THE PHILOSOPHICAL, RELIGIOUS, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING MADE 300 ENTRECARD DROPS TODAY

For the first time, I dropped 300 Entrecards in one 24 hour cycle. I just finished at about 6:30 PM Pacific Time. The next cycle will begin at 9 PM Pacific Time. It took me two sessions due to some downtime of the Entrecard server.

I could have done it quicker, but I had to delete some links to sites that were no longer registered with Entrecard apparently. I also had to change a few settings per site for the new sites I added to fill the holes left by the deletions.

So, how do I feel after the experience? I have mixed emotions about it. It is very difficult to do any sort of justice to worthy blogs when one is blasting through just to drop cards. I did it for this very reason — experience it so I would deal with the issues.

Entrecard is not all good and it's not all bad.

I didn't appreciate being confronted with the term "Wicked" that came up in a long string of drops. Entrecard has it set so that the word a dropper is shown as confirmation of the drop changes for batches of drops. I didn't pay any attention to the total number with the batches or the order of the words. It starts with "Thanks" though and ends with "Awesome." As a counter to "Wicked" for those of us who are adamantly opposed to that spirit, perhaps Entrecard might include "Righteous" in the mix or simply remove "Wicked," even though it is obviously meant in the confusion of slang where bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. The Biblical out there will make the connection with Isaiah.

Entrecard gives out EC (Entrecard Credits) for dropping. The credits may be spent or traded for things, including advertising on Entrecard member blogs (provided blog owners will accept the ad request).

Why would a Christian (communist) use Entrecard? Isn't it hypocritical? Why would a Christian pay for hosting a Website? Why would a Christian buy food or lodgings? The motive is to spread the idea. Is this a case of the good end justifying the mixed means? Yes and no is the answer.

The good end is the means. In other words, I'm using the good aspects of Entrecard in order to spread the good idea. Others are using the bad aspects of Entrecard to spread a counter idea that is not good in the end. It's competition for hearts, minds, and souls. It's the competition between the competitive and the cooperative.

All these concepts are contextually understood. It's all semantics.

The most popular sites within the religious and spiritual category in Entrecard, which probably need subcategorizing, are Pagan and Christian. Women holding themselves out to be witches are "popular" on Entrecard. Others holding themselves out to be Christians are also "popular."

What is one to do? Jesus dealt with all the spirits — good and bad, light and dark. There is a line though when something becomes a vehicle for promotion for wrong, because the word has been spoken and rejected. People do change though even after having heard the word (after having had it spoken to them and not absorbing it) and then hearing it again but finally really hearing it.

One of the earliest commentators on this site was a woman who professed that she was once an advocate of witchery. She converted to Christianity she said, as she has been given so far to understand it. We didn't see eye-to-eye about Christianity, but she certainly wasn't openly promoting witchcraft, per se, any longer, at least on this site. Her husband and she (Quazi & Saijah) came blowing in here claiming good motives (they weren't — they came in sheep's clothing to destroy), but they disappeared with their temporarily adopted names possibly adopted just for use on this site, as they show up no where else on the Internet that I've seen even after years.

We've seen lately the videos on the Internet of Sarah Palin, the U.S. 2008 vice presidential candidate on the Republican ticket, receiving the laying on of hands by a visiting African preacher who exorcises witches and demons and offers protection from same in the name of Jesus. Well, at least that's how the Assembly of God members at Sarah's church in Wasilla, Alaska, view him and the situation. (Source)

I've been hearing and seeing the term Manichaean used around in a pejorative sense to put Sarah and her church into perspective for those far from within her circle.

Well, as I've told others, I'm not a follower of the Persian prophet Manes. Zoroastrianism is far older. Many believe that it predates Moses. We need to keep in mind that God was God before Abraham was born.

The people living in Mesopotamia and the area now known as Iran (Persia) had spiritual views. Abraham's God was God for his kinsmen he left behind in Ur in Mesopotamia or what is now called Iraq. Abraham was an Iraqi, if you will. All the descendents of Abraham, including all the ethnic Jews or Hebrews, are descendents of an Iraqi in a way.

Of course, there was much traveling between Mesopotamia and Egypt that took people right through Palestine/Israel, which was called Canaan. There was plenty of intermarrying too. So what's all the racism and ethnic bigotry about when everyone is actually related by blood, as are all human beings if we go back to the beginning? What it is, is stupid and short sighted — unenlightened.

Well, there certainly is a struggle going on between light and dark. Even those who use the term Manichean in the pejorative nevertheless speak in terms that are clearly oriented to the concept of light versus dark. They just most often happen to think that so-called modernity is enlightened. I don't. I consider this time a very dark age. History will vindicate me too on that.

It is a very dark time, as evidenced by the utter stupidity that has caused the latest economic crash or fall, if you will. The sheer selfishness of so many blind and unenlightened people is huge. It is so huge that it has overwhelmed stability and balance. It is top-heavy with ego and ignorance such that it is falling over and crashing into dust. Where have you read about such things before? Will they put it back together, so to speak, and stand it back up like Dagon? Yes they will.

Oh, the atheists will scramble to say that the Bible is full of errors such as the Earth is flat because it says the four corners of the Earth. I still say the four corners of the Earth even while I don't thing the Earth is flat in the Newtonian sense. It's a figure of speech that does not have to ever have been taken literally — ever. Just because there are ancient times relative to our own does not mean that the souls alive during those times were dumb.

So often, so-called moderns swell up as if, if they were to return in time, they would be so much smarter than the people of the past. The truth is that some of the most ancient concepts have not been overturned and never will be.

Yes, there was a time when humans were coming out from living on the emotional level of other creatures. We're talking eternity here though, since all matter, energy, and space-time itself, has a common origin. How far back is the beginning? What is the concept of beginning when one is also discussing eternity? These terms are not irreconcilable. It is not an unsolvable paradox. It is simply that humans have devised language such that comprehension is deliberately stymied by such terms and concepts.

God is the beginning by definition. God is eternal by definition. Reconcile it, and act accordingly. Why argue with it? Oh, there is no god (they lowercase God), the atheists will say. There is no beginning? There is no eternal? There are no atheists then.

This isn't fair you think. It's fair. We're talking about epistemology here. Knowing is subjective and objective at the same time. What is right is the question. What is the right thing to do from where we stand?

We can continue down the selfish road, or we can change to the unselfish. What do those terms mean? We can debate that.

The truth is that Jesus did answer these questions, but many people haven't taken the time to learn how or haven't been presented with the opportunity. Many others run from it, because they know that if they look into it, they will either have to accept it or reject doing what is ultimately right (giving and sharing all as one family). That's the way it is. There is nothing else that matters.

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.