Monday, September 25, 2006:
We wrote the following above:
Hinduism brought the caste system, clearly selfish on the part of those born into circumstances that their characters showed were not reward for past righteousness.
Buddha brought the ultimate self will. There are so-called disciples who have deviated from Buddha's teachings, but that doesn't change the fact that Buddha considered himself the most enlightened being in existence, without equal, without any feeling of any need to credit any other being. This is just another form of ultimate ego.
Mohammed made no attempts to be as subtle or sublime. He flat out said kill rather then standing with Jesus even as he claimed Jesus was a real prophet of God. All of these and the Chinese and other religions reject the prophetic fulfillment of Jesus and his miracles. To accept them would be to reject Jesus's as the one and only path, the narrow path.
Jesus's path says, among many other things, give up the caste, give up the self-centeredness, give up the killing. People who come from bloodlines have a false need to uphold the false teachings and direction of their ancestors. They find self-esteem in it. They claim it is necessary for their self-respect and that others should grant them that. It is as saying that people cannot change. Well, what about all the child sacrificing that went on all over the world in ancient so-called civilizations? If that can be cast off as wrong, if the gods who called upon ancestors to engage in such practices can be said to have been false (unrighteous), then why can't people change to the new commandment? It is because they refuse to let go of the last vestiges of false pride.
People would wonder whether or not from Jesus's perspective, from God's perspective, whether or not the other religions of the world and what are called the denominations of Christianity are evil, per se. Here again, it depends upon context. It depends upon direction.
People can allow the truth to funnel them to Jesus or they can say that they don't require that to be right. People who have never heard of Jesus, who are descent to life are living as righteously as they know how. People who have heard the prophetic message of Jesus and reject the truth (including figurative) of it saying he was not the one and only one (the pivotal one, the climactic one) of the fulfilled prophecy, they are in error, stating corruption, offending God, etc. Is it evil? It prevents the solution, for nothing else convinces one to do the absolutely right thing.
Buddha didn't come to the world to allow himself to be sacrifice unto death out of love, to show us how deep love has to run for salvation, to make up for the great evils that have come out of the selfishness direction, to turn the human soul. To follow Buddha doesn't require the solution. It doesn't require the active love of Jesus.
Don't take it wrong, we aren't saying the Buddha was out machine gunning people. We are saying that the calling of Jesus when it is told correctly, rather than as the neocon and false-liberal perverters do, takes us to that leveling highest love where credit is completely given over to that love.
With Buddha and Hinduism, credit or leveling is withheld. Buddha didn't credit God as the all-love. Hinduism held down the so-called lower castes. Shintoism, the traditional religion of Japan, doesn't require the heart of Christ. The various shamanistic religions of the world don't know who they worship, knowing in the sense meant by Jesus in the Gospel. Which one came to the center of the world with such power of truth?
Again, don't take it wrong. There are stories amongst the American Indians that point very much to the desire for the peace of a Christlike being. That's a good thing. Those stories came out of good hearts. That emotional direction is exactly what will funnel people to the God of Christ, the one God of all who see it.
However, those who say no, no, we don't need to follow Jesus are saying no, no, we don't need to do what he said. There's the spirit slipping and falling. They are saying and telling others by their words and actions that no, no, we don't need to love as much and in the way Jesus loved others. That's wrong. That's the fatal error. That's the difference when you are standing way back away, it seems so infinitesimal as to be inconsequential. That's the difference when you come close enough becomes so magnified that you see that it is the only thing of real consequence. Everything hinges upon it. It is the dividing line. It is the point at which selfishness is split off from unselfishness. It is where the difference between right and wrong lies.
Syncretism-up is the conflation.
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)