——- Original Message ——-
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:00 PM
Subject: Form Submission
Comments: After perusing your website for a short while, I see little about real peace, love or truth. As a matter of fact, I was left with a sick feeling reading several of the articles posted.
There have always been well organized, articulate people with shoddy ideas, and I can't think of a better category to describe this website and the thinking that has gone into it. Sorry, but it sucks.
The is my reply.
The form-submission method of communicating is intended for people who have sensitive things they wish to discuss. It's for the sake of privacy.
Why didn't you simply submit public comments on the posts that made you sick and explain exactly what bothered you and why? Are you ashamed or not interested or both or what? Are you avoiding specificity, because when you've been specific in the past, you've come up embarrassed?
Did it make you feel better to tell me my ideas suck?
Which ideas suck exactly and why, xxxxxx? Does the idea of land for the poor to grow food for themselves and other poor people suck? If you think so, you've a really small, cold, hard heart. Do you think the idea of harmlessness sucks? What part of greed, violence, and sexual depravity do you defend against the giving and sharing economy, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness and unselfishness? Do you think those latter things aren't loving or peaceful or truthful?
You're lost, xxxxxx. You're in the dark. Seek the light. If you want to be serious in exploring a meaningful theological position, I'll interact with you about it. If you just wanted to try to make yourself feel more self secure by imagining you've run me down, think again.
May God bless you with the real truth.
——- Original Message ——-
To: Tom Usher
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2008 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: Form Submission
I appreciate that you found the time from your busy life to write.
It was late when I wrote and I had no desire to get into details - I came across you site quite by accident and just looked over a few articles which I found disturbing.
I really need to go no further than to point out to you your letter below - it makes all sorts of suppositions concerning my life and my beliefs that you can have no possible inclinations about. There is a major flaw with the writer, I'm afraid, and I guess that's where the major flaws in the website emanate from.
Nothing too personal Tom, I don't know you and there is no reason for me to denigrate you personally, though I must admit if we carry this on much longer, I may have a change of opinion.
There have always been people with a innate talent to write and express their ideas - you are one of them. That is quite different from people who use their talent to speak the truth - I see you as someone who uses your words to justify your preconceived thoughts. You are not alone - one of many. Just not my cup of tea.
Contrary to what you wrote, my reply made no suppositions concerning your life or beliefs. I asked questions. Read it again. You'll see you mischaracterized: Your flaw. Repent, xxxxxx.
Next time, consider what you're about to say or write. You might be able to avoid putting your foot in your mouth.
Another word to the wise, the cavalier, vague, even vacuous approach won't see you through. Give it up. Get right with God.
You used the term "preconceived." What before what? What do you think you know? Speaking of suppositions, what are you supposing, xxxxxx?
You don't think you've attempted to denigrate me personally? You call the revelation of Jesus Christ shoddy ideas. You say I have a major flaw of forming suppositions — a false charge by you. Yet, you say I'm the one who isn't writing the truth.
Really, xxxxxx, you're overly impressed with yourself.
I'm done with you until you repent. I hope you do.
——- Original Message ——-
To: Tom Usher
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Form Submission
Your first letter:
"You're lost, Xxxxxx. You're in the dark. Seek the light. If you
want to be serious in exploring a meaningful theological position,
I'll interact with you about it. If you just wanted to try to make
yourself feel more self secure by imagining you've run me down,
And after I commented on it:
Contrary to what you wrote, my reply made no suppositions concerning
your life or beliefs.
You might well be a decent fellow underneath it all, but my short
exposure to you has me convinced otherwise, for the time being anyway.
Perhaps I'll visit your site again (if I can find it) and perhaps I'll
discover I was wrong, in which case I would apologize. A tip however -
don't hold your breath (or do).
I don't say this to many people but in this case I believe it. I think
you are a bit of a dangerous person. Talented yes, but so was
_____________ (fill in the blank).
Good luck to you however.
It's apparent that you don't understand the meaning of the word "supposition."
You have made no point. I wasn't supposing anything. Anything I didn't know for sure, I asked about.
Do you think that my statement that you are lost and in the dark is a supposition? It is not.
The things you said about the message of Jesus shows that clearly. You think they are shoddy ideas. By Christian definition (God's definition) that makes you lost and in the dark.
That's the way it is.
Now, since you've offered up nothing to substantiate your allegations, I tell you now that I won't be responding to any further emails from you unless you repent.
May God bless you with the message of Jesus Christ.
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)