RLCC comments follow this quoted material.

ACIM Lesson 110

Ah! Well this fits quite nicely with Goddess's comments on Lesson 109. She asked if I "believe" there is a God. What I know to be true is that you can't possibly know God if you "believe in" God. All you can ever "believe in" is ideas (no matter how much substance you think those ideas may contain). Belief is problematic. So is faith. Both terms have been heavily diluted since the turn of the century and almost always refer to placing trust in something material - a materialistic, omniscient, omnipotent God or a materialistic, rational "self".

Nietzsche said God is dead and I fully agree. Society can never go back to the understanding "of God" it once held no matter how much it yearns for it. Part of what Nietzsche means by saying that "God is dead" is that we will never be able to go back to thinking in terms of absolutes. There is not a single truth that will be discovered that everyone will buy into and thereby save the world (be it by scientific rationalism or religious faith).

My understanding of Nietzsche's constant overcoming is a willingness to let go of the egoic projections and illusions of "self". This is a continual process and can only be done on an individual basis. Any yearning for "one absolute truth" that will provide some sort of materialistic salvation for the masses can only end in some form of slavery. It is an illusion and based on the same utopianistic idealism that drove Christianity in the middle ages and drives fundamentalist Christianity today. You have to embrace what it is you see as "evil" rather than "get rid of it" if you are to overcome it. We remain as we were created no matter how much we want to be otherwise or blame others for not allowing the world to be what it "could be". It is what it is. Accept it. Then we can overcome it. But as long as we are holding on to idealism and values from the past, we will remain in the past, unable to successfully navigate the present.

If you remain as God created you, appearances cannot replace the truth, health cannot turn to sickness, nor can death be substitute for life, or fear for love. All this has not occurred, if you remain as God created you. You need no thought but just this one, to let redemption come to light the world and free it from the past.

To me, this is very Nietzschean (although he most definitely would not have used the word "God"). What causes us problems is that we get stuck in our outdated value systems. Rather than navigating the world as it is, we make demands about how it "should be". We have to slay the old values in order to obtain new ones that will allow us to navigate the world as it is. Our "salvation" is the constant overcoming of our egoic minds - not the egoic wishful thinking of a perfect end result.

You are as God created you. Today honor your Self. Let graven images you made to be the Son of God instead of what he is be worshipped not today. Deep in your mind the holy Christ in you is waiting your acknowledgment as you. And you are lost and do not know yourself while He is unacknowledged and unknown.

Drop the terminology if it gives you the willies. You are what it is you are and always have been. The value system of others cannot add or take away from who it is you are. The value systems we have bought into are the graven images we have been worshiping. They keep us stuck in the past and don't allow us to see things as they are. Like Nietzsche's camel that gets stuck in the mud and only knows how to walk in the desert - wishing the mud didn't exist or getting mad at something for getting it into the mud is not helpful. It won't get him out of the mud. He has to call forth something beyond the old values from a place within him (which requires the mythic slaying of the dragon.)

Somewhere beneath our sense of egoic projections and idealism is a quiet center that remains unchanged. We are lost until we recognize this center.

I am as God created me.
("I am whole.")

RLCC Comment: Nietzsche called himself the antichrist. He was insane. He was racked by disease through and through. He ended up in a dead end. He fell into the satanic trap from the beginning and only dug the hole deeper. He was an atheist humanist dead of the Holy Spirit that will lead humanity to the New Heaven and New Earth promised by Jesus Christ.

This merging Nietzsche with Christianity is a huge error. It is completely misled and misleading. No good will ever come of it. Turn back to God who is every bit as alive as ever and always will be.

Nothing good can come from hating mercy and pity and believing that its opposite is right. Mercy is strength not weakness. Nietzsche received what he sowed—his own standard. Would anyone in his or her right mind want to change places with him?

One can only pity the memory of him. He was a sociopath, abused somehow, and never overcame it.

Originally by laura from Dance of the Mind on October 4, 2007, 4:13pm


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.
    • Nietzsche published all of his books prior to going insane. Most of the bad press he has gotten is because he has been poorly understand and because his anti-semitic sister published many of his works after he had gone insane and altered the meaning to fit with her own agenda. (Nietzsche was not an anti-semitic). Walter Kaufman is well-known for having republished these works without the additional anti-semitic comments and thankfully, Nietzsche has been getting the recognition he deserves since the 1970s.

      He didn't slowly progress into insanity, he dropped into it immediately. In fact, he was trying to save a horse from being abused.

      Nietzsche got a bad wrap. Grab Solomon & Higgins book, What Nietzsche Really Said and take some time to understand him. I held a lot of prejudices about him too until I actually took the time to read him for myself.

      He didn't hate mercy and pity. That is a gross mis-interpretation. The people who knew him said he was extremely kind and generous. What he hated was the posturing of mercy and kindness - people being charitable in order to present a favorable image to others and the so-called God they claim they believe in rather than being merciful and kind for the sake of being merciful and kind. That's the problem with belief in an abstract God, is it not? If you do something in order "to get into Heaven",

    • Sorry - glitchy mouse...

      If you do something in order "to get into heaven" rather than doing something in order to help another, then are you being merciful and kind or self-centered? Personally, I think he was on to something.

    • Hello Laura,

      We find Nietzsche's insanity evident early on. It is evident in his positions, his direction. His ideas more than imply that for him, Jesus resented the worldly imperialists (worldly masters) and that that resentment showed Jesus's weakness and inability to conquer through selfishness.

      Nietzsche lost his faith in God. He discarded objective truth. Jesus said Jesus is the truth. Nietzsche rejected that. He said, thereby, that Jesus is wrong.

      Nietzsche's philosophy leaves wide open the door for all the tyrannical aspects we've seen in history. He does this due to hypocrisy that is not anywhere in evidence in the teachings or exemplary life of Jesus.

      Self-will apart from God is inherently selfish. Rejecting this and accepting nothing but subjectivity and relativism or the complete absence of objective and absolute righteousness leads down the slippery slope to sickness and death of the soul. This is Jesus's teaching. Those who follow Jesus down his narrow way accept it completely. Those who reject it are not his followers. They are not Christians.

      Rejecting Jesus leaves nothing but antichrist (against Christ, God, righteousness). Opposition to Jesus is evil.

      Evil is slavery to itself. Nietzsche's master was evil.

      Jesus was not an atheist humanist. There is no perfection alone. There is no perfection apart from God. God is alive and in control.

      There is no transcending the value of the kind and degree of love Jesus showed by going to the cross. It is objective and absolute value. It is eternal and infinite. If everyone were to be toward each other as Jesus asked, we'd be in heaven already.

      Nietzsche was wrong and onto nothing.

      Don't make the mistake of taking isolated incidences that by themselves can mistakenly be taken as indicative of a constantly compassionate nature. Nietzsche was not against inhumanity.

      You wrote as follows:

      What he hated was the posturing of mercy and kindness - people being charitable in order to present a favorable image to others and the so-called God they claim they believe in rather than being merciful and kind for the sake of being merciful and kind.

      Jesus preached against doing things for show. He also preached to do righteousness for righteousness' sake. Where did Nietzsche learn it? He had been a Christian. He had studied for the priesthood. He certainly doesn't deserve credit for these things since they are such standout teachings of Jesus.

      As for an abstract God, do you find quantum mechanics abstract in that way? Is the wave-particle duality so abstract that it doesn't exist for you? If they don't look straight at it or try to trick it to reveal itself in its waveform, then it paints as a wave. The moment they look in a way typical of their doubting spirit, it paints as particles. Now what is that awareness that to date the scientists just haven't been able to out think? Is it just child's play for God? Of course it is. Are they trying to grasp it from a Christian spiritual approach? No. Will God reveal it to them? If it will serve God's plan, it will be revealed.

      As for doing things to get into heaven, the Pauline Christians would choke on the idea. We though hold with grace, faith, and deeds together.

      We suggest you consider that those who want to join with God are going to run into many other spirits of that giving and sharing spirit. Those who want the opposite that is to say not to join with God are going to run into many other spirits all wanting to be top wild dog, and we mean selfish and brutally competitive. Take it or leave it. It's up to you, what God gives you to understand, what fits you.

      May God bless everyone with the truth of Jesus's path.


    • I continue to think your understanding of Nietzsche is based in your own prejudices. I think you have misunderstood him.

      Zarathustra talked bloated souls and a sort of "inverted spirituality". If we seek to control, then we are inverted spiritualists. Much of Christianity is about control. Behave in the appropriate way to get God to behave in the way you want him to behave. That's narcissism, plain and simple. Bloated souls.

      You don't have to believe in God to surrender "to God". And depending upon how you define Christ, Christianity itself could be seen as the anti-Christ because it has become so bloated and self-important.

    • Hello again Laura,

      We agree with Jesus. Nietzsche didn't. Of course we're prejudice. Prejudice isn't inherently a bad thing.

      We are prejudice in favor of feeding all the children of God free of charge. Others are prejudice against our prejudices. They don't want all the children of God fed for free because many who hate the idea make a living off manufactured scarcity. They hate the idea of sustainable abundance. It would mean they wouldn't be on top of others lording it over them asking for money to exist (to even have a bite to eat). We are prejudice in favor of pacifism and against war. We are prejudice in favor of sexual harmlessness against obfuscating the harm done by so-called acceptable alternative lifestyles. We are also prejudice against coercion and punishment. Many people hate some of our positions and love others. We have yet to find anyone who loves them all enough to openly say so on our website and to support the cause. So far, we stand alone with God, as we see Jesus's vision of his and our own God.

      As for control, real Christianity is not about control in the sense you've used it in your comment but rather giving over to being controlled by righteousness for its sake. Righteousness for real Christianity is God. We seek to behave as God wants us to behave, which we know is the right way to behave.

      Do good things flow from God on account of such behavior? Eventually they will, if one believes it. Is that why we behave a certain way? Well, yes, but it is an afterthought. First comes doing for righteousness sake (altruism). Then come the consequences, which are good and right and rewarding on purpose. There's nothing wrong or selfish in that sequence of events.

      You say, "You don’t have to believe in God to surrender “to God”." Think about what you are saying. "I surrender to that in which I don't believe. I surrender to what I consider false." That's confusion and leads nowhere good.

      You also wrote, "And depending upon how you define Christ, Christianity itself could be seen as the anti-Christ because it has become so bloated and self-important." That's why we have written so much about false Christianity. False Christianity, which has not brought forth, is definitely antichrist. As for applying the terms "bloated," we say false Christianity is beyond bloated (not in Nietzsche's context but in the common-usage sense). As for "self-important," the false version of Christianity is of course self-important and undeserving. Real Christianity is also self-important, but real Christianity defines itself as falling in line with what God desires and God's will, which is the most important thing anyone or any group can do.

      Jesus was and is about service only, shepherding, being last, raising up others, separating the selfish from the unselfish (saving the unselfish from the selfish), sacrificing self for wholesomeness (God), and so many other ways of expressing the entirety of his revelation.

      Why did Nietzsche not see it this way? What happened to him? Why did he quit Jesus rather than seeing Jesus's real way?



    • Nietzsche would agree with you - prejudice isn't a "bad" thing. It simply is. Accept it, become aware of it, and overcome it.

      Do you really feed all of the children, "free of charge", or do you place upon them an unrecognized cost? It's like my friend who tried to save all of the drying out worms on the walkway during our walks. She felt "oh so good" about herself but maybe those worms were ready to die. Not saying saving children and saving worms are the same consideration, but it's easy to feel good about yourself because you think you are doing "good" when all you are really doing is feeding your own narcissism. What is the motivation behind your need to "save"? Selflessness or selfullness?

      Nietzsche didn't have a problem with Jesus. Go back and read him. What he had a problem with was Christianity 300 years after Jesus, which is true of all the existentialists. What the existentialists object to is the abstraction that was created by Greek philosophy which was readily adopted by the early Roman Catholics.

    • Hello Laura,

      Nietzsche would agree with you - prejudice isn’t a “bad” thing. It simply is. Accept it, become aware of it, and overcome it.

      We aren't though saying overcome prejudices. We are saying have the right ones. Jesus favored, and still favors, his flock. Others didn't, and won't, enter his kingdom because they'd ruin it with their evil selfishness, just as they ruin the world now.

      They'll be separated away and live under their own standard to feel what it's like. If they come to value the compassion they refused to show to others and can show that they won't just slip right back into greed, violence, and other harmful states of mind and spirit, then wonderful.

      It's all a learning process.

      Do you really feed all of the children, “free of charge”, or do you place upon them an unrecognized cost? It’s like my friend who tried to save all of the drying out worms on the walkway during our walks. She felt “oh so good” about herself but maybe those worms were ready to die. Not saying saving children and saving worms are the same consideration, but it’s easy to feel good about yourself because you think you are doing “good” when all you are really doing is feeding your own narcissism. What is the motivation behind your need to “save”? Selflessness or selfullness?

      The need to save is saving family members. We want everyone to come to define family as the whole of humanity and to act in the most beneficial manner towards each other. We believe and know Jesus showed the right way of behaving thusly (with priorities in proper order). We feel the pain and suffering of others and want to free them from the condition. We want everyone to care about everyone. That's Heaven.

      As we wrote earlier, when one has his or her motivation in the right place, altruism comes first. Then any good feelings follow. The acts aren't done in order to feel good. It feels good because the acts were right.

      As for the earthworms, one can take a purely Darwinian approach and believe that the species would be weakened by seemingly misguided human compassion. However, the spiritual realm is bigger than such Darwinism.

      We don't hold that earthworms are as valuable (within a certain context) to God as are human souls. We don't though hold with indiscriminate killing. We do though live in the flesh off death. Nearly everything we eat was alive in the biological (scientific) sense. That doesn't mean that it is okay to just devour. In fact, we should do no more of it than is optimal. That's lost on the worldly world right now. Devouring is the ruling spirit in the here and now.

      Also, there is always a yoke within a certain context. However, being free of evil is as free as it gets. Being free of evil, as God is, is being completely free. This is contextual. God is free to do evil but not free to do evil. This is no paradox. It is just understanding and employing the different contexts in their right places and their right times.

      The charge of which we speak is the one placed upon the people by those who seek to profit in money off those who ought to be viewed as siblings, or at the very least cousins, welcome to come to the table to eat without having to shell out money. Regardless, human kind is just that, one kind.

      Unfortunately, that one kind comes in different spiritual versions of choice. One of those versions denies that all should be treated as family and served by each and all as such. That spiritual version ruins everything. It views itself as first and foremost and seeks to lord it over the family members by violence. It doesn't appeal to the heart with love and all the rest for which Jesus called and calls. It doesn't appeal to the spirit of oneness. It just wants to exercise its selfish ego.

      Nietzsche didn’t have a problem with Jesus. Go back and read him. What he had a problem with was Christianity 300 years after Jesus, which is true of all the existentialists. What the existentialists object to is the abstraction that was created by Greek philosophy which was readily adopted by the early Roman Catholics.

      We focus upon the error of Constantine I. His worldly imperial ambitions co-opted the church in Rome. He twisted everything for selfish reasons. He ruined. He had plenty of sycophants to help. Their wrong and his wrong must be corrected. Everything that has been built up upon Constantine I's usurpation must be undone. The true teaching of Jesus must be restored in full.

      However, according to Jesus, to not have a problem with Jesus is to love him and to believe in him and his name: Yah Saves (God Saves). Anyone who doesn't believe in those words, who doesn't do the work of God (benefit) to the best of his or her abilities, and who obfuscates the teachings and life of Jesus is dead of the spirit and will not enter Heaven. Nietzsche didn't love Jesus and believe in him or God. He did have a problem with Jesus. Nietzsche didn't want to profess Jesus's teachings and exemplary life as perfectly right. Nietzsche withheld his heart. Consequently, following Nietzsche does not lead to people necessarily doing the right things (behaving correctly). However, really following Jesus does necessarily lead people to doing the right things. The only problem in this world is with those who make themselves obstacles.

      If everyone would just cooperate rather than selfishly compete, what a great place this would be. In order to get to that place (the right kind and degree of cooperation), it is necessary to accept the way of Jesus. There is no other path that leads all the way to perfection.

      God bless,


    • "What is strong wins. That is the universal law. To speak of right and wrong per se makes no sense at all. No act of violence, rape, exploitation, or destruction is intrinsically 'unjust,' since life is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise." — Nietzsche

      Now that's just plain antichrist. Anyone who doesn't see that is being as blind and insane as was Nietzsche. Repent.