The ultra-liberal California Supreme Court on Monday ruled that doctors regardless of their religious belief could not refuse treatment to gays or lesbians. No doctor should refuse life saving medical treatment to anyone based on one's sexual orientation or anything else for that matter. However, in this case, artificial insemination is not a life saving medical procedure. Artificial insemination is a CHOICE! The woman who filed the lawsuit wants to force her CHOICE on doctors who do not share her belief.

It appears that gays have no regard for the First Amendment rights of others, as they are compelling others against their will to participate in their immoral behavior. I have to ask if a gay person knows that someone does not want to provide a service that they feel violates their religious beliefs, why do you want to force them to do so. Wouldn't you want to feel comfortable with someone that is willing to provide the service rather than someone that does not? Does it give you an ego trip to know that you coerced someone to provide services that you demand even when the person gives you a referral to someone who is willing.

Gays and lesbians accuse many Christians of been intolerant. Let me ask this, how tolerant is someone who forces another to perform a service that he or she believes would be immoral?

I implore those in the gay community to find Jesus Christ. John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Also heed this warning. 2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

        

I noticed with interest that a school district in Texas will allow teachers and staff to carry concealed firearms to protect against school shootings, provided the employees follow certain requirements. Those that choose to carry a firearm must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun, must be authorized to carry by the district, must relieve training in crisis management and hostile situations, and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Times are certainly getting bad when school districts feel the need for teachers and staff to be armed. I certainly agree with the required training that a teacher must receive for crisis management and hostile situations. Many school shootings have had students from the school intent on killing other students, teachers along with themselves. I would hope that the district has guidelines, should the need arise. It does not take much searching to find where someone is suing a law enforcement agency because they shot and killed someone, regardless of the circumstances, "the officer should have known."

It is my concern would school districts be willing to take on this type of liability? Some parents have sued schools for not taking steps to prevent tragic situations getting out of control sooner. On the other hand some parents have sued because their child's right of expression have been violated. Then the question would be, at which point do you draw the line? And would the school district give permission and then hang the teacher out to dry when defensive action is taken?

Situation 1:  A student enters the classroom and takes his regular seat. During the class, the student suddenly gets up and grabs a fellow student holding what appears to be a very real looking gun to his/her head. The student is shouting that he will kill him/her then makes demands. The student releases the student the points the gun at another student and appears to be about to pull the trigger. What do you do?  How long did it take for you to think about your response?


Situation 2: A student comes into class on test day. The teacher is unpopular because he/she is strict. The student starts to complain about the test and the teacher in general. He incites the other students and starts to make wild threats. Suddenly he lunges at the teacher with something in his hand. The teacher has less than a second to react. Others in the room join in.  Your response?


Candace Clark  Christian Political View   www.christianpoliticalview.com

        

Rielle Hunter, former mistress (or is she) of Senator John Edwards, has a lot of nerve trashing Elizabeth Edwards, by saying, "She does not give off good energy. She didn't make eye contact with me. Someday, the truth about her is going to come out."

I wasn't going to write about this incident, even though many Democrats were brushing the incident aside. This is not very surprising although they would have quickly condemned a Republican for the same action. Suddenly this woman dares to trash Elizabeth Edwards! Now I have to say something.

This is my response to Ms. Hunter. Maybe you should be glad that Mrs. Edwards didn't look you in the eye, perhaps both of them would be black by now if she had. However, Mrs. Edwards has much more class than you do. In addition, as far as the truth coming out about Elizabeth Edwards, the truth has already come out about you. Why are you not ashamed of your behavior? Calling you a mistress of John Edwards is the politest term, yet a much stronger term for your actions comes to mind.

I also blame John Edwards, he is equally guilty of this shameful behavior. What was this man doing when he should have been by his wife's side. This is worse than Bill Clinton's affairs; at least Hillary isn't terminally ill and can deck Bill into next week.

I don't feel sorry for Rielle Hunter, she owes a huge apology to Elizabeth Edwards, and she needs to ask the  Lord to forgive her. Then she should apologize to the American people for making such absurd comments to the media.

        

Since the story broke about the conflict between Russia and Georgia, how does this affect the world? Doing a quick search of an Israeli newspaper  www.jpost.com gave me an answer. Israel is concerned that relations may become strained between Russia and Israel. Israel along with the United States had sold arms to Georgia.

The New York Times quoted Russian Minister Sergei Lavrov as saying, "Those who have been supplying arms to Georgia, they should feel part of the blame for the loss of life."

The White House warned Russia to halt its attacks on Georgia or risk "significant" and enduring damage to its relationship with the United States. The report stated that Georgian troops retreated from the province of South Ossetia on Sunday and their government pressed for a truce were overwhelmed by Russian firepower as the conflict threatened to set off a wider war.

Russia formally recognizes South Ossetia and Abkhazia as parts of Georgia, but with their separatist leaders in dispute with the Georgian government, granted many of the their residents Russian citizenship.

Those who are familiar with Bible prophecy know that Russia will invade Israel at sometime in the future. Could this be a stop towards having a reason to make the invasion? With Russia supporting Iran, anything Israel might do to protect itself from hostilities might intensify any Russian motivations. However, this is pure speculation on my part; however, we should be watching what is going on in the world around us while the U.S. Presidential campaign and the Olympics are distracting our attention away from other activities across the globe.

Is Russia testing their military strength, using Georgian military as practice? If the answer is yes, then what are their plans for the future?

        

Someone stated to me, then asked, "This country was founded on the grounds of escaping religious persecution, but religion is the last thing people worry about anymore. I wonder what the problem is?" I too ponder the reasons why this country appears to have so little concern for the true faith. I say true faith as opposed to religion as anyone can be religious about something, yet not have true faith. John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Perhaps too many of us take for granted our freedom of religion, after all, the government does not hunt us down, drag us out of our homes, jail or worse kill us for our beliefs in the United States. At least not yet. Even today in some countries, the penalty for being a Christian is death. Yet the media seldom reports on government persecution, though you can find reports of persecution in China as recent as last month from U.S. government documents .

Our country has become a battleground of Freedom of Religion v. Freedom from Religion, and political correctness. Tax-exempt organizations take upon themselves to bully those that reach out to the lost. According to the above-mentioned organization, the first item listed on what they do is, file lawsuits, in the name of defending the First Amendment.

Sadly, a much-lauded member is a former pastor turned atheist, who uses his knowledge of Christianity to push "free-thinking" and assists the organization with their goal to educate the public to "non-theistic freethinking." Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.  2 Peter 2:1 But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destruction heresies, denying even the Master that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come whey they will not endure sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts;

Possibly some Christians sit back and keep quiet out of fear of others calling them intolerant and bigoted. It is not intolerant or bigoted to speak out against the sinful human nature. Mark 16:15 And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Candace Clark   Christian Political View

        

As recently as July 29 the Arutz Sheva published an editorial stating unbelief that Senator McCain 's promise of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to fulfill the promise made by the U.S. Congress in 1995. Considering both President Clinton and President George W. Bush delayed the move, stating the basis of national security; one can understand the misgivings.

Rumors are circulating among the media that Senator John McCain is considering Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor as his running mate. Checking with the Jerusalem Post and FOX News reported that the McCain campaign has asked for personal documents. While I feel Eric Cantor's consideration has been in the works for some time, the news reports seem to be, shall we say, timely.

Most people are not familiar with Rep. Eric Cantor so I decided, perhaps I had better find out about this potential running mate for Senator McCain. He most likely will bring in the Jewish vote, which traditionally has gone to the Democrats. Another would gain the hold outs of the conservative voters that consider McCain as too liberal. I for one will be taking a longer look at the V.P. pick than I have in the past. So, who exactly is this rumored V.P. pick?

Eric Cantor spent four terms in the Virginia House of Delegates starting in the early 1990s, then won his seat in Congress in 2000, and is the current minority whip in the House. Rep. Cantor has helped raise $10 million from the Jewish community for Senator McCain's bid for the White House. He is the highest-ranking Jewish Republican in Congress.

Senator McCain's spokesperson, Brian Rogers said the campaign would have "no comment on anything related to the vice presidential issue." This is understandable, however frustrating to those with inquiring minds.

Checking Rep. Canton's voting recored I found to be very impressive for those of us who consider ourselves conservative. While Senator Obama is considered the most liberal, Rep. Cantor is considered "Hard-Core Conservative"

His voting record shows that he voted YES on the following:

• Restricting interstate transport minors to get abortions
• Making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
• Banning partial-birth abortions except to save the mother's life
• Forbidding human cloning for reproductive & medical research
• Constitutional Amendment of banning same-sex marriage
• Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man one woman
• Protecting the Pledge of Allegiance
• Allowing school prayer during the War on Terror

Voted NO on the following:

• Expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
• Allowing human embryonic stem cell research
• Prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
• Allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of Allegiance

Since McCain is closer to center than conservative, Eric Cantor would be an excellent balance for V.P. However, as always we must wait until Senator McCain announces Rep. Cantor is his running mate. Whomever McCain chooses, his running mate nees to pull in at least on swing state and a strong base.

        

In today's Wall Street Journal, an article appears in regards to Wal-Mart and the upcoming Presidential election. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, mobilizes store managers and department supervisors to warn employees about unionization and a link to Democrats winning the White House. Wal-Mart leaders have been summoned to mandatory meetings to stress the downside of unionization. Unions are being portrayed as providing nothing.

Although trained Wal-Mart leaders contended that they were not telling employees how to vote, one savvy Wal-Mart customer-service supervisor from Missouri stated, "I am not a stupid person. They were telling me how to vote," she said.

Federal election rules permit companies to advocate for specific political candidates to its executives, stockholders, and salaried managers, but not hourly employees. Store managers are on salary, department supervisors are hourly employees as are the majority of Wal-Mart employees.

The article noted on June 30 the National Labor Relations Board ruled that Wal-Mart illegally fired an employee in Kingman, Ariz., who supported the UFCW and illegally threatened to freeze merit-pay increases if employees voted for union representation. The decision came eight years after the organizing campaign failed, and four years after the case was originally heard. Wal-Mart has been involved with numerous actions between itself and its employees over the years.

It is surprising to see "Big Business" label itself as the underdog. The history of the labor movement in the United States and around the world is far deeper than portraying unions as a mob infested organization that do nothing for workers. One need only look at the gains made by employees over the decades to see that this is propaganda.

In a Democratic society does not one have the right to vote for the candidate of their choice regardless of whether they are a store manager, department supervisor, stockholder, part-time employee, Republic or Democrat, etc.

Rising fuel costs and cost of commodities are factors, along with other costs of running a business. Investment in people leads to greater wealth in a nation. While Wal-Mart and "Big Business" attempts to enlighten through mandatory meetings, the labor movement has attempted to get them to invest in their employees. Marie Antoinette was misquoted as saying, "Let them eat cake."

See National Labor Relations Act


Mr. Teacher  Christian Political View

        

 I read the impressive speech that Senator Obama gave in Berlin, Germany the other day. The speech filled with flourish, gave me wonder what office the junior Senator is running for exactly. He stated, “I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States (guess he had to throw that in since he has been criticized for being non-patriotic) and a fellow citizen of the world. Now I am not saying he said anything wrong by referring himself as being a citizen of the world, as it would be correct as we all live on the same planet.

Senator Obama made several other statements “People of the world – look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.” “But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change in leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike we be required to do more – not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.” Although Senator Obama appears to be referring to terrorism, something about this speech seems to runner deeper than that. “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand.

The walls between with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.” While the United Nations (or Unless Nations as some like to call the organization) was supposed to be the answer to the world’s problems, Senator Obama seems to be taking up a new responsibility for himself.

While Senator Obama has stated a number of times of his opposition to the war in Iraq, yet made this statement, “The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their own economy, and to help them build their nation.” Now other than President Bush’s claim of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, this sounds very familiar as to why the United States sent troops into Iraq. Does this mean that Senator Obama is going to have his own war? Since he points out the high cost of the Iraq war, an Afghan war will not be less expensive to the taxpayer.

He ended his speech with “People of Berlin – and people of the world – the scale of our challenges is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. Let us build on our common history, and seize our common destiny, and once more again engage in that noble struggle to bring justice and peace to our world. “

While the speech is indeed impressive, one has to wonder why he is giving those “political speeches” that sound much more like campaigning in foreign countries. Election day is still some time away yet, but he talks as if he has already been elected, and addressing his new subjects, the people of the world.

Candace Clark  Christian Political View   www.ChristianPoliticalView.com

        

Parents Who Kill By David T. Simmons

No one can deny the record number incidents of parents who kill their children. The all too familiar and common headlines across America document the horror:

Father burns his child to death because of repeated requests to see her mother.
Mother drowns her five children in bathtub.
Father hangs his five year old son
Mother kills her child by stuffing a sock in its mouth because she was tired and fed up with the infants crying
Mother kills 17 month old with fatal dose of methadone

And the horror continues

The vast majority of people are both shocked and horrified that someone who produce a child and taken on the responsibility of nurturing and protecting that child would commit such a heinous and vile act of betrayal of the highest order, to subject that child to intense pain and suffering before their demise.

The U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics show that from 1979 to 1999, all children younger than five that were killed 31% were by their fathers and 30% by their mothers. The number has since grown.

That is not an act of love that is an act of hatred.

But would you know that many so called "Christians" are doing the same thing?

Long before there was an America, God had in place a child safety law, Because what we as believers fail to realize is that our children belong to Him.

"There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, (Deut 18:10).    

The term "passing through the fire" deals with human sacrifice, In this case child sacrifice, the offering up of children on heathen altars. This was a standard practice of the people that lived in Canaan before Israel's occupation. To appease their gods, the heathen would offer their children either by killing them first then placing them on an altar of fire, or bind them alive on the altar and burn them.

Israel was forbidden to do this but they did it anyway in spite of the consequences they would suffer.

"They built the high places of Baal that are in the valley of Ben-hinnom to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire to Molech, which I had not commanded them nor had it entered My mind that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin (Jer 32:35)

They were considered unclean because of this practice and were not pleasing to God:

and I pronounced them unclean because of their gifts, in that they caused all their firstborn to pass through the fire so that I might make them desolate, in order that they might know that I am the LORD (Ezek 20:26)
God told them through the prophet that even their prayers would not be heard because they deliberately chose not to listen to Him.

When you offer your gifts, when you cause your sons to pass through the fire, you are defiling yourselves with all your idols to this day. And shall I be inquired of by you, O house of Israel? As I live," declares the Lord GOD, "I will not be inquired of by you. (Ezek 20:31)

God made Himself absolutely clear concerning whose children they are, but Israel thought differently:

"You slaughtered My children and offered them up to idols by causing them to pass through the fire (Ezek 16:21)

That was then, What about now?  Nothing has really changed except maybe the idols have different names. God's name as well as His word has not changed though, in spite of what Christians think.

We are covenant people living in a world where there are heathen men and women, yet we have sacrificed our children on the same altars where the heathen worship their gods. Whether it be singers, actors, athletes or things that slowly but surely edge God out of their lives.

Parents, you are putting your children through a slow but sure death. You keep them out of church services yet indulge their flesh with toys and television and other such spirit killing activity, yet you pray for them? You attempt to throw scriptures into their little heads and expect them to grow up with a love for God? That will not happen, being able to memorize a verse is something an unbeliever can do. In fact the Devil knows a few verses more than your children. I'll do you one better, Even a parrot can recite a scripture verse.

What you are teaching your child is how to be a hypocrite. And chances are that YOU are his/her role model. Because they see you place no importance on the Lord's Day they will not either, They watch and listen to your excuses, they look at what you place an importance on, they look at what you watch and how you serve the Lord and they will mimic you

You forgot that they are born with a sin nature and that nature draws AWAY from God not TOWARDS God. And depending on where YOU lean, that is where they will lean. So you figure it out, If you tend to always have an excuse for not attending regular fellowship like every other normal Christian what will your child do? And the closer your child is to you the more like you they will become.

What does God say?
"Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together" Also, how about this one: "Suffer (permit) the little children to come unto ME."

So if you are shocked at how parents have killed their children, consider that you are doing the exact same thing. Only worse, You are cultivating a child that will have a lukewarm spirit and ultimately spend their eternity in hell's fire for all eternity.

My rule has always been this, l live my life before God in a way that my children know who I love and serve. In addition to that, in my house if I am going to church, EVERYBODY is going, that's it, that's the law.  If I work in the Lord's house, so will everybody in my house.

Then you have the excuses: "My child wasn't feeling well", "They didn't want to come today and I didn't want to force them" and so on and so on. Sure, children do get sick just like adults, but I always notice that after we give them what they want, they seem to be well again.

When they don't want to go to school that day, or you for that matter, what did you do? You got sick. If a child says they are sick, running back and forth to the fridge for snacks while watching their favorite cartoon or sporting event then they are able to go to church and learn the Word.

But if the parent is a hypocrite who talks about loving God but you never see them demonstrate this love then they will breed the same. I often wondered how the prophets watched God's people do this to a child time after time. To hear the children's screams, to seeing the blood spilled, to see a lifeless body being charred beyond all recognition. It had to be painful.

How many pastors have to watch in horror, as children who started out with a hunger for spiritual things to the point that you could see the light of God in their eyes, and then see the parent place that child on worldly, devilish altars to have their spirits, their purpose and their destinies murdered. In earlier times, if a parent didn't want to live for God, they would often send their children. They may not have know in full but they knew that the things of God could get the devil out of their children. Today it's now a murder-suicide that being committed in the Kingdom and God will not forget this.

In closing, whether it is natural or spiritual. The killing of our children is due to the same cause, It's rooted in selfishness. These individuals are more concerned about their lives only, so much so that even if it means that my children have to pay the price, so be it. So if you live to see your child grow to maturity, every time their decisions not only cause them, but you heartache, if they have children out of wedlock, or become an alcoholic, or a repeat offender or a divorcee or even a killer, remember, you had a hand in it, they have you to thank.

And Satan thanks you too. He always wanted your children but he didn't know that you would become his little helper.

As usual, I probably have ruffled some feathers out there and some have already made excuses and are prepared to justify their lack of devotion to both God and family, but hey, it's not my seat you have to stand and give an account of your life to. My only challenge to you though is for every scripture I cited and any other command you find in the Bible that all Christians must govern their life by..
Just show me where God says "Everybody except you should or should not do this" and I'll shut up.

David T. Simmons is the senior pastor of Ambassador Pentecostal Churches In Christ Intl. and the founder of Living in The Word Ministries, a dynamic multimedia teaching ministry. You can contact him at litwm@hotmail.com.

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com <a href="christian/">http://www.faithwriters.com">CHRISTIAN WRITERS</a>

        

Should We Remain One Nation Under God? By Jay Hopson

The moral fabric of our nation is constantly being bombarded with half truths and the rewriting of history by those who belong to a religion named secular humanism. Though probably still in the minority, this group screams the loudest, so they tend to be heard more than the gentle voices of reason.

Do a Google search on religion in the US and you will find these secular arguments leaping at you from the first 20 pages. You have to painstakingly deepen your search to find those who stand up for the cause of faith in government. The fact that 90% of our forefathers spoke often of God and prayed for His wisdom as they began the creation of our government is being systematically hidden.

There are still those who stand up and speak the truth though, if you look long and hard. Bear with me here, as we examine the why and the how of all this confusion about God, our flag, and our country. The next several paragraphs may seem rather dry, but they reveal the crux of the matter, and so, are indispensable for understanding this crucial issue.

The Myth:

 The First Amendment built a wall of separation between Church and State.

The Truth: The First Amendment does no such thing.

The First Amendment reads in full:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The original intent of the First Amendment was to protect churches from the government, not to protect government from religion. It certainly had nothing to do with keeping prayer out of schools. In fact, the bible was the only book used in many of our schools at the time. The creators of this amendment were also adamant that no church become THE national church, like the Church of England which many Americans had fled from. This part of the equation, I can agree with.

But, the secular humanists use these later words of Thomas Jefferson to make their greater argument, the argument they would use to drive God out of our country:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

--Letter to the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

 

That one statement contains the few words they now use to try to remove God from the very foundation of our nation. This argument conveniently forgets Jefferson's own later words, (which are on the Jefferson memorial,) "The God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God; That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Author Tim LaHaye points out:

"This Christian consensus (of our forefathers) is easily verified by the fact that prior to 1789; many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office."

Later on in 1863 Abraham Lincoln actually called for a "National Fast Day," citing the fact that..."We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven ...But we have forgotten God."

If we forget God now, we are in danger of sliding down the slippery path of the Roman Empire and other great civilizations that have crumbled over the centuries. Religion and morality are a vital part of the American political system. Rampant homosexuality, drugs, teen pregnancy, and school shootings all spring from the same source, the act of turning our backs on God.

Our nation continues even today to turn to God when we need Him. After 911 the churches filled for months as men and women bowed before a God they had all but forgotten. How much better for us to turn to Him even when we are not in trouble? I preach to myself here, not just to you, dear reader. Far from casting the first stone, my goal is simply to raise a voice in the defense of Christ, and His rightful place in our nation.

The sad truth is that these secular humanists aren't just raising a cry against religion and morality in government, they are raising a voice against Christ, in other words anti---Christ; The spirit of Anti-Christ is alive and well in America today, and those of us who know the truth must raise our voices in response.
Should religion run our government? Absolutely not, but our government should be run by men of faith and morals. Yes, they will fail us at times, as all humans will, but with the grace of God we will find  a way to continue to be the greatest nation on earth.

Jay Hopson is slowly but surely finding his way into the freelance writing field. Although a former pastor, he has struggled for years with direction and vision. He seems to be just now finding his niche in the Kingdom through writing. "I have always loved writing that springs from the heart and tells of Truth gained through experience.
I hope to be able to come to the place where I am able to write articles that heal and change the heart, not just educate. Words can be of eternal value, if they come from the throne.
If I can possibly attain to that, then I have done something worthwhile."

Article Source: http://www.faithwriters.com <a href="christian/">http://www.faithwriters.com">CHRISTIAN WRITERS</a>