wxr_rlcc_1312483961

Hello Saijah and Quazi,

People's styles differ. We have different styles. Today, it appears that more and more people expect others to be on their wavelength even though there are also apparently many more wavelengths than used to be. Jesus used language in a style. His style irritated the Pharisees and Sadducees. I know you are aware of that. I'm not trying to talk down to you here.

What I see in the world is too much changing of the subject. I see it as a method people use to avoid getting to the root of the matter. This is not to say that the two of you are disinterested in getting to the root of the matter or that changing the subject is inherently wrong. There are those you should admit who do use changing the subject as a method of avoiding deep introspection because they don't want to think about how they are in error. They don't want to be corrected. Here too, I want to clarify.

I like, even love, being corrected. I love it when I discover how I have been veering off so I may get back on course. This is the attitude I would love to see in everyone because of the huge benefit it would have. For me, it is part and parcel of repentance, which for those who may not know is returning to God who is righteousness and real love.

I like politeness. I like good manners. I like thoughtfulness. There isn't anything wrong with those things, per se. In fact, if they are understood correctly and meted out consistently, there wouldn't be any problems. What is a problem is when they are used to mask the ravenous wolf inside. We've all heard of Satan being described as very refined, sophisticated, cosmopolitan, gentlemanly, well-educated, wealthy, cultured, modern, and things along those lines. At the same time, behind all those qualities lies the heart of the savage beast waiting to pounce. Of course, we've also heard that the spirit that masks the savage beast can take many forms. So outwardly, it can be the opposite of all those qualities cited above too and in any combination. The thing we must ask about ourselves is how much of that masking spirit is in us. Really, that translates into how much of the savage beast is at our core. It is that devouring spirit we each must overcome. It can be done. It's why Isaiah said that the savage beasts will be tamed and led by the child &mdash clearly portending Jesus in my view.

As for your question about Isaiah 32:5 and my passing it back, I understand that you didn't think that I had already answered you. I believe I had, but that you didn't follow. Therefore, I tried a different approach. This is a matter of style. You aren't used to my style and I'm not used to yours. I wish to get to the heart of the matter. I don't ever pass the time anymore. I don't ever hang out (spend time idly). I did that in my youth, not always, but plenty of it — too much in fact. That's well behind me.

When the time is appropriate we will understand Isaiah 32:5 according to HIS exceeding Riches in Glory. Not having the same understanding as you will not diminish our faith, nor should it diminish your conviction.

Ask, seek, and knock. Not having the whole of scripture opened up to us is not to diminish our faith or the conviction of others. I agree.

We understand it is important to you because of your conviction that up until this point Christianity has not been Real, or Liberal according to this verse. We hope we have understood you correctly.

What has been trying to pass itself off as Christianity, especially since Constantine I usurped the leadership by evil means for evil ends, has not been real or liberal according to this verse and according to Jesus who fulfills the verse. You have not stated your position concerning Constantine I.

Concerning Acts 4:32, you wrote

But did Jesus ever preach or commission the followers to put all their resources into “common”, no we don’t believe that.

The Anabaptists, of course, are not confined to the Amish you cite as not holding all things in common. However, it must be said that you have not asked the Amish how they view their possessions. You haven't asked them whether or not they believe that their possessions are really God's. You haven't asked them whether or not they believe that they are obliged to share their possessions with their brethren if the situation arises.

The Hutterites are also Anabaptists who own huge collective farms. They were so successful in Canada that for a time they were barred from obtaining more land because their model of holding the property in common was out competing those families and business that were less leveled.

Nevertheless, that the practice was not continued immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem (and you don't know with certainty that it wasn't, since many fled and could easily have taken the practice with them but it wasn't recorded in history) is no indication that it is not what Jesus meant for his followers. If one were to apply that reasoning consistently, it would lead to agreeing with acts done in the name of Christianity simply based upon how widespread and accepted those acts were and are. That's not how Jesus described the narrow way. It's not the result of a poll.

Jesus and his disciples did keep a common purse but we figure that was as much a part of drawing them into trust with HIM, as it made it easier to conduct the business of the day. No where do we see Peter or the others selling their homes, causing their whole families to be wanderers with Jesus. We see them going from house to house being cared for and in turn ministering to.

How then do you read (interpret) the following: <font color="#FF0000">And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.</font> Matthew 19:29. <font color="#FF0000">But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.</font> Mark 10:30.

Here is how I interpret it. All the houses of all the people who gladly took in Jesus and his disciples are those houses of which he is speaking immediately above. All the people in those houses are his brothers, sisters, mothers, and children. I don't see how a Christian can read it otherwise. The only missing are fathers, but their males and covered by brothers. He reserved the father figure to God. I like that.

You see, if someone with a farm were to decide to treat his or her farm in that shared-ownership manner, then that person would be as those who opened their homes and no doubt farms, as he said <font color="#FF0000">lands</font>, to Jesus and his disciples, not claiming their possessions as their own, but the property of all those of that spirit. In that way, they would not have to sell their possessions, nor did they all, to be part of that body.

I hope this sheds more light on the subject.

We do not believe that Jesus preached was against personal possessions or property.

How familiar are you with the position of the laissez faire capitalists? They go to very extended depths to define property. They do it in a way that absolutely precludes Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:30 above. There are those (a tiny minority) among them who attempt to get people to agree with their definition but go on to say that once their private rights are affirmed, then they will discuss the obligation of Christian charity. What they are missing is that Jesus was not coercive and neither am I. That right there, the absence of coercion in Christianity as intended by Jesus, takes care of their supposed right. I say supposed here because the right they are asserting is that no one has the right to coerce them from following the laws of economics as only they define them and to the exclusion of Jesus's law of the multiplication of the loaves. The self-styled Christian Libertarian Capitalists are being very convoluted rather than going at it directly. In real Christianity, there is no such private-property ownership (allodial title) in light of God's ownership of all things and all Christians sharing all as one with God and Jesus dwelling within, in the Kingdom of God and Heaven within and that outwardly manifests where faith is great enough.

Neither the behaviors of Greed and Idolatry are necessarily corrected by having a community purse.

Truth. That's why we are not to take any aspect of Jesus's teachings in isolation. The common purse is only a part of the full revelation.

An important factor to be considered is: Can and will the people trust the one who holds the purse? In your Commons model someone(s) must be the steward(s) of that common purse.

Your thinking on this is understandable in that we haven't discussed it before. The Christian Commons Project™ is not always contiguous as the lower 48 states of the U.S. are contiguous. The purse doesn't have to be held in one location. Look, the money of the Roman Catholic Church is really one purse. I'm not holding them up here as the shining example. I'm simply using them so you'll see how one purse is not necessarily how you've been envisioning it. The difference between the Roman Catholic Church one purse and the Real Liberal Christian Church one purse is that the Roman Catholic Church one purse is owned and controlled by the clergy to the exclusion of the laity. In the Real Liberal Christian Church and the Christian Commons Project™, the one purse, as diversely held as it will end up being, is the property of the Church that is its members.

Judas Iscariot held the community purse and seemed a trustworthy man. But scripture teaches us that responsibility of the purse did not override his propensity to theft.

Jesus saw through him, but how did he know him? Judas said things that were not consistent with Jesus's views and revealed the inner workings of Judas's heart. Remember, Jesus said, <font color="#FF0000">Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.</font> Matthew 12:34. Evil people don't consistently advocate good things. Am I advocating anything that isn't good? <font color="#FF0000">Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.</font> Matthew 15:11. What have I written that you've read here that has defiled me?

Jesus didn't let Judas carry the purse to make the point for posterity that no one is ever to be trusted. Since Jesus called money <font color="#FF0000">unrighteous</font> and since Judas was the carrier, aren't we to see the connection in light of the error of selfishness that is so wrapped up in money? I believe so. We must remember the Apostles continued the common purse despite Judas. Why did they trust any one of their circle? Why did anyone trust Peter after Peter had denied Jesus?

When Jesus sent out the 70 in pairs He gave no instruction that one should hold the purse. In fact Jesus sent them out penniless, dependant on the mercy and generosity of those they would preach to.

So, who held the purse while the pairs were gone? Who was trustworthy enough? This serves to illustrate the point I've been making with the Libertarian Capitalists that ultimately money isn't even needed where there is a giving and sharing economy, which is exactly what those pairs experienced firsthand, to their amazement and delight.

The money and purse are to be translated into what the hosts of the pairs did. The hosts had money, but they used it opening their houses to those of likeminded spirit. Their homes were the disciples' homes.

The lesson wasn't as engrained as it might have been and through no fault of Jesus's. Money was never needed thereafter. It wasn't needed after Jesus left except that his followers lived with hypocrites surrounding them. Returning to God as humanity is taking a very, very long time with many ups and downs along the way.

We do believe is the picture of the early community of Followers of Jesus just might be a “shadow of things to come”.

Absolutely it is. It goes beyond the coming wrath but to after it is over also. Heaven is the wholly shared place. There is no money in Heaven. The currency there is love.

Is your description of the “COMMONS” the only way of doing community and serving Jesus? We don’t really think so.

You're still viewing the Commons in isolation as opposed to Heaven within coming out. You're not looking at "my house is your house," as those who opened their door in peace and kept the peace with Jesus and his disciples.

<font color="#FF0000">And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.</font> Matthew 10:13. How do you interpret that? I believe I know that it means what I've been saying on this website. The worthy are those of this spirit that all that is in their possession is not their personal, private property but rather God's and all those who feel likewise. It does not belong to those who are unworthy, meaning of the spirit of selfishness that causes all the harm in this world.

Are we prepared to help?

We suppose this is about helping with money donations. No we are not prepared to give you money at this time. Are there any other ways to support your ministry?

I've addressed this often. I know I've covered it with you. However, if you don't agree yet with the definition of the Christian Commons Project™, you can't really inform people that you've found a plan that's right. You still aren't convinced. If you were convinced, you'd promote it in all the ways God move souls to be messengers.

We are not against community property or communism as you like to call it.

That puts you in a distinct and tiny minority right now. You realize that, don't you. Also, I used the term communism intentionally to take back the concept from the atheists whom the Capitalist gave the term for the reason of definitely wanting to disassociate it from Christianity, which cannot rightly be done, since Heaven is free of money and is communist or communal or shared or whatever synonym(s) you care to use.

I haven't blacklisted Paul. I have said, as you pointed out yourself that "his work was so easily perverted by the preachers and priests of denominations." That is not to say that I agree with everything Paul wrote. I don't agree with all of his positions. Some of them are definitely not consistent with the thrust of Jesus's own words. Now, this assumes that what has been attributed to each of them is fundamentally accurate. I don't hold with all things "Protestant Higher Criticism," neither do I say that some of their leanings are not more consistent with the spirit of Jesus's message than are the leanings of those who call themselves Fundamentalists. I was raised in "Protestant Higher Criticism," in case you're wondering if I have room to speak on the subject. Also, it isn't just preachers and priests of denominations who pervert. There's plenty of perverting of the message going on in so-called nondenominational churches.

I believe I know that both Fundamentalism and Protestant Higher Criticism in their most literal and extreme version are in error. I'm not against extremism mind you. I'm for it. I'm for being extremely Christlike, so much so that we all become indistinguishably Christian. I feel this is one of those statements of mine that will leave you wondering what I'm talking about. However, perhaps you're catching onto my style enough that you'll make the connections without any additional explanation on this point from me.

It was not my intention to assign to you responsibility for defending the Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Calvinists, or Lutherans, etc. I really was trying to open up the discussion so I could see how to answer your questions. Doing that helps to anticipate.

We really are very clueless as to what the “five solas” are and to date have not really taken any time to look it up.

I'm glad you've shared that. It's why I asked you.

We simply are not interested in doctrines of men.

Excellent. Neither am I except to work to dispel them so all of Christianity will be one again, as it started out. You aren't there yet. You're not standing against those doctrines in the sense I mean. Those doctrines are used to harm people, to justify war and greed and all the rest. In order that people will turn back to head in the right direction of unselfishness, it is necessary to explain that about which they are now doing that is headed in the wrong direction. Jesus did this same thing.

The thing about the doctrines is that they invariably are based upon truth but are designed to observe half-truths or partial-truths. Most of their adherents refuse to examine their doctrines in the whole light. It is too unsettling for them. They are very quickly uncomfortable with having to defend their positions from questions of hypocrisy. The reasons for this discomfort vary. Some, even most, preachers just don't want to upset the gravy train (their source of income that requires little effort yet yields them considerable profit). I on the other hand want no such profit. The profit I seek is that which will bring forth exactly the spirit I described above: The "my house is your house" spirit (qualified by the whole of the message and life of Jesus).

It is okay if we disagree with your understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For me, it depends upon what you mean by "okay." I believe that it is not approved by God and Jesus that the sharing way is not the narrow way.

Our disagreement with you should not be such a federal offense.

I disagree. I believe that it is incumbent upon you to come to the same position I have regarding why the people opened up their homes and lands to Jesus and how that ties directly to his message of giving and sharing and Heaven and godliness. I believe that short of that, you're leaving the gate to the wide path open for yourselves and those you influence away from this interpretation I've shared with you.

Your faith ought to lead you to it rather than this causing you to lose your faith. You have faith. I'm just saying have more. I want more faith too. The disciples wanted more. They asked Jesus how to get it. He said do more in faith and your faith will grow.

• You write Jesus came to teach us how to establish and run the “Commons” until He returns to heal the Earth.

The Christian Commons is part of healing the Earth. Jesus is already here in us.

• You wrote that the Commons is salvation, and it is Heaven. You wrote the Commons is God because God is in all things and of all things.

God is spoken of via connotations. God is spoken of within contexts. God is the real life and the real love, and where those things are absent from the heart, God is also absent. That's one connotation and context. Nothing exists except for God. That's another connotation and context. These two connotations and contexts are not paradoxical. The reason human kind struggles with such concepts and finds them incompatible is because of human traditions and human doctrines that have stunted spiritual growth. These things are no paradox within the divine logic of God. I reconcile them without hesitation. I arrived there by accepting the eternal and infinite. Once I did that, the whole message opened and continues to open.

• You have decided not to acknowledge Jesus as the Lamb of God Slain from the Foundations of the Earth for the remission of sins.

• You have decided to teach that sins are not an issue as long as we join the Commons, donate money, and follow the extensive doctrines of the Commons.

You should have put that in the form of a question to save yourself from accusing me of blasphemy. How did you jump to these conclusions? I never said any such things, not even remotely so.

How do you reconcile that you've come to the conclusion that I'm against harm but that I also hold that sins are not an issue?

• You teach that good works like those examples of Jesus and the people of Act 4:32 is our salvation.

Well, here's where you have so much trouble with the faith versus works issue that I initially asked you about the solas. You see, you're verging over into the doctrines of men without realizing it because you haven't studied them to know what to counteract and why, what's at stake, etc.

You keep ignoring what I say about this. It's as if you are hypnotized not to see the words I've written concerning it. I have said repeatedly, ad nauseam, that faith and works go together. I have made it very clear that people can feign good works and that doing that will not grant them access to Heaven. Heaven is not for those who do works without the faith in all that Jesus taught and did. I do though say with all certainty that no one can do good works within the particular context in which Jesus used the term "good" and not be good and faithful. It isn't possible. You'll have to study your Gospels for the term good to see what I mean here. So, there are good works and then there are good works, just as there is the manna and then the real bread. Dwell on it until you see it. It will help.

Also, look up the word "antinomianism." Then realize that that is what you are up against and not just those who hold with deeds without faith. The faith without deeds crowd is even more dangerous, and they come straight out of taking huge advantage of Paul's lack of emphasis on works: Faith almost to the exclusion of deeds (which is exactly the license the antinomians love to exploit). Listen, all you need to do is see the results of antinomians to know how dangerous it is. I've seen families ripped apart by it. I've seen people justify all their addiction with it. Liberality is the code word they use. It's a completely misreading of the term. It has nothing to do with real liberty that is always good, as God is always good because the real liberty comes directly from God and leads directly back to God.

You write: “The cross is atoning. We are to take up our crosses. We are to atone. We are to be sacrificial for the sake’s of our friends who are those who know and love the truth when they hear it that unselfishness is better than selfishness and perfect unselfishness is God.”

This is a noble thought, but it is not the teaching of Jesus. He told us to love EVERYONE, not just our friends. He said to sacrifice for our enemies as well. He said to turn the other cheek, to sacrifice our rights and FORGIVE our enemies and also to pray for them. (MATT 5:44)

What this indicates is not using the given terms within their context while at the same time seeing everything from the fullest context. Jesus said love, but he also hated. Why do you not see that? Why don't you read that as well? He also said to let the spiritually blind alone so they will fall in the ditch. You must come to the point where you have reconciled these things. He came not to bring peace but to divide. He came to prophesy against them. That is, he came to speak the truth to them and about them that they were being evil and would suffer the consequences if they didn't stop, which they didn’t.

He forgave them whom didn't know what they were doing. He showed mercy from the cross. He warned everyone out of his spirit of love. In the end though, only those who accept him, enter. The rest he doesn't know, and neither do I. The rest will be out where there will be the pain and suffering they inflicted on other and failed to address. It's just the way of it, and neither God nor Jesus judges or condemns, even though the truth is the judge and Jesus is the truth. To read the language of the revelation of Jesus, you have to use truth here in the different contexts intended.

DO you not agree that Jesus DIED for EVERYONE, the whole world, friend and foe???

John 3:1 – 36

I reconcile that with what is written above it. Will you?

We do not believe or teach that the cross is salvation. It could have been any weapon that would have resulted in Jesus death. It is the blood not the weapon that has any power. Not unlike the serpent stick Moses held up for the plagued Israelites to look upon. It was not the stick that cleansed them of the curse it was the obedience in looking up as the LORD of HOSTS commanded them to.

Look, I could say you've left out the body. You mentioned the blood but not the body. The cross as I speak of it is not always some physical icon or an actual torture cum killing device. It's just as with the temple. The temple is within. You're turning the cross into a brazen thing. You can do the same with the wine and bread if you're not of the right spirit. Why are you worried about this with me? I don't have the problem you're attempting to address. I never have. <font color="#FF0000">And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.</font> Matthew 10:38. That's what matters. What he did on the cross is that of which the cross image is to remind us, just as the wine and bread in Holy Communion. The cross is part of the path to salvation when it is properly understood as being the reminding symbol of Jesus demonstrating the New Commandment. He showed the degree and type of love necessary for repentance, atonement, and the remission of sin to perfection eternal. He showed (manifested) God. He revealed God's true nature: Merciful, self-sacrificial, and saving for those who believe and only those who believe. So, when you say he died for everyone, you must not exclude that he died for his believers then and to come. The rest, he doesn't know and they don't know him. They are of the other spirit that doesn't enter into God's Kingdom.

This Blood just like the blood of the Passover Lamb was to cover God’s people from the angel of Death.

• God’s children, His People are as Jesus speaks in John chapter 3, those who are Born Again.

Don't you see that you're saying what I'm saying? Don't you see that you've just excluded from the "everyone" for whom Jesus died all those who are not born again? Therefore, you've assigned Jesus's death to different peoples for different reasons. In other words, you've used different contexts without apparently realizing. Did he die for everyone or the born again? I say he died for both but in different ways. He died for everyone in that he afforded everyone the opportunity to hear and to accept the New Commandment. I also say, as would he, that those who are given by God's grace to accept that opportunity are those who do accept in their own freewill. This again is paradoxical for so many. It is so because of the hardness of their hearts. I can't force anyone to see it. I can only say it let them sort themselves.

You quoted Revelation 20:11-15. You will note that it says we will be judged according to our works. Of course, works includes words and thoughts and emotions and spirit.

How are we stumbling your ability to love and follow God as you understand?

You aren't causing me to fall to temptation. You might ask what temptation you're offering. It just comes back to your not seeing that the giving and sharing way is eternally right and good. It isn't just for stressful times. It is, in fact, the way to not have the stress in the first place. Saijah and Quazi, if Heaven is money free, if it's everything given free of charge, if Heaven is within, if we pray for Heaven on Earth as part of the Lord's Prayer, then why don't you already have this in your hearts to want to bring forth, to shine, to glorify God?

Jesus is more than just a message. He is the Savior of the whole world because we need a Savior. To make the Gospel solely about good works and dramatically changing the evil of the world demeans the Gospel.

The Good News is that there is salvation from ................... evil! How is that demeaning the News?

Here again, you're boxing me in, in your minds where there is no box. Jesus is the word. Ask yourselves what that means. The word is love. God is love. God is the word. That's the message, and it's everything. It is too salvation. Believing in his name is salvation. His name is God Saves. What saves? The message saves, the words saves, love saves. Why do you insist upon compartmentalizing where the whole thing speaks of the whole thing? Jesus is the message when his message is everything that matters. That's the context.

To speak only that it is about mercy, forgiveness and grace also demeans the Gospel. If we refuse to deal with the whole Gospel of Jesus Christ which is about mercy and forgiveness AS WELL as good works that lead people to Jesus following HIS commandments to make the world full of HIS Light, we demean it and turn we diminish ourselves as HIS Followers. Let’s not be tempted to slice the truth up into convenient pieces for our own purposes.

I know you're addressing this to me, but why? From the Alpha and Omega please hear me, when one is speaking of mercy, one is speaking of forgiveness and grace and faith and good works and the light and truth and the way....and the blood and wine and the body and the real bread and God and every Christian and the whole Church. It's all one. You left out love in the paragraph above; yet, I know that even though it isn't listed, it's still there. There is no mercy where there is no love and there is no love where there is no mercy. It's why I know that it is Satan and his fallen angels who will take those who reject Jesus into the lake of fire with him. It is God who will show the mercy of taking all the others: The forgiving and forgiven believers.

You feel that wrath has come and gone.

You really need to stop jumping to conclusions. Just because I call what the Romans did wrath, does not necessarily mean I believe there is no wrath to come. The two world wars were wrath. The Iraq War is wrath. I never asserted that Jesus's "prophecies were just in regards to the Roman takeover of Jerusalem."

However, for you to call it no big deal is very hardhearted. I don't believe you've studied it. I don't believe you understand what the Romans did to the Jews. The crucifixes stretched along the roads as far as the eye could see. They cut open the stomachs of live women who had swallowed a few coins per chance they might survive and be able to buy some bread for their besieged children. They leveled the Temple building and made Jerusalem look as if it had never been. They spent years ramping up to Megiddo just to get at the few holdouts, all of whom committed suicide rather than face what the Romans would have done to them. Jesus felt for them all knowing it was coming as he did. He had wished they would have all listened to him and done what he asked because the abomination never would have happen if they had.

This vision is for all races and ages. So far, I've primarily attracted naysayers, which is understandable. I'm against greed, violence, and sexual harm. I've written for giving and sharing all and pacifism that is harmlessness in all matters. I have written on matters and have not hesitated to link to sites that don't agree. People follow those links and voice their opposition. Nevertheless, I'm confident that good seeds are being spread and that there is fertile soil out there. This is the same basis upon which Jesus ministered. People are more jaded now than then though you ought to know.

To answer you, I have no spouse. I am a father.

You ask me about my almsgiving and to boast about good works. I'll refrain from acceding to your request. You shouldn't have asked. What I'm doing that you can see is enough for you to go on. The whole turn to invasive transparency is in reaction to cheats, but it makes trust stink. I'm not going to list here the things I've done. It's not my style. I'm not of that spirit.

If you want to think I don't do any good deeds, that's up to you.

Please see: Christianity, Open-Book Accounting (Financial Transparency), and Doing Thine Alms in Secret. Also, on our Finance page, we stated the following policy that is as consistent with Jesus's teachings as we are able to make it:

Our aim is transparency or what is called open-book accounting. With the exception of protecting donors and people under confidential pastoral care, we will lean toward sharing our accounting with our membership.

We will endeavor to post general accounting information on our website.

We know you want to make some positive changes to the world. For that we applaud you. We are trying to expand the one dimensional intellectual picture you offer. Don’t be offended but after reading a lot of the other posts and comments it appears your audience has come to the same conclusion. Is Tom just sitting at his computer posting and writing?? Really you can’t blame us. You are asking us to give money to basically words on a page, basically just to pay your rent. A workman is worth his wages, and we are just asking to understand why you deserve to be the “keeper of the Common Purse”? Why should we trust you?

Words on a page is exactly what The Bible is. Why do you have faith in those words on those pages? I'm not asking people to just pay my rent. If that is all this is about, I would be scrambling for a white collar job. I've been there. This is about building up for farmland and more for the whole Church, all members to share and from which to give bountifully. That's clear. If you doubt it, there's nothing I can do about it. How could you trust any charity with your approach? Who would come up with the Christian Commons Project™ only to turn out to be a liar? Regardless, Jesus said give to one who asks. Okay, I'm asking, but not for myself but for all those who will benefit. As far as I'm concerned, that's everyone who will have his or her name written in the Book of Life. I say that they are all for it.

You need to not say "us" unless you want to be lumped in with those whom you have not studied. Have you followed the links to those who have borne false witness against me? Unlike you, for the most part, they hate the idea of a giving and sharing economy. Many of the things you've written that show openness to the Christian Commons would give them reason to insult you as well. To them, you're leaving the door open to not needing capitalism. To many of the visitors and commentators on this site, that's a capital crime, literally. You should go read some of the vindictive philosophy upon which they base their ideologies. They have no problem with coercion and punishment. Human might makes right for a goodly portion of them.

You have no idea the deceptive emails I've received. People pretend to be all sorts of things they aren't, to set me up so they can spring it that they were lying all along and that they really hate giving and sharing. It hasn't worked. All it has done is proved my point about the greedy and why the unselfish and harmless need to band together.

You know, all the while you've been reading what I've been writing and adding your own comments, you've steered completely away from any stand on torture or war. Do you consider it evil temptation to take such stands? You haven't said George W. Bush's name in any of this. I realize that neither of you vote for people in secular office. Neither do I anymore. Nevertheless, don't you feel obligated as a Christian to speak truth to power authorized by the evil spirit who rules this world? It's that same spirit of darkness that murdered Jesus. Aren't you concerned that the self-styled Christian Zionists are leading so many astray and fomenting wars rather than being blessed peacemakers? You haven't said anything about the rich being misled and misleading. Are you apolitical? Do you not consider that Jesus was political? You've written some about how things ought to be governed. The Christian Commons is to call people out of that world and into a different one that is part of making straight the way of the Lord. Here again, you must use the term "world" in multiple contexts.

What I read you saying is that I have to prove to you that I'm not a crook. How does one do that to your satisfaction? You are asking me to prove a negative. You said Saijah had been involved in some antichrist activities before converting. Prove to me that she's not still doing them. You can't.

You're falling into the mindset of people being mundanely guilty until they are proven innocent. That's Napoleonic law. It's also evil. Look, you follow Paul and he said check me out against the scriptures. Jesus said look at the person's results. I know I check out on my reading of the scriptures. I haven't written anything disqualifying me, have I? What rotten fruits do you see hanging on me? I'm a repentant sinner, but I'm not a con artist, as some state about me without knowing the least bit about me or spending more then a minute or two on the site mostly spent writing their unsubstantiated accusations. That's satanic behavior in case you don't know it.

What did Jesus do for the first thirty or so years of his life? Were they wasted? Were they in preparation? I wouldn't change it. How many prophets went unheeded for years? You're judging by a standard that you need to view in that context. As for what is or isn't manifesting from this ministry, who are you to say? Do you know what pause I've given anyone who might otherwise have done something he or she ought not? Do you know how long the seeds spread will last? Do you know the world has not been bettered by this website? No, you don't know any of those things.

• We know you don’t like Paul but really he said some pretty encouraging things like if we want to change the world we just need to walk in the Spirit, and stop walking after the flesh. Jesus produced good fruit every where HE went, and HIS followers should be producing His good fruit as well. Do you produce Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self control? Regardless of your irritation with Paul and the folks who misuse his words, don’t you agree Jesus taught us how to manifest these good works??

Your point being what exactly? As I said above, you don't know what impact this site has had. This site stands foursquare against some huge evils in the world. Don't you think that has any impact upon wavering visitors? Don't you think anything I've written ruminates in people's conscience, as it would not have otherwise? Don't you think that anything here has added to the enlightenment of any visitor? Not all of the comments have been negative you know. There are those who have admitted that they've never thought of many of the things the way they are expressed here.

Also, the reaction to Jesus's message isn't just the production of "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and self control." If it were, they would not have murdered him. The more Satan hates you, the closer you are to God. Oh, the satanic spirit hates everyone and really loves no one in the sense Jesus means love, but Satan hates God and Jesus most of all.

It takes time to build up momentum. It isn't easy to attract people to that about which they are unaware as an alternative to the status quo of Satan, god of the world the Empire of the U.S. and all such empires before it (all fallen). The worst thing to do is quit being that voice on the Internet. You seem to want me to quit. It's as if you were sent with that mission. Do you realize that that is how you are coming across?

• Just think what would happen to the Earth if those who really Believe Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords and stopped playing church and honestly Lived according to the Holy Spirit? We would not be surprised if these true believers did choose to live in common community.

Exactly! That's what I've been writing. They pay lip service. It was Jesus's point. Why though do you take this half-hearted, lukewarm, weak-flavored position of yours then? Why aren't you encouraged by the vision of the Commons? Why aren't you full of zeal?

Have you read the Christian Commons Project™ post? Maybe that will help.

We are not being mean to you. We are looking for more evidence you are worthy of a tithe and or offering.

What evidence? Why in the world don't you believe the truth when you hear it? Honestly, just ask God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit directly and by name. Ask them, "Is Tom telling the truth?" Really, I'm not afraid of that. I'm encouraging you to do it. I guarantee that if you do it, really do it, knowing that you will receive the answer that the answer will be "Yes."

I am not lying. This site is not a lie. The idea is to translate mammon into feeding the lambs and sheep of God in a way consistent with Jesus's teachings. The world is not such that it is going to be free of hypocrisy so that we may all eat as from the multiplied loaves or the manna just by the snap of my fingers. God won't do it. The time for just giving out signs is over. The time for giving to the unworthy in such a miraculous way is over.

Think about the religion of science right now and how dominant that is. There are many more people in the world who don't believe in the possibility of the multiplication of the loaves than who do. That includes millions of people who call themselves Fundamentalists even. They say all the power of miracles is closed down.

There are Pentecostals and others who don't agree. Their growing more than those who think the Spirit doesn't speak to anyone, only the text is available. I don't hold with all things Pentecostal mind you, but the Holy Spirit definitely moves me. I won't go into detail, but it is irrefutable with me. I know it as well as I know anything.

It has been almost a year, it may be time to start asking yourself how you are standing in your own way and discouraging donations. It is easy to just say it is “OUR” fault, your audience. We are just too hardhearted. But is that really the problem??

When they didn't have water, they were about to stone even Moses. Think about that. Was the lack of water Moses's fault or his followers? He gave up entering that Promised Land to give them their water. Have I given up anything just to be on the Internet saying what I'm saying so that the thirsty might have a drink? I'm speaking out against the privatization of water. Are you?

It hasn't been almost a year. If you're going by the dates of the post on the site, that's not an accurate reflection. Just having an Internet presence doesn't mean that all the pieces were in place to take donations or that I had done any sort of publicizing.

You don't have a website, do you? It isn't just rolling off a log. Larger sites employ many people fulltime. The rich for-profit corporations suck in traffic via all sorts of temptations. Other sites receive plenty of donations not because they are offering up an unselfish solution but rather the exact opposite. Lots of sites have rich benefactors for the very reason that the site being benefited is preaching selfishness.

Quazi and Saijah, I don't know what else to say to you. You are ambivalent. You really need to ask God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit directly whether I'm telling the truth. I am not out to enrich myself. I want exactly what I've said. I don't want to lord it over anyone. I want friends who want what I want.

I hate Machiavellianism. That's what we're up against. Have you read Machiavelli? The neoconservatives have. They love his teachings. His teachings are antichrist.

God bless everyone in the universe.

Tom

Donate


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.