[RLCC Reply-comment to Bryan Morton's comment on "Cato Antichrist: 'Anti-Environmentalism is Evil': Part 3"] On November 4th, 2007, Bryan Morton commented as follows: You're confused about what capitalism is and how it differs from mercantilism and corporatism. Democracy is nothing more than the oppression of the minority by the majority and it's unbiblical. The disciples drew lots to choose a replacement and what do you recall of the result of that choice? Saying you're against coercion isn't the same as being against it. Once you understand more about what capitalism really is, not what you claim it to be, you will understand that coercive force would be the only means that would eradicate it. You don't know me either so the extent of my knowledge on communalism is most likely more than you might think. Communalism was tried once in the Bible, too. It failed.
We are not confused about capitalism, mercantilism, and corporatism. Laying aside the so-called modern business corporation as an ostensible legal person and laying aside the connotation of mercantilism to which you are referring, comparing capitalism as you envision it (what you call pure capitalism where the individual is sovereign), comparing its emotional starting place, its driving spirit, with the emotional starting place and driving spirit of the revelation of Jesus Christ, one ought necessarily to find that the spirit of Jesus is the righteous of the two, for with those two divergent spirits being offered to the people from which to choose as individuals and as a collective, were they to choose the spirit of Christ rather than that of capitalism, the consequences of their behavior between and among each other would show a vastly improved environment (the right sort of environmentalism), even to the point of perfection were all souls to so choose. Christ's vision is better than the capitalist's vision.
As for democracy, there are different connotations of the term. The way in which you are using the term is exclusive of Christianity where individuals voluntarily and desirously vote for Jesus's path (not coercive and for his followers only) versus the path of capitalism or any other path. This vote by the individual does not result in forcing anyone to also choose to live under Christianity.
It was the consensus of the disciples that they continue the circle of twelve. It was also by consensus that they decided to go with the movement of the spirit as reflected in the majority will of the eleven. It is not written that any of them felt at odds with those decisions. They were moved to take those decisions without any dissention having been recorded. None was captive. There was no oppression in it. It was not unbiblical, per se. The Bible is a record of both coercion and consensus of various spirits (visions, emotional states, etc.) competing for hearts, minds, and souls. Which is best?
Over time, there has been a huge falling away. Exactly which emotion gone with and when that has led to each bit of that falling away, God alone knows. Did it begin during the first generation? Yes. Was it on-going even as the story of the spirit of Christ was spreading? Yes. There was a spreading of the story of Jesus even as the diluting process was also at work. It is why we have so many people mundanely knowing some of the revelation but a tiny few, if any, knowing a great deal of the revelation. It is why the power of the Holy Spirit to effectuate healing and the raising of the dead is not seen in this dark worldly world of capitalism and the other ideologies not Christian.
What is passed off as Christianity by the mainstream is not Christianity. The real Christian message is lost in the surrounding black water of corruption.
The falling away, the corrupting process is identifiable. That falling away, that corruption, cannot rightly be laid at the doorstep of the spirit of Christ but rather to the spirit of those who hated and hate his intention as it conflicts with their selfish desires. It is they who do their fellow human beings disservice by encouraging one another to look to lesser truth: Proselytizing for antichrist.
One can say one is against coercion and also be against coercion. We are not just paying lip-service. Jesus did not and does not coerce. The coercive spirit is a different spirit. The coercive spirit is in competition against the spirit of Christ. Many self-styled Christians don't see that. They attribute the coming wrath to the spirit of Jesus Christ. They don't understand offense and the Sons of man. They don't understand the spirit itself repenting. They do not follow the semantics.
We don't say it is easy for people to see the clear and plain truth. What is clear to one is hidden from another. Some are given to perceive. It is why no two souls are identical. It is why Jesus himself said about himself that he did not know everything that God knows. He did and does though know that he was and remains closer to God than anyone else was or is. We agree. He is still closer to God than are we. We don't seek to get between God and Jesus to separate them. We seek to join them (in the greatest spirit of unity of righteousness possible). It is we who have to rise. It is not for us to ask them to lower themselves. We ask them to rather raise us. We don't seek to lower the standard. We seek to rise to it. This necessarily includes sharing the revelation with others.
What they fail to understand is that Jesus is eternally consistent. The Son of man will fall to wrath and wipe out those who cave in to all sorts of iniquitous temptation much more readily. That Son of man will then repent. It has happened many times before. The spirit of Jesus Christ is not that spirit. The spirit of Jesus Christ suffers (tolerates, doesn't force) eternally. The distinction is lost on the harder hearted. This is why he pronounced woe upon the ones who come in the spirit of wrath. They must come, but they're wrong.
Look, if it were not so, then only the sword in hand and not truth, would matter. Only brute and raw force would matter. Of course, there are those in the highest worldly positions who believe exactly that while pretending publicly to believe Christianity.
As for communism having been tried once in The Bible and having failed, how so did it fail where the spirit of capitalism has not? We say that the communism in The Bible did not fail but that nothing good comes out of the spirit of capitalism but rather capitalism comes out of selfish hearts. We hold that unselfish is right. We hold that the teaching that selfishness is good and right is exactly backwards and on the wide path. We hold that the narrow way necessarily includes the Commons. We hold that the highest heaven is the Commons that cannot be taken or brought forth by force. We hold that such is the spirit of Jesus Christ always.
If you knew about the Christian-leaning examples where communism works and works even very well, why did you write in your first comment without qualifying your statement that "group ownership creates selfish waste and degradation and explains why the most polluted places are those which are owned in common"?
Isn't it a falsehood that communism doesn't work? Isn't that falsehood repeated over and over again by libertarian and other so-called capitalists? Isn't that just another example of the Big Lie? Isn't it weak?
How hypocritical it is of the libertarian capitalists to advocate Caesar to decree laws blocking Christians from their voluntary association and own political economy within. If you truly believe in the free market and right of people to own property, then advocate for Christians to be free to associate themselves individually and collectively in their own giving and sharing economy and openly to advocate that others join that spirit.
Do you agree, or do you hold with using violence to prevent Christianity? That's not a rhetorical question. If you add another comment to our site, we ask you to show respect for the true market place of ideas by answering our simple question. Otherwise, it will appear that you are unwilling to allow others to place their offerings before the people to allow them to choose what to consume from a full selection. Be against censoring Christianity as a choice. Be against the spirit that sought to kill the message of Jesus Christ to prevent the people from having that most righteous of choices to buy without the unrighteous mammon.
God bless you, Bryan, with the real truth.
Are you with the Cato Institute? Are you representing them?
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)