Tuesday, September 19, 2006:
Whose the bigger liar is the contest now about The Bible. According to The Bible, the people who descended from Jacob were enslaved in Egypt for some four hundred years and were finally let go after horrendous plagues befell Egypt at the hand of Moses (God's hand).
From there, the budding Jews lived in the desert for forty years.
Now, there is no comparable, verbatim record in Egypt of this. Of course, Egypt is noted for it's ancient policy of erasing or changing the record. The record is so twisted that there is no telling from the Egyptian side. There are lots of debates on-going about the Hyksos and other non-Egyptians in Egypt at the time pointed to by the Old Testament for the Hebrews in bondage in Egypt. We won't go into it right here.
There is no evidence of the Hebrews having lived in the desert. Well, according to The Bible, they lived in extremely temporary shelters and ate manna. There was no agricultural enterprise. What footprint would they leave? Why insist upon evidence that if you look for it, it will never be there in the form you insist upon?
Look, Jesus didn't do mass hypnosis on the people to get them to think what was not real was real. What he did was show them that what was thought to be the only possible reality (the testable kind) was not the real (highest) reality but rather a lesser state, a falsehood, a self-delusional trick of the mind, sleep walking.
If you were to go back in time with a video camera and stand there and film Jesus breaking and blessing the bread and the disciples passing it out, the bread would be gone long before five thousand people would get a bite let alone everyone eating his or her fill, which isn't much after a three-day fast, and having twelve baskets-full left over. Even with the camera, just standing there disbelieving insisting upon proof, a sign, would break it, not break a spell, but break off the higher reality. Doubt kills.
There is no mundane evidence showing up yet for a kingdom under David and Solomon. Well, what are they looking for, New York? Kingdoms were relative back then just as today. A city of thirty thousand was a huge city then.
It was my understanding that the stables were located and were huge. In addition, they were apparently building a great deal out of wood that could easily be burned and destroyed by invasion. Also, the invading forces were like to erase villages. It is also true that the whole of the country has not been archeologically excavated.
The flip side of this is of course that just as the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were quite Orwellian in their time, doesn't mean that the Hebrews weren't capable of that also.
We have only to look at the struggle between either side of the major conspiracies on-going today to see the lies and distortions and misinterpretation on both sides.
After all, there are plenty of liars in Israel, Palestine, Washington, and every other place to prove that it is a science and art form from the beginning.
So, what's a body to do? We all know how things ought to be. They knew it then too. We ought to do it.
I don't err when I err on the side of The Bible. Look, for centuries, Troy was figured to be a myth. Well, it turned up. There may have been poetic license in Homer's version, but the story is much closer to what happened than most had imagined.
Jesus was about truth. He was about the truth of peace, love, and giving and sharing all freely. This is the solution to all that ails. Where is the trick in it? He healed Jews and Gentiles. He only spoke against selfishness. Where's the causal chain leading to fraud? Jesus said there not only was an Abraham but that Abraham is alive and well in heaven. How could such healing and perfect teaching come out of one who would be mistaken?
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)