Not Part of the Text

Sunday, July 23, 2006:

Earlier in the work, I wrote about how real Christians have a love-hate relationship toward fellow human beings. This included different kinds and degrees of both love and hate. The terms are viewed through the concept of semantics. The meaning intended with each use of the given term is dependent upon the fuller intended context.

When Jesus spoke, especially via parables, seeking out the right context became the beginning of enlightenment. Through such seeking, one discovers that Jesus turned the status quo usage on its head. He didn't do it as a clever trick. He was actually revealing the real truth about the nature and will of God.

I won't restate all of that now. If you've come this far through all that I've written, you will surely understand what it is to which I am referring.

It is clear that usage-intent creates and destroys various emotions. Before we are exposed to Jesus's teachings, before we are reintroduced to the intended plan of God, before we are disabused of the indoctrination we have undergone at the hands of the antichrist cause, we generally used words in ways that connoted the intentions of that antichrist mentality. Therefore, love conjured up thoughts of romantic and sexual love and love of parent and child and siblings tied up in instinctual, biological (fleshly) urges.

After being reintroduced to the emotions that are even more core to our souls, we rediscover love that comes before the fleshly reaction. We consider the love of kindness regardless of biological closeness. This untwists the confusion caused by the mere biological drive and only as that drive has been defined by the antichrist language. {Within the language of the revelation, straightened (unconfused) biological drive is consistent with righteousness. This is where flesh and spirit conflate.}

It doesn't mean that the lovingkindness that precedes and transcends the flesh is not afforded to those who are close biologically. It just allows us to break the bonds of biology which bonds otherwise hold back lovingkindness as the higher value. That higher value is better for the flesh anyway, so it is a win-win situation for those who will see it.

We then deal with various emotional states. The variables are endless. There are different emotions at different intensities all in constant flux. Where then does one reach the pardonable point of being fed up? When do souls that won't exorcize demons become identified as too intransigent for the sake of souls who have exorcised many demons and shouldn't have to be subjected to their lifestyle (death) any longer? Is this is a real paradox?

People have been trying to describe God since time immemorial. We have been ascribing to God our own emotions, simply because we have them. How could we have them if God had not known them before us? Can we conceive of things God cannot or has not? We say, we are made in the image of God. The word image though has a meaning as varied as those contemplating the concept. Jesus said that no one but the son of God has seen God's image or form or outline or shape or what have you. This statement too must be understood within the full context: Christ-mind. What did Jesus have in mind when he said "seen." We may only use our own hearts to begin to consider it.

Well, the question comes down to one of when God runs out of patience and what that means. It then falls upon us to decide when, if ever, we may take God into our on hands as in being the instrument of impatience. Can we ever get it right? Are we ever really moved by the Holy Spirit to destroy lives?

We have Jesus telling us in no uncertain terms to live by, with our all, the two great commandments, the golden rule, and his new commandment, which is really the other three lived within a context we are to emulate and even become in the spirit of one.

We also have Jesus describing finality within the eternal and infinite. We hear him saying that there is a limit to how far and long evil will be allowed to go. We are told that that is for the sake of worthy, or at least more worthy, souls.

We have Jesus saying that the Son of God will judge even while he said he was not judging and that we should be aware of the rules. All judgment is subject to the test for hypocrisy. All judgment is subject to itself, meaning the standard used to mete out judgment will apply to the one meting out that judgment.

We have the questions of the Apostles concerning wrath and the place of the worldly powers and principalities and how those reflect the spiritual realm.

Reconciling it all falls on us.

The pacifist may be fed up of a sort. The pacifist may simultaneously want peace for all but peace foremost for those who want it most for all but for those who want if most for those who want it, ad infinitum. It may seem impossible; however, what it means is that there is a place and point where the children of peace are worth freeing up from the evil of anti-peace. It is at that point that the pacifist rightly may let go of any attachments or responsibilities he or she may have had for his or her sibling, fellow human being.

It must be understood that That point though is not a point of wrath or vengeance as understood by the wrathful and vengeful.

One must be separated from evil to be free of it. The evil must suffer evil to have the opportunity to learn of the causal chain to overcome it.

Now, God exists before human kind. God was self-aware before human kind. God abiding in us though is a place of additional self-awareness of a kind and degree. The point though is that God has given us an environment we may shape; however, God is not dependent upon us but rather the other way around.

God is first, and has God's own mind. God makes decisions, even if God delegates to his children or one in particular, such as Jesus.

Jesus said that it wasn't for Jesus to decide who will sit where in heaven. That's up to God. Jesus said that he didn't know when the Herod temple would be leveled. That was up to God. Well, even though we may be fed up, it is up to God when there will be a great gulf fixed between the righteous and the iniquitous. It will happen though, and the iniquitous will suffer. Will we have had enough faith and done the deeds to show it wasn't disingenuous or lip service?

Our job is not to slaughter. Those who take that upon themselves will be subjected to that standard. Our job is to plant seeds and harvest the good crop for righteousness' sake.

It is not for us to fall into wrath at being fed up. Our being fed up must be the right kind and degree of being fed up. It must not come at the expense of proper mercy and justice.

We don't want the agonies of the innocent to persist. We don't want the salvageable cut off prematurely. These are not mutually exclusive emotions or desires. We work for peace. God's plan has evil suffering from itself ultimately in perfect justice with the worthy being salvaged. We trust in God's infinite wisdom. We feel the love.


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

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.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Sup2 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.