I read this post and left the following comment:
Hello Tony Cathey,
I enjoyed your post. I agree with it with the following qualifications:
There is Communism, and there is communism. There is Marxism and the one-party dictatorship of the proletariat, and then there is how the Apostles lived. It has not "been proven the world over to be an unworkable philosophy. It results in nothing but poverty." That's a falsehood perpetrated by the greedy liars, such as Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and others. Voluntary change of heart to unselfishness requires the fruits of communism of the type Jesus taught and exemplified. There are hundreds of thousands of people living a giving-and-sharing economic life with most, and often all, things held in common as community property. The lying capitalists seek to make that truth a thought-terminating idea.
There is self and then there is Self. There is self apart from God, and then there is Self as part of God, even one with God the Holy Spirit.
There is materialistic evolution, and then there is theistic evolution.
Saints lead people to the cross (understanding what it is all about).
People aren't born with a negative self-image. Schuller is wrong. People are born as clean slates. They know nothing in the experiential sense. They know only the faith. Human beings become misled by the sin in the world.
"'What kind of psychology did Jesus use?' we might ask." Well, understand that the psyche is the soul and -ology is knowledge. Certainly Jesus knows more about the soul than anyone else did or does. Jesus was the best psychologist who ever lived and still lives. I take your point though that the "new" psychology is a distortion and misleading.
As for "little gods," you are right provided you are not saying that we are not to be one with God.
As for the Dominionists saying, "We are going to solve the problems of mankind," the only "we" who can do this is everyone in Christ in God and one. Unfortunately, the self-styled Dominionists are capitalists and often militants/militarists against the giving-and-sharing political economy of the New Heaven.
Also, concerning the Cross, be sure not to divorce it from the Resurrection and all the rest of the message. The cross is to put you in mind of the body and blood and of the right kind and degree of love and of service as the last, etc.
The proper self-esteem is to esteem being one with God. We approach God with humble and contrite hearts. We are the prodigals returning home.
The reason the humanists don't want to admit their sins is because they want to continue sinning. Putting the self apart from God last would mean giving everything over to the whole body of Christ that is the Real Church. They hate the implications of Jesus's real teachings.
God bless all with the whole truth.
Jimmy Swaggart doesn't teach it. He still preaches partial-truths. When he brings forth, then I'll know him.
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)