northern Iran.
"If you look [at] the Bible, it says Urartu, which is Ararat," says Jones.
The Urartu people were the predecessors of the Armenians. Their capital sat at what is today the city of Van in Eastern Turkey, on the shore of Lake Van. Their ruins, castles, and settlements are scattered throughout the entire region, including in the valley directly below the Durupinar site.
The implication of treating Ararat as fundamentally unknowable is that any candidate site can be dismissed before it is seriously investigated.
Huff's second major line of attack targets the methodology, specifically ground penetrating radar. His claim is that "you simply don't know what you're looking at with GPR alone."
This is technically true, which is exactly why nobody on Jones' team has ever argued otherwise.
But Jones does challenge what he sees as a widespread assumption that GPR is used to bolster "sensational claims."
As Jones explains, "A lot of scientists [and] archaeologists [and] geologists use GPR. ... It's not the final word, but it helps you understand what's going on below the surface."
GPR is not the conclusion. It is a step. It is a standard, widely used, non-destructive geophysical survey tool deployed by archaeologists across Europe and the Middle East as a matter of course before any excavation begins. Dismissing it as inconclusive is like criticizing a doctor for ordering an MRI before performing surgery. The whole point is that you look before you cut.
What the critics also won't tell you is what the scans have actually found. Because at this point, "we don't know what we're looking at" is getting harder to sustain.
The 2019-2020 GPR surveys didn't just confirm the boat outline visible from the surface. They mapped angular, right-angled internal structures, which may indicate rooms and chambers running the length of the formation.
They used modern digital equipment capable of generating three-dimensional models and sharing raw data with independent reviewers. According to Jones, unaffiliated geophysicists examined the scans and identified several features they considered noteworthy.
Among them was a linear anomaly running through the center of the formation.
Jones is again careful about the distinction between observation and interpretation: "There's a straight line of voids," he says. "Now I interpret that as someone who's thinking this is possibly Noah's ark." To Jones, it is highly possible that this anomaly indicates "the corridors of a ship."
Natural geological synclines don't produce right angles. Rock doesn't spontaneously organize itself into rectilinear geometry at depth. That's the kind of finding that, in any other archaeological context, would generate serious professional interest rather than a dismissive podcast appearance.
Or consider the 2014 electrical resistivity tomography data, collected by an independent New Zealand researcher. The ERT scans identified three distinct horizontal layers running through the formation. The Genesis account describes Noah's ark as having three decks. Jones' team members aren't the ones drawing that connection loudly. They don't need to. The data draws it.
In 2025, new analyses of the raw GPR data found what resembled a central corridor or tunnel running through the formation, flanked by side tunnels tracing the interior perimeter of the ship shape, and beyond that, a large central void extending at least 13 meters below the surface.
And then there is the soil. In 2024, Jones' team collaborated with Australian soil scientist William Crabtree and Turkish geologist Dr. Mehmet Salih Bayraktutan to conduct a formal survey of 88 samples across 22 locations inside and outside the formation. The samples were then analyzed at Atatürk University laboratories.
They found that organic matter inside the formation runs three times higher than in the surrounding soil, with significantly elevated potassium levels consistent with the presence of decayed biological material (specifically wood) rather than the inorganic rock and mountain soil you would expect from a natural formation.
Yet critics routinely reduce years of work by multiple specialists to a single talking point: "It's just GPR."
RELATED: 5 reasons this 'Noah’s ark' discovery is harder to dismiss than skeptics admit
Dr. Jeremiah Johnston, appearing on Michael Knowles' podcast, went farther than simply questioning the methodology. He implied that Jones and his team were amateurs chasing hype, while claiming he could conduct a proper excavation of the site himself for $500,000.
Let's think about the claim that the current work being done at Durupinar is all for publicity for a moment.
Jones has spent years in Turkey, building working relationships with the Turkish government, navigating the permit process required for each phase of the investigation, signing formal agreements with a Turkish university whose archaeologist has over 20 years of field experience and has been covered in American newspapers for his other discoveries.
He has assembled geologists, geophysicists, soil scientists, and archaeologists across multiple countries. He has submitted proposals to government bodies and waited on approvals. He has done the slow, unglamorous infrastructure work that actual, serious science requires.
Meanwhile, Johnston went on a show talking about what he would do with half a million dollars.
Huff's accusation that there are no archaeologists on the team is equally misleading.
The work done to date — the GPR, soil sampling, geophysical surveys — all falls under geology, not archaeology. You don't call an archaeologist to run a magnetometer. You call a geophysicist.
Archaeology becomes necessary when you excavate. The project simply isn't at that phase yet. The archaeologists on staff have been consulting, reviewing, and preparing. In fact, the Turkish university archaeologist who recovered the pottery fragments from the valley floor was performing the kind of formal pedestrian survey that is the standard opening phase of any archaeological dig.
The critics want to hold Jones to archaeology's standards while he's still doing geology. Presumably they'll hold him to geology's standards when he starts doing archaeology.
I am ethnically Armenian. I grew up hearing stories about Noah's ark resting in Ararat. Until recently, Mount Ararat itself appeared on the Armenian passport. It remains one of the most important national symbols of the Armenian people because of what it represents: the place where civilization began again after the Flood.
I’m not asking anyone to accept that on faith. Neither is Andrew Jones. What Jones is asking is simply this: Let the investigation finish.
The sonic core drilling that will finally produce intact subsurface samples is pending Turkish government approval, potentially arriving this fall. That drilling will either find what Jones believes is there or it won't. The AMT surveys will either show bedrock in the wrong place to support a natural formation theory or they won't. The geophysical data will either hold up or it won't.
What the critics have offered is not a counter-investigation. They have offered no alternative data, no competing site survey, no engagement with the soil samples or the GPR profiles or the pottery finds. They haven’t even picked up the phone to request the data directly from Jones.
If Durupinar is nothing, if it is a geological oddity and nothing more, the data will show that, and Jones has said as much. He follows where the data leads.
The question worth asking is why so many people with such loud opinions about this site are so determined to make sure that data is never fully collected or taken seriously.
As more Christian influencers on social media claim to receive signs from God in the form of symbols from the world, BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey is urging believers to exercise discernment.
While Stuckey believes that the intention and anxiety behind asking God for a sign is “natural and understandable,” she notes that “when we get into this mode of asking for God, for some particular natural sign ... from the world, then we can actually foster more anxiety and more confusion.”
“Not only within ourselves, but also with the people that we influence,” she adds.
One social media influencer asked God for a sign in the form of a bluebird on a window sill, breaking down in tears as she recalled the story on her Instagram.
“She asked God for a bluebird sign, landing on the window sill, to indicate whether or not she should write a book,” Stuckey comments, pointing out that the sign of the bluebird has become very popular on social media.
“I do think it’s interesting that in a span of just a couple of months, all of these Christian creators happen to see bluebirds they claim as a sign from God. And they are encouraging others, some of them, to ask God for similar signs,” she says.
And while Stuckey urges believers to exercise caution, she does point out that there are examples in Scripture of asking God for signs.
“If we look at Genesis 24, Abraham’s servant prayed for a clear sign while searching for a wife for Isaac. He asked that the right woman would not only give him a drink, but also offer to water his camels. And Rebecca did exactly that,” Stuckey explains.
“And then Moses in Exodus 3–4 expressed doubt when God called him at the burning bush to lead Israel. In response, God gave him three confirmatory signs to show the people: his staff turning into a snake and back, his hand becoming leprous and then healed, and the Nile turning to blood when poured on dry ground,” she continues.
While these examples are clear indicators that it’s OK to ask God for a sign, Stuckey points out that Scripture also “warns against demanding them or asking God for them in order for Him to confirm His character or to confirm His will for you, especially when it stems from unbelief or a hardened heart.”
“I think when our theology is being influenced by New Age culture, we are in as much trouble as ancient Israel was when they were being influenced by outside pagan nations,” she explains.
“It is possible for this to really hurt our mind and our heart and our soul if that is what we’re doing,” she adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
A particular species of Christian now flourishes in America. I call him the “wet noodle Christian.”
He is easy to recognize. He attends Bible studies, laments the moral collapse of the nation over coffee after church, and speaks with deep concern about the culture. But ask whether Christians should publicly oppose evil or contend for the moral direction of society, and he recoils as though you had proposed human sacrifice.
When Jesus taught believers to turn the other cheek, he addressed personal vengeance, not civilizational surrender.
“Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,” he says.
Or: “The world is supposed to get worse anyway.”
Or, with special confidence: “Jesus told us to turn the other cheek.”
He says all this as though Christian ethics can be reduced to the consistency of warm pudding.
This attitude springs partly from biblical illiteracy, partly from a successful Marxist strategy, and entirely from sin.
Christians often invoke the crucifixion as though Christ’s death requires believers to become passive spectators while evil marches through every institution of society. That confuses the unique work of Christ with the ordinary duties of Christians.
Christ’s death was the once-for-all atoning sacrifice of the Lamb of God. No Christian is called to redeem the world by offering himself as a substitute for sin. That office belongs to Christ alone. Nor did Christ go unwillingly or by force.
During his earthly ministry, Jesus rebuked sin, denounced hypocrisy, drove money changers from the temple with a whip, and told adulteresses to stop sinning. Hardly the behavior of a celestial yoga instructor murmuring therapeutic affirmations beside a Himalayan stream.
When Jesus taught believers to turn the other cheek, he addressed personal vengeance, not civilizational surrender. The command restrains sinful retaliation. It does not abolish justice, civil authority, or moral responsibility.
The same Christ who taught mercy also stands behind Romans 13, where the civil magistrate bears the sword as a minister of God against evil. The same Jesus appears in Psalm 2 as the enthroned king while rebellious rulers “take counsel together, against the Lord and against His Anointed.”
The biblical picture is one of advance, not retreat.
In the Great Commission, Jesus does not tell Christians to preserve their private religious feelings until death mercifully arrives. He commands them to make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe all that he has commanded.
One searches the text in vain for the line: “Go therefore and quietly lose every institution while avoiding conflict.”
And here the second problem appears: Marxists understood the wet noodle instinct long before many Christians did.
RELATED: Adults are refusing to grow up, and their children are paying the price
For roughly 70 years, leftist media, academic institutions, and entertainment industries have carefully catechized Christians into believing that public Christianity is somehow immoral.
Christians were told that bringing moral convictions into public life is divisive. They were taught that the First Amendment requires a functionally atheist public square, though this alleged neutrality somehow never excludes progressive secular dogmas. The Christian could privately believe whatever he wished, provided he kept it quarantined like a contagious disease.
Meanwhile, the left marched through the institutions with all the subtlety of Sherman marching through Georgia.
One suspects many Marxists privately thought: “I cannot believe how easy this is.”
They taught Christians that offending anyone is the supreme moral evil, that strength itself is suspicious, that certainty is oppressive, and that masculinity is toxic. They insisted public Christianity was dangerous, and most Christians agreed to stop speaking publicly.
The remarkable thing is not that Marxists advanced their agenda. The remarkable thing is that so many Christians surrendered before the battle even began.
Part of this surrender also comes from bad eschatology, the notion that Christians should expect inevitable defeat in history. If collapse is certain, why resist anything? Why build institutions? Why fight corruption? Why educate children? Why preserve civilization?
This mentality looks far more like ancient Israel than faithful Christianity.
The Old Testament repeatedly shows Israel absorbing the gods and practices of surrounding nations, surrendering covenant distinctiveness, and then coming under divine judgment. Defeatism was never treated as humility. It was treated as faithlessness. One can almost hear an ancient pagan telling his Israelite neighbor that the Temple sacrifices and the Law of Moses are simply not nice.
The New Testament continues the theme. Hebrews 12 reminds believers that God disciplines his people for their good, though “for the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant.” Divine chastening does not mean abandonment. It means fatherly correction.
Perhaps America is living through precisely such discipline now.
RELATED: New book from Eric Metaxas shares the American Revolution's forgotten Christian roots
Many Christians anxiously avoid offending anyone while ignoring Christ’s explicit command to disciple the nations. They have become highly obedient to a command Jesus never gave — be inoffensive at all costs — while neglecting the one he did give.
Christians often speak as though courage belongs to secular revolutionaries, while faith belongs to timid people waiting for evacuation. But biblically, faith grounds courage because faith rests on the certainty of Christ’s victory.
Christ will have the nations as his inheritance. The gospel will go into all the world. Faith lives here and now in light of what we know will be then and there.
The Great Commission is not a suggestion to attempt cultural survival until the batteries die. It is a declaration of conquest grounded in Christ’s authority: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me” (Matthew 28:18).
All authority. Not partial authority pending polling data.
The remedy for the wet noodle Christian, therefore, is not anger, resentment, or partisan hysteria. It is the courage of faith.
Christians must recover confidence that truth is true, that Christ reigns now, and that obedience does not become optional simply because it provokes pushback. They must stop confusing passivity with holiness and cowardice with kindness.
Above all, they must understand the strategy that has been used against them. The first step in losing a civilization is convincing its defenders that defending it is somehow unchristian.
Christians face persecution across the globe — but one country has made it almost impossible for them to practice their faith, threatening torture, imprisonment, and execution simply because they believe in Jesus Christ.
That country is North Korea.
“If you’re even found to be in possession of a Bible, you and your entire family are likely going to be thrown into a concentration camp — a work camp — for the rest of your days, never to be heard of, never to be seen again,” CEO of Open Doors Ryan Brown tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey.
“To be identified as a Christian — to be found as a Christian — is the equivalent of a death sentence,” he says, pointing out that in North Korea, the highest authority isn’t God, but the state.
“And so, for Christians, who have a higher authority than the state — Christians are immediately seen as enemies of the state. They’re assumed to be enemies of the state or, in some cases, assumed to be allies of the West,” he explains.
There are also public executions of Christians.
“In many cases, if they feel like, OK, it’s been a little too long; we need to remind people that we’re in charge; we need to remind people what the consequences are,” he says.
However, despite the threat Christians face in North Korea, they refuse to give up.
“There are about 400,000 Christians in North Korea … and it is growing,” Brown says, explaining that Open Doors has set up safe houses across the border where “individuals are able to come be nursed back to physical health.”
“It … humbles me to see that there are men and women that have, in essence, escaped from North Korea, come to these safe houses, been nursed back to health, and their goal and their intent and what they have done is to go back to North Korea so they can continue to minister,” he explains.
“They’ve … taken a posture of ‘How can I be equipped so that I can go back and continue to share the gospel with my friends and neighbors?'" he adds.
To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
During a Friday pride night game, several San Francisco Giants pitchers wrote Bible verses on their gay-ified hats. One player made clear there was “no hate at all. It’s just what I stand for, and what I stand on: I believe in God.” The same player added that the rainbow is a symbol of God’s […]
It was refreshing to watch a children’s movie that not only avoided inappropriate messaging but also mirrored Christian themes.
www.theblaze.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com