The following is a reply to which I wish to draw greater attention:
You are welcome for the comment I left on your site. Thank you for taking the extra step of commenting over here and for stating that you like this website.
I read your clarifying post concerning the Cross and Resurrection. I too believe that the Crucifixion was the climax. There is no greater love. The Resurrection is the result or fruit. The Cross and Resurrection are inextricable. Taking up the Cross is love and is resurrection or resurrecting. I know these things are not lost on you.
We come from different backgrounds (hopefully not different roots though in the Gospel sense). Touching on semantics can only help us to bridge gaps.
I see that you are quite Pauline. I have difficulty with many people who are Pauline (some things in the Epistles and more importantly some people's selective interpretations ignoring the words of Christ); however, I find in your approach more bridging language not falling into greed, violence, or sexual depravity. Of course, I haven't read your entire site. Perhaps you hold with those things to some degree. I do not.
Yes, I did understand that when you were speaking about "little gods," you were referring to egoists calling themselves Christians and who also line their pockets from the funds of those they dupe and lead astray. I'm glad you are out there in public standing up against them. Of course, you are not judging or condemning them but rather calling souls to turn from the wrong direction.
Unfortunately, the Benny Hinns and Kenneth Copelands of the world do have creative power in their spoken word. The problem is that they speak evil (falsehood) into the world. You were referring to that they hold themselves out as having the power of Jesus. It is up to us to speak the other direction from theirs, which it appears to me you are doing. In the end, of course, only righteousness has power. That's the whole point.
As for our knowing each other, it is only via the social-networking sites to which we both belong that we've made contact. This is our first correspondence or communication other than "friending" and the like on the social-networking sites.
I'm glad I came across to you as polite and personable. I've had people come here leaving comments that I should be more polite. Of course, those people jumped into the middle of firm debates concerning greed or homosexuality ("Homosexuals: What they ignore") and other harmful behavior that all people may choose to stop if they will accept the Holy Spirit into their hearts.
Furthermore, I used your name, Tony Cathey, because I checked to see what there is about you on your site and it's better for me to think of people by their (what the social networks call) real names rather than their handles or user names or screen names, etc. It's just less contrived. Those nicknames though are often revealing. Contrivance is a major problem. We need to be real.
Well, I'm glad so far to have made your acquaintance. I say "so far" not because I expect to be disappointed but simply to acknowledge that not all people turn out as they first wish to appear.
We both know that Jesus was amazed by people in both directions. He was amazed by both lack of belief and great belief. If Jesus can be amazed by how people react and turn out, who am I not to be also? Of course, that does not mean that the Holy Spirit doesn't reveal secrets about the future. I am not one who believes that the gifts from God have been switched to off since the first generation of Christians. The Spirit is everything that has true significance, true in the way Jesus uses the term. If it is off, nothing signifies.
I've move this comment reply from comments to elevate its visibility. This site is a "Do-Follow" site, meaning that the major search engines are instructed to follow the links in the comments section. However, to-date, most sites are not "Do-Follow." Public posts though are almost always set with instructions to the major search engines to follow the links. Many sites also use the posts' rss feeds to build their databases. Comments are usually not included. Therefore, mentioning our sites in our posts with a links will only help us in our networking to spread the semantical understanding.
There is no reason not to reply to people via posts as opposed to comments only. We don't want the thread of a conversation to become impossible or too inconvenient to follow, so there is a trade off that is a judgment call.
Lastly, thank you for your patience in waiting for this reply. I'm working on a number of projects simultaneously. No doubt, so are you. The length of time it takes me to respond is not necessarily indicative of the weight I place on a matter.
Well, may God bless you, Tony, with more and more light as you go forward into the future.
Perhaps we can collaborate more and more as time goes by. Let's see how much we can arrive at seeing things eye-to-eye.
Point me in the direction of where I might learn more about you. Do you attend a particular church? I know of none that agree on all three points: Giving and sharing all, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness versus greed, violence, and sexual depravity. Are you a member of a certain denomination? I've started the RLCC to further the three points I've mention among other things and reasons.
Your friend in Jesus,
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)