Ted Cruz, Glenn Beck, and Cult-Like Religion

Sundance at The Conservative Tree House has written posts commenting on Ted Cruz's proselytizing as an electoral campaign strategy. Freepers have seen at least a couple of examples of this strategy recently, with threads being posted about Cruz calling on supporters to "don the full armor of God" to resist "incoming attacks" (presumably from dark forces!), or that the "Body of Christ" must be energized to gain the victory.

This type of rhetoric is also heavily prominent in his campaign fund raising. One of the more epic and cringe inducing examples comes from an apparent leak by the Cruz campaign of hours and hours of videos to Youtube, apparently done to get by laws that forbid cooperation between SuperPacs and the campaigns they support.

In these examples here and here, we get to see the Cruz family do multiple takes to get the candid-camera family prayer just right, and we also get to see his mother cringe after Cruz states that she spends "hours" praying for him every day.

It's entirely incomprehensible to me why a campaign would allow such uncomfortable and damaging footage to ever see the light of day, but it does help me illustrate just why the Cruz campaign is so vulnerable outside of the primary season. No, it's not because the general electorate is anti-Christian. It's that most normal people, including Christians, recognize at first glance that praying in public-- or implying that God supports your campaign as you beg for more money-- is extremely artificial and painfully obvious pandering.

On top of that, besides the pandering, which is bad enough in and of itself, the type of so-called "Christianity" he associates with isn't exactly the religion of Charles Spurgeon or Jonathon Edwards. Nope, it is the lowest of the low of New Age/Eastern Mysticism and Dominionist theology that is, unfortunately, invading huge swathes of Christendom today. And Cruz's deep connections with these types of people are extensive, beginning with none other than his own father, Rafael Cruz.

First, a brief explanation of what Dominionism/Kingdom Now theology even is. It is a very theologically diverse movement. It is not a denomination. It started from the weirdo confines of the New Apostolic Reformation, where self-proclaimed "Apostles" and "Prophets" declared a latter rain revival/revolution. However, there are Baptist "Dominionists," there are Roman Catholic "Dominionists," there are leftist "Dominionists," and people who are greatly influenced by their teachings but differ in some ways, or perhaps are not as extreme in their Charismatic "spiritual gifts" and "health and wealth" Gospel as other Dominionists are. In general, Dominionists believe that a great end times army of super Christians will take Dominion over the Earth and bring about the Kingdom of Christ, no longer a Kingdom "not of this world," as the Gospel teaches, but one which begins here on Earth and must precede the coming of Christ in order for Him to arrive. Total physical unity of "Christians" is necessary, which is why a large number of Dominionists are also heavily involved in the ecumenical movement. Some of these people are more covert in their beliefs than others, but generally they all work together for the same goals.

As time has passed, this very diverse Dominionist movement has become increasingly mainstream among Evangelical or conservative circles (I highly recommend you read that link in its entirety), so much so that many people probably don't even notice when 7 Mountains theology gets slipped in or the weirdos of the New Apostolic Reformation trot on out. The problem is so bad, in fact, that I call the unnoticed infiltration of Dominionists into GOP/Conservative politics the "dirty little secret" of our movement, and one which should be recognized and dealt with. These "Dominionists" have managed to get into prayer meetings or religious events all over, meeting with members of the GOP and pretending to represent mainstream Christendom, including with candidates like Newt Gingrich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Huckabee, Trump (in one meeting with the odious Copeland, among others) and on and on and on, who have all received hands on prayer by Dominionists and other errant pastors. However, no other candidate in this election has the ties Cruz has with the Dominionist movement.

Sometime in 2012 the Cruz campaign was apparently soliciting the endorsement of the megachurch Dominionist pastor, Larry Huch. Besides being a Dominionist, Huch is the kind of guy who sells CD Collections explaining how Christ's blood won back our "willpower... prosperity... health... Dominion over the things we touch...[and] Dominion over the places we walk." In other words, this is typical prosperity gospel and Dominionist materialism.

Huch remarked, during a sermon he was preaching along side Rafael Cruz, that he had received a phone call from the Cruz campaign to meet with them to see if he would be willing to "get behind" Cruz's run. Evidently the meeting bore fruit for the Cruz campaign, as it not only won an endorsement from Huch, but Rafael Cruz also came and preached at his church.

As you will see in this link, (in the link I provided just before this one, there is a transcript of this same event. I provided this second link because the commentary surrounding the video is useful) Rafael Cruz taught the congregants about how God has anointed two types of Christians: Kings and Priests. It is the job of the Kings to take control over the "market place" in order to bring the wealth back to the priests. According to Rafael, the "wealth of the wicked" belongs to the church, and God has anointed the "Kings" of the Christian church to go forth and initiate the great transfer of wealth from the "wicked" to the "righteous" as part of the end-times establishment of the kingdom. (Notice how heavily materialistic all of this is.)

Keep in mind, this wasn't Rafael Cruz just showing up at random at some church. Rafael is here operating as part of the Cruz campaign, selling to the congregation that Cruz believes the same things they do.

It is worth noting at this point just how shady Cruz's father is. Virtually every part of his biography has been disputed based on the facts.

For example, the True the Vote Summit website listed Rafael Cruz as "Director of Purifying Fire Ministries, ministering in the U.S., Mexico and Central America. He is also a professor of Bible and Theology, and the president of Kingdom Translation Services." This is a common bio you will find provided on many websites or speaking events Rafael has attended, though sometimes differing in details, such as in spelling or names. Sometimes he is a "pastor" of a Dallas church, other times that is not mentioned.

There was no Purifying Fire Ministries that he was "director" of. It does not exist anywhere. There is no location for it anywhere. There are no remnants of a website somewhere. There is the Purifying Fire Ministries that was operated by Suzanne Hinn (the ex-wife of Charismaniac Benny Hinn), but the Cruz campaign has denied any connection with them, claiming that he "only used the name" for a little while before dropping it. Keep in mind, this "dropping" would have to have been pretty recent, because Rafael Cruz was being identified as "Director" of Purifying Fire Ministries as recently as January of this year.

Bizarrely, the Suzanne Hinn affiliated website was actually identified as belonging to Rafael Cruz in this speech he gave, despite the denials of any connection with the Purifying Fires franchise. That same website actually came down sometime after February of 2015, possibly in May (I see dates listed in May on the wayback machine, but cannot view them), and you can only view the about page mentioning Suzanne Hinn via the way back machine.

Of course, Rafael Cruz has no church in Dallas either. He is a "one-man" pastor, which the campaign admits.

We find similar problems when we examine his "Presidency" at Kingdom Translation Services. It is a real business, it seems, where he is listed as both Director and President, (I'd have gone with Supreme Chancellor and Senate) and, in the past 3 years since it was founded, has only put out an audio bible of Rafael Cruz reading the Bible in Spanish. The address associated with this business takes you to a residential address--- which all leads me to believe that Rafael Cruz is the Director and President of a business with probably just one employee, himself, a sort of Trinity at least. The writer of this blog claims that it is indeed a one-man show, but I wasn't able to verify that independently, only deduce it.

Moving on: Rafael Cruz's claim of being a Professor of Bible theology. Well...(from the same link as above):

"He's also claimed to be President of Kingdom Translation Services (another one-man gig that he started a year ago), and a "professor of Bible and Theology", first at Advance Institute, then Advanced Bible Institute, neither of which can be found... anywhere..."

All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. Cruz's immigration story (he might either have broken immigration law or embellished his story), his life in Cuba, his "fire bombing" for Castro, of having witnessed certain revolutionaries die (when they were on the other side of Cuba), and so many other details, are all contradicted.

Ted Cruz's ties with Dominionism do not end with his dad or this pastor. Cruz is also supported by David Barton who leads Cruz's Keep the Promise SuperPac. Barton is also a Lecturer for Beck's "online university," is the Chairman of Beck's Mercury One charity, and his work is featured heavily by Beck's program. It is also reported that Beck has raised millions for Keep the Promise via Barton. Like Ted Cruz himself, Barton is heavily promoted by Glenn Beck, though Beck performs virtually no vetting of this man whatsoever.

As an example, Barton's historical work tracking the Christian roots of the nation are apparently plagued by exaggeration and poor scholarship. I didn't have time to do a full scale study on the issue of the accuracy of Barton's historical claims, but there are enough examples of misquotes available that makes you doubt Glenn Beck's assertion that Barton is the "Library of Congress in shoes." Ted Cruz has said something similar, describing Barton as a "good friend" and a fantastic scholar.

The blogger at Fanatic for Jesus blogspot describes Barton, as of 2011, as tending "to keep his ties to the Dominionists under wraps, and no one has heard him explicitly advocate Seven Mountains Dominionism ... until yesterday on his radio program (4/4/11)." The blogger then goes on to quote him thusly:

"Barton: That's right. Christians got to get involved. And there's a Scripture they used that came out of Isiah 2:2 and it says "Now it shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established on the top of the mountains," so this is now called the Seven Mountain Prophecy, there's a book out by that name. It says the Lord's house is going to be established on top of the mountains and these are the seven mountains. If you're going to establish God's kingdom, you've got to have these seven mountains and again that's family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Now that's what we believed all along is you got to get involved in this stuff. Jesus said "you occupy 'til I come." We don't care when he comes, that's up to him. What we're supposed to do is take the culture in the meantime and you got to get involved in these seven areas."

This is a pretty clear declaration of Dominionist teaching. The book he mentions is by Johnny Enlow, a Dominionist author who has called for "superimposing" a "virtual theocracy" onto the United States government. Interestingly, Enlow describes himself as a "social reformer," a red flag for a social just warrior, and on his website he rails against Donald Trump's appeal to "White man's pride." Here's a larger quote:

"I believe we are witnessing a phenomenon in the present political landscape, as Donald Trump is directly appealing, to what I sense God is presently judging in America- white male pride... what I sense from the Lord is that He is actually confronting and judging our white male pride (WMP). This is a kind of pride that blinds you from realizing that it is God Himself that has drawn a line in the sand and determined to bring a necessary correction. You can be a white female and also be affected by this pride, but I believe itâ€™s primarily something that a significant portion of white males deal with... Donald Trump has stirred and blown a trumpet that is awakening WMP on a mass scale. His political platform has been horribly divisive and polarizing..."

As I said, Dominionism is a strange world where many different people with different visions of what a Christian nation should look like can all meet together under one tent.

Even Glenn Beck is not an unwelcome member of the Dominionist movement. David Barton defends Glenn Beck's Mormon faith (the LDS is polytheistic and pelagian in nature, thoroughly heretical) as being Christian, though this probably also has something to do with Dominionism's Ecumenical efforts.

Barton's ties with other Dominionists are also quite extensive, including with Kenneth Copeland, who, besides his Dominionism, pushes New Age/Eastern mysticism. He also says things like this:

"You're all God. You don't have a God living in you; you are one! ... When I read in the Bible where God tells Moses, 'I AM,' I say, 'Yah, I am too!'" ("The Force of Love," Tape BBC-56).

This same Kenneth Copeland managed to land a 3 hour meeting with the Pope due to the sheer level of his popularity, which, perhaps, is less a condemnation of the Pope not vetting him, but more a problem with the American Evangelical movement that really does give more honor to guys like Copeland than is deserved.

Rafael Cruz has also echoed concepts repeated by David Barton, such as the concept of a "black robe regiment" of Christian pastors.

Moving on: Glenn Beck himself, not surprisingly, also brings up the "7 Mountains" of society, mouthing the same talking points that first originated with hardcore Dominionists years ago.

In case you think that maybe Glenn Beck doesn't know the full implications of what he's saying, Chuck Pierce, a radical Dominionist and self-proclaimed prophet of the crazy New Apostolic Reformation, gave Glenn Beck a holy "mantle of the future". To help you understand that, think of the Roman Catholic concept of Apostolic succession, then insert lunacy, mix it up, and drink till you pass out. The New Apostolic Reformation believes they are the restored Apostles and Prophets of God, basically like the return of saint Paul or saint John, and they have all the authority implied therein, though they use it mostly to rake in donations from the faithful.

The blogger at Spirit of Error noted that the timing of Chuck Pierce's granting of the prophetic mantle to Mormon Glenn Beck was interesting. He writes:

"With the presidential election around the corner, the timing of Pierce's mantle-giving is no coincidence. Beck didn't just happen to stop by Pierce's church last Sunday morning. Pierce didn't just happen to present Beck with a mantleâ€“out of courtesy for his high-profile visitor. This event was orchestrated. Think about it. Pierce gives a mantle to Beckâ€“and, as a result, people in the NAR movement will now listen to Beck when he speaks in support of a presidential candidate. Who will he speak in support of? He's thrown his support to Ted Cruz, who, just yesterday, announced that heâ€™ll run for the Republican Party nomination for 2016.

Ted Cruz's ties with Glenn Beck should be well known to all at this point, but is worth summarizing with a few bits of new information. Cruz, of course, joined up with Beck to hand out Teddy bears to illegal alien children awhile back. He is a frequent topic on Beck's programs and appears often. He has praised both Barton and Beck as good friends and patriots. Through David Barton, Beck also is involved with Ted Cruz's superPAC Keep the Promise, and Beck's support for Cruz is blatant. Beck in November declared he is currently working on a documentary about Ted Cruz (I do not know if he's finished it and has already aired it on his irrelevant internet TV show), and has declared that Ted Cruz has been "supernaturally" raised to lead the country. (Cruz has been implying the same thing over the past month, which makes me wonder whether this is a combined effort to create a "Savior" narrative.)

Currently, Cruz attends Houstonâ€™s First Baptist Church. The senior pastor is Gregg Matte. He was one of the pastors associated with Rick Perry's controversial prayer meeting with prominent "Evangelical" leaders. Here is Martha West explaining the problem:

"In my article series "The Religious Right uniting with Religious Renegades" I expressed alarm over some or our Christian leader's decision to attend Gov. Rick Perry's The Response: A call to prayer. Many evangelicals were distressed that respected leaders would be standing shoulder to shoulder with folks who are associated with fringe groups such as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the International House of Prayer (IHOP) and the Word of Faith (WoF). These groups hold many of the same unbiblical beliefs such as "positive confession."

Evidently these warnings went unheeded, and Gregg Matte was among those standing side by side the weirdest weirdos of the Dominionist movement. Gregg Matte has also had David Barton as a guest speaker at his church, as seen here. Beyond this, Barton's sermons that I have seen were bland enough that I didn't notice any problems, except, perhaps, for a hint that he believes God speaks to men audibly, but not clear enough for me to be sure. There was no other information on him. I suspect it's because he just isn't that famous.

Beth Moore, on the other hand, is a different matter. She has taught at Houston's First Baptist Church for more than two decades, producing Bible studies and giving sermons. She believes that God speaks audibly to her, in "full sentences," and that, while writing her book, she had supernatural experiences accompanying it. She has also taught "contemplative prayer" and is close to the Osteen family. Besides this, she is also tied to Dominionists like Joyce Meyer, with whom she has done work promoting Ecumenicalism. According to Beth, she has had supernatural visions where Roman Catholics are also members of the body of Christ (controversial for the average Baptist, but a regular theme with most Dominionists).

Joyce Meyer, as mentioned, is a Dominionist, and also gives to her congregations pretty little gems like this:

"The Lord recently showed me that we can bless or curse the financial seed we sow. We can speak positively about our financial future, or we can say things like, 'I can't afford it' . .. 'Every time I turn around something happens to take my money'. . . . We should water our giving with the water of His word and expect an abundant harvest. Sow your seed and speak prosperity scriptures over your finances" (Joyce Meyer, "Your Mouth is a Weapon," Life in the Word March 1997, p. 4.)

"While Meyer's previous salary is unknown, a recent series of investigative articles in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch revealed Meyer's ministry purchased for Joyce and Dave a $2 million home, a $10 million private jet, and houses worth another $2 million for the couple's children, who also work for the ministry. The articles also outlined Meyer's recent personal purchases, including a $500,000 vacation home. Meyer, 60, lives in Fenton, Missouri, near St. Louis." (1/1/2004, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/januaryweb-only/1-19-13.0.html)

Is it any wonder why con men are so drawn to the "Christian" Evangelical/Charismatic scene? It is insanely profitable, provided you have the right message. That is probably part of the reason for Beck's downward spiral into Dominionist theology-- it's to get at the money while his original audience shrinks into nothingness. At the same time, however, Beck really does seem to think he has some kind of Messianic mission. You see this in the way he talks and how he seems to be having "prophetic" inspiration when he declares Cruz to be supernaturally-sent. The fact he's working on a documentary for Ted Cruz was also quite a bizarre revelation for me. There's not exactly that much to talk about.

Returning to Moore, the blogger at "The King's Dale" did an extensive study on her (he read all three of her books), concluding, among other things, that she preaches a "false Gospel of pragmatism, self-improvement and prosperity." Or, in other words, the usual "believe it and claim it" materialistic pablum that is omnipresent among these people. Beth Moore has also preached sermons with common New Apostolic Reformation themes, such as this one at James Robison's church. Robison himself is a hyper-Charismatic who has featured Dominionists like John Wimber, and has done ecumenical work. Also note this from the same link:

"In the November/December 1986 issue of Day of Restoration, James Robison wrote that the miracle of Christmas is "that Christ is formed in you;" that "our actual purpose in this world: receiving and expressing the fullness of the life of Jesus." He goes on to say that "God wants us to see Jesus as merely the big brother in a huge family of brothers and sisters like Him." Further, he states that II Corinthians 5:17 means that we "have the divine nature, the eternal life of God." Still Christ must be "formed in you." He goes on to say that Jesus was a pattern; that "Jesus Himself pioneered the process He is putting us through." He claims that "God reveals that Christ had to be formed even in Jesus. ... That same Jesus also will be formed in you -- in anyone who will receive the light of this truth."

For those of you familiar with Mormon doctrine, you'll notice that a lot of Dominionist thinking has a strong Mormonic flavor. The LDS believes that men are gods in seed form. If they perform all the duties of a Mormon, they will graduate to full fledged Godhood in the Celestial Kingdom. It makes sense then why a lot of Dominionists, such as those in the NAR, are willing to declare him to be a prophet. Though, they probably like the prospect of money, publicity and power as well.

So there you have it folks. Here are Ted Cruz's ugly ties with cult-like religion, as well as Beck's descent into Dominionist madness. I could keep going, and there is much more research to be done. However, this is as much as you'll get for now.

‘And yes, I do think you are using all this to avoid the dealing with the fact that your position is not scripturally sound. It is perfectly legitimate to identify anyone, no matter what their profession, as agents of Satan, if the facts support the charge. It is not slander if it is true.’

And here we have the biggest lie of all.

Cite the exact quote and the link where I stated what you claim I believe.

I’ll wait.

The rest rest of mylife.

Bc said quote and link Do Not Exist.

I am thankful for your analogy. It is helpful. Let’s play it from my perspective. A patient walks into a teaching hospital. The students all gather around to hear the diagnosis. One student pipes up and says “I think he has aids.” A second student says, “No, he is not gay. Where does the textbook show that straight patients could possibly have aids? You are only saying this to slander him.” A third student chimes in and says, “No, it is you who are wrong. On page 42 of the textbook, it clearly states, with examples, that patients who are not gay might get aids. Your rejection of that possibility is in error.” To which the misguided student responds, “ Now you are slandering this poor patient, because you are accusing him of having aids.” The third student responds, “No, brother, not at all. You asked for proof from the textbook that such a person could have aids, and I have shown that yes, they can, not that it is actually true for this poor patient. Why are you angry with me, brother?”

And from my perspective that is all that has happened here. You are in a public forum, and you challenged someone to provide proof that humans could be agents of Satan. You offered as counter-evidence Paul’s statement that we do not wrestle against flesh and blood. Any reasonable reader is going to infer you oppose the idea that humans, of any profession, can be minions of Satan. If you actually agree that humans can be minions of Satan, even those professing to be Christians, you are welcome to set the record straight. I will accept your clarification.

However, a lie is a different thing than a misunderstanding. I am being honest with you about what I think is happening here, but I can’t say I know that for certain, because I do not know your heart. Likewise, you do not know mine. I have seen obfuscation before, and what you are doing, avoiding the theological question like it was the plague, strikes me as obfuscation. But that’s just my interpretation. I could be wrong. I am looking for evidence that I am wrong. I want to be wrong about this.

But I have not lied. A lie is an intentional effort to deceive. To know if someone is lying, you have to know they are saying something they don’t believe. I testify to you that right or wrong, I truly believe what I have said to you. I will accept anything you can offer that shows me to be in error, but you cannot know my heart. It is something I think you also believe. If so, why are you making an exception in my case alone?

Peace,

‘You are in a public forum, and you challenged someone to provide proof that humans could be agents of Satan.’

Not true. Not even close. The word in question was and is “minions.” Since that word is not used in any Scriptural passage I know of, it could just as easily be applied to the devil’s angels. That Is The Point. I was seeking clarification re this non-Biblical word, “minions.” You insist it means “humans.” That is a moot point, bc (A) you aren’t the one who introduced the word, and (B) the fact remains that it could designate angels OR spirits.

You are not the ultimate authority, much as you self appoint yourself to that role. If you can come up with a Greek word that the best translators transcribe as “minion,” and which they agree refers to humans, you would be right. Until then you are wholly misrepresenting my efforts to clarify the word “minion.” And there is no excuse for it, since I stated right in the forum that this was my goal: to gain insight into the word “minion,” in a Scriptural context.

Your personal opinion is just that. Stop trying to force me to accept opinion as fact.

Btw, your analogy is as misleading as practically everything else you post. AIDS is a known and defined medical term. It is precisely because “minion of Satan,” is NOT a known and defined Scriptural term that I inquired about it. Stop misleading. It helps No One.

But now you are moving the goalposts. By way of review, your question had two dimensions to it, linguistic, and theological. I know you eventually got hung up on "minions of Satan," and that was so frivolous I hardly took notice of it. Even if there were an exact phrase just as you demanded it, it would not have resolved the theological challenge you posed, the way you posed it, in posts 1006 and 1008. In 1006, you say:

Can you cite a Scripture identifying Satan's minions as flesh and blood? The Apostle Paul put it this way:

Ephesians 6:12

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379182/posts?page=1006#1006

In this post, the way I honestly read it, and still read it, is that you are questioning whether Scripture identifies any flesh and blood beings as "Satan's minions." Notice, BTW, you have now given us TWO exact phrases to keep track of, "minions of Satan,' and "Satan's minions." Which one is the "authoritative" template we are supposed to search for?

But again in post 1008, you say:

Does the Bible ever refer to human beings as minions of Satan?

How can a minion of Satan not be under judgment? The eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels...but not for his minions?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3379182/posts?page=1008#1008

And again, you are not asking here about exact matches of phrasing, and you are liberally rearranging the phrase and its parts to express your theological question. Does "his minions" count? No, it is very, very clear you had a theological question, not a strictly or entirely textual one. Or if you say these statements have no theological implications whatsoever, I will say that the words you set down DO pose a theological question, even if it got there entirely by accident. However, crediting you with intelligence and purpose, and assuming the words did not emerge from your keyboard as the product of pure chaos, I assumed you actually meant to ask the theological question framed by your words. Silly me.

And that question has an answer, if you are willing to hear it. But what I now begin to think, and I only speculate here, because I make no pretense of being a mind reader, but rereading your words, it starts to sound like you may actually believe that "minion" is a reserved word of sorts, only in English, and that it can only apply to spiritual beings, in English. Wow. I know of no justification for that ludicrous theory. Minion is clearly a valid synonym for servant, lackey, slave, etc., and is entirely interchangeable with any of those words as they appear in Scripture. However, if that is your theory, that the word "minion" cannot be applied to humans in servile roles to some master, and has no equivalent in Greek, and you wish to bring proof of it, I will be happy to hear it.

Peace,

SR

SMH. I am stunned and amazed by one thing: your inability or pathological unwillingness to ask a question. If anything I said inclined you to presume that I disbelieve any part of the Bible,

WHY DID YOU NOT ASK??????????

It’s not only quick and easy, it’s both courteous and dispositive. You can make conjectures and assumptions all day long, and end up being totally, abjectly wrong in all of them.

But if you show another person the respect and decency to ASK, you end up with a definitive fact. For anyone genuinely in search of truth, this is the gold standard.

Had you asked if I believe Scripture when it speaks of human agents of Satan, it would have taken me ~twenty seconds to dispatch that issue once and for all. Maybe less, depending on how long it actually takes to type yes and hit send.

But of course you didn’t give me a chance to speak for myself. I explained this ppattern of yours earlier. If you allow a person the right to speak for themselves, you aren’t in control. You find that unacceptable.

Sad. Very sad.

Note: spare me another long harangue re how you interpreted what I said. If you were so convinced that you were right, you had nothing to lose by asking. Once it became an acknowledged fact [which wouldn’t have happened in a trillion years] you could have made your accusations based on my actual admission, not your subjective [and entirely mistaken] interpretation.

We could have agreed on that hours, indeed, days ago. All you had to do is ASK, as you SHOULD have done. I.e.: if you are going to convict someone of a crime they didn’t commit, it is at least incumbent on you to let them know the charge. Otherwise it’s just a nasty farce.

Imagine the criminal justice system run this way. People would be convicted without ever being told what they were charged with. As for being given a chance to speak to the charges—come on! You can’t address the charges if the party doing the charging is keeping that info to himself/making a big secret of it. After all, telling a person what they’re charged with is a dangerous practice. It might enable him/her to demonstrate their innocence.

All this re a sin I didn’t commit. As for claiming God was backing you up—no, He wasn’t. God knows I believe in His divinely inspired Word—every word, command and teaching, etc. in it—from Genesis to Revelation. So no, He didn’t concur with your false accusations. God is omniscient and infallible. You are not.

Btw, this never-ending exchange illustrates precisely why I said, truthfully, that I didn’t have the time or inclination to engage in tangents with you. You telegraph from miles away that you’re ready, willing and eager to argue pointlessly and incessantly. If you cared about the truth, you could have terminated this idiotic waste of time in under one minute. But you prefered to flush God’s time, of which we are only stewards, down the toilet wholesale. It is a tragic pathology.

Honestly, I am sorry you feel the way you do, but this whole conversation seems just flat out crazy to me. I was tracking through my posts with you and have to say I have done you no wrong, and in fact offered a number of times ample opportunity to clarify you position, but we repeatedly got sidetracked by nonsense accusations, which is not how I want to operate, because such silliness does not lead to insight, only injury. You raised a theological question in posts 1006, 1008, and I tried to give you an honest and doctrinally sound, Biblical answer, and the rest of it was straight jacket, rubber room nonsense.

BTW, I have no doubt you sincerely believe your version of the story. Just know I also sincerely believe what I have said. Can we just leave it at that? I think that would be the best thing for now. Are you OK with that?

Peace,

You have lied and lied and lied about me, and done so pyblicly. If you wanted reconciliation, you’d offer an apology. That is the Christian way; not to paper over wrongs, but to make wrongs right.

People with an overwhelming compulsion to control to not apologize, however, and I don’t expect you to be the exception.

I blessed you up thread, and continue to pray for you. I will, to the best of my ability, avoid future interactions with you. This is NOT bc I hold a grudge or desire anything but the best for you. It is for two reasons. One, the time I am allotted belongs to God, and I am obligated not to waste it. Two, if your tagline were honest, it would read, ‘Anything you say can and will be used against you.’ That is toxic.

But don’t confuse avoidance with ill wishes. Sometimes prayers—specifically prayers for blessings—are the best option, and you certainly have mine.

Why on earth did Cruz release this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQz8vZ0jsU

His campaign is out of control.

They are either stupid or they have been infiltrated.

________________________________________
In fairness to Cruz, who I don’t particularly like and at this point will only reluctantly vote for in the general, should it reach that pass, the Cruz campaign did NOT release that product. They released the raw video and audio material that was then mixed by someone else, presumably not a friend. That Cruz would hand over such ammunition is one of the things that makes me question his judgment. I also think he is pushing his fragile wife pretty hard.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.