Christianity – Page 17

Matthew Ward: Toward Eternity

Matthew Ward is best known for his part of the 1970’s trio known as The 2nd Chapter of Acts. The group often toured with Keith Green, Phil Keaggy and Barry McGuire. During his time with 2nd Chapter, Ward released his first solo album, Toward Eternity. Toward Eternity was one of the best Christian rock albums of the period. I have many fond memories of hanging out at the campus radio station play cuts off this LP on Friday nights.

I have been checking periodically for many years to see if Toward Eternity would ever be released on CD. I’m still waiting. On the Matthew Ward website, there is no mention of Toward Eternity on the Store page on his site. However, on the Music page you will find a list of all the solo projects that Matthew Ward has done. On this page is a box that looks like an ad. It lists many songs in alphabetical order. If you play around with this box you will find that it is in fact a way to play and download mp3 files of songs by Matthew Ward.

Songs that have been purchased previously appear in italics. Note that songs are not listed by original LP or CD. By scrolling up and down on the music page you can figure-out which songs belong to which recording. Setting-up an account on Snocap is easy and doesn’t require selecting the songs over again. Be warned that there is no confirmation screen prior to purchasing the songs. Once purchased you need to either install a download manager from Snocap or right-click each song title and select save to download.

Matthew has a great duel on the Donna Summer album She Works Hard for the Money. Look for the track called Love has a Mind of It’s Own. He also has a great duet with Leslie (Sam) Phillips on her Dancing with Danger CD called By My Spirit.

Matthew Ward’s music is a real treasure. I’m glad he has found his way into the digital age.

Anne Rice Slaughters Presidential Politics

Anne Rice, the author of the Vampire Chronicles and other tomes about creatures of darkness, posted an endorsement of Hilary Clinton’s bid for President.

Rice has a reputation of delving into the dark world of things that go bump in the night. That she could take a witch like Hilary and transform her into an angel of light is no marvel, but it is fascinating to read her logic in arriving at this conclusion.

Anne Rice seems to have been sucked into the same vortex that recently absorbed Jane Fonda. Both high profile women have claimed to give their lives to Jesus Christ and to be profoundly transformed by the experience. Both are firmly entrenched in the Democrat Party and comfortable being there. Both have used the experience of their conversion to repudiate the Republican Party utilizing arguments rife with Neo-Marxist and Liberation Theology of the 1970’s. Unlike Fonda however, Rice proclaims that she is Pro-Life.

I would like to examine the endorsement posted by Anne Rice.

PERSONAL ENDORSEMENT OF HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT:
August 10, 2007

To my readers:
Some time ago, I made an effort to remove from this website all political statements made by me in the past. Many of these statements were incomplete statements, and many were dated. And a good many of the emails I received about these statements indicated that they were confusing to my newer Christian readers. I felt, when I removed the material, that I was doing what was best for my personal vocation—- which is, to write books for Jesus Christ.

If you think her previous statements were incomplete and confusing just keep reading.

My vocation at this time remains unchanged. I am committed to writing books for the Lord, and those books right now, are books about His life on Earth as God and Man. I hope my books will reach all Christians, regardless of denomination or background. This has become my life.

If your life is dedicated to write books about the Lord then to steal a phrase from Laura Ingraham, Shut-up and write.

However, I have come to feel that my Christian conscience requires of me a particular political statement at this time.

I hope you will read this statement in a soft voice. It is meant to be spoken in a soft voice.

Irony: associating “soft voice” with Hilary

Let me say first of all that I am devoutly committed to the separation of church and state in America. I believe that the separation of church and state has been good for all Christians in this country, and particularly good for Catholics who had a difficult time gaining acceptance as Americans before the presidential election of John F. Kennedy. The best book I can recommend right now on the separation of church and state is A SECULAR FAITH, Why Christianity Favors The Separation of Church and State, by Darryl Hart. However there are many other good books on the subject.

What a strange place to start building a case for endorsing Hilary.

Rice’s comment here shows a complete lack of historical understanding of the Constitution, the First Amendment and judicial activism. The founders wanted to prevent the establishment of a national church like the Church of England. There was a balance between religious liberty in this country and the State. Seven of the thirteen original colonies had state sponsored churches at the time the Constitution was ratified and they saw no conflict with their practice and the Constitution. There is no wall of separation between Church and State only protection of Churches from the national government.

John Kennedy was Catholic and ran against Richard Nixon, a Quaker. Neither was faith was ever considered mainstream at the time of the founding. However, each faith had a state established by its followers from the earliest days of the Republic. Catholics had Maryland and Quakers had Pennsylvania. What this Presidential contest has to do with the separation of church and state—a phrase that comes from a letter Jefferson wrote to some Baptists many years after the Constitution was written—is beyond my understanding.

Clearly Rice has bought into the myth of separation of church and state. Her citing of Darryl Hart’s book is proof of that fact. Hart advocates a faith that is so heavenly minded that it is no earthly good. He cannot have a church that is “salt and light” in its culture. True Christianity transforms the culture that it is in. Revival is when the church is culturally relevant. In Harts’ version of Christianity, you could padlock the doors to every church and no one else would notice. For him as long as Jesus is only in your heart your faith is ok.

Believing as I do that church and state should remain separate, I also believe that when one enters the voting booth, church and state become one for the voter. The voter must vote her conscience. He or she must vote for the party and candidate who best reflect all that the voter deeply believes. Conscience requires the Christian to vote as a Christian. Commitment to Christ is by its very nature absolute.

Christianity by definition must influence and affect every area of your life. But why appeal to Conscience and not Scripture as your standard?

My commitment and my vote, therefore, must reflect my deepest Christian convictions; and for me these convictions are based on the teachings of Christ in the Four Gospels.

Ok, where are we off to now?

I am keenly aware as a Christian and as an American that the Gospels are subject to a great variety of interpretation. I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say.

Since when have Christians disagreed violently about the Gospels? Yes they have a number of applications and lessons to teach us.

I am also keenly aware that we have only two parties in this country. Only two. This point can not be emphasized enough. We do not have a slate of parties, including one which is purely Christian. We have two parties, and our system has worked with two parties for generations. This is what we have.

Yes we have a two party system but when has either party claimed to be the Christian Party? The question that you fail to ask is which party will allow me to be a follower of Jesus Christ and still participate fully in it activities? Which party better fits a Christian worldview? Which party better respects God, family, marriage, the unborn, liberty, limited government and other values from Scripture?

I feel strongly that one should vote for one of these two parties in an election. I suspect that not voting is in fact a vote. I suspect that voting for a third party, when such parties develop, is in effect voting for one of the major parties whether one wants to believe this or not.

Voting for Ross Perot or Mike Bloomberg is a wasted vote. Ralph Nader won’t like this either.

To summarize, I believe in voting, I believe in voting for one of the two major parties, and I believe my vote must reflect my Christian beliefs.

Anne sort of skips over the part where she evaluates what each party stands for in contrast to her Christian beliefs. Since many candidates don’t agree with their party’s platform it might be better to say that you evaluate each candidate on their merits and pick the best one. However, we abandon all logic and jump to the conclusion.

Bearing all this in mind, I want to say quietly that as of this date, I am a Democrat, and that I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

Her argument is not from logic, this whole essay is just justification for the above facts. I. Anne Rice, am a Democrat and I endorse Hilary.

Though I deeply respect those who disagree with me, I believe, for a variety of reasons, that the Democratic Party best reflects the values I hold based on the Gospels. Those values are most intensely expressed for me in the Gospel of Matthew, but they are expressed in all the gospels. Those values involve feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies. A great deal more could be said on this subject, but I feel that this is enough.

Oops, Anne gives away the store here. There is nowhere in the Gospels or any other place in the Bible where to above listed values of “feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison, and above all, loving one’s neighbors and loving one’s enemies” are the responsibility of government. They are clearly the responsibility of individuals to those around them. Each of us is commanded to do these things.

In the Bible, government is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. This protection includes military defense, law enforcement and a judicial system. Only in Egypt during the time of Joseph will you find government running a modern welfare state. Look at it in Genesis. First the Egyptian government fed the people in exchange for their possessions and then the desperate people sold themselves voluntarily into slavery for food from the government. Gary North has written extensively on this subject in such books as Moses and Pharaoh. Many of his works are available at www.freebooks.com

Anne the Bible does have a word for the government acting in the way you desire, it is called theft.

I want to add here that I am Pro-Life. I believe in the sanctity of the life of the unborn. Deeply respecting those who disagree with me, I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of abortion, it will be through the Democratic Party.

This is just as logical as saying in 1860 that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of slavery, it will be through the Confederate States or in 1936 Germany that I feel that if we are to find a solution to the horror of Auschwitz, it will be through the Nazi Party.

If you are pro-life in the Democrat Party, you are not allowed to speak at any Party Conventions or publicly dissent. Anne you have no clue what you are talking about.

I have heard many anti-abortion statements made by people who are not Democrats, but many of these statements do not strike me as constructive or convincing. I feel we can stop the horror of abortion. But I do not feel it can be done by rolling back Roe vs. Wade, or packing the Supreme Court with judges committed to doing this. As a student of history, I do not think that Americans will give up the legal right to abortion. Should Roe vs Wade be rolled back, Americans will pass other laws to support abortion, or they will find ways to have abortions using new legal and medical terms.

Anne, we never said abolishing Roe would fix everything. It would get the Federal government and some states out of the abortion business and would allow tax money to stop being used to kill millions each year in the name of choice. There would be fifty fights in fifty states. Constitutionally, it is states issue not a federal one. 1/3 of all pregnancies since 1973 have ended in abortion and your party is hell bent on keeping it that way. Take the tax money out of the abortion industry and it would be a good step in reducing the frequency.

And much as I am horrified by abortion, I am not sure—as a student of history – that Americans should give up the right to abortion.

We gave-up the right to slavery.

I am also not convinced that all of those advocating anti-abortion positions in the public sphere are necessarily practical or sincere. I have not heard convincing arguments put forth by anti-abortion politicians as to how Americans could be forced to give birth to children that Americans do not want to bear. And more to the point, I have not heard convincing arguments from these anti-abortion politicians as to how we can prevent the horror of abortion right now, given the social situations we have.

Anne your beloved Party and Liberal theology have given us the situation that we have now.

What happened to the importance of the Gospels in this discussion? If unborn children don’t qualify as “the least of these” that Jesus spoke about then who is? Do the right thing because it is right and let God do his part. If we don’t repent the how can we be forgiven and restored to God?

You talked earlier about a vote for a third party as a vote for one of the two parties. The same applies here. For you to do nothing is to vote for preserving the status quo.

The solution to the horror of abortion can and must be found.

Yes but not by advocating more abortions.

Do I myself have a solution to the abortion problem? The answer is no. What I have are hopes and dreams and prayers—- that better education will help men and women make responsible reproductive choices, and that abortion will become a morally abhorrent option from which informed Americans will turn away.

Better education? Ha! We need the transforming power of the Holy Spirit to change people’s hearts.

There is a great deal more to this question, as to how abortion became legal, as to why that happened, as to why there is so little talk of the men who father fetuses that are aborted, and as to the human rights of all individuals involved. I am not qualified as a student of history to fully discuss these issues in detail. I remain conscientiously curious and conscientiously concerned.

Are unborn children not entitled to human rights too?

Remember when you said that you didn’t want Roe v Wade overturned? Roe says it’s a woman’s choice! The fathers don’t count. That is the law you are defending. Status quo. Now you say what about the fathers? Get a clue. You can’t have it both ways.

Roe legally protects fathers from any responsibility unless the baby is actually born. If the baby is born, the government takes most of the fathers’ responsibility and puts it upon the taxpayers. There is a definite linkage between spending on social programs and children born out of wedlock. The solution to problems created by government is for government to get out of the way not more government programs.

But I am called to vote in this, our democracy, and I am called, as an American and a Christian, to put thought and commitment into that vote.

When you start putting thought into your vote, you will start voting for candidates on their merits not just for guys with a “D” by their name. Maybe you will even give money and votes to a few that are pro-life. The bad news is that these folks are in the other party.

Again, I believe the Democratic Party is the party that is most likely to help Americans make a transition away from the abortion crisis that we face today. Its values and its programs—- on a whole variety of issues—- most clearly reflect my values. Hillary Clinton is the candidate whom I most admire.

On what basis can you say such a stupid thing? Democrats make money by killing babies. Why should they stop? Anne, their god is the State. Take any of those precious things that God expects his followers to do in the Gospel and that is the Christian view. Now substitute the word government for God in all those same commandments and you will get the position of the Democrat Party on any give social issue. We are back to Mose and Pharaoh.

“The conflict between Moses and Pharaoh was a conflict between the religion of the Bible and its rival, the religion of humanism.”—Gary North

Hilary will keep abortion “Safe and Lethal” so what does this issue have to do with her? Nothing. Can you even name any accomplishments of her in office? What has she done in her time in the Senate to make her qualified for President?

In summary, Democrats love abortions. Democrats love social programs. Therefore Democrats would love to create a social program to stop abortions. Hilary is a Democrat. Therefore Hilary would love to stop abortion.

I want to say something further. I am aware as a Christian writer that making a political statement like this is not a particularly wise marketing move. But my Christian conscience compels me to make this statement. My Christian conscience demands that I not lie in order to sell books. Lying to sell books, pandering to a Christian market—- these things would mean the deepest betrayal of my vocation to live for and write for Jesus Christ. I repeat: I won’t lie to sell books.

Translation: don’t hold me accountable for interjecting myself into the national political dialogue.

I have felt a certain pressure of late to express my feelings here; that pressure is mounting. That pressure has come from watching political debate on church and state in the media, from private emails from strangers and friends concerning these issues, and from conversations, often heated, with my fellow Christians and Americans.

The only political debate on church and state that I have heard this whole election cycle is about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith. What are you talking about? Anne you have wandered into areas far beyond your area of expertise.

Did you ever notice during the debates that thus far in the election cycle not one Democrat candidate has had even a single question about abortion? Why? Because every one of them agrees. They all support abortion on demand for all nine months of pregnancy and have no problems using your tax money and mine to pay for it. This is the status quo under Roe v Wade.

Debate over abortion only takes place in the other party.

My commitment to Christ compels me to respond to that pressure and to speak out on issues that I think are of crucial importance: whether or not we vote, and how we vote, and how our vote reflects our deepest moral concerns.

So how does voting for a pro-abortion candidate in a pro-abortion party reflect your deeply held belief in the sanctity of life?

So Anne, what would Jesus do? Based on my reading of the Gospels, I think he would make a different choice than you have. He might even vote for a third party.

I repeat: I am a Christian; I am a Democrat. I support Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

“If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christ. Where the battle rages, there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all the battlefield besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point?”—Martin Luther

If I receive emails on this issue, I will do my best to answer them.

Anne Rice
August 10, 2007

anneobrienrice@mac.com

Need a Primer on Mormonism?

With all the publicity about the Mitt Romney candidacy, you might be wondering what are the differences between historic Christianity and the LDS church. Does it matter? Hear one of the best experts on the subject. Walter Martin’s classic lectures on the Maze of Mormonism Part 1 & Maze of Mormonism Part 2 are now on the web.

Many of Walter Martin’s lectures and other material are available at Walter Martin’s Religious InfoNet This site is run by one of his daughters and her husband. Many of his teachings can be found in the Listening Library in RealAudio format. All are from cassette tapes that were converted to digital. The audio quality is not the best but it is worth a listen. Additional teachings can be found at the page for Kingdom of the Cults page The audio teachings on this page are not the same as the book but go along with some material presented in the book.

Vote for Romney a Vote for Satan?

Bill Keller has posted a scathing attack on Mormons and Mitt Romney. I do not know Mr. Keller but I was intrigued by this situation following as it does on the recent comments by Al Sharpton.

I read about this article on WorldNetDaily. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55642

If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan!

Was my vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger v Phil Angelides for California Governor a vote for Satan? Arnold cannot be a “good” Roman Catholic if he is for abortion and Phil is worse on the life issue. I believe abortion is murder but I also believe that God gave me the right to vote. Did Jesus say to support Caesar was to support Satan? No. The Bible teaches us that God appoints leaders and is the ruler of all nations; even those without a vote. I believe our job as Christians is to pick the best guy we can get. Character matters. Like I have said before, as Republicans we have a choice of a “good” Mormon and a lapsed Catholic. We are not electing a pastor but a president.

This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago.

I missed the part where Joseph Smith killed anyone. Was Joseph a pedophile? He might have married women under the age of 18, but in his day that was common. I think he had 35 wives. (see http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ )

The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie.

Joseph Smith makes this same claim.

There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.

I have watched in horror over the past weeks as one evangelical Christian leader after another has either endorsed, supported, or just as bad, refused to denounce Romney’s run for the White House and those Christian leaders who support him. Last weekend Pat Robertson, founder of CBN and Regents University, had Romney deliver the keynote address to the graduates of Regents. Regents is one of the great Christian colleges in this nation and Robertson allowed this cult member to deliver the commencement address. Is he out of his mind?

Would Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox New Channel be better? He is in hot water from some about pornography. http://www.apprising.org/archives/2007/05/purpose_driven.html

Do you think there would ever be a true Gospel preacher giving the commencement address at Brigham Young?

I have been warning you for years now about this cult born out of the pits of hell and responsible for sending millions of souls to eternal damnation.

People are in hell for rejecting Jesus Christ. False religion, homosexuality, drugs, gangs, sex and rock ’n roll are just things that people do to try and fill the spiritual vacuum in their lives.

For the nearly 200 years this cult has been in existence they have strived for mainstream acceptance. They are the most devious of all the cults since they have always tried to portray themselves as “just another Christian group” when in fact, they are no more Christian than a Muslim is! Their deception starts with their name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Sounds like a Christian church doesn’t it? Some Mormons have recently changed their name to simply Community of Christ (Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) to disguise even better who they are in an attempt to lure people in.

Many cults try to wrap themselves in biblical and Christian terminology. Define what Mormons believe and you will find a rejection of virtually every core doctrine. They are polytheistic, deny that Christ paid for our sins by his death and their version of the Virgin Birth (Adam having sex with Mary) are just a few whoppers that they tell.

The Mormon cult talks of God and Jesus, but again, don’t be deceived since the god and jesus of Mormon theology are NOT the one true God and Jesus of the Bible.

They teach God the Father has a physical body and that Adam, from the Garden of Eden, is “our father and our god and the only god with whom we have to do.” Thanks Brigham Young! Each planet has their own god. Also to them Jesus and Lucifer are brothers!

This cult also uses the Bible, but like in all cults it is NOT their final authority. The Bible is superceded by the writings of Smith in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants.

Mormons teach that the Bible is correct “in so far as it is translated correctly.” Any contradiction with the Bible is the fault of man, only they have the restored gospel.

These books form the perverted teachings of Mormonism and is what their false theology is based on. There are many great ministries who work to bring those lost in the Mormon cult out of that deception to true faith in the Jesus of the Bible. You can visit any Christian bookstore and find many books that will detail in great depth the bizarre theology of Mormonism which is not based on anything but the imagination of Smith.

Classic Texts to Read. Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, Kingdom of the Cults, Maze of Mormonism.

I am not even going to deal with the tons of documentation that exists on the Mormons strategy to gain mainstream acceptance in the American culture. Obviously a big part of this strategy is to wield political power, with the Presidency being the ultimate political prize.

When I last checked, fifteen percent of the military is Mormon. This is because military service is an acceptable alternative to riding bicycles around your neighborhood and knocking on doors.

There are reportedly 12 million Mormons worldwide, half of those in the United States. The worldwide holdings of the Mormon cult are in the tens of billions of dollars. Mitt Romney is the first member of this cult who has had the legitimate opportunity to help them achieve their goal of mainstream acceptance while holding the most powerful office in the world. Romney will have the full resources of this cult behind him in his bid for the White House.

Ok so how can Harry Reid, Orrin Hatch and Mitt Romney all be on the same team? That is like saying Ted Kennedy and Laura Ingram are political soulmates. Mormons are PEOPLE not some monolithic enemy out to destroy us.

As I have told you often, despite what some polls say, the better percentage of two full generations living right now have never even been to church.

Or at least a church where the Bible is taken seriously.

Everyone has a spiritual side to their life, and the cults and false religions, the new Age movements, have been having a field day attracting people to their false beliefs because of the overwhelming number of people who have no faith coupled with the fact Christians have quit evangelizing and virtually removed themselves from the culture leaving these lost souls to satan.

Perhaps because the Church and our country are under the judgment of God for our rejection of Him. We have forgotten where our blessing have come from.

It is against this backdrop that I tell you without any hesitation or equivocation that to support and vote for Mitt Romney is to support and vote for satan!

We are back to this again. Mr. Keller we need revival in the Church first. Salvation is not at the ballot box. God is in charge. Maybe Mr. Romney and his fellow Mormons needs our prayers.

If Romney gets elected as the next President of the United States, the Mormon cult will finally have the mainstream acceptance they have been striving for these past 200 years.

Mormons are a uniquely American phenomenon. I think their acceptance will happen without a Romney victory. We are slowing moving toward the Roman view of religious pluralism where you can have any god as long as Caesar is supreme. Christians are being marginalized and even persecuted in our country. If the church continues its apostasy then the situation for us will continue to deteriorate. The religion of Environmentalism and its neo-pagan ideals is more of a danger than the folks in salt Lake City.

Romney winning the White House will lead millions of people into the Mormon cult.

Did JFK’s victory lead millions into the Roman Church?

Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell.

True. We need to work harder and pray for them.

*ROMNEY GETTING ELECTED PRESIDENT WILL ULTIMATELY LEAD MILLIONS OF SOULS TO THE ETERNAL FLAMES OF HELL!!!

Isn’t that just a little harsh?

Knowing all we do about this satanic cult leading people’s souls to hell, knowing that a Romney presidency would give mainstream acceptance to this cult, why are most of the top evangelical leaders of our day falling over themselves to support this man?

Find me a better candidate and I’m there! Hey Fred where are you?

How can any Christian in good conscience have anything to do with Romney?

Do we just stay home and let the country go to hell? Oh, wait we are anyway.

I submit to you there are only 2 possible reasons, money and power.

Let me first discredit immediately the reason many are publicly giving for supporting Romney, and that is his stand on family issues and life. Romney has distinguished himself as the leading Republican candidate to be pro life. It is important to note this has only happened recently since Romney used to support women killing their babies. His wife even donated money to the leading baby killing organization in he world, Planned Parenthood. But even giving Romney the benefit of the doubt that he will take a stand for life, the chances of him being responsible for moving that issue are minimal even if he went on record that his number one objective of his presidency is to overturn Roe vs. Wade, which of course he has not done and never will do. Supporting and voting for Romney because of his position on life is NOT a reason to elect a man who will ultimately be used to lead millions of souls to hell.

Would Hillary or Rudy be better for the Life issue than Romney? Would their judicial appointments be better?

No my friend, as sad as it is, this is about what most things in life boil down to, money and power. Is it any wonder why the Christian faith is so weak and ineffective, has such little influence in our culture when those who are recognized as leaders aren’t really interested in God’s Truth or in seeing souls saved, only in money and power.

Are the politicians responsible for my soul? Did the early Church convert the Roman Empire by living their lives for Jesus or seeking political office?

It was just a few decades ago that another cult member bought the evangelical leadership of this nation. His name was Rev. Sun Myung Moon, head of the Unification cult. To gain mainstream acceptance for his cult, he set up a myriad of conservative organizations and through them funneled literally millions of dollars to people like Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tim and Beverly LaHaye, Robert Schuller, Paul Crouch, James Dobson, Jay Sekulow. D. James Kennedy, and many others.

Ok. How many of these folks converted to the Unification Church? Where is the Unification Church anyway. It has disappeared from the public eye for decades. Rev Moon is living the high life in Korea and I doubt his group will live much beyond him.

Fast forward to the year 2007 and you now have many of these same names involved in Romney’s bid to become the next President. Romney had a very clear gameplan to court the evangelical leaders of this nation to support him. There is nobody who will dispute that it was the Christian vote which was responsible for President Bush being elected twice.

Without the evangelicals no Republican can win the primary. Only John McCain is trying. If Romney is so good at this strategy then why is he so far down in the polls? I think the rank and file Evangelicals are not comfortable with him. Unfortunately, attacks like this one will have Christians defending Romney while disagreeing with his religion.

Knowing the satanic nature of the Mormon cult and the fact they have worldwide resources in the tens of billions, literally thousands of non profit and for profit corporations they control, it would be pocket change for them to funnel money and/or services to those Christian leaders who support Romney for President.

Romney has lots of friend in the business world but he hasn’t passed Hillary in fundraising. If what you claim (or fear) is true then she should be far behind in the money hunt.

Having been embarrassed when their ties to Moon’s cult became public, I have no doubt that those who are in bed with Romney have been very careful to insure that however they are being rewarded for their support, it will be virtually impossible to discover.

Now you sound like a moonbat. I think the evangelicals are hedging their support for Romney and Fred Thompson could easily strip much from Romney if he gets in the race soon.

Of course, the other component to those who are supporting Romney is power. Sadly, many evangelical leaders are also smitten with being “near the throne.” Many of these men and women are willing to compromise the Truth in exchange for political power. They are willing to ignore the fact this hideous cult is leading millions to hell in order to be part of Romney’s team. These leaders are nor driven by the Gospel but by political power!

What did Billy Graham get from hanging-out with Richard Nixon?

FOX News, that likes to portray itself as being friendly to the Christian faith, might as well be renamed the Mitt Romney for President network.

Fox is not hostile to Christians. There is a difference.

Sean Hannity, who wears his Romney cheerleading dress to the program every night, has stated numerous times that those who dare question Romney’s faith are hate mongers. It is clear that Hannity could care less about the spiritual implications of a Romney presidency, only that he will be on the inside as one of Romney’s biggest advocates. Of course there is radio and TV host Glenn Beck who rarely lets people know he is a Mormon, often stating he is “born again.”

Hannity is Roman Catholic and sees this in terms of the JFK campaign. All Mormons claim to be “born again” but like other terms they have a different definition to Mormons.

Beck is either like most Mormons and hasn’t got a clue what his cult really believes, or he is simply trying to reinforce the lie from hell that a Mormon is a Christian.

This is an outgrowth of their belief that we are all wrong and they are the only true church.

I love you and care about you so much. Keller is referring to his readers not the LDS members. It is no wonder why the church is so weak and ineffective when you have those in leadership willing to compromise the Gospel for a few shekels and some political clout. I remember last year being excited about a wonderful deal we had put together with Larry Jones’ Feed the Children organization that would have meant millions of dollars a year to Liveprayer and been a big part of the answer to giving us all the resources we needed to do what God has called us to do in reaching the lost through secular television. I’ll never forget getting the phone call that Jones was bought and used by the Mormon cult as part of their overall strategy to appear as “just another Christian church.” I had no choice but to sever the ties we had established with Jones. All the money and power in the world is not worth selling out Jesus!

Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult. The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!

Does he want us to holdout for Fred or just holdout? Who is God’s Anointed in this race?

I refuse to sit back and be silent while those who people look up to, who lead them in spiritual matters, are selling out the faith for whatever money and power they might be able to get in return. I challenge any of them to come on my TV program, or I’ll appear on theirs, and answer one simple question, “Knowing that Mormonism is a cult and those who follow this cult will die and go to hell, what possible justification can you give for supporting Romney?”

We need to win the election to keep millions from dying at the hands of Islamists and going to hell. Many of these are your fellow Christians that you are asking to pray for the Mormons. I’m glad you finally got to that part of the discussion.

Having Romney as President is no different than having a Muslim or Scientologist as President.

What about Deists and Catholics?

Please, don’t tell me that Mitt Romney is the best option. I’ll stay home and not vote before I will vote for satan, since if you vote for Romney you are voting for satan!

So there you have it. Stay home and vote for Hillary. Isn’t she Satan’s handmaiden? Damned if you do …

In His love and service, Your friend and brother in Christ, Bill Keller

Gene Robinson Marriage Assaulted

Gene Robinson, the homosexual Episcopal minister whose elevation to Bishop has been the fulcrum of the irreconcilable split in the worldwide Anglican Communion, has found yet another way to throw more fuel on the ecclesiastical pyre of the American church. Robinson is the bishop of New Hampshire. New Hampshire is in the final stages of enacting a civil union law and Robinson wants to be first in line.

What I find curious is the quotes used from Robinson in the news stories about this issue. Robinson equates this civil union law with state recognition of gay marriage. He views this as a step toward forcing the federal government into recognizing gay marriage.

I think this is a huge leap forward, but it is not full equality until we have equality. The biggest piece missing, of course, is federal recognition. I don’t think it will happen until we get several more states. It doesn’t have to be a majority, but it has to be a significant number embracing full marriage rights until we can expect that at the federal level. We are only arguing over a timetable.

According to my understanding of this issue—and a cursory review of the issue on the Internet seems to confirm —civil unions and domestic partnership laws are two roughly equivalent ways used by states to create a legal means of granting the same rights to homosexuals that married couples enjoy. This is done on a state-by-state basis without federal recognition. The above quote from Robinson seems to support this interpretation.

My question then is this; if civil unions and domestic partner recognition grant the same rights that states confer on married couples why is there such a push here in California to allow homosexuals to call themselves “married”? Marriage is defined in state law as the union of one man and one woman. This has been the definition of the term for the last two thousand years here in the West. Why must it be redefined now?

Marriage is one of three institutions created by God. The three are: government, church and family (marriage). The first miracle of Jesus was at a marriage. The relationship of Christ to the church is explained as the relationship of a groom to his bride. I submit that the assault on marriage by the state and some in the church is nothing short of an attack on God. It is a form of open rebellion by sinful men. No one can harm God so they take out their hatred of him by harming those that bear his image. Murder, abortion, homosexuality are all examples of this evil.

Anything that diminishes marriage undermines those institutions established by God for our benefit. The fact that a leader charged with defending Christ’s Church is a leading advocate for the destruction of both the institution of marriage and the Church charged with protecting it just heaps greater judgment upon him.

The James Cameron Hoax

Dear Mr. Cameron,

Please stick with fictional movies, oh, sorry you are. It is hard to get less factually accurate than Al Gore but you’re off to a good start.

If it was really Jesus, why did you get to make this announcement?

Do you possess some insight that real scholars lack?

Where are the nails holes and marks on the skull from the thorns?

What did the BBC miss when they reported on this in their 1996 documentary?

Maybe you should read Who Moved the Stone? by Frank Morison before you make too big of a fool out of yourself.

It takes more than some dubious relics to debunk Christianity.

Do your homework.

Merry Christmas

Sorry that I haven’t been blogging much latterly but I have been hurrying to finish an addition to my house in time for Christmas.

I’ve been enjoying the joy and wonder of my two-year-old discovering Christmas. I tell him we are having a birthday party for baby Jesus. All the lights in people’s yards are preparations for the party.

But They Were Such Good Kids

Children are often regarded as a blessing from the Lord. But for some, they are a curse and a shame. I have two instances that are currently being played-out in the lives of people with whom I am acquainted.

The family situations of these two children are very different. One family consists of a single mom; the other is husband and wife in a stable marriage. One child was raised in church while the one with a single mom has probably never heard a sermon.

Both children are in rebellion against their parents and society in general. Both under performed in school and want to party and be with their friends. Both are found in the bowels of MySpace.com. Text messaging on cell phones is their link to their friends. Abusing alcohol and sexual promiscuity are important components of social interaction.

Both children are financially irresponsible and are aided by others in perpetuating their behavior. One of these children is underage and is living at his girlfriend’s house with the blessing of her parents. What tales of his home-life he has told to them is not known but can easily be imagined. They are enabling his rebellion and re-enforcing bad behavior. The other child has credit cards; a sympathetic mother and a sugar daddy, professional athlete, that help her persist in irresponsible behavior.

Both children have broken the hearts of their parents. The hardest thing the parents have to struggle with is cutting-off their children while still hoping for repentance and enlightenment. Their desire is to have a restored relationship with their offspring.

Neither child was raised with an appreciation for the church or its teachings. This includes of course the Ten Commandments. The fifth of these is

Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.

Notice the part about long life as a promise of obeying God’s and their parent’s instruction. I’m sure that Rushdoony would argue that this is a two way street but when children willfully violate the instruction of parents, Scripture and civil law it is clear they are without excuse and will reap what the sew.

Many years ago, I was instructing the brother of one of these children in the Lord’s Prayer. He was ten years old at the time and raised in a “Bible Believing” Baptist church and never knew that Jesus has instructed that when your pray you should say

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

The parent’s reaction was that she did not want her child “to be taught all that Catholic crap”. Sorry, it’s verbatim from the New Testament and there were no denominations back then. You either believed Jesus and followed him or you didn’t. (Seems like it is still that way today.)

Whether the parents made all the right decisions or not when they raised their children; neither family viewed their job as complete when their child chose to leave. “My house, my rules” is the universal motto of any responsible parent.

Now that the children have chosen to learn from the school of hard knocks, all we can do is pray for the parties involved and trust God that they will live long enough to amend their ways.

Anglican Church Tries to Control Outcome of Impending Church Split

Scott Adams, the father of the Dilbert comic strip, has proposed that there is a right way, a wrong way and the weasel way. The Weasel way has been superseded now by the Anglican way. The Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown in the towel on unity within the Anglican Community and proposed splitting the Church into the Orthodox Historical Anglicans who have a vote in Church matters and the liberals who will be under the umbrella of his authority but be given no vote in matters of Church government. Below is an article from the London Telegraph explaining this idea that is sure to make waves.

Williams sets out his blueprint for twin-track Church

By Jonathan Petre, Religion Correspondent
(Filed: 28/06/2006)

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday outlined radical plans that could force the liberal American Church out of mainstream Anglicanism if it refuses to toe the majority line on issues such as homosexuality.

In his most personal and direct statement on the crisis engulfing the worldwide Church, the archbishop made clear that his patience was running out with liberals who defy official policy yet want to stay in the Anglican “club”.

In a six-page “reflection”, Dr Williams set out a blueprint for a “two-track” Communion, with Churches prepared to obey official policy classed as “constituent” members and those who refuse to curb their autonomy being given “aossciate” status.

The “associate” Churches would still be bound by historic links but would not share the same constitutional structures, he suggested.

In a phrase that will alarm liberals, the archbishop said the relationship between the constituent and associate members would be like that between the Church of England and Methodist Church.

“The ‘associated’ Churches would have no direct part in the decision-making of the ‘constituent’ Churches, though they might be observers whose views were sought or whose expertise was shared from time to time, and with whom significant areas of co-operation might be possible,” he said.

The move would effectively create two strands of Anglicanism and would be widely seen as the equivalent of a schism even if no individual provinces are formally expelled.

Allies of the archbishop believe that the plan will ensure that Anglicanism will remain a broad but manageable movement, but critics will fear that he would gain papal-style powers over an inner core of Churches.

The archbishop’s letter to the Church did not address the more immediate fate of the American Episcopal Church, which failed to meet the requests made by him and his fellow primates to halt its liberal agenda at its General Convention in Columbus, Ohio, last week.

Dr Williams is not expected to make a final pronouncement on whether the liberal leadership of the American Church will be invited to the 2008 Lambeth Conference until a meeting of all the primates early next year.

But he will hope to persuade conservatives that expelling the Americans will not be necessary, as the liberals could anyway find themselves on the margins.

Under his long-term plan, first disclosed in The Daily Telegraph last month, all provinces will be given the chance to sign a “covenant”, which will restrain them from acting unilaterally on contentious issues.

Those that did not – up to a third have expressed doubts – would be able to continue pushing through their divisive reforms without destroying the rest of the Church. But they would lose their voting rights at key Anglican summits where policy is decided.

A number of provinces, including the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada, have already made clear that they would be highly unlikely to sign such an agreement.

If the plan is adopted at the next Lambeth Conference, the liberals will be confronted with a choice of whether to join up and lose their much- prized autonomy, or face isolation.

In his reflection to all bishops, clergy and Anglican faithful worldwide, Dr Williams said: “There is no way in which the Anglican Communion can remain unchanged by what is happening at the moment.

“Neither the liberal nor the conservative can simply appeal to a historic identity that doesn’t correspond with where we now are.”

Liberals reacted with fury to the plan, describing it as a mess that would please no one.

Affirming Catholicism, a liberal group of which Dr Williams was a founding member, said that “partition” would not work.

Church’s Opposition to Abortion Will Lead to Prosecution

Abortion opposition will eventually lead to prosecution of the Church

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) – The Catholic Church could one day be prosecuted for its right-to-life stance by some countries where abortion is considered a woman’s right, a senior Vatican cardinal said in an interview published on Thursday.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, criticized several Western countries for allowing abortion and introducing gay marriage and civil unions.

“I fear that faced with current legislation, speaking in defense of life, of the rights of the family, is becoming in some societies a crime against the state, a form of disobedience of the government, a discrimination against women.

“The Church risks being brought in front of some international court, if the debate gets any more tense, if the most radical opinions are heeded,” Lopez Trujillo told Famiglia Cristiana, a Catholic Italian weekly.

The cardinal (Lopez Trujillo, a 70-year-old Colombian) singled out Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Nordic countries for “exporting” socially liberal policies, particularly granting homosexual and non-married heterosexual couples the same rights as married men and women.

“We are changing the definitions about life: male and female, father and mother are disappearing. Everyone becomes a ‘partner’,” he said.

“Civil unions are a legal fiction, two people who promise each other nothing, who promise nothing to their children nor to the state but want the same rights as marriage.” He said gay marriage was “absolute nothingness”.