Sunday, September 10, 2006:

It is easy for people to judge and condemn the God of the Old Testament. It is really a condemnation of the spirit, collective consciousness and conscience, of the people at the time.

This is not to say that God is not more than the collective consciousness and conscience of Homo sapien sapiens. It is to say that God must deal with the collective consciousness and conscience of Homo sapien sapiens in ways that human beings do not readily appreciate. It is easy to complain, but given the power of God, which complainer wouldn't run afoul of that complainer's own standards?

We don't mean here to suggest that it is wrong to discern the misdirection of the collective consciousness and conscience of the people at the time. We mean that even the highest angel must be allowed to learn, grow, repent, atone, and to correct that angel's path. The spirit of forgiveness must extend in all directions and infinitely. The pure essence of God smiles on this.

There are those who will fear that such sentiments will allow the essence of evil to trick the forgiving spirit. That's what vigilance is for. That's what not falling into the temptation of selfishness is about. That's what realizing that the essence of evil ultimately cannot have the righteous soul is all about.

So we have the argument over the nature of God: God as one; God as many but as one; God as always good; God as including imperfect souls improving and approaching God's center; and, God as disciplinarian that is instructor in right emotion, thought, word, and deed; etc.

To approach this, we must define our terms to encompass the many roots or stems and the many patterns or connotations. We must be able to speak across the languages, worldviews, of people, to translate from one message to another to turn on the light.

In the debate over the nature of God, the debate rages about who should govern and, consequently, which is the right form of governance, the right order or state of things. What does democracy mean, what is a representative democracy, what is a republic, etc.? Also, are we speaking of a government that will be forced by human beings in the here and now upon those who don't want it.

A pure and direct democracy in the heavenly or divine sense is an uncoerced and open consensus. Those who don't want heaven are free to be enslaved in non-heaven.

That's it. That's the summation. Within it is the inherent discipline that is God's system. Those who don't choose it, suffer. Those who do choose it, still suffer at the hands of others until they are separated to it (heaven).

It doesn't matter one's station in life. All are free to choose it.

Castes and classes don't matter. Bloodlines don't matter. Castes and mundane bloodlines are falsehoods on the spectrum of righteousness. Such bloodlines are not determinative. Choosing is determinative. Where there is faith in the Holy Spirit, there is the blood that is headed in the real, true, and unselfish direction.


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.