47 votes

Pastor Calls on Christians to Vote for Ron Paul as America`s Christian President

Pastor Steven Andrew teaches God`s plans from the Holy Bible. He wants Americans to be blessed by God, not judged for sin. He says, "God calls the USA to have a Christian government. That is why Christians must call for Christian front runner Ron Paul to be President. Christians knowingly sin by helping Mormon Mitt Romney and Barack Obama who oppose God. Disobeying God means Americans suffer (Deuteronomy 28:15-63)."
[...]
"If Americans draw near to God with Ron Paul, then God will draw near to us. President Ron Paul means the Holy Spirit and God`s wisdom in the White House," he says. Paul beat Obama in polling and Romney didn`t (Rasmussen Reports, April).

Continue Reading:
http://thesop.org/story/20120815/pastor-calls-on-christians-...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Hallelujah.

.

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

RON PAUL FOR THIRD PARTY!!!

LAST CALL FOR LIBERTY!!! ARE YOU READY? LET'S DO IT!!!

It's not cool to attack

It's not cool to attack someones religion.. Ron Paul would not like this! You attack policy and record, not the way someone chooses to worship! Not cool!

~eye roll~

Once again, this pastor's primary focus is on religion, not on the individual, that individual's actions, or actual issues. Romney could have been an absolute angel his whole life, complete with actually following the Constitution, and this pastor would still be saying these things. Also, if Romney just happened to have not been a Mormon, this pastor would not be against him. Let alone the fact that he doesn't understand the Mormon faith to begin with ... what in the world does this have to do with politics? Nothing more than happenstance.

While I do believe that Romney supports and is supported by evil men, his faith is not what makes him evil. Only Romney's own actions and decisions -- things not related to his religious beliefs -- damn him. Things like what he did as governor, like what he's doing to the RP delegates, like all of the cheating that had happened. These things reveal him for what he is, not where he goes to church.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

You cannot obtain "liberty" from "absolutism"

The two ideologies are mutually and damningly exclusive.

Consumer-Sovereignty vs Absolution-Seeking

Absolution-Seeking makes ones thought process sluggish, it allows for fewer "what-ifs" and replaces them with religious-certainty or moral-ambiguity (as history well observes).

Every religion today had a lineage of slave-ownership rationale and/or democidic/genocidic behavior at one point or another.

Just ask all the lost pagan cultures if it's not obvious.

Voting Ron Paul owing to being a "christian" is the same type of back-azz-wards thinking that lead us into this mess.

A Christian can never be a "consumer" first -- neither can a prolitariate a democrat or a republican -- nor a senior, a laborer, or mother or father.

Whatever your first order of importance moniker is "that's" your identifier and to whom you unionize with to force the "others" to behave.

We must idenitify as "consumers" first -- we must see why it is the first order of business -- it comes before the formation of our cells and was the first set of actions just after the Big Bang or God-spark-moment (for the absolutists).

Yes you can have a "big bang" and still have "god" but God will be discovered by science long after we fully understand dark-matter.

I'm not entirely sure what your point is...

...in regards to the whole "consumer" thing. However, religion in and of itself does not have a history of genocide, the State has a history of genocide. Soviet Russia was VIOLENTLY atheist, yet killed millions of people. Red China was and still is atheist, and 70 million were killed.

Don't you dare go throwing around claims like that with so little to back it up. If I were to do the same, and accuse atheism of having a history of genocide (look at all the dead citizens of atheist Commie regimes!), you'd explode in my face. Unlike you, however, I will not make such an absurd claim. Instead, I will point out that it is the State, with various excuses, that has committed LITERALLY every genocide in the history of the world.

By the way, are you suggesting moral relativism? Because that sure doesn't work out logically.

No no no, I'm sorry but you are historically in-accurate.

Religions - Priests - Rabbis - Imam's have all justified slavery, have helped to put Monarchs/Pharoahs/Presidents/Emperors in power.

That is JUST HISTORICAL FACT -- how can you argue the opposite.

I'm not an "atheist" by-the-by -- so your hysterical atheist argument is out-of-place.

I'm a public "atheist" in the sense that I cannot prove God so I do not discuss Him/Her/It as fact.

I can prove that God never wrote one scripture and wonder if he truly "inspired" one either.

I can prove that meditation works that "devotion" has a biological/chemical effect that can be healthy and proveable -- I can also show how one does not need "language" to be devotional nor does its expression rely on words to have said physical/psychological effect.

All that being said the Russian "atheist" Gov't was not "atheist" (literally). Stalin's "secret service guards" were all devout and he INSISTED that they be devout orthodox Christians.

Also "atheism" (on any military or gov't level) was a REACTION to previous "religious" monarchy (or the such hereditary form of gov't).

To get people behind massive "wars" they needed the help of "religion"

Even Gandhi (who "blended" religious philosophy to suite his political agenda and bring people together) had to rely entirely on religious scripture and backing by religious leaders to make his efforts come to fruition.

To justify mass "anything" there was always religious leaders and followers.

Tribal Anarchy could never pull off mass anything. The Indians could have driven whites from these lands, but they had no "unifying" philosophies -- which probably aided their survival or maybe they were just lagging in its development.

However among Indian where we see a unifying religion we've seen the complete destruction of their society (either deemed too dangerous to live on or destroyed themselves).

Pop open a history book man.

This "consumer thing" is a Mises thing -- Mises was RP's mentor.

Again pop open a book. Actually just use google or go read articles by "Patrick Gunning on Mises" (google it).

Please don't mention historical inaccuracies

Please don't mention historical inaccuracies when your post is riddled with them.

"Stalin's "secret service guards" were all devout and he INSISTED that they be devout orthodox Christians".

This is one of the most blatant lies if every read.
The Bolshevik and Communist leaders in Russia were overwhelmingly Jewish not Orthodox Christians.

As for Gandhi, he was a British agent and a member of the Theosophical Society(lucis trust, Jewish Blavatsky, Jewish Crowley etc).

"Pop open a history book man."
You oblivious haven't.

The Rulers of Russia by Denis Fahey
Behind Communism by Frank L. Britton
Under the Sign of the Scorpion by Juri Lina's

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

John: It's nice how you share

I got the Stalin bodyguard quote from a General of Russian Special Forces (Spetznas) and heard it corroborated by Spetznas who were not trained under him -- so on multiple occasions.

I trained Navy SEALs in empty hand combat, breath work, and meditative practices -- mostly post-SEAL veterans to aid with PTSD recovery; however, I worked with active duty SEALs as well.

Some of these men introduced me to former Spetznas who were now working with Navy SEALs to "improve" training - etc.

So -- You keep your book. And I'll go by direct experience.

You cannot "prove" the Gandhi was a British Agent commentary -- so you lose there as well.

That was what the kids call a "Epic Fail"

It's quite sad

It's quite sad you leave it there.

http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-...

http://www.reformation.org/wall-st-bolshevik-app3.html

As for the "epic fail"

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=558
Why have the same tactics been used so successfully in other regions over and over?

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy." -- Henry Kissinger

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

It would be impossible to try to nudge you to a balanced view on

this because you do not understand the rules of logic (suggestions of logical discourse) nor do you understand the scientific principal.

#1 I never said anything about "Jews" being victims nor perpetrators nor suckers nor innovators of Bullshevism. My argument was not an anti- or pro-Jewish argument.

What I said was there was Orthodox Christians serving as Stalin's bodyguard and that they were the heart of elite Spetznas training.

I "KNOW" this because of DIRECT contacts with KNOWN Spetznas Soldiers who are and claim to be and practice an esoteric form of Orthodox Christianity -- they are not themselves "Jews"

It is possible that you might call them "sell-outs" (as there are ALWAYS sell-outs) -- like the Jews and Catholics who backed Hitler; they were "sell-outs" to humanity, at the least, and to their-own-kind, at the most.

"Jewish" Blavatsky and Crowley?

Gandhi could not stand the "old testament" he loved the New Testament.

Old Testament = Jewish --and-- New Testament = Christian

Blavatsky was hardly "Jewish" as she taught a mixture of Eastern Philosophy -- maybe a "kabbalahic agnostic?" But that wouldn't make your point.

#2 The article you attached was full of quotes and assertions that Gandhi made about (as in a positive) his movement and against himself (as in self-deprecating) in his writings and public addresses. The article ended on a positive note -- that Gandhi fought sincerely for an Independent India.

Since I'm adamantly against Hero-Worship I do not understand why Gandhi is a point of contention?

Many English Societies called Gandhi an "anarchist" -- Bullshevics were not "anarchists" so your Jewish-Gandhi-Prolitarate diatribe seems to be ill-fitted, wouldn't say?

You know how long I have...

...been waiting for a pastor to see the truth and actually not be afraid to speak up about it!!!??? It's about time! Maybe he will encourage others to do the same...if they are as real as this guy!

Not seeing the light

He's only being anti-Mormon, not pro-liberty. If Romney happened to not be a Mormon, this article wouldn't exist. As much as it works in our favor, I do wish that they would actual LEARN better.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

He's Being Pro-Christian

There's a difference.

.

I don't see it as voting for mormon, or christian, protestant or catholic.

I see it as voting for evil or voting for good. I view Romney as evil and I view Ron Paul as good.

And that be the way 'tis..

Ummm...

I disagree, Mormons love god and believe that through Jesus Christ they can be saved. They are Christians. Hating on Mitt because of religion is a no go, there's plenty of other reasons to dislike him.

Christianity: The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or its beliefs and practices.

Mormons, believe in the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ which is Christian.

I'm not religious but as far as I can tell they are Christian.

Now is he your type of Christian?? Probably not, lol.

But on that note, from what I can tell Mitt is not following his religion from what his campaign is doing. Free will is a huge aspect of the Mormon religion and he is not allowing for that to happen. The removal of choice is the path of Lucifer and free will is the path of Jesus Christ. This is also why I don't understand why the Mormon's are so inthralled with him as he is not representing their values. When I bring this up to Mormons they get frustrated as they know the answer but I believe they are too blinded by the possibility of the first Mormon President.

Eah, anyway you go it's not worth Mormon bashing, I only see that as a negative.

Thank you for speaking up for us

This is an age-old argument, because apparently there's multiple definitions of the word "Christian."

Here are the definitions I've found so far:

One who believes Jesus Christ as the literal Son of God AND strives to follow Him.

One born in a tradition of following a Christian religion. This person may or may not actually believe the reality of Christ, but has inherited the name, and has not actively decided to reject it.

One who believes that Jesus Christ died and atoned for his/her sins, but feel no obligation to follow his teachings beyond confessing His name.

One who has been baptized into a traditionally Christian faith.

One who hasn't been baptized, but believes the Bible and tries to live its teachings.

I'm sure there are others. As a Mormon, I put myself in the first definition. I think that much of the "not a Christian" rant originated from the fact that the LDS faith is a restorative gospel, not a protestant one.

Jesus Christ created this world and everything in it, and He was Jehova of the Old Testament. He chose to be born of Mary so He could show us the Way, to teach us, and to suffer and die for us. He is resurrected and He lives in a perfected physical body, and He still speaks today.

You are right: Mitt Romney is not following the tenets of his own faith. I see him as somewhat like a pharisee: he may do the outward showings of being a true follower, but his heart is far from Christ. He can't even bring such Christian actions as being honest into the political realm.

Thank you for speaking up for Mormons, though you aren't one yourself. It's painful to see so much hatred for a specific religion. You have great courage to stand up for a group that's hated.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

no they don't...

no they don't...

Mormons are not Christians.

Mormons believe that they are saved through good works. Mormons believe their books (Book of Mormon, D&C, etc) have MORE validity than the Bible. Mormons believe in a different Christ than the Bible, not from a Biblical perspective. There are strong reasons for why Christians are not Mormons, yet Mormons are "Christians."

Freedom Lovers Unite : to bring in our last chance for what was a great country back again into the hands of the people.

Time to set some things straight

Mormon doctrine: We are saved by grace after all that we can do. In other words, if you believe in Christ, you'd better do what you can to act like it, and when you mess up, repent. Without full and sincere repentance, your sins cannot be washed away. Only a combination of works AND grace will be sufficient.

"Mormon books" do not have more validity than the Bible. It is true that the Book of Mormon was compiled for our day, and that the Doctrine and Covenants is a compilation of direct revelations in modern times, and the Pearl of Great Price is another compilation of both modern and ancient scripture, but the Bible is the Word of God and the testament of the Old World. It has God's dealings with His people in ancient times, and the irreplaceable testimony of multiple witness of Jesus Christ's life on earth.

I knew the Bible better than an entire group of Christians my age. While this doesn't nullify classical Christian doctrine (whichever one we want to talk about, there are so many), it should remind you that the actions of individuals is more important than doctrine alone.

It is true that Mormons have a different view of Christ than other Christians (whatever the "classic Christian" view is), but you can hardly argue that the Mormon view is less Biblical than the "Christian" view. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the traditional Christian accepts the Nicene Creed or the Trinity theory about the true nature of God. Mormons have never accepted the Nicene Creed, which creed was developed long after the events that happened in the Bible. So, basically, the traditional "Christian" doesn't have a strictly Biblical perspective of Christ, either: the text by itself could support either perspective.

(To anyone curious, here is the Mormon perspective of Christ: Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are separate, distinct beings. Both God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, have physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost does not. I'm not going to try and explain the traditional Christian perspective, because I am not one myself. I know I do not know traditional Christianity (whichever sect you wish) very deeply, so I won't pretend that I do. Now please afford me the same grace and not try to tell me I know my faith better than I do.)

There are lots of strong reasons for why Mormons are Christians, not the least of which is that Mormons believe in the literal divinity and reality of Jesus Christ, they read His words (ALL of them that we have so far. His words never cease, you know) and believe them, and they strive to follow Him, and accept Him as their Savior (because only in and through Christ can we be saved). There are lots of other reasons, none of which has to do with politics (except if you look at the politics in the Book of Mormon. It's a shame that most Mormons haven't realized that the Book of Mormon has a lot of politics in it that pertain to our day).

Mormons are not "christian" in that they do not share in the traditional christian heritage. Mormonism did not spawn off of another christian sect; it is a restored gospel, with a heritage that goes straight from the original 12 apostles and Paul to Joseph Smith, skipping the Catholic heritage and the protestant heritage altogether. Many may argue that there's more to it than that, but that's what it boils down to: different heritages.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Hardly

"It is true that Mormons have a different view of Christ than other Christians (whatever the "classic Christian" view is), but you can hardly argue that the Mormon view is less Biblical than the "Christian" view." I think I will argue that point specifically, because I "hardly" can and I'll use your words because I "hardly" can.

"(To anyone curious, here is the Mormon perspective of Christ: Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are separate, distinct beings. Both God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, have physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost does not. I'm not going to try and explain the traditional Christian perspective, because I am not one myself. I know I do not know traditional Christianity (whichever sect you wish) very deeply, so I won't pretend that I do. Now please afford me the same grace and not try to tell me I know my faith better than I do.)"

The "traditional Christian" perspective is that God the Father is outside all existence and He can come to earth as He has done so throughout the old testament. His body is the Son, Jesus. Jesus was born into the world miraculously as foretold throughout the entire old testament. His reason for His coming wasn't to undo anything rather to provide a light into this world for those who accept Him and His sacrifice of shedding His innocent blood for the sins of (wo)man for all time. An annual requirement of lamb sacrifices were used as a sign to God of repentance for all annual sins, now no longer required due to the death of Jesus. His death released His Spirit unto the believers and now the "true church" are His believers the ones who bear their cross for the sake of Him and their eternity. The church without walls, those who carry the Holy Spirit, God within them; and we with God for eternity.

Thanks for helping me out with your words. I couldn't have guided the argument better myself.

Freedom Lovers Unite : to bring in our last chance for what was a great country back again into the hands of the people.

I wish you could both see yourselves arguing over what...

amounts to which book series is better...Twilight or Harry Potter?

Be careful of your words

Why not ask a Mormon what they believe? I'm one and I can tell you where you got your facts wrong, or you can keep repeating what you read on the internet and what your pastor told you. Remember we're all here because we support Dr. Paul and liberty, so there's no point of you playing this game of "my church is better than your church".

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams
http://brushfiresinthemind.blogspot.com/

I would have agreed with you a few years ago...

but not since I have been involved in the exorcism ministry and have seen demonic spirits of the occult admit to being associated with Mormonism. I know that it's a tough pill to swallow, and I know that the best defensive move for you right now is to not believe me. But I have no reason to make this up. Just consider looking into it a little deeper than what your leaders and teachers have taken you.

On that note... the pastor in the article referred to Mormonism as 'accursed.' I can attest to this because I have seen the results of it. Yes, it really is 'accursed.' I am truly sorry for those who are offended at this. I love you all, and I agree with the poster that I'm replying to: we're all here because we support Dr. Paul. But if I can occasionally throw out some guidance, I won't hold back.

"He did not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it." - John 3:17

"Well, you know it's like I always say 'it ain't government work if you don't have to do it twice.'" - Jerry Gergich

Interesting

The actions of individuals colors your perspective of an entire religion. I can't blame you if that is your only exposure to Mormonism, but it is hardly true. I've seen more lives blessed by this faith than cursed by it. Those who are "accursed" are those who had the light and turned away from it. I feel sorry for those who've fallen into the occult: by rejecting the light they had, they've put themselves under the power of Satan. They are worse off than if they had never had the light to begin with. I hope they repent and return to Christ.

Thank you for your light-handed guidance. I recommend you read the Book of Mormon ^_^ It is free on the internet at www.lds.org. I gotta throw out some good advice every now and then.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

good advise is wise counsel

The accursed as you put it : http://ldssexchildabuse.blogspot.com/
The only ones who would have turned these people from the "light" are LDS in the first place. I deal with the rejected on a day to day basis. The stories I hear are more common place than your church would give them the opportunity to tell before excommunicating them. My "exposure" to mormonism is not a good one. Thank you for your free copy of the Book of Mormon, but I already have one on my bookshelf for when missionaries come to my door I can share some light on the subject from their own material.

Freedom Lovers Unite : to bring in our last chance for what was a great country back again into the hands of the people.

I don't...

really want to debate this stuff as I'm not religious or all that knowledgeable about religion. But I know many Mormons and they say they believe in the Bible and the Book of Mormon and see them both as important.

You can call them whatever you like. I just think bringing up religion is a negative.

I chuckled a little bit when

I chuckled a little bit when I read "I don't really want to debate this stuff as I'm not religious or all that knowledgeable about religion. But I know...." Isn't that like telling a brain surgeon he's not doing a brain surgery correctly when you are not a brain surgeon?

All jokes aside, here's my input to the matter. Mormon's are not Christians as defined by Christians. If you want to read up on why, surf the web and ask questions like you are doing now. The point is that the message here holds true whether you are a Christian, Mormon, atheist, or whatever you want to call yourself. Too many self-proclaiming Christians are the most non-Christian bigots on this earth. Notice I say "self-proclaiming"; these people are not Christians.

That said, just because you don't define Mormons the same as "Christians" do, doesn't mean you cant see that the people who keep getting voted in are far from Christian, and I don't care what definition you use for Christian relating to this. You know what I mean. The sad thing is, you know and see this when so many "Christians" don't. I can't imagine how annoyed a non-Christian can get seeing all the hypocrisy.

The bottom line is neither of these two guys are Christian, so bringing religion into this election is even more of a negative than normal, if you can picture that. Christian or not, we all can see that these two guys are bad news.

Just a question....

...would you vote for a Mormon that had Dr. Paul's platform? Or an atheist? Or a Muslim? What's so important about being "Christian"? Is it better to have a Christian neo-con than someone who actually believes in the principle of liberty, but comes from one of those "heathen" religions or no religion at all? Here's my creed: I will vote for a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, atheist, deist, agnostic, Scientologist, black, white, Hispanic, woman, man, gay, straight, or whatever they are, as long as they believe in liberty. That's ALL that matters.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."-Samuel Adams
http://brushfiresinthemind.blogspot.com/

Speaking as a statician, not a theologan

What are the odds of someone who isn't a speaker, or in this case, believer of truth, actually coming so close to the truth to begin with? I denounce this method of thinking, I for one have yet to see a principled leader who has not compromised get so close to the truth and not be bought off, other than Jesus Christ Himself. Dr. Paul is a disciple of Jesus, what are the odds?

Freedom Lovers Unite : to bring in our last chance for what was a great country back again into the hands of the people.