I joined the Christian Socialism/Communism group on Facebook yesterday. Two of the first three messages I received were from members who don't believe in the group. The first such message was from a homosexual atheist. The next was from a capitalist. The message from the capitalist follows:

hey tom

I'm in the Christian Socialist group... I'll be straight forward with you. I am not a socialist, but I am a Christian.

I find the two mutually exclusive.

this isn't to say that Christians can [he meant can't] live together in a commune, sharing everything they produce. But this isn't what socialism, communism, or modern "liberalism" is about. They propose forcing other people to share, which amounts to theft.

Its great, and our duty as Christians to encourage people to love God, and others, and in that to give generously. but to resort to socialism, is to commit heresy and turn the Gospel on its head.

I don't mean this to be a tirade, I am hoping for a debate using scripture as our foundation.

My reply is geared toward a disciple of Ludwig von Mises, because the person who sent me the message is clearly such, as his Facebook profile intentionally shows:

Hello ...,

I'm not promoting socialism, communism, or liberalism as you've set them up as your premises. What's to debate? I promote things as I've discussed them on the RLCC website. If you want to debate a Marxist, I suggest you go find one. That shouldn't be very difficult. You won't find one in me. I'm an anti-Marxist.

As for coerciveness, are you consistent with this position? If you are consistent, then you are against using force to establish and maintain any form of government, including capitalism (which is a thieving system of government stealing the Christian Commons that is the rightful inheritance of Jesus Christ and his). Otherwise, you're being hypocritical.

Anyone may leave the temple. Coming into the temple and claiming belief and then doing the opposite within the temple is cause for being swept out without being injured by the cleaner. This is how Jesus handled it. He didn't make bloody war on the Sanhedrin. He foreshadowed though how God handles his vineyard (the whole world and universe) though. It truly is survival of the fittest, and the unrighteous (self-centered where the self is not God) are left to their god, Satan, who takes them down with him into the fire (pain and suffering as consequences for selfishness and inflicted by Satan on the innocent and guilty until the separation) until they are purged (not coerced, just learn), if ever.

I know capitalism (as I have defined it on my site) and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Do you have some words from Jesus that when they are placed within the whole context of Jesus's message say otherwise (say that I have stated Jesus's position incorrectly)? If so, I'd like to see them and hear your reading of them (interpretation).

I'm not interested in hearing about the error of Marxists. I've already explained that myself. All militancy (selfish coercion) is evil.

Let's stick with the subject about capitalism versus what Jesus actually taught and did that was not capitalistic, as von Mises and the others used and use the term (capitalism). Jesus taught about a different wealth: Real wealth, not the apostate von Mises's medium of exchange.

I'd also like to have any such debate in public (where the people can openly read it), unless you have some overriding reasons not to that you can explain to me and will convince me to spend the time privately discussing it with you.

Ludwig von Mises and the rest of the so-called libertarian capitalists, anarcho-capitalists, and other such non-Christians {or did you think the founders of those movements professed Christianity; you're a disciple of antichrists (secular humanists); you can't be a disciple of both Ludwig von Mises and Jesus Christ} have never been interested in giving and sharing all within the whole body that is the Church.

On the contrary, they have spent huge quantities of their dollars and decades of their lives trying to subvert Christianity, since they know full well that the real teachings of Jesus Christ spell their downfall. They seek only to postpone that. It is illusory. They are fooling themselves.

Within the real body of Christ, there is no sole ownership. God is one. If you don't understand the terms, you should enquire about them before attempting debate.

You should also search your soul about calling yourself a Christian while you're a disciple of someone who didn't follow Jesus Christ. Christians don't follow non-Christians to God. Non-Christians don't lead to God. Have you never thought about this, or are you knowingly a closet antichrist dressing up in sheep's clothing to lead people into the dark where von Mises is now. He's not with Jesus – never was.

Tom Usher

Jesus is a communist [opens a new tab/window so you won't lose this place].



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.