Tuesday, August 29, 2006:

"Only begotten son of God" is a relative expression. For one, it is a temporal expression. No one had reached the son-status of Jesus before Jesus in the temporal sense. Also that son-status, or degree of sonship, is what establishes the sense-meaning, John's usage in his Gospel. This enters into the virgin birth.

If you will recall, there are those who feel that the idea of the virgin birth renders the idea of becoming Christlike more of a hurdle than it would otherwise be were Jesus to have been born out of the sexual union of two earthly human parents. For these people, lacking the starting place of Jesus makes the climb and arrival untenable. Against this position is the concept that far from making the climb impossible, it shows that the climb and arrival is very much possible.

God caused the fertilization of one of Mary's eggs to occur without mundane sexual intercourse. This would be called God insemination as opposed to artificial insemination, artificial being manmade and unnatural. This would be supernatural, above mundane, coming from God's highest heaven in pure light (empyrean).

God's doing this gave us yet another link to the truth of God's reality beyond our usual and customary sense perceptions. Also by doing this, God showed us via his son how the rest of us are supposed to feel and behave accordingly. This is not to taunt us with the impossible. It is just the opposite. It is the ultimate example of self-sacrifice for all the right, unselfish, repentant, atoning reasons.

As for the term "begotten" as opposed to "made," something the Nicene Creed fusses over, it is missing the point. The sublimity of the event and its place in the eternal was beyond the prevailing Nicene fathers for the sheer reason that they had lost the focus or single vision, if they ever had it. The truth is that you will never get the right answers out of anyone who isn't about the business of the new commandment. Far from being about that business, they busied themselves with worldly empire building. They took Rome and Rome took them.

None of the Nicene fathers knew the mechanism by which God had the prophetic plan carried out.

It must be remembered that they burned people at the stake for stating positions contrary to the church's speculations.

Mary actually is treated by the Roman church very much as the Sophia of the Gnostics. This of course is not all bad. It is contextual. It depends upon the point. The real point is that Jesus is the fulfillment of the proto-prophecy, the root of the prophecy that was in the collective consciousness and conscience of all the unselfish souls looking for salvation from the evil, serpentine one, the dragon, the scorpion, the selfish, self-appointed, deceptive overlord and lords who still mundanely rule this planet.

It is also a twist of the Gnostic notion in that Jesus coming out of wisdom (Sophia) is the archenemy of the serpent of the garden, whereas in some forms of Gnosticism, that serpent is really God, the light bringer, Lucifer.

Jesus said that wisdom is justified of her children. This is the same meaning as the old expression that "the proof is in the pudding." The ends truly do justify the means. To what will the means lead? Only righteousness will lead to righteousness is Jesus's point.

The truth is that Jesus is the real light bringer, the real morning star. Lucifer is the dark star or black sun bringing selfish licensing that leads to ruination of the soul.

There are many twists and turns with pits along the wide path. The straight and narrow is known by the fruit derived by the golden rule, pacifism, and mercy.

Lucifer brings self-centeredness, because Lucifer doesn't lead to giving and sharing all for righteousness' sake alone. Lucifer's means lead to his ends leaving suffering unaddressed. It isn't merciful. It doesn't lead to heaven.


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 Sup3 No Such Thing Conservative-Republican Christian. Bookmark the permalink.