The Lies About Ted Cruz and Dominionism

Ted Cruz is being “labeled” as a dominionist which also just happens to frighten a lot of people. The term does sound scary to the citizens of a constitutional republic until you understand it. That is exactly what the liberals, who are the ones who started this story, want. Every article that claims this also uses terrible logic and leaps of insinuation to come to a particular conclusion. In this article, I will address the facts and dismiss the fanciful machinations of those minds that merely dislike the senator for political reasons.

Dominionism also goes by the name of “Christian Reconstructionism.” It is a doctrine started by Calvinists to explain their end time view of Jesus’ future rule. I won’t go into details about this doctrine as it would take many more pages than I am willing to write, but suffice it to say it is the idea that Jesus will not come back to rule the nations until we Christians bring about a Christian society first. Thus, every sector of society is in need of Christians who would bring their Christian integrity to the job place and bring godly principles there as well.

Because Raphael Cruz, Ted Cruz’s father and who is also a pastor, speaks of the seven mountains of society, some have assumed that Raphael is a dominionist. Hence, his son must be as well according to their logic. Two giant leaps are taken here. For the first leap we need to understand what these seven mountains have in the context of how it was used by Raphael.

A few years ago a man, whose name is Lance Wallnau, took the idea of the seven mountains of society from the dominionists and used it in his own material to encourage all Christians to understand that they are all called of God, to go into one of these areas of society and be an influence for good. Wallnau, a Pentecostal, took “only” that portion of dominionism to add to his presentation.

Now if we look at the types of churches Raphael, an itinerant minister, speaks at, we can surmise that because they are Pentecostal, the mention of seven mountains would be in the context of Wallnau’s teaching rather than the Christian Reconstructionist. Therefore, it does not make Raphael a dominionist. To make that inference without any other evidence is shoddy journalism. It is a narrative in search of facts to support it.

Is it not true that as a created being, each of us have a particular calling to do a particular work with the life we are given. Would it not make sense that people are not only called to be pulpit ministers, but they are called to be doctors, soldiers, engineers, mechanics, teachers, athletes, etc.? These are the seven mountains of society: (1) Business; (2) Government; (3) Media; (4) Arts and Entertainment; (5) Education; (6) Family; and (7) Religion. Are there no people at all in any of these fields who are not called to them by God? Would that not even mean and include to be president of the United States? Did not God call and anoint David to lead the people of Israel?

The second leap is easier to define. It is a leap of subjectivity to suggest that the son is like the father. One cannot make that inference except that the son agrees to it. Ted describes himself as a Baptist. One cannot “infer” that the son is the same as the father. Again, shoddy journalism is employed. Rather than making leaps of inference and subjectivity, why not simply ask Ted Cruz himself. Would that not make much more sense than gathering all of this subjective evidence to build a case against him?

The next piece of so-called evidence that Ted Cruz is a dominionist is that Raphael prayed over his son with other pastors and they “anointed” him, calling him a “king” who was anointed to bring about a transfer of wealth from the wicked to the righteous. Those who are unfamiliar with some Pentecostal doctrines would take this differently than how it would sound on the surface. There is biblical precedence for anointing and laying on of hands to send a person out on a mission but I would disagree with the idea of a transfer of wealth. This transfer of wealth is not even part of dominionists’ theology that I am aware of. This is a Pentecostal doctrine that in the end days this will take place and they use the following passage:

Proverbs 13:22 (KJV) 22A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children: And the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.

As anyone can see there are no end time ramification to this passage. It is merely a generalized rule. I am not concerned over this this portion anyway. It is the calling of Ted Cruz a “king” that panics people. But they need to understand that every Christian is called a “king” and a “priest” in the bible.

Revelation 1:6 (KJV) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

We are called that because we are adopted as sons and daughters of God. Jesus is our King of kings and High Priest of priests. For people to “infer” that Ted Cruz sees himself as a literal king who would suspend the Constitution and create a monarchy is to engage in delusional thought. They literally show that they are not only unfamiliar with Christianity but they are also unfamiliar with what the bible actually says.

People also do not understand the Christian principle of anointing and laying on of hands and sending one on a mission. This is exactly what Raphael and other pastors did with Ted Cruz. To anoint is merely a practice to demonstrate that a leader or leaders acknowledge the calling of a person to a particular position. Consider the following:

Acts 13:2–3 (KJV) 2As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. 3And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

There are those who are calling those pastors who prayed for Ted Cruz, “false prophets.” This is a serious charge. It is so easy to throw out pejoratives and label people for your own personal gain. But the charge carries no evidentiary findings. These attacks are filled with innuendo, suggestion, subjection, and faulty inferences. Moreover, they are leveled by fellow Christians. There are warnings about bearing false witness and I have no doubt that Christians that engage in this type of behavior will receive in themselves the fruit of their own works.

As you can see, opponents of Ted Cruz have put their own scandalous views upon him and then looked for evidence to support it. They made leaps of inference bathed in ignorance to generate fear in those who also are ignorant concerning these things. Did they ever think to ask Ted Cruz or his campaign rather than pushing a narrative that lacks evidence to support it?

Fact: Ted Cruz has defended the Constitution before the Supreme Court.
Fact: Ted Cruz has stated his belief in limited government.
Fact: Ted Cruz wants to reign in the Executive Branch to be more in line with the Constitution.
Fact: Ted Cruz has a history of supporting limited government and the Constitution.

Does this suggest to you that Ted Cruz wants to suspend the Constitution and institute a theocracy or a monarchy? To suggest that Mr. Cruz sees himself as a king is merely the attempts of those who do not like true conservatism to smear a man they oppose. As is always the case in an election cycle, stories are made up and passed around as truth. What surprises me this year is the number of Christians who are knowingly slandering a brother in Christ. Stick to the facts, hammer them all you want, but don’t engage in the slimy tactics of the left by passing around these false stories birthed in the basements of socialist liberals.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Trump Should Meet With the FBI

Trump Should Meet With the FBI

I came across a prophecy given a few years ago regarding Donald Trump. This prophecy is interesting in that it states that Trump will raise issues that will then be picked up by the media and talked about in a way that would normally never make the news. It went on to say that God would use him as Samson used the jawbone of an ass to slay the enemies. This is not an endorsement of Trump by God. Far from it. It is simply God using someone who will say things that the media will then feel the need to cover. One such incident happened during the last debate.

The Fox News debate on the evening of August 6th has everyone clamoring about Donald Trump and how he was treated by the moderators. Actually I am grateful to the moderators for their tough questions to all the candidates. In those directed at Trump arose an interesting comment. He may have said something that could even bring down a lot of political identities on both sides of the isle. This would be a good thing in my opinion.

What I am saying is that Trump admitted to giving politicians lots of money in exchange for political favors. This is where it gets illegal. Quid Pro Quo is a Latin term that means “something for something.” In a political context it is illegal. On the federal level, the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 1951 [1994]) makes it a felony for a public official to extort property under color of office. (to use one’s position of power to either promise or threaten a person or corporation)

Trump was asked why he, if he is a Republican as he claims, gave money to the Clintons. Trump’s answer was eye opening. He basically said that he gives to politicians because then if he needs something two or three years later, they are there for him. He went on to say regarding this that "the system is broken" showing that he knew his actions were wrong but was exploiting that system anyway.  Although not much has been said about this statement, I find it worthy of investigation. There is a reason why we have laws against politicians doing favors for campaign donations. We probably all believed this was happening but with a startling confession like this, I think it is time for the FBI to get involved. Our very Republic is in danger if this is happening at the rate Trump seemed to indicate. Look, he is just one businessman out of thousands that could be subverting our national interests.

The founding of this nation was upon biblical principles, one of which is the propensity of human beings to be corrupted by money and power. They divided the government into three sections precisely because of this truth. The people of America were to be the king in this nation. When we vote for our representatives, we have an expectation that they are going to Washington to represent “we the people.” Consider the insidious nature of these Quid Pro Quo deals.

Notice that politicians petition the people for their vote, not corporations. Companies cannot get someone elected; it still takes each citizen going to the polls to make that a reality. Once in office these predatory corporations begin to swoop down from the dark recesses of the contagion of greed to usurp the will of the people and steal away their representatives. These lobbying forces begin making promises to incur favors from the government of which the politicians are the power brokers. These favors are usually well seasoned with taxpayer’s money. Did you, the taxpayer, vote your representative into power to give your money to corporations that make promises to that representative who now could not care less about you?

In essence, the people elect these men and women to represent their interests. When these lobbyists secure the promises of your representatives, you have been disenfranchised of your vote. It would seem to me that to allow any company to subvert the office of a government official is an end run around the voter that put them in power. Companies should be forced to make their case to the people rather than to our representatives. I have no idea how that would work, but I do know this; according to Trump, after you get your representative into power, he or she becomes the representative of the highest bidder and you the taxpayer was just a means to an end. This should alert us all!

Another question is, why would Trump need to give to both political parties? It causes me to wonder if politicians are not actually recruiting businesses to pressure them to participate in this illegal activity. If a large company gives to only one party, that could cause the other party to retaliate using the offices of government as leverage to bully them. This is all very troubling.

Did we not just witness this with the IRS scandal? These things keep popping up, but no one ever goes to jail. They form committees and they feign their righteous anger long enough to satisfy the American public and then nothing happens. It is time for those politicians who would sell out the American people who are the ones that put them in office to represent them, to start seeing some jail time. Any favors coming from the government and going to corporations are always stamped with taxpayer dollars. Perhaps Trump should be meeting with the FBI or whatever other law enforcement agency should be employed, and seek immunity for his testimony.

Voters should be asking themselves the question, “Should I really be supporting a candidate who openly admitted to exploiting politicians to do favors for them at the expense of the taxpayer and in the process break the law?” Why is it that character flaws are always ignored by the most devoted of supporters? We need a person of character and integrity more than ever. Please choose wisely.

Don’t shoot the messenger,

Mark David Shaw
Kathryn Colton Shaw

Principled Selection of Righteous Leaders

Principled Selection of Righteous Leaders

For those that don’t understand my gist regarding choosing candidates for your next presidential election, I offer this explanation. I will say this once and I am not saying this again.

It doesn’t matter how much money a candidate has, if he or she is a businessman, a doctor, a professor, a community organizer, or talks the talk that people want to hear. I don’t know if you folks are Christian or not, but this is one issue that people seem to ignore or put aside when it comes to electing leaders. The word of God tells us to elect leaders from among ourselves! And this IS what matters! You cannot get by this biblical principle. We are told what qualities to look for:

“Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.” (Exodus 18:21, ESV)

The first quality is that the candidate must be “able.” They must be capable of the position they are seeking. The president of the United States of America needs more arrows in his quiver than just financial savoy. Yes, financial woes are a big problem for us now, but do not think that they are disconnected from many other issues. This brings us to the second quality.

They must be persons “who fear God.” What does that mean exactly? It means that first, they must believe in the Judeo/Christian God; second, they must believe that God is just, and third, they must believe that God will punish evil doers. This is a powerful force against doing wrong or evil. The financial woes in part are because we have a culture that is disintegrating. Too many Americans are looking for a free ride instead of a job. This can be a huge financial drain on any country. What about the political condition of the world? The size and force of our military must match and exceed the danger posed by the world today. This too has a financial weight to it. One cannot just downsize the military to save money if there is a looming threat abroad.

The third quality is that they must “be trustworthy.” How do we determine a person’s trustworthiness? We look at what they have already accomplished. Candidates that have sudden conversions on issues at the moment they run for office are extremely untrustworthy. These are the ones who know what you want to hear and are willing to speak it merely to get your vote. If they suddenly state, for instance, that they are pro-life when they were not previous to their running for office, do you really think that engenders trust? No! They must have exhibited these traits in their actions and occupations previous to seeking office. These are qualities that must be established “before” they are chosen.

The fourth and final quality is that they must “hate a bribe.” This shows that they are principled human beings who are not persuaded by gain. When you see someone who is constantly switching their positions on the issues, it is likely that they are doing so for personal gain. Principled people are not easily persuaded. The principled man must be shown that their position is wrong before they are willing to change it.

If Americans would merely put these four Godly biblical principles into use in their selection of leaders, this country might survive all of the opportunists who desire political office for personal gain. If, however, you are more persuaded by words than by actions, you will likely be fooled into supporting someone who does not “do” what they said they would do. Remember, we are all responsible for every choice we make, so don’t compromise.

Don’t Shoot the Messenger,

Kathryn Colton Shaw
Mark David Shaw

Killing Jesus, A Refutation

The film “Killing Jesus” which Fox News aired on Easter Sunday, was an adaption of the book by the same title and authored by Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly. My commentary here is on the film alone having not read the book.

The first thing I noticed is that the story of Jesus, as depicted by this film, was stripped of all the miracles Jesus did while walking this earth. Clearly the author had a difficulty with miracles and did not allow them in the film. I have heard O’Reilly state that the holy scriptures are mere allegory and then cite supernatural events like Jonah and the fish as reasons for his belief.

I find it interesting that a Catholic, who claims to believe in God, would strip Him of any supernatural abilities. If God exists, then He certainly is supernatural, and if He is supernatural, then He is also capable of doing supernatural things. Bill O’Reilly’s distaste for miracles does not make them false.


Where I was truly surprised is the blasphemous nature this film took. The film depicts Jesus going off to pray after learning of John the Baptist’s beheading, praying for God to forgive Him (Jesus). This reveals that the author also does not believe Jesus to be Deity. My question for O’Reilly then is, “How can you call yourself a Catholic when that very Church has officially declared Jesus as God?” But then again, if you treat your Church as you do the word of God, you allow yourself to pick and choose according to your sensibilities.

Let me make this clear for you Mr. O’Reilly. If Jesus needed forgiveness for a sin or sins that He committed, then your claim on salvation is in vain. For Jesus would be a mere man only, there was no virgin birth, and God would certainly not be his Father. He would have died and would have had to pay for His own sin with His own death. That would mean Mr. O’Reilly that you would be most miserably unsaved for only a spotless lamb is an acceptable sacrifice. Your sins would not be forgiven and you would not be able to make a claim of such.

O’Reilly has allowed his human reason to be exalted above the Word of God. Where his sensibilities regarding the miraculous are assaulted, he merely writes that off as an allegory. It amazes me that one can claim to maintain faith in God and at the same time claim that His only message to mankind is allegorical. Why this is so dangerous is that if one makes a claim that the bible is allegory, then one has also made the claim that their salvation and eternal life is based upon allegory not a clear promise by God.

If God has left His word to be inspected and judged by fallible human beings, then it is worthless to start with. But that is not the witness of the scriptures, for God says that He puts His word above His name. And if God is infallible then so would be His word. Yes, we would need to inspect it, but not to determine what part is allegory and what part is literal based upon one’s own sensibilities.

O’Reilly has clearly stepped over the threshold and offended many Christians. You see Mr. O’Reilly, Jesus’ miracles had eye witnesses. You would not show a resurrected Jesus in your film, which I assume that you are aware of that we celebrate Easter for. There were many eye witnesses of His resurrection. You did not show a Roman guard at His tomb which would undermine the resurrection story. So in this film you are undermining the faith of those who are weak in the faith and for that you will have to give an account. Not to me, but to the Creator. For the scriptures state, “not many of you should become teachers knowing that you will undergo a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) Jesus Himself said, “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6)

You can attempt to allegorize those passages but your attempts at such will not negate their literal statement and warning. I truly hope you see the error that you have committed and seek God’s forgiveness. I also hope that you will apologize to the Christian community and admit your failures with this work. Jesus is not a fairy tale or a mythology. He is real, He actually came to give His life for those who would believe upon Him, and He is returning. That sir, are the facts of reality.

Don’t shoot the messenger

Empathy or Religion?

A popular statement touring the social networks states, “You don’t need religion to have morals.  If you cannot determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion.”  Kane Bailey makes a claim to having coined this. To analyze such a statement one would need to understand the definition of the terms.  First, what is meant by morals, second, what was meant by empathy, and finally, what was meant by religion.  However, the statement fails in its construction so no need to define the terms.  

My first observation is that it appears someone wants to do away with the need for religion, and the statement seems to be biased in that direction.  Indeed, in my research I discovered that it is the statement of an agnostic. 

The presupposition of this proclamation is that all morals can be defined or determined through empathy.  Right and wrong are somehow miraculously discerned through one’s deeds of empathy.  To see the faulty logic in this we only need to ask, “Why?”  You see, that shows you that you are at a dead end.  The statement is circular reasoning.  It assumes the statement.  The other problem with this statement is that it commits an equivocation fallacy.  If you look carefully the first statement speaks of “having morals” while the second statement speaks of “determining morals.”  These are two completely separate issues.  The first statement can be true, while the second statement seeks to ride the coattails of the first, but when analyzed properly, is actually found to be false.

Even the Bible states that, “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’”  (Galatians 5:14)  One does not “need” religion to do this.  However, if one wants to know what morality is, what is right or what is wrong, one cannot discover it by merely having empathy.  For instance, what if I have empathy for the “wrong” thing?  How would I know it was wrong?  What if I had empathy for a murderer?  We have a number of cases where we have witnessed a member of a jury taking the side of the murderer.  If empathy were the determining factor of discerning right from wrong then we could never question one’s empathy, could we?

Morality is actually something that transcends human behavior, feeling, or thought and has an absolute quality where it cannot change.  This is why we humans know intrinsically that certain things are wrong.  They have always been wrong, because they existed before humanity itself.  That standard is indeed learned through a particular religion….Judeo Christianity.  Without a written transcendent standard of morality, morals would be defined by the individual, which would result in a plethora of moral claims with nothing more than the authority of the individual to substantiate it.  Morality can only be defined by the Creator, else it carries no real definition.

Don’t shoot the messenger!

Abort Because of Poverty?

Is poverty a valid reason to get an abortion?  This is one of the excuses thrown out there in discussing the morality of abortion.  The argument is always shrouded in the claim of being the moral thing to do.  If we think this through to its conclusion we can discover the viability of this claim. 

First, the stages of development of a human being have no points along the way where it was not human.  That is scientifically irrefutable.  Having that understanding, now let’s investigate the claim.  If I may morally take human life in its early stages to keep them out of poverty, then I can also morally take life at any stage to keep them out of poverty.  For instance, why not have a threshold where when a person goes below it and into poverty, we just kill them.  We could eradicate poverty altogether.  Of course this is absurd and shows the fallacy in the original argument.

Second, is poverty so torturous that it should be used as a reason to take human life to avoid it?  Well why not go ask people who are in poverty now.  Let’s see how many we can find who would agree to their termination to relieve them of this suffering.  Again, this is absurd and also shows the absurdity of the original argument. 

What makes the argument so irrational is that an adult is choosing for a child whether they would be worthy of life.  Adults do not have that choice after birth so why should they have that choice before birth?  Either way it violates the choice of another human being which invalidates the premise.  God has a lot to say about poverty and how to avoid it.  Hint, it starts with keeping His commandments, one of which is, “Thou shalt not murder.”  But then again He also says:

“But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.” 1 Corinthians 2:14  

Don’t shoot the messenger!