"Aren't you just getting sick of it?" What is in this question? What does it reveal? Well, sickness is a dividing away from God. The question is, do you realize that this situation (the behavior, the choices of the self-styled Zionists) is a force for separating away from God and Godliness, which God and Godliness are the same thing in the end. The behavior comes out of a diseased condition. It is caused by dis-ease, and it causes more of itself unless recognized and overcome. The cycle must be broken by enlightenment. The truth of the chain reaction of emotions, the emotional cascade, must be brought out and made the focus of humanity. Without this, we will not do what we must in controlling cause and effect.

Julie Swiler said that the presents of Desmond Tutu offends her and hurts her. She took the liberty of speaking on behalf of all Jews. What is her motive? Do we take it as ignorance, sinisterness, or both? Ignorance is being in the dark, as "dark" is meant Biblically, as in the absence of truth. Sinisterness is also the absence of truth and is ignorant. However, ignorance can be without a particular connotation or understanding of sinisterness in that it can be with little to no conscious awareness of that very ignorance. So, we have two spectra or spectrums overlaying each other if you will. We have two forms of ignorance.

The first is more pardonable according to The Bible. Proverbs 17:10 is a good example of the Old Testament revelation about this. "A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool." The fool here is a spectrum also, ranging from unaware to highly aware of the sinfulness of a given behavior. Awareness here, again, must be seen in the light of yet another spectrum, being ultimate or Godly knowledge. The sinister person we normally equate with one going about a consciously evil plot of his or her own devising or in a conspiratorial fashion with others.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. Luke 12:47-48.

To what degree is Julie Swiler aware? God alone knows. Julie doesn't know. She knows more than she's shared openly, but she still doesn't know herself as well as God knows her, which is completely.

The terms "offensive" and "hurtful" to be properly understood and used must be seen and used in their ultimate, Godly, meanings, their divine senses. The way Julie has used them is nearly strictly mundane versus divine. The divine sense is within the full context of the means through to the end (infinity). Given forever, Julie's approach will never result in peace through and through and all around for all those who are willing and have the strength to do it unless they are separated from Julie's cause and results. Julie's approach perpetuates hypocrisy: The opposite of peace.

Now what did Isaiah mean when he said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed"? Isaiah 53:5. It's a huge verse. For the Christians, it is messianic and pointing directly to Jesus. For many naysayers, it is pointing only to the nation of Israel without Jesus. For the Christians, it is pointing to both Jesus and the people. "...with his stripes we are healed." We are healed only if we become aware and act accordingly. What was done to Jesus was wrong. It is wrong to do that to anyone, but it is so blatantly unjust to do it to one preaching and living perfect pacifism and perfect warning and perfect love of neighbor (humanity) and friend (again, really humanity) that this lesson stands out so much as to be impossible to ignore and for any to be excused from it. It must be learned or failure will continue. Failure will continue until the lesson is learned. The lesson is not truly learned until it is adhered to completely and eternally.

In everything we do, every emotional reaction, we are confronted with choice that has everything to do with the Crucifixion. Does even pointing out Julie's error represent crucifixion? No. It doesn't, because she is not being made a scapegoat. We aren't going to murder Julie and claim that all our sins are gone. We aren't going to send her into the wilderness and claim that all our sins are gone. God doesn't want sacrifice. God wants mercy. So, pointing out Julie's errors here is done in the spirit of mercy, mercy for everyone who will benefit, which is everybody if the cascade of mercy becomes that of which we make ourselves most aware rather then wrath (which is preached constantly by the misguided and misguiding, such as those calling for bombing Iran).

Julie hasn't wanted to hear this. She wants to, and does, cover her ears. She wants everyone to cover his or her ears for the sake of perpetuating what? Cover your ears whenever anyone says the house of Israel is divided with some in that house (leaders) doing the wrong thing. The Bible is the story of the struggle to uncover the ears concerning this very issue. The Bible is the record of the debate of what is the right thing to do, who's saying it, who's doing it, and hence whom should we listen to and follow and emulate?

Jesus is the right answer of course, but not everyone is willing or capable. They will be separated away from the willing and those made able.

Now Desmond's words to which Julie refers were not an offense and should not hurt since they do no harm. Desmond's words here are not an offense to God or Jesus. Jesus would not turn to Desmond over Desmond's words here to say, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:23.

As we wrote in Part I, "The Jewish Lobby hates that Tutu spoke the following truth:"

People are scared in this country [the U.S.], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.

Where does the term "fool" come in here. It is used in Proverbs, as quoted and cited above. Well, it is reserved for those who have been and remain truly duped by the sinister ones. The sinister ones are the proverbial "wise" who know their lord's will, and prepare not themselves, neither do they according to their lord's will. Is it hurtful name calling? It isn't if one loves the truth and takes it in that spirit. Then it becomes the greatest benefit of those who will stop to say to themselves via their awakening conscience that they have seen the light.

"Thank you, Jesus. Thank you, God. Thanks Brother. Thanks Father. Thank you, Holy Spirit, for leading me out of the darkness of facilitating harm that otherwise ultimately harms everything that doesn't overcome and separate itself from the harmful source, which is the spirit of evil, by definition. Amen (true)."

Names and terms:

Fascists; egotistical; cut your whining; knock it off; despicable; terrorists; dumb; hypocritical; liars; supremacists; unjust; obfuscators; censors (of truth); bullying; sadistic; covetous; greedy; thieving; oppressors; rebellious; satanic; suppressors, Big Brother; cursed; evil; etc. These are rebuking words, but in what spirit?

Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. Luke 17:3. "...if he repent, forgive him." If not, you don't know him and he doesn't know you or love God but hates God. He is a heathen and not of the fold and won't be in the New Earth and New Heaven. Shake the dust from your feet and continue spreading the good news to those who hear it and understand it and do it.

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Matthew 5:22. "...without a cause" is right. With a cause, provided one is keeping the commandments, is not in danger of the judgment or hell fire.

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Matthew 7:5.

Do we see clearly? Are we being hypocritical here? Do we wait on perfection before speaking and doing? We all must stand corrected by God. Therefore, rebuking others and self (via a properly working conscience) is to do the Golden Rule. It is to warn and be warned and to take heed and to do, all things Jesus said.

Now, what the misnomered Zionists are doing is bringing out the worst in others. Look, Jesus turned over the tables in the Temple, which was a sharp rebuke. His demeanor was stern. He was applying the rod of truth. He was hardening against them. This shows the duality of the spirit. It shows light versus dark. It was, though, loving kindness and the soft approach. How can that be simultaneous? Isn't it a paradox? No. It's a matter of perspective. It's a matter of seeing the fullest context (God's perspective, the big picture). Absolutely no one was truly offended or harmed. He didn't draw blood. He didn't traumatize anyone. He didn't terrorize anyone. The result of his action was a coming together under the spirit not of wrath and vengeance but of mercy. He cleansed the Temple of the spirit of sacrificing others and of wrath and of vengeance, etc.

They sacrificed him anyway. They're going to do it. There's nothing you can do about it. You can't force them to comprehend. Comprehension is voluntary and given by God at the same time. The only thing that can happen is to be separated from them. The only one who can do that is God. Join God. Hear God, choose God, and be chosen by God. He was murdered for it so that we could see it. The murders didn't know that was what was happening. They still don't see it.

Now my children, don't you see that what you are doing is harming others, and don't you want to be good? Who is a child of God? Who are the chosen? Julie, will you listen? Will you hear and heed?

For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matthew 13:15.

Love, peace, and truth are the One.

And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord. Mark 12:29.

Hear, O Humanity, the Lord our God is one Lord, the same Love, Peace, and Truth.

Bless you Julie.



Part 1


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 Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.