The Dark Ages were no where near as dark as it is now.
When Moses took them out of Egypt, he was confronted by a people, his people, who didn't doubt the power of God to wrought miracles. Their problem was asking Moses what God was going to do for them. That's bad when it comes out of a spirit of selfishness, which it did.
They believed in the power of the spirit. They knew that the gods of Egypt just were overpowered by the emotions of Moses and Moses's God (who wasn't entirely understood by Moses in the sense that Jesus understood and understands God).
Then, when Jesus walked among them, even though he was greater than Moses, he came up against people, fellow descendants of Jacob, who didn't believe at all in the power of God. Even when he showed them, they still didn't go along. They assumed the arrogant, self-important, stance of Pharaoh, who wanted to fight back against the power but was only confused (more hardhearted than the Jews who had left a degree of slavery in Egypt). This rejection of Jesus showed greater darkness of spirit despite the advantage of having come after the Exodus from which they should have been more enlightened.
Right now, things are so dark that who can show them anything? The people in general are so far from God that they just cannot benefit. Yet, they call that modern as if it is inherently good. They call it rational and the power of reason, even though it is less rational and reasoned than the time of Jesus and Moses before that. In other words, as time progresses, despite the advantage of hind sight, the people become even more hardened.
All the self-congratulations concerning modernity and rationalism and empiricism is out of blindness. The world is closer to an apocalyptic event the scope of which the world has never seen before—frankly worse than the proverbial flood, laying aside the purgative moral of the story.
Listen to George W. Bush. He says that if you don't want WWIII, you should be in favor of attacking Iran right away before he leaves office. That's insane, by definition. The truth, on the other hand, is that if you don't want WWIII, you recycle the weapons into plows and pruners and other useful things to, rather than murder people, feed them for free. That's sanity. That's the light. Everything else leads to hell.
This and the next (newer) post are directly tied together. Be sure to read both.
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)