CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: PART 3


Title: "Ode to a Vegetable."
 
Thread begins here: CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM GROUP ON FACEBOOK

Hello again, Cameron,

James Williamson (Oklahoma) replied to Donkey's [Cameron's] post

6 hours ago

"I don't know what they're paying you, but it isn't worth it."

Yes, I read the entirety of the posts, and I would love to enter this little debate, but with such tactless, disingenuous comments such as this, I feel my words would fall upon eyes that are incapable of seeing past their own presuppositions: presuppositions blinded to any argument or logic to the contrary.

Is that how you debate? Assume your opponent's a whore?

You see, it is people such as this James Williamson of your state, Oklahoma, U.S.A., who make getting at root causes of all that ails impossible. Is he your friend? What's your relationship?

I wrote, "I don't know what they're paying you, but it isn't worth it." I wrote that based on your profile where you write under "Work Info Employer:" "Ludwig von Mises Institute" as an employer. Now, I didn't say they are paying you. You could be claiming them as an employer while you are actually an unpaid volunteer. People do that. They do call those for whom they are volunteering (no recompense, as Jesus terms it) employer. I don't hold it against people that in a profile setting such as on Facebook that they don't necessarily qualify or clarify. Most people don't want to be consumed with anticipating every last way something might be misconstrued. At any rate, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, as they say. James did not. He called you a whore (if you are in fact paid by Mises).

However, you didn't address James. You didn't straighten him out on this. Why didn't you?

In addition, you are being paid by capitalists all, are you not? Whether or not Mises is paying you, you are being paid by capitalists (philosophical capitalists, those who agree with and defend the system) and are yourself openly defending the position. James is intellectually dishonest at best.

James also, without knowing me or my background, assigned to me the characteristics of being "tactless" and "disingenuous."

Being tactful requires being considerate. To be considerate, one must consider before spouting off. James did not think before he wrote. He did not consider that you might be employed by Mises, which you are, unless you've lied in your profile. I have no reason at this point to think you're lying about being an employee of Mises.

Furthermore, James calls me disingenuous. He's saying that I don't genuinely hold to the positions I've represented concerning Christianity. He bases that on several things, clearly. He bases it on his first error concerning your own professed employment by Mises, and he also bases it upon his own presupposition therefore, something for which he wrongfully rebuked me. So here we have the hypocrisy (yeast, doubt, misguidance, etc.) of the Pharisees evident in James by his own words and staring us in the face.

Lastly, concerning this particular spirit (James), as I said, he knows nothing about my background, yet he claims I have preconceived ideas where I won't look at arguments of logic. Well, we've seen his abilities concerning logic. I see his position repeated over and over again by people in his camp. It's an understood (and I wouldn't be surprised if it's been promoted that way in writing) tactic to roll out without thought. Immediately accuse the opposition of having preconceived ideas such that they won't be honest about the logic (fallacious) of laissez-faire capitalism. Is that how it's been passed down to the rank and file? I wouldn't be surprised if the tactic also says that this is especially useful where the opposition appears to have already seen through us (Mises and Rothbard followers).

For this James's information and for the edification of anyone else (others can turn to follow the way of Jesus too) who cares to read this, I am a convert to Christianity. I never considered myself a Christian before that. I wasn't an atheist, but I wasn't a Christian. In addition, all Christians know that Jesus came out from God. Jesus knew God while Jesus was still in Mary's womb and even before that going back to the beginning, which is eternity. Of course, I don't expect James to grasp that considering his statements.

So, rather than engaging in the discussion, which he characterized in a way designed to demean both of us ("little debate," another very weak psychological tactic one sees repeated over and over), James hit out, missed, and ran away. He didn't say whether or not he professes Christianity. I hope not. It will go better for him if he isn't a hypocrite to that extent.

Here is your reply to my previous post:

Donkey Hayes (Cameron)

"What's "liberty"? If you are a Christian, are you at liberty to violate the commandment of Jesus to be one with Christians? Are you at liberty to treat others as you ought to not to want to be treated? Do you want to be shot? Should you want to be shot or should you want not to be evil?"

Here is where we run into the problems of the Massachusetts's bay colony. Who is to determine the word of God. I am Reformed, Chances are you are not. And instantly we have a situation where if there is to not be liberty to worship as an individual sees fit, (whether it is truth or heresy) one side will be subjected to abuses by the other.

I think its plenty plain and apparent to all that the kingdom of God is nothing like the kingdom of men... NO. it is not a state.

Yes he cleaned the temple. and strictly following logic you may call him the temple cleaner. but that is not the title that would best suit him. thats all I'm saying, to be more accurate, he is the Owner.

Its all over the place, he will not share his throne with anyone... on and on... I would read Isaiah.

So do you advocate that it is in the ability of men to bring about the New Heaven and New Earth? If so I am on board. However I believe man is inherently sinful, and... well it just won't happen. the Lord will bring it to pass, not men.

Mises isn't Anti- Jesus... its just ridiculous.... and sure I do. but the glory to God is.. in being Christian... and if someone is not, we can not take what they have in order to give to the poor... or whoever... in whatever case the giving must be voluntary!

there will be no economy in Heaven because there will be no scarceness. not even time will be an issue. likewise, sunlight and air are not scarce, they will not be able to "privatize them" and there is nothing to mix one's labor with when it comes to air or sun light...:) I have not taken offense to anything you have said... and if I did, I have forgotten about it. (I have a pretty short memory on such things)

I do not find any inconsistency in the economic teachings of Mises or Rothbard, or Hoppe and Liberty, and Christianity.

But this is what it comes down too... should the rich be forced to give his "possessions" to the poor? should the disciples have forced him to do so?

I think of the parable of the sower and the field, where the enemy comes in the middle of the night and plants weeds... Jesus said to let the weeds and crop grow up together and at the end of the age the grain would be put in the barn and the weeds would be thrown in the fire...

Do not go about snuffing out every evil you can find now. not every weed needs to be plucked. The lord doesn't need additional fish from the rich to feed the poor. let the rich keep their money if they wish, let prostitutes and pimps make their money the way they will. and if people want to gamble fine.

The line between a Christian and Non Christian becomes ever more bold the less Christianity is involved in the state. But of Course like you, I do agree we should not allow killings, rape... and so on, crimes against individuals and their property.

My reply:

Here is where we run into the problems of the Massachusetts's bay colony. Who is to determine the word of God. I am Reformed, Chances are you are not. And instantly we have a situation where if there is to not be liberty to worship as an individual sees fit, (whether it is truth or heresy) one side will be subjected to abuses by the other.

You are arguing against other than what I hold. You need to focus on my position. Where in have I written that my position is to force others to worship as I do? Jesus didn't drag anyone kicking and screaming to worship with him. Neither do I. What we are discussing here is what is Christian. You are not suffering abuse when I tell you.

I think its plenty plain and apparent to all that the kingdom of God is nothing like the kingdom of men... NO. it is not a state.

I can see that we have already arrived at the place where you go no further. You refuse to allow that the Kingdom is the State. I don't often resort to mundane dictionaries. They are often exceedingly limiting. However, this instance lends itself to quoting the mundane dictionary, because perhaps you might budge from your stiff-necked position.

king•dom n. 1. A political or territorial unit ruled by a sovereign. 2.a. The eternal spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ. b. The realm of this sovereignty.

Now, look carefully and consider before you jump to some conditioned response. There are two connotations there that are not exclusive of each other accept in the hearts of human beings. The real state is God's kingdom. If you don't arrive at accepting that, you aren't going to progress.

Yes he cleaned the temple. and strictly following logic you may call him the temple cleaner. but that is not the title that would best suit him. thats all I'm saying, to be more accurate, he is the Owner.

Okay, I see you are willing to concede things and grant things; however, you're still missing the point. He is the feet washer. Do you somehow imagine that he's ashamed of that or that I'm demeaning him or lessening his significance by stating this truth? It's quite the contrary. Jesus washed their feet to cut through exactly the spirit to which you're clinging here.

You say you are Reformed. The whole Reformed movement is based upon hang-ups with connotations. Take a look at the history of the Reformed church to see it for yourself. It splits hairs while the feeding of the lambs and sheep goes undone. Surely you don't think that that is what Jesus had or has in mind and heart?

Its all over the place, he will not share his throne with anyone... on and on... I would read Isaiah.

Quote and cite one place where Jesus says he won't share the throne with anyone and be sure that while you're attempting to interpret it that way that you must be able to reconcile all his other talk. If you arrive at any inconsistency, you've failed to grasp. While you're searching, bear in mind all that John relates that Jesus said in his presence. Answer how Jesus can ask us to be one with him while he is one with God and how Jesus can say we each will have a throne and that it is not for Jesus to say which throne will be right or left or closer or further from the Holy Spirit. Answer how Jesus said that we are to become one with all while none exceeds the master. Keep in mind throughout this spiritual search that Jesus washed their feet and everything that he was imparting when he did so. If you can do all that while maintaining that he isn't going to share all with his friends and spiritual family, you know more than Jesus said he does.

Also, read Isaiah as meaning that righteousness doesn't share the throne(s) with evil.

So do you advocate that it is in the ability of men to bring about the New Heaven and New Earth? If so I am on board. However I believe man is inherently sinful, and... well it just won't happen. the Lord will bring it to pass, not men.

Here is a perfect place for you to reconcile a seeming paradox. When God brings it to pass, it will be at exactly the same time human beings manifest God within to that extent. The problem with this Earth (old Earth relative to the New Earth to which we're referring) is the distance from God within each of us and all of us as groups and nations and the whole of humanity collectively. As God comes closer and closer to the time of bringing forth, we are approaching God at the same time and rate. It isn't an either-or situation. There is no unsolvable riddle here. There isn't a chicken-or-egg question here. It's ultimately simultaneity.

As for "inherently sinful," we are born clean slates. We are tempted and fall out of ignorance. Then, evil spreads until we learn to reject it.

Mises isn't Anti- Jesus... its just ridiculous.... and sure I do. but the glory to God is.. in being Christian... and if someone is not, we can not take what they have in order to give to the poor... or whoever... in whatever case the giving must be voluntary!

How can you say that Mises wasn't against Jesus when he didn't accept Jesus? He didn't believe in Jesus. Jesus says that Mises was dead already when he, Mises, walked the Earth.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:18.

there will be no economy in Heaven because there will be no scarceness. not even time will be an issue. likewise, sunlight and air are not scarce, they will not be able to "privatize them" and there is nothing to mix one's labor with when it comes to air or sun light...:) I have not taken offense to anything you have said... and if I did, I have forgotten about it. (I have a pretty short memory on such things)

Why do you ignore the meaning of economics? Look up the Greek "oikos." It's the root. What you are doing is limiting your spiritual understanding by being duped into framing the issues using only the terms as defined by those of the spirit of mammon. Economics is not limited to issues of scarcity. You are right that in the New Heaven (in your mind and heart) there is to be no lack. Remember, the New Heaven and New Earth become one: One house, God's government, God's state of being.

Are you conceding that the capitalists want to section off the oceans to take title and have private ownership over the oceans so that the whole people will not own them as the Commons? What makes you think they don't see technology being developed to allow them to charge for air and sunlight? Don't you know that the spirit of greed knows no bounds? It will be cut off though. Thank God.

As for the idea that mixing one's labor renders something private property, that's antichrist. Jesus enters into the labors of all those who are part of bringing forth the Great Harvest. He makes perfectly clear that we all have part in it who truly believe and act accordingly. Even those who come properly dressed before it is too late get the full meal, what they can partake (understand).

I do not find any inconsistency in the economic teachings of Mises or Rothbard, or Hoppe and Liberty, and Christianity.

Well, you aren't looking. You think you can stand with both Mises and Jesus? You think they are in the same place? Where is Mises relative to Jesus? Do you think Mises knows the door upon which to even knock, let alone being told, I know you not whence ye are? (Luke 13:25.)

Mises did not hold with Jesus.

If you continue holding with Mises, I know you not whence ye are. You are not my brother in Christ.

But this is what it comes down too... should the rich be forced to give his "possessions" to the poor? should the disciples have forced him to do so?

You know, I said from the outset that I didn't want to debate coercive, false versions of communism. Yet, here you are diverting the discussion. I have said nothing about forcing anyone to give up anything (stolen or not). Your training that you've bought into has you obfuscating and wandering off. Christianity is not about forcing anyone. The liars want to distract and reframe the debate so as to draw attention away from their indefensible and fatally flawed and utterly doomed philosophy.

I think of the parable of the sower and the field, where the enemy comes in the middle of the night and plants weeds... Jesus said to let the weeds and crop grow up together and at the end of the age the grain would be put in the barn and the weeds would be thrown in the fire...

Do not go about snuffing out every evil you can find now. not every weed needs to be plucked. The lord doesn't need additional fish from the rich to feed the poor. let the rich keep their money if they wish, let prostitutes and pimps make their money the way they will. and if people want to gamble fine.

You're conflating things that don't go together. You're misreading the parable. The parable isn't about speaking out or not against evil. It's about killing people, or as Jesus says, For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives. Luke 9:56. If your reading were right, Jesus would be self-condemnatory for Jesus spoke against all sin. What you are doing is working with the laissez-faire capitalists who want to block the light of Jesus Christ, because if the hearts of the people turn to Jesus, there won't be any capitalism left. As I said, if the capitalists don't go around killing, coercing, and intimidating, etc., the non-capitalists, then non-capitalists will takeover peacefully. You ignore that fact.

The line between a Christian and Non Christian becomes ever more bold the less Christianity is involved in the state. But of Course like you, I do agree we should not allow killings, rape... and so on, crimes against individuals and their property.

What do you mean by "allow"? If you mean that we should throw stones, I completely disagree. It isn't Christian. Your Club for Protection isn't Christian.

You didn't answer the question of who took away the Commons. You didn't address the issue you raised about entitlement. Where did the capitalist concept of title begin? Who has the real title, and what is that beings desire? And who are the husbandmen?
But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. Matthew 21:38.

Jesus had an entitlement as the son of God. He still does.

Remember, we are all to be the sons and daughters of God. I tell you that the husbandmen are the people who collude together to finagle to get others to work as slaves under them while they lord it over them exactly the way Jesus said not to do. Who do you think does that?

Why are you furthering the teachings of the Austrian school of antichrists when you could be furthering pure Christianity? You don't seem to understand that the Austrian school is the devouring spirits most refined attempt at propaganda. It's all garbage though. It isn't bright at all. The closer you look, the starker the contrast between it and the teachings and exemplary life of Jesus. The Austrian school has had a branch devoted to attempting (failed) to counter the teachings and exemplary life of Jesus. They know it, and I know it. Now you know it if you didn't already. Plenty of schools and think tanks have been brought into being by the spirit of mammon for this same end.

If you continue to hold with Mises at this point after you've taken the time to digest what I've already laid out for you, then there will be no point in continuing the discussion. It will be right of me to conclude that no additional amount of elaboration will move you. I've given you enough of the pearls.

Don't cut yourself off, Cameron, to stand with apostates. You'll go with them where they're headed, which isn't to God.

Thread continues here: CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM: PART 4

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.