The Falling Away

[Kilika]

The list goes on - personally, it's pretty obvious that it would be a SIN to VOTE in these elections

Technically, no it is not a sin to vote. Christians are forgiven and no longer live under the law of sin and death. We can however do things that are unedifying/sinful because of the flesh.

What would be wrong is getting involved in secular matters at all. That's the world, which we are not to be a part of.

We are a "new creature" and the "former things are passed away". That includes voting. The system is rigged anyway, so voting is useless. And anyone who thinks voting can change things is deluded and haven't got a clue about what's really going on in the world.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/16/evangelical-supporters-of-romney-gather-at-summit-/#ixzz270F39cH7

Evangelical supporters of Romney gather at summit

Share values with Mormon candidate

9/16/12

He wasn’t there but Mitt Romney got some love over the weekend at a Washington, D.C., gathering of more than 2.000 evangelical Protestants representing a demographic that proved crucial to electing the last four Republican presidents.
 
Many of the born-again Christians at Family Research Council President Tony Perkins‘ annual Values Voter Summit — some from as far away as the California — are recent converts to the Romney presidential quest. They said in interviews that they have put aside their doubts in favor of what they say is a man who, though a Mormon, shares their moral values and political aims despite the doctrinal differences between his faith and theirs.
 
“I know I said a few months ago that I would never vote for a Mormon, but my husband and I and our friends are so far past that now,” said Kim Bengard, whose San Clemente, Calif., home is three doors away from what was President Nixon’s “Western White House.” “I have come to understand that Mitt Romney supports my values. We’re really pleased with him.”
 
Retired federal worker Bob Nelson, a Gaithersburg evangelical activist, said he didn’t mind Mr. Romney’s absence this year, because the former Massachusetts governor had addressed the two previous Values Voter Summit gatherings.

http://www.voanews.com/content/evangelical_christians_reconcile_anti-mormonism_with_romney_choice/1510571.html

9/18/12

Evangelical Christians Reconcile Anti-Mormonism With Romney Choice

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH — Evangelical Christians have long regarded Mormonism with suspicion. But many evangelicals are now trying to reconcile supporting a Mormon candidate for president while rejecting the teachings of his faith's 19th century American prophet, Joseph Smith Jr.
 
"Joseph Smith had 34 wives, 11 of whom were currently married to other men when he took them as wives!" says Rob Sivulka, who goes for the jugular in his polemic outside the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
 

[Mark]

One-Third Of Adults Under 30 Have No Religious Affiliation


One-fifth of American adults have no religious affiliation, and this number is increasing rapidly.

The number of Americans who do not identify with any religion continues to grow at a fast pace. One-fifth of the U.S. public – and a third of adults under 30 – are religiously unaffiliated today, the highest percentages ever in Pew Research Center polling.

In the last five years alone, the unaffiliated have increased from just over 15 percent to just under 20 percent of all U.S. adults. Their ranks now include more than 13 million self-described atheists and agnostics (nearly 6 percent of the U.S. public), as well as nearly 33 million people who say they have no particular religious affiliation (14 percent).

This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives.

But the survey may be affected by a differing view of the words “religion” and “spiritual.”

A new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way.

Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68 percent). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58 percent), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37 percent), and one-in-five (21 percent) say they pray every day.

With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.

The lower the age group, the less likely people are to be affiliated.

The growth in the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans – sometimes called the rise of the “nones” – is largely driven by generational replacement, the gradual supplanting of older generations by newer ones.

A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation (32 percent), compared with just one-in-ten who are 65 and older (9 percent). And young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives.

In addition, this report contains capsule summaries of some leading theories put forward by scholars in an attempt to explain the root causes of the rise of the “nones.” These theories run the gamut from a backlash against the entanglement of religion and politics to a global relationship between economic development and secularization.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/study-one-third-of-adults-under-30-have-no-religious-affiliation/

[Psalm 51:17]

Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68 percent). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58 percent), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37 percent), and one-in-five (21 percent) say they pray every day.

Yes, this likely explains the boom in the megachurch industry nowdays, and all of the Postmodernism doctrines from the Emergent Church that's infiltrated Baptist walls too. Churches were pretty lukewarm when I was a boy in the 80's(when the MTV/Pepsi generations started), but HARDLY ANYONE back then would have even given 2nd thoughts in terms of letting Rob Bell junk come into their doors.

With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics.

Hate to say it, but there's some truth to this. Modern-day Churchianity is more concerned with building new buildings, funding unecessary albeit fleshly programs, abiding by their 501c3 status instead of serving the Lord with all of their heart soul mind and strength, and yes, them falling for the "religious right"'s deception since 1979 has not only planted some rotten seeds, but has turned off and divided alot of people ultimately.(ie-I know these elections are rigged, but you can't deny Obama rose to power largely b/c of all the rotten fruit Bush/Cheney did, and wasn't held accountable by their own team)

PBS recently did a piece on the Emergent Church, and the young people they interviewed said how they wanted to "try something new"(para) b/c they got fed up with all of the politics going on in the church.

I know all of this is prophecized to come to pass(as part of the falling away), but nonetheless it's sad to see how the gospel preached is being hindered b/c of the wolves infiltrating the walls. It's been all by design too(ie-Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson et al are/were good friends with Rick Warren and other New Age Postmodern pastors - so you can see all of the Hegelian Dialect going on).

The lower the age group, the less likely people are to be affiliated.

The growth in the number of religiously unaffiliated Americans – sometimes called the rise of the “nones” – is largely driven by generational replacement, the gradual supplanting of older generations by newer ones.

A third of adults under 30 have no religious affiliation (32 percent), compared with just one-in-ten who are 65 and older (9 percent). And young adults today are much more likely to be unaffiliated than previous generations were at a similar stage in their lives.

Again, not a surprise - the previous Baby Boom/Gen X crowd were caught up in this rock n roll/sexual revolution/public school without the word of God deceptions, and not to mention too 501c3/other perverted versions like the NIV, etc have dominated the church buildings post-WW2...that it came to a point where the current generation was really never shown the true word of God.

And no, I'm not trying to single them out and act like I'm better than them, b/c for a long, long time I too was caught up in all of these schemes from Satan, before I got saved.

Mat 24:32  Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33  So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

[Mark]

Denominational loyalty imploding?

Christian commentators and researchers reacting to a recent study on religious demographics in the U.S. say the findings reveal more than is being discussed about the downtrend in Protestantism.

A new religious demographic survey from the Pew Forum asserts that a record number of Americans profess no religious affiliation, and that Protestants are now a minority in America. The study is being widely reported as showing that a growing number of people are rejecting at least organized religion, that Protestants are receding in importance, and that America is becoming more and more secular.

But Mark Tooley, president of the Institute on Religion & Democracy, points out another important aspect of the statistics - one he says is being essentially ignored.

"The study also shows that most of the religious unaffiliated still believe in God and still pray -- and although very few have commented on it at all, it also shows that about the same percentage of Americans are still attending church regularly, close to 40 percent, which remarkably has remained the same across 80 years now."

Tooley says the Pew survey does not mean necessarily that America is going the way of Europe and deserting religion. "I think the study mostly just illustrates the implosion of denominational loyalties and affiliations, especially among the mainline Protestants, but among Protestants and evangelicals as a whole," he offers. "Even those who are very devout increasingly don't express any strong loyalty to any particular denomination or tradition."

Tooley concludes that "what the study illustrates should not be exaggerated."

A need to reach across generations

The same Pew Forum poll shows a disconnection between youth and the church, suggesting that one-third of adults under age 30 have no religious connection. LifeWay Research's Ed Stetzer tells OneNewsNow people do tend to show a connection with religion as they go through phases of life.

"But there are some disconcerting numbers here, and it's not the first one, but where we see a lesser commitment and interest in things of faith to young adults and youth," he remarks. "And I think it reminds us that as Christians the need to redouble our efforts to engage and reach across generations."

The key to that, he believes, is discipling children within the framework of the family.

"We've shown studies at LifeWay Research where we've found the number-one correlative factor to students being engaged and remaining engaged in church and ministry and life is having two parents who are married, who go to the same church, and who are engaged in the spiritual formation of their children," the researcher explains.

"And so I think we don't want to ever lose sight that this is not just a church issue, though it is; this is [also] a family issue. That's the fundamental unit of discipleship."

Stetzer believes Christians should examine "how we live as agents of God's mission; how do we seek to be those who represent Christ in our community -- not simply those who go to church on Sunday, but people who represent [Christ] and live for him every day."

http://www.onenewsnow.com/church/2012/10/10/denominational-loyalty-imploding?utm

[Kilika]

A new religious demographic survey from the Pew Forum asserts that a record number of Americans profess no religious affiliation (that ain't a bad thing!), and that Protestants are now a minority in America. The study is being widely reported as showing that a growing number of people are rejecting at least organized religion (that ain't bad either!), that Protestants are receding in importance, and that America is becoming more and more secular.

America more secular? Uh, when wasn't it secular? 

[Psalm 51:17]

Being from Texas here - there are LOTS of these big megachurches. Not just in my metroplex, but pretty much across the state as well. They're very lukewarm, I mean VERY. With their rock n roll music, Postmodernism theology, Orange Juliuses, Starbucks, "experiencing" white water rafting films, etc, etc. It's these same megachurches that are largely non-denominational. Yeah, the Independent Fundamental Baptist churches are non-denominational too(which is a good thing, although IFB churches are starting to enter treaturous Apostate waters now).

Like Kilika says - organized religion was never a good thing to begin with, however, you can't deny that all of this was BY DESIGN to begin with. It's come to the point where our current generation of young people are running off to these megachurches that not only do not preach the word, but has been nothing but a form of escapism venue ala a movie theater or a shopping mall. Like I mentioned in a previous post - the current generation of young people, in a piece PBS did on the Emergent Church, admitted that they were angry over politics entering their organized religion churches as children, that they wanted to "try something new"(para). While I tend to feel the same way, at the same time I do NOT empathize with them b/c they should have dug into their King James Bibles for answers.

[Mark]

Am Spectator: A Secularizing America?

A new Pew Research Center study of America's evolving religious demographic asserts that nearly 20 percent of Americans are now religiously unaffiliated, while historically dominant Protestants are now under 50 percent. The headlines have understandably cited the study as proof of America's secularization. The truth is probably more complicated, more interesting, and a little less disturbing to religious America. Two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated still believe in God, and 20 percent of them pray daily. A significant minority among them even regularly attend formal worship. Atheists and agnostics, although purportedly growing...   

MORE: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/10/a-secularizing-america

[Psalm 51:17]

Am Spectator: A Secularizing America?

A new Pew Research Center study of America's evolving religious demographic asserts that nearly 20 percent of Americans are now religiously unaffiliated, while historically dominant Protestants are now under 50 percent. The headlines have understandably cited the study as proof of America's secularization. The truth is probably more complicated, more interesting, and a little less disturbing to religious America. Two-thirds of the religiously unaffiliated still believe in God, and 20 percent of them pray daily. A significant minority among them even regularly attend formal worship. Atheists and agnostics, although purportedly growing...   

MORE: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/10/a-secularizing-america

Wasn't it just 10 years ago when these same POLL GROUPS said some 80% of the American public categorized themselves as evangelical Christians?

No, it wasn't exactly accurate then(as the modern-day church was very dead then as well), but it's as if these poll groups are saying this country has done a 180 in only a span of a few years.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/enthusiasm-rises-romney-obama-track-retort-040209299--abc-news-politics.html

Enthusiasm Rises for Romney; Obama Has a 'Right-Track' Retort

Obama trails by 11 points among whites, but comes back with a vast 73-18 percent lead among nonwhites. Romney's Mormon religion looks to be no impediment among evangelical white Protestants, a core Republican group in which he leads by 81-17 percent. (Obama did better in this group against McCain.) The contest has tightened among white Catholics, a swing group in some elections, albeit with Romney maintaining a numerical (not statistically significant) edge. (McCain won this group by 5). And independents, frequently another swing voter group, divide by a closer 48-42 percent, Romney-Obama.

http://news.yahoo.com/mormonism-voter-enthusiasm-concern-evangelicals-190931883--election.html

Mormonism, voter enthusiasm concern evangelicals
By RACHEL ZOLL | Associated Press – Tue, Oct 9, 2012

NEW YORK (AP) — Evangelical leaders worried that Mitt Romney's Mormonism could suppress conservative turnout on Election Day are intensifying appeals for Christians to vote.

In poll after poll, evangelicals have overwhelmingly said they would back the Republican presidential nominee despite theological differences with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But what had been thought of as a hypothetical question for American evangelicals for years, Southern Baptist leader Al Mohler said recently, is now a reality with this election and is being tested in a contest that will likely be decided by slim margins.

[Psalm 51:17]

Chuck Baldwin
11/1/12

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5229

A Word About The Elections

With the 2012 Presidential election just a few days away, it is almost superfluous for me to engage in any kind of in depth discussion, as most people cannot, for the life of them, get past the political theater that is currently crescendoing to a climax. Therefore, I will simply provide readers with a few passing thoughts regarding the elections next week.
 
I think Mitt Romney will somewhat comfortably win the Presidential election. This will cause “conservatives,” Christians, and most Republicans to go into a state of deep hibernation, which will allow Romney to wreak havoc upon the Constitution and liberties of the people. In 2012, Barack Obama is the “Boogeyman” that must defeated at all costs. But the fact is, with the exception of Romney’s more business-friendly approach to economics, the differences between Obama and Romney are negligible.
 
As I have noted in previous columns, the differences between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are miniscule on virtually every salient issue. They both supported TARP; they both supported Obama’s economic stimulus package; they both supported so-called assault weapons bans and other gun control measures; Obama has an “F” rating from Gun Owners of America, while Romney has a “D-” rating from GOA; neither man supports a balanced budget; neither man opposes foreign aid; they both supported the bailout of the auto industry; they both have a track record of being big spenders; they both fully support the Federal Reserve; they both oppose a full audit of the Fed; they are both supporters of universal health care; both men are showered with campaign contributions from Wall Street; neither of them wants to eliminate the IRS or the direct income tax; both men are on record as saying the TSA is doing a “great job”; they both supported the NDAA, including the indefinite detention of American citizens without due process of law; they both supported the renewal of the Patriot Act; they both believe that the President has “executive power” to assassinate and kill; both support the “free trade” agenda of the global elite; they are both soft on illegal immigration; they both support NAFTA and CAFTA; they both have a history of appointing liberal judges; they both believe the President has the authority to take the nation to war without the approval of Congress; and neither of them has any qualms about running up more public debt to the already gargantuan debt of 16 trillion dollars.
 
Judge Andrew Napolitano nailed it when he said, “Barack Obama loves Big Labor; Mitt Romney loves Big Business; but they both love Big Government.”
 
Steve Baldwin (no relation) agrees. Steve is a former California State legislator and former Executive Director of the Council for National Policy. He said:
 
“As someone who was asked by one of the presidential candidates to investigate Romney’s gubernatorial record, I can assure you there is little in Romney’s background to suggest he will be a Reagan-type president willing to undertake bold action to save our economy and restore our culture. I know every bill he signed and every statement he made as Governor. I know who his appointees were and the liberal vision that governed his actions. As Massachusetts Governor, he sided with the big government types in every crisis he faced. Indeed, he repeatedly sold out constitutional rights–freedom of religion, the 2nd amendment, etc., every time he had the opportunity to do so.
 
“He raised taxes on the private sector, destroyed job creation when he implemented RomneyCare, and came out in support of amnesty for illegal aliens. Most of his judicial appointees were to the left of Obama’s two appointments to the Supreme Court. As governor, he led the country in advancing three of the left’s most sacred issues: Cap and Trade, socialized medicine and gay marriage. Romney even supported Obama’s bailouts and the useless $8 billion stimulus. And he’s hostile to the notion of engaging in serious budget cuts, telling one reporter, ‘I’m not going to cut $1 trillion in the first year.’
 
“Let’s not also forget that Romney’s advisors actually met with Obama’s advisors on a dozen occasions to assist them with designing ObamaCare! It’s no surprise that Romney is refusing to call ObamaCare a tax, even though it’s the largest middle class tax hike in American history. The reason for this is because, while governor, his RomneyCare plan–the model for ObamaCare–was attacked as a tax and he argued it wasn’t.
 
“In other words, ObamaCare has been taken off the table as a campaign issue because Romney is afraid of being portrayed as a hypocrite for his past statements on this issue. This is reason number 167 why Romney should never have become our nominee.
 
“I don’t care how his campaign portrays him today, his record as Governor is far more indicative of how he will govern than his campaign sound bites. If you’re not familiar with what I am disclosing about Romney, it’s because the truth about Romney was kept from Republican voters. Yes, the conservative movement sold out to Romney. Starting in 2004, Romney created a slew of PACS and foundations that funneled thousands of dollars to hundreds of conservative groups, think tanks, grass roots leaders and GOP entities.
 
“In return, many of these entities that normally would have attacked Romney during the presidential primary went silent or even promoted him. I’ve tracked all of Romney contributions to conservative and GOP groups and it’s disgusting. It means that the leadership of our own conservative movement is up for the highest bidder and cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Even National Review, the nation’s leading conservative publication, took money from Romney and for the last six years blocked all articles critical of Romney. Instead, they published a slew of articles portraying him to be a conservative superstar. It was all phony and I can prove it.”
 
Even though Romney will promote at least 85% of the Obama agenda, conservatives have no fear or trepidation of Romney because he is a Republican, whereas Obama scares the pants off of them because he is a Democrat. Ah, don’t you just love partisan politics?
 
Therefore, as I said, absent massive vote-fraud, Romney will be our next President. But he will do NOTHING to stem the tide of coming disaster. Romney will be a military hawk of the highest order. And while corporations doing business with the military-industrial complex will reap huge profits, America’s continued foreign interventionism is going to bring us to the brink of World War III. Furthermore, it is the “we are at war” mantra that is used to justify a burgeoning police state in America, which Romney will enthusiastically continue to implement. And unlike the Democrat Barack Obama, the Republican Mitt Romney will have little resistance–except from a Democrat-controlled Senate.
 
Republicans will maintain control of the House of Representatives, which is probably a good thing; Democrats will probably control the Senate. Between the two, I had much rather have Republicans control the House, because trying to find honest-to-God freedomists among Republican US senators (you could count them on two hands) is like trying to find hen’s teeth. Again, Romney isn’t going to appoint freedomist judges anyway, so that argument is moot. But if the first six years of this century proved anything, it proved that neither major party in Washington, D.C., can be trusted with control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. That is a recipe for disaster!
 
At this point, I must remind readers that the reason Barack Obama was elected to begin with was due to the eight years of the phony-conservative G.W. Bush administrations. Americans were disillusioned and angry over Bush’s huge spending habits at home and his military adventurism overseas. I predict a Mitt Romney presidency will have the same effect. As with G. W. Bush, Mitt Romney will disappoint and anger the American electorate, which will pave the way for another leftist (Hillary Clinton?) to prevail in 2016.
 
“And the beat goes on.”
 
At some point–maybe toward the end of Romney’s first term–the chickens are going to come home to roost. Neither major party has the guts to do what it takes to put America on a solid financial footing. They are both beholden to too many parasites that are sucking the life’s blood out of our country. And neither party will do a darn thing to stop this fascination with empire that is putting our troops in killing fields all over the world. The result: it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens. And just about anybody with half a brain knows it!

[Psalm 51:17]

Disclaimer: House doesn't use KJV verses in this article, but nonetheless it's a very good read...

http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/article.php?articleid=9027

Posted: 11/10/12

How The New Religious Right Assisted in the Re-Election of President Obama And Are Hastening God's Judgment of America

Opinion and commentary by Brannon Howse

Note: I call this new generation of pro-family leaders the "New Religious Right" because I do not believe many of the now deceased leaders of the Religious Right from the 1970s, such as Dr. D. James Kennedy and Dr. Adrian Rogers, would agree with the theological and doctrinal compromises made by many of today's NRR leaders.

Please understand that this article is written out of my Biblical concern for the church and in defense of the Gospel. I have endeavored to be as gracious as possible. A few years ago I had to repent of raising the flag above the cross and I want to speak from my mistakes and plead with you not to make the same mistake and thus waste the precious time we have left for what will really count for eternity. With that being said let me tell you as lovingly as I can that I believe pro-family groups and evangelicals that united up with false teachers for one prayer rally and spiritual event after another in hopes of defeating Obama not only failed politically but they also failed Biblically. Thus, I believe the New Religious Right bear some of the responsibility for the re-election of President Obama and for what appears to be God's hastening in His giving our nation over as described in Romans chapter one.

God's Word tells us in 2 Corinthians 6:17 that if Christians unite with false teachers then God will not welcome, receive, or have favor on them. God has not shown favor with the re-election of President Obama and I believe one reason is due to the Biblical compromise of the New Religious right and modern-day evangelicalism in aggressively uniting up with false teachers in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

In an August 2010 article I warned the New Religious Right that they were going to hasten God's judgment on our nation with their unbiblical spiritual enterprises, with New Age Mormon Glenn Beck in clear violation of 2 John 9-11, 2 Corinthians 6:14, and Romans 16:17. Beck's Restoring Honor Rally was described as a spiritual event by Beck Himself. It was in 2010 that I wrote:
 
The compromise by evangelical leaders and pastors by spiritually uniting with "all faiths" with the theme of "looking to the one god", as described by Beck, has laid the foundation for untold numbers of self-professing Christians to now embrace pluralism and pagan spirituality. Pastors and evangelical leaders literally locked arms with all faiths, including Imams, in a spiritual endeavor despite the clear Biblical warnings of 2 Corinthians 6:14.
 
Again in August of 2011, I warned the New Religious Right about taking part in and organizing Governor Rick Perry's "The Response" prayer rally that included a mixture of the New Religious Right and some of the world's most popular false teachers. In a 2011 article I warned:
 
I do not believe this event will aide in reclaiming the country, restoring liberty, or prosperity and it certainly will not prompt God to bless America. I believe such an event will actually hasten God's judgment on our nation…God is watching and I contend that our efforts are being thwarted by God as Divine judgment for setting aside Scriptural warnings and uniting with false teachers in spiritual enterprises intertwined with our Christian activism. 

In my book Grave Influence that was published in 2009, I wrote that God was giving America over as described in Romans 1. Romans 1:28 tells us that one of the signs that God is giving over a nation is that they become debased. Debased means that they don't pass the test spiritually and one of the signs of a debased mind according to Romans 1:32 is that people lack discernment. Why is it that we have so many people, including religious leaders, lacking discernment?

When the New Religious Right and evangelicals unite up with false teachers then I believe that this is proof they lack discernment. In my latest book Religious Trojan Horse I wrote:

If embracing false teachers is how you reclaim the culture I don't want to be a part of it. Besides, there is no reclaiming the culture apart from God. Romans 1, explains that compromise and uniting with those who embrace and promote pagan spirituality is how you destroy a culture and speed up God's judgment. When God finally brings judgment upon America, I believe you will be able to point to some of America's favorite "evangelical" and pro-family leaders and say, "you and your organizations are as responsible, if not more responsible, for the Divine judgment on our nation than any secular company or organization in America, because you gave credibility and rise to Satan's number one tool-false teachers-to wage war against Satan's number one earthy adversary, the true Church." 

Let me give you some examples of why I believe this is a true statement:
 
·        Jerry Falwell Jr., on Glenn Beck's radio program in 2010 declared, "If we don't hang together we'll hang separately. I mean, that's what my father believed when he formed Moral Majority, an organization of Mormons, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, people of no faith. And there are bigger issues now. We can argue about theology later after we save the country. " [source]
 
 
 
·        Just a few days before the Presidential election, The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association removed the reference to Mormonism as a cult from their website. [source]
 
 
 
·        In 2012, Shirley Dobson appeared on New Age, Mormon Glenn Beck's radio program to talk about prayer and God. In the process, she praised Beck for his "great job" and "good work." Again, how can Beck's promotion of another Jesus and another gospel be a good work, and why do "evangelical" leaders seem eager to compromise the admonishments of 2 Corinthians 6:14, Romans 16:17, and 2 John 9-11? [source]


 
·        According to news reports, in 2008, James and Shirley Dobson joined New Apostolic Reformation personality and assistant pastor at the International House of Prayer, Lou Engle, for "The Call" in San Diego. [source]


 
·        In March 2012, James Dobson interviewed Lou Engle on his radio program. He praised Engle and his "ministry." [source]
 
 
 
·        Numerous New Religious Right personalities and evangelicals have defended or praised Glenn Beck, or talked with him about God, or joined him in one of his spiritual enterprises. Christians and Mormons do not follow the same God. Why would self-professing Christians unite in a spiritual enterprise with non-Christians? The answer seems to be to reclaim America but how is that working out for them? They are not reclaiming America but I believe compromising the church and the Gospel and hastening God's judgment. [source]    [source]   [source]   [source]   [source]   [source] 
 
 
 
If you are not aware of why the New Apostolic Reformation is so dangerous to the church you need to read my new book Religious Trojan Horse. You should also watch this short video clip by Dr. John MacArthur on Lou Engle, Cindy Jacobs, C. Peter Wagner,  and Mike Bickle.


 
Until pro-family organizations take a strong stand on the Word of God and use the culture war as a platform to preach the Gospel, I believe they will continue to spend millions of dollars with little to show for it. When James Dobson gave his retirement speech to the Focus on the Family board and employees, he all but admitted that there has been little success in the culture war:
 

James Dobson, 72, who resigned recently as head of Focus on the Family-one of the largest Christian groups in the country-and once denounced the Harry Potter books as witchcraft, acknowledged the dramatic reverse for the religious Right in a farewell speech to staff.

 
 
"We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action. We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles." [source]
 
Pat Roberston has also expressed doubt on how much his culture war activities have really accomplished:
 
In a reflective mood for Easter, evangelical icon and onetime presidential candidate Pat Robertson echoes the Rev. Billy Graham's recent acknowledgement that he wished he had spent less time on politics and more time on the ministry and his family.

"When you get it all said and done, what did my work accomplish in the political realm?" Robertson wondered rhetorically during an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV in which he offers an inspirational Easter message. [source]
 
The pragmatic and ecumenical strategy of the New Religious Right has failed and I believe President Obama's re-election is proof of this fact. In Matthew 23:13-29, Jesus uses the word "woe" eight times when speaking to the scribes, Sadducees, and Pharisees. "Woe" means "judgment upon you," and Jesus pronounced judgment on them because they were more interested in moralizing and legislating morality than in understanding, accepting, and preaching the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ.
 
Christians should be involved in good works such as defending the lives of the unborn, caring for widows and orphans, and running crisis pregnancy centers. The reason, though, is that people will see the transforming power of the Gospel in our lives. Good works when used as a platform for the Gospel offers unbelievers the chance to see the light of Christ within our lives and to give glory to our heavenly Father. This is the Biblical meaning of being salt and light. The light is the Gospel not good works or moralizing.

Christian activism apart from the Gospel has no eternal value and is, in fact, a sin because we are not obeying God and fulfilling the Great Commission. Uniting with false teachers in spiritual enterprise for political gain is not proclaiming the Gospel but compromising the Gospel.

It is past time that we follow the example of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, where he declares that his first priority is the gospel:

For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
 
Christian pro-family leaders would do well to examine every initiative, project, book, speech, broadcast, and conference in light of whether it will further the proclamation of the biblical Gospel or compromise scriptural principles clearly laid out in God's Word.
 
If the New Religious Right were truly committed first and foremost to sound biblical theology and doctrine, they would not be involved in spiritual enterprises with those who participate in the New Age Movement, the New Apostolic Reformation, ecumenicalism, globalism, communitarianism, the Church of Rome, the Word of Faith movement, social justice, and the social gospel.
 
Most pro-family organizations claim to be Christian and boast that they embrace "Christian values" because the majority of their supports call themselves "Christian."  However, when it comes to defining what it means to be a Biblical Christian, most of the New Religious Right will not reflect Biblical Christianity because they don't want to offend their Catholic, Mormon, Word of Faith, or New Apostolic Reformation donors. So, in the end, I believe the New Religious Right betrays the Gospel in deference to "another" gospel embraced by these disparate groups.

Yes, I voted, and I hope you did as well but post-election I have read where pro-family and "evangelical" leaders are lecturing Christians that the election of President Obama is what happens when Christians are not committed to Christian activism. Wrong! This is what happens with Christian leaders are committed to ecumenicalism, pragmatism, and give credibility to false teachers all in violation of God's Word and God's warning.

I think the question that needs to be asked now is who will you follow going forward? How will you respond when New Religious Right leaders try to convince you that you need to continue to follow them in order to win the culture war? I for one rejected the culture-war industrial complex for what I think it is really all about some time ago.

The first sentence of my 2009 book Grave Influence was "We've lost the culture war." The culture war is the symptom of the problem and unless we preach the Gospel and defend the Gospel there is not only no hope for the culture but no hope for the lost.

Do you really think God is pleased by political pragmatism over Biblical truth? Uniting with false teachers in spiritual enterprises for political pragmatism is not defending the Gospel but giving credibility to a false gospel. 

It is time for true Christians with Biblical discernment to follow the instructions of Romans 16:17-"Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to doctrine which you learned, and avoid them."
 
The election results do not change the fact that God is still in control. Our mission has not changed; we are to continue to preach the Gospel and disciple fellow believers. Our mission on the day before the election was the Great Commission and today is still the Great Commission. If your life is largely committed to the culture war then you will feel very defeated by the re-election of President Obama-and well you should be because your life is not going to have an eternal impact and your focus is also not a good sign of your spiritual condition.  However, if your life is committed to the defense and proclamation of the Gospel and Biblical discipleship then you realize that our success is not defined by earthly elections which have nothing to do with God's plan for eternity.

Our main focus should be preaching the Gospel to the lost, defending the gospel, and protecting the church from false teachers and pro-family leaders that have allowed certain men to rise from within (Acts 20:28-31).

If you want to pull the rug out from underneath the same-sex marriage agenda or the abortion agenda then preach the gospel to the unsaved. If they hear the gospel and respond through faith and repentance then just watch as their worldview changes, their values change and ultimately their conduct.

We cannot reclaim the culture but we can contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). This involves exposing today's religious Trojan horse that has breached the walls of modern-day evangelicalism through patriotic ecumenicalism and other such schemes of the evil one.

So, to my fellow Bereans, press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus (Phil 3:14).
 

[Psalm 51:17]

It was once upon a time ago, supposedly the GOP was the party of Christianity. Yes, I know it never was, but nonetheless they did one heck of a job disguising themselves as that and as of traditional values. Read b/w the lines in this article...

http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-gop-needs-times-131006853--election.html

Republicans: GOP needs to get with the times

WASHINGTON (AP) — To hear some Republicans tell it, the Grand Old Party needs to get with the times.

Some of the early prescriptions offered by officials and operatives to rebuild after devastating elections: retool the party message to appeal to Latinos, women and working-class people; upgrade antiquated get-out-the-vote systems with the latest technology. Teach candidates how to handle the new media landscape.

From longtime GOP luminaries to the party's rising stars, almost everyone asked about the Republicans' Nov. 6 election drubbing seems to agree that a wholesale update is necessary for a party that appears to be running years behind Democrats in adapting to rapidly changing campaigns and an evolving electorate.

Interviews with more than a dozen Republicans at all levels of the party indicated that postelection soul-searching must quickly turn into a period of action.

"We've got to have a very brutally honest review from stem to stern of what we did and what we didn't do, and what worked and what failed," said former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who ran the party in the 1990s.

The party "has to modernize in a whole wide range of ways," added former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who ran against White House nominee Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential primary. "We were clearly wrong on a whole range of fronts."

To determine what went wrong, the Republican National Committee is examining every detail of the 2012 elections, with the goal of rebuilding the party for the future — much as the Democratic Party did in the 1980s after suffering a series of stinging losses at all levels of government.

Now, as was the case back then, the stakes are enormous for the party that failed to win the White House and has lost the popular vote for several national elections in a row. They're perhaps even higher for Republicans grappling for ways to court a rapidly changing electorate whose voting groups don't naturally gravitate toward the GOP. The dangers of failing to act could be severe: permanent minority status.

So it's little surprise that, after the election, some Republicans were quick to sound stark warnings.

The scale of the losses largely shocked a party whose top-shelf operatives went into Election Day believing Republicans had at least a decent chance of capturing the White House and gaining ground in Congress, where Republicans controlled the House and had a sizable minority in the Senate.

Instead, Romney lost all but one of the nine contested states, North Carolina, to President Barack Obama and was trounced in the electoral vote. Republicans also lost ground to Democrats in both houses of Congress, though Republicans retained their House majority.

How to move forward dominated the discussions at last week's Republican Governors Association meeting in Las Vegas, where some of the party's leading voices castigated Romney's assessment — made in what was supposed to be a private telephone call to donors — that Obama won re-election because of the "gifts" the president had provided to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. These governors faulted Romney.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal attributed Romney's loss to a lack of "a specific vision that connected with the American people."

Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who describes himself as a "pro-choice moderate Republican," echoed Republicans across the spectrum when he said last week: "We need to be a larger-tent party." Brown lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Across the board, Republicans say that arguably the most urgent task facing the party is changing its attitude about immigration as it looks to woo Hispanics. This rapidly growing group voted overwhelmingly for Obama, by margins of 7-to-1 over Romney, who had shifted to the right on the issue during the GOP primary.

It didn't take long after the election for even staunch conservatives to start changing their tune on immigration. Days after the election, even conservative TV host Sean Hannity said he would support an immigration bill.

Said Barbour: "If we would be for good economic policy in terms of immigration, that would go a long way toward solving the political problem."

It's not just Hispanics.

Republicans said they also have work to do with single women and younger voters, many of whom tend to be more liberal on social issues than the current Republican Party. These Republicans said a change in tone is needed, though not a change in principles such as opposition to abortion.

"We need to make sure that we're not perceived as intolerant," said Ron Kaufman, a veteran Republican strategist who advised Romney's campaign. "The bottom line is we were perceived to be intolerant on some issues. And tone-deaf on others."

Republicans also said the party has to work on its relationship with working-class voters.

"Republicans have to start understanding that small business and entrepreneurs are important, but the people who work for them are also important," said Rep. Charles Bass, R-N.H., who lost his seat to Democrat Ann Kuster. "We've got to be compassionate conservatives."

Party leaders also said the GOP needs to change how it communicates its message. Obama's campaign, they said, was particularly effective at talking directly to voters, and building relationships over long periods of time, whereas the GOP was more focused on top-down communication such as TV ads and direct mail.

"There are whole sections of the American public that we didn't even engage with," Gingrich said.

Others pointed to the pressing need to recruit candidates who know how to stick to a carefully honed message, especially in a Twitter-driven era. Among their case studies: Senate candidates Richard Mourdock in Indiana and Todd Akin in Missouri, who both discussed **** and pregnancy during the campaign, to the chagrin of party leaders looking to narrow the Democrats' advantage among women.

"We need candidates who are capable of articulating their policy positions without alienating massive voting blocs," said Kevin McLaughlin, a Republican operative who worked on several Senate races for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Many Republicans say the party doesn't have a choice but to change — and quickly.

Said Kaufmann: "In this business, either you learn and grow or you die."

[Psalm 51:17]

Wow...did these GOP people seem to not realize that Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida(among others) were RIGGED for Obama?

Looks like the GOP is officially slowly but surely shifting to the left, and the next thing we know they'll be demonizing Christians as much as the Dems.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://www.inquisitr.com/402214/nm-gov-susana-martinez-joins-gop-cacophony-of-romney-critics/

NM Gov. Susana Martinez Joins GOP Cacophony Of Romney Critics

Martinez spoke plainly about her feelings on Romney’s candidacy and legacy after a recent meeting of Republican governors, saying:
 
“We have to start electing people who look like their communities all the way from city council to county commissioners to county clerks all the way through the state and up into national politics … We need to embrace them not just at election time.”
 

Again, I'm not endorsing the GOP, as they're puppet-controlled as well, but like said, it wasn't too long ago when they at least put on an outward appearance of holding traditional values. Now lately, they seem to be using the same language as the Leftist Emergent Church uses(as you see Martinez's comments).

[Kilika]

We have to start electing people who look like their communities

This coming from a person named "Martinez". We know exactly what she means too! This has nothing to do with party or religion. It's pure racism. Typical.

[Mark]

Evangelicals Becoming More Devout, Catholics Less So

 Evangelical Protestants have become more devoted to their religious beliefs over the last three decades, even as Catholics have become less attached to their faith, new research finds.

The denominational differences come even as religious affiliations have decreased overall in America, with the number of people who claim no religious affiliation at all doubling from 7 percent in 1990 to 14 percent in 2000, said study researcher Philip Schwadel, a sociologist at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Nevertheless, Schwadel said, these unaffiliated individuals seem to be dropping out of religious institutions that they were previously ambivalent about. People who feel strongly about their faith are as numerous as ever.

rest: http://www.livescience.com/25003-evangelicals-catholics-religious-devotion.html?utm

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/does-gop-religious-retreat-103526580--election.html

Does the GOP need a religious retreat?

It's no surprise that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio took heat for an interview he gave to GQ magazine this month: Departing from scientific consensus, the rising Republican star refused to state whether the Earth is billions of years old or a few thousand, as many fundamentalist Christians believe.
 
What no one expected was the rebuke from televangelist and longtime Christian conservative leader Pat Robertson, dismissing theories of a "young Earth."
 
"If you fight science, you are going to lose your children," Robertson said last week during an appearance on the Christian Broadcast Network, the television empire he founded three decades ago.
 
Robertson wasn't directly speaking to Rubio, but the senator and others in his party might heed the advice. Viewed by many voters as anti-science and too conservative on social issues such as gay marriage, the Republican Party is in danger of losing young and less religious voters for years to come.
 
In a post-election breakdown by the Public Religion Research Institute, the Obama religious coalition mirrors the demographics of 18-29 year olds, whereas Romney's mirrors those of voters aged 65 and up.
 
On Nov. 6, as President Barack Obama won a narrow but clear victory over Mitt Romney, voters in four states expressed support for gay marriage. Anti-abortion candidates lost in several states, including Senate contenders Todd Akin of Missouri and Richard Mourdock of Indiana, both of whom stirred outrage from their remarks on ****.
 
Many experts believe these developments point in part to a decisive shift in the religious makeup of the country, one that could make or break a GOP comeback.
 
"The way Republicans speak is turning off the youngest, fastest growing groups in the country—Latinos and significantly, the unchurched, those with no religious affiliation," said Mark Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who studies religion and politics. "To them, the Republicans are proselytizing."
 
Since the 1980s, organizations like Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition cemented religious conservatives as visible and potent force in the Republican coalition and enforced discipline on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. But now, the religious landscape is changing beneath their feet.
 
Studies suggest the number of unchurched has doubled in the past two decades and shot up by 25 percent in the last four years. The shift has taken place across the country and across economic classes, most notably among the young; one fifth of adults and one third of Americans under thirty now declare themselves religiously unaffiliated.
 
The new and expanding group of unchurched voters overwhelmingly support same sex-marriage and legal abortion, and so they gravitate toward the Democratic Party.
 
"It's clearly a concern—we have a lot of work to do," said Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, which worked to boost turnout among Catholics and evangelical voters.
 
The group, founded by conservative Christian activist Ralph Reed, helped deliver more religious voters to the polls this year than in 2008, but such efforts couldn't deliver a Romney victory.
 
In a press release following the election, Reed acknowledged that minorities and the young—and therefore, he might have added, the unchurched—made the difference for Obama.
 
Marx and his colleagues insist they aren't especially concerned about the growing secularization of young voters. They are primarily looking to diversify the GOP's religious coalition, Marx said.
 
To close the Latino gap, Marx says conservative activists are planning a major outreach effort to evangelical Hispanics and to Hispanic Catholics who attend Mass.
 
"We are casting a wider net—the politics of addition, not subtraction," Marx said, adding that Latinos and other minorities have been attracted to many conservative positions like education reform.
 
Marx pointed to Georgia, where Hispanic and black voters supported a state amendment allowing the state government to set up charter schools.
 
Marx also suggested the Democratic advantage with young minority voters was "candidate-centric" — a reflection of Obama's unique status as the first black president.
 
But the problem may run deeper, into the Republican base: There is growing evidence that young evangelicals are simply less interested in politicizing hot-button issues.
 
"Young evangelicals don't look at the country as a battlefield, but rather a mission field," says James Wilcox, a George Mason University political science professor. "They're are less scared than their forbearers: They see the 'War on Religion' narrative as nonsense; they see churches thriving, the outlets they have, and the extent of religious pluralism in this country."
 
The new generation sees community activism, rather than electoral politics, as the means for their faith to shape the world, Wilcox argues. They may disagree with liberals about same-sex marriage, but they also believe that states have the right to determine such policies.
 
Many younger evangelicals are also serious about addressing climate change, even as many high-profile conservatives have expressed doubt about whether climate change is real—with nominee Mitt Romney cracking jokes about it at this year's Republican National Convention.
 
None of this means the influence of religious conservatives on Republican politics is set to disappear. But it is most certainly about to change.
 
Between the rise of the unchurched and the moderation of young religious conservatives, experts say, a smaller movement may emerge — one that retains its current zeal but carries less sway over the selection of GOP nominees. Or the movement could retain its power by successfully diversifying and coming up with a new way to talk to voters.
 
"We plan to reach out with a softer, pro-family agenda—less emphasis on the sexual points, more talk about family," Marx of the Faith and Freedom Coalition said. He also said activists would develop a "forward-looking" policy agenda akin to President George W. Bush's "compassionate conservatism."
 
But at the same time, Marx believes that some of that message already has been lifted by social liberals: "It is true that gay rights activists have stolen that language of 'family' we've used successfully, and now use it for their purposes."
 
One way for religious conservatives to start again, Rozell said, would be to return the favor and take a tip from two much-heralded communicators: Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
 
"Successful politicians can speak two languages, even if it's hard to do," Rozell said. Reagan did it, addressing both the Christian right and a largely secular small-government audience. Often times it's a shift in rhetoric rather than policy."
 
Rozell cited Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a strong social conservative, who has maintained his popularity by using language that appeals to both religious and secular audiences.
 
Another strategy would be to borrow from the vocabulary of the other team, as Bill Clinton did when he co-opted the rhetoric of religious conservatives to crack down on the culture of sex and violence on TV.
 
"Put aside this talk of wars," Rozell says, "Republicans could easily adopt the rhetoric of "rights" and "tolerance" that liberals currently own, to speak to secular types about the value of pluralism and religious conscience."
..

[Mark]

Richard Dawkins: Census shows that Christianity in Britain is 'on the way out'

Professor Richard Dawkins, the leading scientist and prominent atheist, responds to the sharp drop in the number of people describing themselves at Christians in the 2011 census.

 The drop in those ticking the Christian box, from 71.7 per cent in 2001 to 59.3 per cent in 2011, is highly significant. Even more dramatic is the rise in numbers professing “No religion”, from 14.8 per cent to 25.1 per cent.The two together represent a genuine shift of opinion, away from Christianity and towards unbelief. This is quite different from the increase in Muslims, which surely is due to demographics only: nobody could seriously suggest that any significant number of people in this country would actually convert to Islam. And, unlike Christianity, converting away from Islam carries certain penalties calculated to deter.

The exhilaratingly high figure of 25 per cent for non-believers – far more than any group except Christians – would be even higher if the census question on religion had been more intelligently framed. If they had asked “Do you have a religion?” instead of “What is your religion?”, polling data from the British Social Attitudes Survey confirms commonsense: the numbers of nonbelievers would have been massively higher. Non-belief is not a religion, and it is insulting to frame a question that presumes that everyone has a religion, in the same way as they have an age and a sex.

But in any case, do the 59 per cent who ticked the Christian box really believe in Christianity? Of course they are free to fasten any label they like to whatever it is they believe. But though they may call it Christianity, are bishops, priests and Christian lobbyists entitled to draw support from the 59 per cent? That depends on what the 59 per cent really do believe. To discover exactly that, the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (UK) commissioned an Ipsos MORI poll in the very week after the census. We asked only those who ticked the Christian box a series of supplementary questions. The results should be devastating to anybody who wants to claim that this is still a Christian country, which should be run in accordance with Christian values.

Only 32 per cent of the census “Christians” believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Only 35 per cent could pick out the correct answer to “What is the first book of the New Testament?” when given a 4-way choice of Matthew, Genesis, Acts, Psalms. When asked why they had ticked the Christian box, only 28 per cent of those who did so said it was because they believe the teachings of Christianity. The most popular answer to that question was, “I like to think of myself as a good person.” What? You ticked the Christian box because you like to think of yourself as a good person? Are you serious? Do you think atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists don’t think of themselves as good people?

Yet, when these “Census Christians” were asked where they turned when faced with a moral dilemma, only ten per cent said they turned to their religion. The majority turned to relatives or to their own inner moral sense, which of course is what good atheists do. So much for the cliché that you need God to be good. And those who think that our laws and governance should follow Christian values should be disconcerted by the following. Seventy four per cent of the Census Christians are secular in that they think religion should have no special influence on public policy.

After the 2001 census, politicians and clerics used the 72 per cent Christian figure as a weapon to argue for Christian influence in public life. This time, despite the poor wording of the religion question, they will not be able to pull the same trick. Not only has the official figure dropped to 59 per cent. The percentage of those self-identifying Christians who either believe in the central tenets of Christianity, or who think Christianity should be given special status in our national policy, is now very low indeed. Christianity is on the way out in this country. We must hope that other religions will go the same way.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9738031/Richard-Dawkins-Census-shows-that-Christianity-in-Britain-is-on-the-way-out.html

[Psalm 51:17]

http://apprising.org/2012/11/24/saint-rick-warren/

We had no idea that Baptists venerated saints. Come to think of it, we had no idea that a Bible twister and false teacher like Rick Warren was considered worthy of such an honor by any self respecting orthodox Christian.
 
But, someone at Southwestern Baptist Seminary apparently thinks “Saint” Rick Warren worthy of a stained glass veneration. SMH



If you didn’t know, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary is an SBC school and Paige Patterson is its president:

(source)
 
Here is an example of General of the Seeker Driven Army “Saint” Rick Warren teaching his man-centered mythology:

video inside link above

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/gop-shows-signs-bending-election-defeat-175926964--election.html

GOP shows signs of bending after election defeat

12/26/12

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — For years, Republicans have adhered fiercely to their bedrock conservative principles, resisting Democratic calls for tax hikes, comprehensive immigration reform and gun control. Now, seven weeks after an electoral drubbing, some party leaders and rank-and-file alike are signaling a willingness to bend on all three issues.
 
What long has been a nonstarter for Republicans — raising tax rates on wealthy Americans — is now backed by GOP House Speaker John Boehner in his negotiations with President Barack Obama to avert a potential fiscal crisis. Party luminaries, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, have started calling for a wholesale shift in the GOP's approach to immigration after Hispanic voters shunned Republican candidates. And some Republicans who previously championed gun rights now are opening the door to restrictions following a schoolhouse shooting spree earlier this month.
 
"Put guns on the table. Also, put video games on the table. Put mental health on the table," Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., said last week. Other prominent Republicans echoed him in calling for a sweeping review of how to prevent tragedies like the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. Among those open to a re-evaluation of the nation's gun policies were Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa.
 
"You've got to take all these things into consideration," Grassley said.
 
And yet, the head of the National Rifle Association, silent for a week after the Newtown shootings, has proposed staffing schools with armed police, making clear the NRA, which tends to support the GOP, will continue pushing for fewer gun restrictions, not more.
 
Meanwhile, Boehner's attempt to get his own members on board with a deficit-reduction plan that would raise taxes on incomes of more than $1 million failed last week, exposing the reluctance of many in the Republican caucus to entertain more moderate fiscal positions.
 
With Republican leaders being pulled at once to the left and to the right, it's too soon to know whether the party that emerges from this identity crisis will be more or less conservative than the one that was once so confident about the 2012 elections. After all, less than two months have passed since the crushing defeat of GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who moved far to the right during the primary season and, some in the party say, lost the general election as a result.
 
But what's increasingly clear is that the party is now engaged in an uncomfortable and very public fight over whether its tenets, still firmly held within the party's most devout ranks, conflict with the views of Americans as a whole.
 
Many Republicans recognize that to remain relevant with voters whose views are changing, they too must change.
 
"We lost the election because we were out of touch with the American people," said John Weaver, a senior adviser to past presidential candidates John McCain, the GOP nominee in 2008, and Jon Huntsman, who sought the nomination this year.
 
The polling suggests as much.
 
While Republican candidates for years have adamantly opposed tax increases on anyone, an Associated Press-GfK poll earlier this month found roughly half of all Americans supported allowing George W. Bush-era tax cuts to expire on those earning more than $250,000 a year.
 
Most GOP candidates — Romney among them — also long have opposed allowing people in the country illegally to get an eventual path to citizenship. But exit polls from the Nov. 6 election showed most voters favored allowing people working in the U.S. illegally to stay.
 
And gun control has for decades been anathema to Republicans. But a Washington Post/ABC News poll published last week, following the Connecticut shooting, showed 54 percent of Americans now favor stronger restrictions.
 
This is the backdrop as Republicans undergo a period of soul-searching after this fall's electoral shellacking. Romney became the fifth GOP nominee in six elections to lose the national popular vote to the Democratic candidate. Republicans also shed seats in their House majority and lost ground to majority Democrats in the Senate.
 
Of particular concern is the margin of loss among Hispanics, a group Obama won by about 70 percent to 30 percent.
 
It took only hours after the loss for national GOP leaders to blame Romney for shifting to the right on immigration — and signal that the party must change.
 
Jindal, a prospective 2016 presidential contender, was among the Republicans calling for a more measured approach by the GOP. And even previously hard-line opponents of immigration reform — like conservative talk show host Sean Hannity — said the party needs to get over its immigration stance, which heavily favors border security over other measures.
 
"What you have is agreement that we as a party need to spend a lot of time and effort on the Latino vote," veteran Republican strategist Charlie Black said.
 
When Congress returned to Washington after the election to start a debate over taxes and spending, a number of prominent Republicans, including Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, signaled they would be willing to abandon their pledges against raising taxes — as long as other conditions were met — as part of a package of proposals to avoid a catastrophic budget meltdown.
 
Leading the effort was Boehner, who has told Obama he would allow taxes to be increased on the wealthiest Americans, as well as on capital gains, estates and dividends, as part of a deal including spending cuts and provisions to slow the growth of entitlement programs. Obama, meanwhile, also has made concessions in the talks to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" by agreeing to a higher-income threshold for tax rate increases, while insisting that Congress grant him the authority to raise the debt ceiling. Both sides have spent the past several weeks bickering over the terms.
 
While some Democrats quickly called for more stringent gun laws, most Republicans initially were silent. And their virtual absence from the debate suggested that some Republicans who champion gun rights at least may have been reconsidering their stances against firearms restrictions.
 
By the Monday after the Connecticut shooting, MSNBC talk show host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, called for reinstating the ban on assault-style weapons, which he had opposed. The ban expired in 2004, despite support for it from Republican President George W. Bush. Referring to the shooting, Scarborough said: "I knew that day that the ideologies of my past career were no longer relevant to the future that I want, that I demand, for my children."
 
The next day, Grassley and Kingston were among the Republicans saying they were at least willing to discuss stronger gun laws.
 
"The party is at a point where it wants to have those discussions in public, where people feel comfortable differing from what is perceived as the party orthodoxy," said Republican consultant Dan Hazelwood.
 
If silence is a signal, shifts on other issues could be coming, chief among them gay marriage, which the GOP base long has opposed. Exit polls found half of all Americans say same-sex marriage should be legally recognized.
 
After three states — Washington, Maryland and Maine — voted last month to legalize gay marriage, the Republican leadership generally has remained quiet on the issue. There also has been no effort in the House or Senate to push major legislation, only narrower proposals, such as a move in the Armed Services Committee to bar gay marriages at military facilities.
 
But in a sign that the fight over gay marriage also may be waning within the GOP base, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said it was time for Republicans to accept shifting public opinion.
 
The former Georgia congressman, who oversaw passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in Congress and helped finance state campaigns to fight gay marriage in 2010, said in a Huffington Post interview that the party should work toward acceptance of rights for gay couples, while still distinguishing them from marriage.
 
"The momentum is clearly now in the direction in finding some way to . accommodate and deal with reality," Gingrich said.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-evangelicals-partners-immigration-reform-164718061--politics.html

Why Evangelicals are the new partners for immigration reform

Advocates for immigration reform should seek support from an unlikely source – evangelical Christians. Their political agenda is broadening as Hispanic congregants – documented and undocumented – increase and pastors speak of immigration as a religious concern.

Most Congress-watchers have low expectations for America's legislative branch over the next two years, and with good reason. The 2012 election again showed a divided electorate, and political stalemate and partisan rancor abound in Washington.
 
Despite this difficult climate, political support is rapidly building in favor of legislation that has confounded presidents and Congresses since 1986: comprehensive immigration reform. Advocates trying to build a winning coalition for reform should seek support from an unlikely source – evangelical Christians.
 
Evangelicals have been a key Republican voting bloc for several decades. According to exit polls, about 1 in 4 voters in November's election was a white Evangelical, and they voted overwhelmingly Republican.
 
Although most Americans associate theologically conservative Christians with cultural issues such as abortion and gay marriage, the evangelical political agenda is broadening. Immigration reform is one issue that has steadily gained momentum.
 
What might account for this change?
 
For one, pastors and religious leaders are talking more about the issue as a religious concern. Many scriptural passages relate to immigration – including the famous 40-year wilderness journey of the children of Israel to the Promised Land. But most evangelical churches and organizations have only recently begun to underscore the biblical connection to immigration.
 
New pro-immigrant movements are seeking to educate and activate evangelical clergy and voters by emphasizing themes of love, justice, and welcome for the stranger that resound throughout the Hebrew Bible and New Testament.
 
Another factor that explains increasing awareness of immigrant issues is simple math.
 
Much like the nation, evangelicalism is becoming more ethnically diverse. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 13 percent of Hispanic Americans describe themselves as evangelical Protestants. Immigrant churches are growing rapidly, and many denominations have created new structures and leadership posts designed to serve Hispanic congregants. Immigration – including illegal immigration – touches the lives of many in the pews, and church leaders want to help.
 
Also, greater numbers of Evangelicals are worshiping alongside documented and undocumented immigrants, getting to know them and listening to their stories.
 
Perhaps the strongest sign of Evangelicals' advocacy is the emergence of new organizations and coalitions focusing on the issue.
 
In October 2011, Cedarville University, a conservative Christian college in Ohio, hosted the "G92" immigration conference. Taking its name from the Hebrew word for immigrant, ger, which appears 92 times in the Hebrew Bible, the conference has spawned a new movement designed to mobilize Christian college students to advocate on behalf of all immigrants. Leaders are planning half a dozen events across the country in 2013.
 
The Evangelical Immigration Table, founded in June 2012 by nine heads of evangelical organizations, is networking with evangelical leaders from across the spectrum to support immigration reform. Founders include the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, a large umbrella group representing many denominations and associations; Richard Land, an outspoken conservative and Southern Baptist leader; and Jim Wallis, bestselling author and leader of the left-leaning social justice organization Sojourners.

**FYI, Richard Land is a CFR member!
 
In June 2012, the Table released a wide-reaching, seven-point plan for immigration reform that included a call for secure borders, protection of family unity, and a path toward legal status or citizenship. It also left out many of the thorniest details, such as what steps a pathway to legal status would include and who would be eligible.
 
Even so, as religion writer Lisa Miller said in The Washington Post, the plan is "a document of exceptional accord among groups that rarely find themselves on the same side of anything."
 
The week after the presidential election, the Table sent letters to President Obama and congressional leaders asking for a meeting within the first 92 days of the president's new term to move forward reform legislation. Change is clearly afoot.
 
Of course, evangelical voters are not monolithic, and their views on illegal immigration vary widely. Data from a 2010 Pew Research Center study suggest that grass-roots Evangelicals are divided, but a majority (54 percent) now favor policies that include some sort of pathway to citizenship.
 
This majority is likely to grow. Researcher Ruth Melkonian-Hoover's analysis of polling data suggests that white Evangelicals who worship alongside immigrants (she did not distinguish between legal and illegal) are less likely to view immigrants as a threat. When pastors preach positive messages about immigrants, congregants' opinions shift, and support for a path to legalization rises sharply.
 
Since the November election – heavily influenced by Hispanic voters – legislators have more political space to advocate for immigration reform. Some Republicans are joining the effort out of desire to reach Hispanics. Others who previously felt strong political pressure to avoid the issue now feel more freedom to advocate for reform.
 
Evangelical elites from across the ideological spectrum are beginning to come together to advocate for immigration reform. Millions of Americans in the pews may soon follow their lead, and, if so, wise legislators will pay attention.

[Kilika]

Evangelical elites from across the ideological spectrum are beginning to come together to advocate for immigration reform.

They SHOULD be coming together to advocate the world repent and believe the gospel.

It's amazing to watch how the world uses theology when it's convenient. But this is really a misdirection because there is no place in government for religion of any persuasion. It's secular, so by law, it cannot bow to religious ideologies, thus a religious leader's reasoning carries no weight with the world unless it's in line with the world's demands. And for that to happen, religious leaders must compromise their beliefs and do as Caesar says.

[Psalm 51:17]

Technically, no it is not a sin to vote. Christians are forgiven and no longer live under the law of sin and death. We can however do things that are unedifying/sinful because of the flesh.

What would be wrong is getting involved in secular matters at all. That's the world, which we are not to be a part of.

We are a "new creature" and the "former things are passed away". That includes voting. The system is rigged anyway, so voting is useless. And anyone who thinks voting can change things is deluded and haven't got a clue about what's really going on in the world.

One more thing in this discussion with elections/voting...

I hear alot from people over how while they understand the wickedness and corruption on a federal level, but at bare minimum, we need to vote for state and local officials in order to help good laws to get enforced(and how occultists, Freemasons, etc really don't exist at the lower levels). Well...

1) When I visited the TX state capitol 2 years ago(Austin), we toured the Capitol building. Pretty much all of the elected officials(state rep, state senators, Lt Gov, etc) except for the Governor himself only meet a couple of times a year to vote on the budget(and other laws), and that IS IT. Otherwise, they get very little pay, and they have their full time jobs at home as their priority.

IOW, from what I gather, they pretty much covet these positions in order that 1) They can further promote their own businesses and professions at home, and/or 2) They have ambitions for a better political office in the future(ie-Congress). Otherwise, they have NOTHING TO GAIN, financially that is, by working these positions, as the pay is nothing more than minimum wage.

2) Barack Obama, before he was elected US Senator(and then President), was a lowly State Senator in Illinois. Just saying.

3) I read in my paper last year over a "prominent" former school board leader who's a Freemason. Yeah, even the local offices can be infiltrated too.

[Psalm 51:17]

http://news.yahoo.com/evangelical-coalition-seeks-immigration-overhaul-211103936.html

Evangelical coalition seeks immigration overhaul

1/14/13

NEW YORK (AP) — Prominent evangelical leaders announced a new effort Monday to persuade conservative Christians and lawmakers they should support overhauling U.S. immigration laws.
 
Called "I Was A Stranger," the campaign asks churches to spend 40 days studying Scripture related to immigration, centered on the Matthew 25 exhortation to clothe and feed the stranger. Organizers hope to create a groundswell of support for changes that balance national security with keeping immigrant families together.
 
The coalition includes the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents about 40 denominations; the public policy arm of the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention; Esperanza, the Latino evangelical economic development group; pastor Bill Hybels of the influential Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois; and writer Max Lucado. Sojourners, the liberal-leaning evangelical advocacy group, is also participating.
 
"In the Anglo churches, there are so many more Hispanic people that we know and love," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland church, which serves about 15,000 congregants in the Orlando, Fla., area. "There's a readiness, even in the Anglo churches, to address this."
 
Many evangelical leaders have actively supported reform in recent years as the number of immigrants has increased in their churches. However, rank-and-file congregants have been slower to take up the issue beyond demands for stronger national borders. In surveys, white evangelicals have generally ranked border security as their top priority. However, about four in ten have told pollsters they would favor an approach giving equal weight to national security and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
 
The evangelical push on the issue comes amid renewed interest in immigration reform from Congress and the White House. In the immediate aftermath of the November election, congressional Republicans suggested the time was right for reform talks. President Barack Obama, who won a record share of Hispanic voters, renewed his pledge to prioritize immigration reform.
 
Evangelical leaders said they are not backing any specific proposal right now.

[Psalm 51:17]

Not that I ever endorsed the National Review, but nonetheless its readers are largely on the "conservative" side, where a good portion of them are self-professing Christians(or Churchianity folks, take your pick).

You know when the so-called "conservative" leaning media has hit an all-time low when they endorse RAY LEWIS, of all people, being some fervent Christian.

http://www.nationalreview.com/right-field/288180/tebow-out-christians-can-turn-ray-lewis-greg-pollowitz#

With Tebow Out, Christians Can Turn to Ray Lewis?

1/16/12

Here’s an amusing piece on the Ravens’ Ray Lewis that describes his faith, charity, commitment to family, and work habits. An excerpt:

Lewis is an unmarried father of six, and his relationships include people who have fallen on hard times. A boy who was the lone survivor when his mother drove her van into a river last spring. A 76-year-old cancer patient. A teenager with bone cancer — for whom he is paying medical expenses.

“It goes back to the idea that, ‘To much is given, much is required,’ ” Lewis says. “With all the things I’ve been through, the No. 1 thing that I’ve learned is that we’re supposed to help people through this world.”

He reflects on a big influence, Hall of Famer Shannon Sharpe. And a not-so-big influence, the father who suddenly appeared three years ago.

As he sat at his locker, Lewis, who grew up in Lakeland, Fla., mimicked the gravelly voice of his late maternal grandfather, Gillis McKinney.

“He used to have this old car, and he’d say,” Lewis said, changing his voice for effect, ” ‘Y’all kids keep getting all these new cars so quick, but I’ll keep a car with 500,000 miles on it. You’ve got to take care of the engine.’

“It’s the same thing with your body. If you clean your body out so that it is not fighting against you, you rest better, think better and you’re always light on your feet. I haven’t had as much as a cold in three years. Bottom line, your body is a temple, and you have to treat it that way. That’s how God designed it.”

And . . .

For all of his influence on teammates, it frustrates Lewis that some family members haven’t fully incorporated healthy habits he urges. This has resonated with him more after the August death of his aunt, Sherry Taylor, 52, who battled cancer.

He also is concerned about the condition of his grandmother, Elease McKinney, and says he is trying to facilitate a liver transplant.

“He’s got such a big heart,” says Lewis’ mother, Sunseria Smith. “He thinks he can do anything to change the world.”

Lewis spoke at Taylor’s funeral. His theme: “Why do we wait so long to take care of our temples?”

“I stay mad at my mom because she spends so much time with God but doesn’t trust God with her body,” he says. “I don’t want to see her body deteriorate. Every day, we’ve got to do something physical. It’s mind, body and spirit.”

“But if you’re not practicing it,” he says, “it’s not going to survive.”

Smith, 51, has a different version. She maintains that she does work out — Lewis has mapped out exercise and diet plans, signed her up at a gym and gets regular reports from her doctor — but typically not to her son’s standard.

“This boy is working my nerves,” Smith says. “He’s been on me for years. Then every time somebody in our family passes, he really goes berserk.

“I know he’s disciplined, and he does it out of love, but sometimes I have to ask, ‘Who’s the mama and who’s the child?’ “

The whole piece here.

[Kilika]

Yeah, Ray seems to be a bit confused. And it's, "To whom much is given, much is required". You'd know that if you read your bible more Ray!

And mixing carnal mystic junk won't work, saying it's, "mind, body, spirit". That's New Age mumbo jumbo.

The real truth is that Jesus says that NOTHING entering the mouth defiles the man, period. What the problem is with stuff you put in your body is about moderation, that's it. It's about your attitude about what you eat. If you believe it to be unclean, to you it's unclean, and your advised not to eat it because you'd not be eating by faith.

[Psalm 51:17]

Mar_3:26  And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end.

1Pe_4:17  For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-bishops-conflicted-over-gays-immigration-184526146.html

2/6/13

Catholic bishops conflicted over gays, immigration

The nation's Roman Catholic bishops are in a difficult position as the debate over immigration reform gets underway: The immigrant-built American church, known for advocating a broad welcome for migrants and refugees, could end up opposing reform because it would recognize same-sex partners.
 
Proposals by President Barack Obama and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus include the same-sex partners of Americans among those who would be eligible for visas. The Human Rights Campaign and other gay advocates welcomed the recognition, arguing current laws unfairly treat people in gay or lesbian relationships "as strangers." The idea has the backing of the National Council de la Raza and other liberal Latino groups.
 
But Catholic bishops, with the support of evangelicals and other theological conservatives, have sent a letter to Obama protesting his proposal. In a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops would not provide a copy of the statement, saying the signatories agreed not to make the letter public. Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops, would say only that recognition of gay couples in the president's reform proposals "jeopardizes passage of the bill."
 
Galen Carey, public policy officer for the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents 40 denominations and has been lobbying for new immigration laws, said, "Our view is immigration reform is not the place to have this discussion." The theologically conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod also signed the Catholic bishops' letter.
 
"The issue of immigration on its own is so controversial, so polarizing," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez of the evangelical National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference. He was in the Las Vegas audience last week when Obama presented his plan. "Let's not play politics with 11 million undocumented immigrants."
 
It is far too early to know how much of a factor gay relationships will become in what is expected to be a complicated and emotional debate. The plan unveiled last week by eight leading Democratic and Republican senators did not mention same-gender partners. Many other major religious groups lobbying for reform, such as The Episcopal Church, either support gay marriage or don't make homosexuality a focus. In a conference call this week with reporters, White House Domestic Policy Council director Cecilia Munoz was asked whether Obama would support a bill that didn't acknowledge same-sex partners. Her only response: "The president's position on that is very clear."
 
Still, endorsements from traditional denominations may carry more significance in the current political climate, in which conservative-leaning lawmakers are worried about political damage from backing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
 
"The bishops' support, I think, is going to be critical for swinging moderates in the House to support this bill," said Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University of America and chair of the anti-abortion Democrats for Life, who was part of the Catholics for Obama re-election effort.
 
It seems unlikely the bishops would accept any provision for same-sex partners— even for an issue as important to the church as immigration. In their drive for greater orthodoxy among Catholics, bishops have made preserving traditional marriage a priority. Last week, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, who leads the bishops' marriage efforts, said the struggle against gay marriage is a gift from God "and by overcoming it we may achieve spiritual greatness." He made the comments in an interview with The Catholic Herald, a news outlet in Britain.
 
The bishops' stand against Obama's health care law provides some indication of their thinking when they view a core moral teaching in conflict with a long-held social justice goal.
 
For decades, the bishops had advocated for improved access to health care, especially for the poor. But church leaders concluded that the president's plan, known as the Affordable Care Act, would provide financing for ending pregnancies. The administration and Democratic supporters of the law insisted the bishops were wrong, and said no taxpayer money would fund abortion coverage. But the bishops ultimately opposed the legislation.
 
Yet, immigration seems even more critical than health care to the church.
 
Americans church leaders have spent decades lobbying for revisions that would keep families together and fulfill what the church considers the duty of all countries, especially wealthier ones, to do as much as possible to help the poor and persecuted. The church and Catholic groups run a network of aid programs for migrants, refugees and illegal immigrants, taking positions that recognize the country's right to protect its borders, but that still fall "to the left of the Democratic Party," Schneck said.
 
This position is rooted in papal and Gospel teachings so extensive that evangelicals often borrow the theological framework for their own advocacy. In a 2003 joint plea for immigration reform, called "Strangers No Longer," U.S. and Mexican bishops stated, "Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity that should be respected."
 
The issue is of special historic importance to the American Catholic church, which was built by waves of Irish, Italians, Poles and others. The immigrant presence in the pews is now growing as American-born white Catholics drop out in significant numbers. Researchers estimate that a third of the 66 million U.S. Catholics are Latino.
 
"This is an issue that has been a huge priority for the church for a really long time," said Kristin Heyer, a professor at Santa Clara University in California who studies immigration and Catholic social thought. "The wider Catholic community, in addition to the bishops, has mobilized in a major way."
 
Ultimately, the controversy could split Catholics, in much the same way that Catholics divided over health care. Despite enormous pressure from the bishops, the Catholic Health Association, a trade group that represents hospitals, provided critical backing for the president's health care legislation. Surveys have found that large majorities of lay Catholics back same-sex marriage or civil unions.
 
Given the importance of Latinos to the U.S. church, political observers wonder how bishops could explain their opposition to Hispanic parishioners.
 
Kim Daniels, an attorney and director of Catholic Voices USA, a conservative-leaning lay group that defends church teaching, has been urging Catholics across the political spectrum to drop their differences and get behind immigration reform. Still, she said, "being Catholic in the public square means standing up for all our issues."

[Psalm 51:17]

Jer 20:4  For thus saith the LORD, Behold, I will make thee a terror to thyself, and to all thy friends: and they shall fall by the sword of their enemies, and thine eyes shall behold it: and I will give all Judah into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall carry them captive into Babylon, and shall slay them with the sword.
Jer 20:5  Moreover I will deliver all the strength of this city, and all the labours thereof, and all the precious things thereof, and all the treasures of the kings of Judah will I give into the hand of their enemies, which shall spoil them, and take them, and carry them to Babylon.

http://news.msn.com/politics/among-us-evangelicals-surprising-support-for-immigration-reform

2/10/13

Among US evangelicals, surprising support for immigration reform

With Hispanic attendance at their churches rising, some evangelical leaders are among the loudest advocates of one of President Barack Obama's top priorities.

WASHINGTON — Thou shalt compromise, at least on immigration reform.

That is the message being heard from some leading evangelicals in the United States. After decades of promoting traditionally conservative causes like opposition to abortion, many evangelical leaders are now wielding their formidable influence to persuade Republican lawmakers to back one of President Barack Obama's top priorities.

With Hispanic attendance at their churches rising, these evangelicals are among the loudest advocates of a U.S. immigration reform. A group of pastors has launched a 40-day campaign to have churchgoers pray, read scripture passages about welcoming the stranger and lobby their members of Congress, many of them in the conservative South.

"We have pastors preach in pulpits to parishioners in Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas — in all the wonderful red states across America," that aiding immigrants, illegal or not, is a Christian duty, said Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, one of the country's most prominent Hispanic evangelicals.

While evangelicals have been a major force in Republican politics for years, Republican lawmakers will take some persuading to back the sort of immigration reform supported by President Barack Obama, which includes a "pathway" to citizenship for immigrants in the country illegally.

Conservatives in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives want to focus the debate initially on securing the border with Mexico and making sure illegal immigrants are not rewarded with an amnesty.

"Some of them don't necessarily see or acknowledge the changing demographics or the electoral merits of passing immigration reform, but I do think that many of these religious leaders could push them in that direction by really referencing the humanitarian interest, or moral argument," said Republican strategist Ford O'Connell.

Rodriguez and other pastors are speaking to members of Congress "on a daily basis" to ask them to legalize the status of 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Targeted lawmakers include Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, who chaired a House hearing on immigration last week, and Rep. Raul Labrador of Idaho — a leading Tea Party thinker on immigration.

Unlikely as it may have seemed at the height of the "culture wars" of the last two decades, these evangelicals are attempting to nudge Republicans to the center. The effort is well timed, coming as the Republican Party strives to improve its appeal to Hispanic voters who went solidly Democratic at 2012 elections.

"This is one area where social conservative input is extremely welcomed by the Republican Party," said O'Connell.

Pastors are asking worshippers to email their lawmakers and tell them: "I am a Christian, a conservative and I vote. I want you to support immigration reform this year," said Rodriguez.

RARE BIPARTISAN FORAY

Support for an immigration overhaul among Christian conservatives has been growing over time. In 2011, the 16 million-member Southern Baptist Convention — the country's largest Protestant body — called for "a just and compassionate path to legal status" for illegal immigrants while urging the government to secure U.S. borders.

A Public Religion Research Institute poll in 2010 showed white evangelicals support, by a margin of 2-1, an immigration reform that would allow illegal immigrants to become Americans.

After the election, a group of evangelical leaders signed a letter to Obama endorsing "a path toward legal status and/or citizenship" for immigrants. Among the signers was Tim Daly, president of the Focus on the Family ministry.

Immigration is providing a rare foray into bipartisanship for evangelical veterans of fights over gay marriage and abortion like lawyer Mathew Staver, vice president of Liberty University, founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, Virginia. Staver's Liberty Counsel group threatened to sue a Florida library in 2000 for promoting witchcraft by encouraging young people to read a "Harry Potter" novel.

As recently as last November, Staver wrote on Liberty Counsel's website that Obama won re-election because, "Millions of Americans looked evil in the eye and adopted it."

But now he acknowledges that Obama deserves credit, along with the Republican head of the House Judiciary Committee and Senators from both sides of the aisle, for drawing up plans for an immigration overhaul.

James 1:8  A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.

"I think it is incumbent upon us to work together and I applaud the bipartisan committee in the Senate and I applaud the leadership of Bob Goodlatte," Staver said. "I applaud President Obama too, I just don't want to use this as a political ping pong."

But any talk of an alliance between the White House and evangelicals to win immigration reform is stretching it.

Christian conservatives strongly oppose a proposal by Obama to give spousal visas to same-sex foreign partners of American gays and lesbians. And evangelical leaders disagree among themselves on whether to grant undocumented immigrants the full right to U.S. citizenship or allow them some other, more limited, legal status in the United States.

Neither option is acceptable to some conservative evangelicals, like Iowa pastor Cary Gordon who opposes loosening immigration laws and accuses his co-religionists of "unbiblical naivete."

'I WAS A STRANGER'

Much of the Christian case for helping illegal immigrants is based on stories of Biblical "immigrants" like Abraham and Moses and passages such as Matthew 25:35: "I was a stranger and you invited me in."

"The scriptures command us to take care of the immigrant. It's not just one verse here or there, it's a repeated command throughout the Biblical text," said Matt Soerens of the World Relief organization, who lectures churches on immigration.

U.S. Representative Doug Collins, an Air Force Reserve chaplain, says hospitality to foreigners is fine but must be balanced with respect for immigration laws.

"Scripture also teaches very clearly that there is government and civil authority and that there is an understanding of rule of law," said Republican Collins, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee.

He represents a strongly conservative district in Georgia which has seen a spike in undocumented workers in the poultry and construction industries and opposes giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.

The evangelicals' pro-immigration passion reflects changes in the conservative Christian movement which, while still predominantly white, has taken on a Latin tinge.

Rodriguez, the pastor, who heads a U.S. Hispanic organization with 40,000 member churches, gave a benediction at the Republican National Convention in Tampa last year.

While some two-thirds of U.S. Latinos are Catholic, Hispanics form the fastest-growing group in evangelical churches and are seen as a bulwark against dropping attendance.

Rodriguez put the number of Hispanics in the United States who are either "born-again" or evangelical Christians at between 10 million and 16 million, and growing fast.

While numbers are hard to come by, "there are lots of indirect pieces of evidence" that point to the growth of Latino evangelicals, said Victoria DeFrancesco Soto, who studies Hispanic politics.

Six percent of evangelicals were Latinos in 2007, according to a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll. Eight percent of evangelical or "born-again" voters in a Reuters/Ipsos exit poll at last November's election said they were Hispanic.

Worshipping together with newly arrived Christians — as well as the new emphasis on Biblical teachings on immigration — is melting conservatives' doubts about illegal immigrants, said Danny Carroll, an Old Testament professor at an evangelical seminary in Colorado.

He is part of a congregation at a church in Aurora that is attended mostly by white Americans on Sunday mornings. In the afternoons, the church then hosts separate services with their own pastors for Hispanic, Korean, Filipino and Russian immigrant groups

"Once a quarter, all these congregations get together for a worship service so all of a sudden you are sitting next to someone with a different face, different color, different language. Once you put a human face on it, the whole conversation changes," he said.

Editing by Fred Barbash, Tiffany Wu and Todd Eastham.

[Psalm 51:17]

Do people even know what "religious" means anymore? Utah and Louisiana are among the most religious states? Aren't they predominantly Mormon and Catholic, respectively? Isn't South Carolina's governor involved in the New Age?

http://news.yahoo.com/most-religious-us-state-151539552.html

The Most Religious US State Is ...

2/13/13

Mississippi holds onto its title as most religious U.S. state, with 58 percent of its residents saying they are very religious, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday (Feb. 13).
 
The least religious state? Vermont.
 
About 40 percent of Americans said they were "very religious," meaning religion is an important part of their daily life and that they attend religious services every week or nearly every week. Some 31 percent indicated they were nonreligious, or that religion wasn't an important part of their daily life and they seldom or never attend such services.
 
The 10 most and least religious states remained relatively constant from the 2011 numbers, with the only change being the inclusion of Hawaii in the least religious list in place of New York. [See full list of U.S. states and religiosity]
 
As expected, the South dominated the "most religious" list, while the 12 least religious states were located in New England. For instance, while just 14 percent of Alabama residents indicated they were nonreligious, 50 percent of those in New Hampshire said the same. (In addition to very religious and nonreligious, Gallup also had a "moderately religious" category.) Utah, which has a large Mormon population, and Oklahoma, which straddles the border between the South and the Midwest, were the only exceptions to the dominantly Southern states in the top 10 list.
 
Top 10 most religious states
• Mississippi: 58 percent are very religious
• Utah: 56 percent
• Alabama: 56 percent
• Louisiana: 53 percent
• Arkansas: 52 percent
• South Carolina: 52 percent
• Tennessee: 50 percent
• North Carolina: 50 percent
• Georgia: 48 percent
• Oklahoma: 48 percent
 
Bottom 10 (least religious states)
• Vermont: 19 percent are very religious
• New Hampshire: 23 percent
• Maine: 24 percent
• Massachusetts: 27 percent
• Oregon: 29 percent
• Rhode Island: 29 percent
• District of Columbia: 30 percent
• Washington (tie): 31 percent
• Connecticut (tie): 31 percent
• Alaska (tie): 31 percent
• Hawaii (tie): 31 percent
• Nevada (tie): 31 percent
 
The differences in religiosity across the United States may not be the result of underlying demographics (race or ethnicity) or religious identities (Catholic or Protestant majorities, for instance), but rather part of a state-level cultural phenomenon.
 
Something about the state's culture, based partly on that state's history, may be behind residents' religiosity, Gallup suggests. "In other words, it can be hypothesized that a person moving to Mississippi is more likely to become personally more religious than if that same person moved to Vermont," Gallup officials write in a statement.
 
While overall seven in 10 Americans said they were either moderately or very religious, other Gallup poll results reported in January have shown a rise in "no religious identification" over time.
 
"Americans' expression of an explicit religious identity in response to a survey interviewer's question is one of many measures of religiosity, although by no means a definitive measure of a person's religiousness or spirituality," Gallup states. "The rise in 'nones' partly reflects changes in the general pattern of expression of religion in American society today — particularly including trends towards more 'unbranded,' casual, informal religion."
 
The just-released state-religion results are based on more than 348,000 interviews with adults ages 18 and older conducted from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2012, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. The results were weighted to be representative of each state's adult population by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity and education, based on Census data.