[In response to our post, "Cato Antichrist: Part 5," Bryan Morton wrote the following comment on his site:] Tom,
Your opinions regarding the fruits of ones labor, i.e., private property etc., and their relationship to various forms of money, are difficult to follow with any consistancy. You have yet to refute the evidence that I presented from which one can only conclude that the Bible acknowledges the existence of private property, private property rights and that God even commands that we not violate them.
In an earlier post you claimed that it was hypocritical for someone to state that democracy was bad, and then turn around and advocate electing Ron Paul. You may wish to reread what I wrote. You will discover that democracy is not inherently bad, but is generally so because selfish humans use it more often than not as a means of coercive force. Like anything inanimate, it does not have the capacity for reason, nor the ability to be moral or immoral and can be used for good or bad. It is the fact that people are sinful and will use it for evil that makes it bad in general. Democracy can also be used as a defensive measure to attempt to prevent its use by others as a means of coercive force. This is the same argument which I make for private property, that as an inanimate object it has not the capacity to be either moral or immoral. I do find it interesting that while you claim that money is inherently evil yet in the very next breath, you ask people to donate it so you may use it for good. So not all capital is bad? Only the capital which others control? It seems tha in practice your argument against capital is more like mine against democracy.
I haven't yet gone into a discussion of how Christians should view rights differently from their secular counterparts. You must grasp the basics first before we move on. You can't understand how to get from what is to what should be without knowing what is.
For our next installment; Utopia is subjective and therefore Utopian societies are unatainable.
I've posted several more articles on the subject since "Cato Antichrist: Part 5" of this series. You should find each of your points addressed. You'll see many things that will strike you as having nothing to do with your position. Those points have meaning for others.
Bryan, I understand that you don't see corporatism and mercantilism as part and parcel of the capitalist system. What would be pure capitalism? Would it be simply private ownership? We wrote, "God owns everything. [Real] You as an individual own nothing alone, apart from God. If you are one with God, you own everything sharing it completely." Is that incompatible with your concept?
If you are a Christian and I am a Christian and we together are one with God and Jesus, and God and Jesus share all things, then how can you have the kind of sole ownership that you define? Where does your right start and stop as a Christian? As a Christian, everything that is mine is yours if you are a Christian too.
Isn't your definition designed to stop non-Christians, to educate them that they ought not to want to take from you the very things you need to sustain your flesh life? Are you not confident that real Christians would never take in that way?
Do these questions not make any sense to you?
Are you opposed to the Christian Commons? Sole ownership versus sharing is the point.
You wrote the following:
In an earlier post you claimed that it was hypocritical for someone to state that democracy was bad, and then turn around and advocate electing Ron Paul. You may wish to reread what I wrote. You will discover that democracy is not inherently bad, but is generally so because selfish humans use it more often than not as a means of coercive force.
However you also wrote the following before that:
Democracy is nothing more than the oppression of the minority by the majority and it's unbiblical.
These two quotes from you don't jibe.
Are you really confident that you know the meaning of life? What is inanimate?
When Jesus said, let the dead bury the dead, was he speaking about the inanimate? What is the living water? What is the fruit of the tree of eternal life? Have you eaten it yet? Are you alive with it yet? Where does the inanimate matter leave off and the spirit begin? What is the unclean spirit manifested? Is it dead? What is the clean spirit manifested? Is it life? Where in was Jesus matter and spirit at once? There is life and then there is life. What is good versus evil? When they crucified our Lord, were they aware? Were they sentient? Did they have the ability to be moral? Was the fig tree sinful when it would not bring forth when Jesus commanded it? When Moses saw the burning bush, was that bush moral or immoral? Was it real?
You need to answer our questions in order for this conversation to continue. We won't go on unless you answer. If you want to say you don't know, that will be fine. Otherwise, where are the answers? If you don't know and won't say so, well, we have better things to do with our time.
You also wrote, "I do find it interesting that while you claim that money is inherently evil yet in the very next breath, you ask people to donate it so you may use it for good. So not all capital is bad? Only the capital which others control? It seems tha in practice your argument against capital is more like mine against democracy."
I went into the translation of money in the post you read. We too are sinful until translated.
It isn't analogous with voting for Ron Paul. You said capital is private property. Money is private property according to you. When it is given to the Church it is translated into the Christian Commons, which is not private property. The Christian Commons goes on to an economic system absent money. Members of the body will pay for nothing in the Christian Commons, just as it is in Heaven.
All tribute money is whose? "Render unto Caesar...." What money is God's? Is it the pure shekel? Jesus answered that. Can your friends at LewRockwell.com tell you where and how? What is real? That's what Christianity is about. What is the real context?
On the other hand, Ron Paul, bless his heart, as President of the United States, would order the U.S. military to defend the United States. Bless his heart not for that. He isn't calling for Christianity. He is desirous of being the head of the worldly government that Jesus was offered and rejected. Also, Ron is not advocating translating the United States into Christianity or Heaven or the Commons or that for which Jesus is calling.
The state that is the United States is the worldly world. It has no part in Christianity and Christianity has no part in it. It is of the worldly prince, the god (and some capitalize it as God) of that world, who is not Jesus Christ but rather Satan. The real state is the Church, and it is communistic and ultimately moneyless.
However, Ron seeks the continuation of the separation of Church and itself (state). It is that condition (continuation) that will fall and be replaced. The Constitution of the United States is not new Holy Scripture. It is not the fulfilled law.
Where are you investing? Libertarian capitalism isn't Christianity. It is ownership apart from God. It is apostasy. Which did you think you were first, a Christian or a capitalist?
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)