PART 1: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN

The following is from a comment thread on [deleted] blog. It will make better sense if you visit there and read the whole post and thread. Feel free to comment here on it all.

Hello Again, Chris and All,

This comment will be long. It's merited here though. Bear with me, Chris. Have faith in God's work with your readers. Hearts do not have to harden through this discussion. They can actually soften. It's a choice.

My direct reply to your last comment, Chris:

The rest of my immediately prior comment indicates that I was not agreeing with your position on chronological order and grace versus faith concerning salvation. It does matter, just not in the way you think. That's my position. My point was that it matters that people believe they are holding with truth but still not compelled to bring forth. Lack of that compulsion is indicative of lack of truth. Grasping the point and then refusing means sin remains. All of that is what I meant and mean by "it" and "matters." It is not necessarily condemnatory to say that people are failing. Jesus edifies, not condemns.

A man fell in a well. He yelled for help. Another man came and saved him. The first said, "Thank you for saving me." The second said, "Thank God your strong voice saved you." They agreed with each other. Both were right. Then they discovered they were long-lost brothers. The grace of God shows here through and through. Surely you can see that. Salvation came here by a man, a man's voice, and God. These are different contexts all speaking of the one same thing at the same time in the same place all in order with each other. God was/is in the men, living. There's no confusion here. There's no false teaching. No one is misled by it. It trips no one who loves truth. It's light.

You stated above that you've been tempted to delete or otherwise conceal or at least obscure this discussion. That wouldn't be in the spirit of asking, seeking, and knocking or in leading the fold to truth. Wrestle (debate) with your conscience. Didn't Jesus debate them in the center of the world, as they thought of Jerusalem and the Temple building at the time? I love his spirit that did that. They murdered him for it. He also told his disciples to ask questions while he was there with them. Why are you not happy when the light of truth shines through on your blog as a result of the back and forth in comments? If you kill this discussion and questions and answers, you will be hiding the light.

There isn't anything here over which anyone who recognizes and loves Jesus's voice will trip. It will only trip up those who don't love the truth and who therefore hate God. That's their problem. We can't force them.

You have said that people who believe that faith in God saves them are practicing idolatry. You also want people to believe that you have not judged the hearts of those you've labeled idolaters. How is this different from addressing my points, especially concerning the weightier, such as the Christian Commons? I don't see it. If saying that people are practicing idolatry isn't judging hearts (and I am not saying it is in the sense you mean it), why is saying that people are failing the commandment to feed the lambs and sheep and to give all and to share all judging hearts in a way that is not the same as concerns idolatry? What's the difference?

I don't judge or condemn. Jesus doesn't judge or condemn as in punish. This whole discussion is highly contextual, as it should be. Connotations are critical.

Kevin came and commented to shoot down sola scriptura (scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone). He came to defend apostolic succession. He came to shoot down the Protestant Reformation. He wants everyone to return to the notion of the infallibility of the tip of his brand of hierarchy in matters of faith, something I find impossible. Although, I'm not a Protestant in that I'm not Lutheran, Reformed, or Anabaptist. I am more radical than even the Anabaptists. So was and is Jesus.

Apparently, Kevin does not believe in the concept of the priesthood of all believers. I believe in the priesthood and kingship of all believers. I do not hold with Paul concerning women and the leadership of the Holy Spirit. I do not need nor do I want or uncritically accept the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Popes or anyone else. They have never brought forth in full (only in very isolated, half-hearted ways and places). I know them by their fruits. Is that judging their hearts? In a mundane way it is. I'm not going to torture them though. That's Satan's kingdom. I don't live there.

By clear implication, Kevin has said that you do not have any right to hold any position contrary to what his orthodox tradition tells you to believe and to do. I don't know every distinction between Catholic and Orthodox churches. Kevin may not be Roman Catholic, although I doubt it at this point. He seems out of character for a member of any Orthodox church.

Where will Kevin end up as a result? Jesus says there are many mansions. People conceive of levels from the Highest on down into the bottomless. To what will Kevin's works (fruits by which he will be weighed and measured and sorted) have amounted? Will he arrive in the 11th hour and receive the full penny?

Luther was right that the indulgences (works of a kind) had been a means of grave abuse and utter corruption. Many Protestants overshot though and dispensed with deeds entirely and in direct contradiction of the plain teaching of Christ. They threw the baby out with the bathwater. Hyper-antinomianism contains prime examples. It has been used to excuse blatant preoccupation with material possession and with other manifestations of harmful lust.

As for bitterness, I was speaking for myself.

As for offense, it is offense that the people haven't brought forth. It's a sin against God. That's the truth.

Chris, deeds were and are so much more important to Jesus than is being stressed today. Jesus talks about doing deeds over and over and over. He talks about bringing forth. He never mentions grace. He talks a great deal about faith and deeds. Paul mentions grace almost one hundred times in his letters.

Now, in all fairness, Paul says, "Who will render to every man according to his deeds."  (Romans 2:6 KJVR) He also says, "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is."  (1 Corinthians 3:13 KJVR)

But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever."  (2 Corinthians 9:6-9 KJVR)

It's not as if he didn't know about deeds/works. He goes to great lengths to make his case about the ritualistic laws and grace and works, etc. What he doesn't do though is emphasize feeding all in body and soul. He mentions it but not as Jesus emphasizes it. Jesus, in John's Gospel, drives it home three times to drill it in (to root it).

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.  (John 21:15-17 KJVR)

That cannot be separated from the fact that they all live from one purse and that the disciples held all things as common possessions. Now, I say that the Christian Commons is wholly consistent with this. What say you? Is it an offense to ask? Is it an offense to answer in the affirmative? I can't see how.

You're Pauline. I'm not. Paul did not put the emphasis upon feeding the lambs and sheep that Jesus put upon it to Peter (and the others). I won't say Paul was against it. He just didn't lead to it. He didn't lead to the churches he founded holding all things in common as Jesus did with his disciples (and Jesus is the example we are to follow to the best of our abilities). Paul's emphasis was on the mystical without bringing forth the tangible fruit in the here and now, as Jesus did. Jesus meant his Church do it (feed the whole flock and more) in both the flesh and the spirit. It hasn't happened yet. That's a fact. Certain stubborn Pauline Christians lean all over Paul's letters and elsewhere in offering up excuses. That's offensive. It's sinful. I say it. It doesn't mean I'm perfected yet.

You and I are built differently. That's not bad, per se. I've written things on your blog that perhaps are foreign and may take awhile to click, if ever.

The thing that strikes me right now is how are you going to get into the "meatier stuff" and not be open to what you might take to be challenges? From my perspective, I figure if my beliefs won't hold up, then I'm wrong and the Holy Spirit isn't giving me what to say.

Chris, isn't Satan a clever debater? I just saw an atheist's blog whereon he was lauding Christopher Hitchens' performance in a debate with Al Sharpton that was apparently held at the New York City Library. I'm not providing links here, because of your preferences concerning that. Hitchens, according to this atheist, was convincing that belief in God is actually immoral. The day before yesterday, I left a comment on a high-traffic site in opposition to that same false conclusion posted there by a university professor who is somewhat fringe but does get the microphone and spotlight and camera to lead souls astray. I will be returning to see any responses and to defend Jesus. I don't do that for ego's sake. I do it for the sake of those who, failing to hear any voice stating the error, may fall further or remain lost. If Christians won't do it, who will?

I don't leave your blog, Chris, shaking the dust from my feet.

God will tell you what you need to know. If you ask him in the name of Jesus, he won't tell you I'm lying.

Peace,

Tom

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.
    • you wrote,

      "Apparently, Kevin does not believe in the concept of the priesthood of all believers"

      as well as other false observations furthest from the truth.

      Tom I'd like to respond to those comments so here is hoping you'll contact me via email.

      Chris at [deleted] has chosen to restrict my ability to reply so I'm hoping we can engage in a private discussion on the topics being raised at [deleted] and the points of view being presented without throwing up the,

      "I'm offend and who've slandered me" card.

      For the record it is the revisionism of priesthood of all believers that I have a problem with, the first peoples of the book were a royal priesthood of believers and yet out from under that umbrella came a chosen ministerial priesthood and we find the same thing in the New Testament under the New Covenant when Christ comes to fulfill and not do away.

      In Christ's Church we find an episokopos order chosen out from the priesthood of all believers to lead and instruct in a ministerial function. This function is one first established by Christ who is afterall a (the) High priest. Christ's ministerial priesthood should contain a valid succession.

    • the entire discussion at [deleted] should have started off with the questio,

      How do we receive grace?

      instead of placing acceptance of faith and/or works in salvation at odds with grace and justification.

      I would suggest that in having faith and good works are avenues of receiving grace, something I feel Chris overlooks in his condemnation of those who hold to faith saves or faith and works saves.

      back to the original discussion - [deleted]

      • Hello Kevin,

        As for the "priesthood of all believers," you're twisted in your talk.

        "...chosen ministerial priesthood...." Jesus didn't arrange the chairs. He never said who will be on his right or left in Heaven. There is no institution on this Earth that has more authority than that which is given to Jesus. If Jesus doesn't take it upon himself to establish a hierarchy, which he did not and does not, then neither may any of his followers.

        If that's too esoteric for you, so be it.

        You don't have a priesthood of all believers next to or above or below Jesus where anything but service of the kind Jesus speaks and demonstrates exists. If you are speaking solely about that in the sense Jesus means it, then I hear you. Then, the Roman Catholic Popes have been and remain blatantly wrong in your eyes for failing to have brought forth the Christian Commons Project.

        Who are these people to whom you're referring who are going to instruct me about the Gospel message? Who taught Jesus? Where's your direct relationship with God? Who are these intermediaries you're following?

        I can't stand what Constantine I did. Do you understand? His whole movement was, and will remain forever, utter apostasy. The bishop of Rome is in Constantine's shoes. Let him come out.

        Peace,

        Tom

    • Chris [deleted]

      Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Tom!

      I don't intend to get into a debate over this as I have my hands full with other things at the moment...

      However, I feel a need to address something that Kevin said here which doesn't give an accurate picture of my response to him.

      Kevin said:

      "Chris at [deleted] has chosen to restrict my ability to reply"

      It appears that Kevin is trying to make it look like I am not willing to allow him to respond to my post or to comments that have been made in response to my post.

      Please read my post entitled: [deleted]. When you are finished reading this read Kevin's comments.

      You should see very clearly that he does nothing but accuse me of teaching things that I am not teaching. In fact, his entire response to me appears to be accusatory.

      You will see that I tried to explain to him several times that his accusations against me were blatantly false; yet, he persisted in trying to convince me that I was teaching something that I actually refuted in my post: that is, the 'Faith Alone' doctrine.

      For I believe we are saved by God's grace. Not by faith. And if you read my post you will see that I have good reason for believing this.

      I informed Kevin via email that I would not allow him to post anymore comments that make false accusations against me as he was clearly saying things about my teaching that are not true.

      Note: I don't believe that Kevin was intentionally bearing false witness against my teaching. Although, what he said about my teaching was obviously false. So even though it wasn't intentional, I still see it as bearing false witness against me.

      And when I tried to correct him on this matter, it was as though he had refused to see eye to eye with me, and insisted that I was doing something that I was clearly not doing.

      So the only way to stop that from continuing was to put a restriction on his commenting ability. It's not that I don't want him to make comments. I just don't want him to keep making false accusations against me when it can be seen very clearly that what he was accusing me of teaching is not true.

      And I think anyone else would likely do the same thing.

      Kevin is welcome to post comments at [deleted]. But false accusations will not be tolerated.

      Blessings to you...
      Chris [deleted]
      [deleted]

      • Hello Chris and Kevin,

        Let me say that I see things both positive and negative in each of your respective theological positions, but to the point here about your immediate comment above, Chris, I do say to Kevin, make an emphatic statement acknowledging that Chris was not putting forth the "faith alone" doctrine, which he clearly was not.

        I hope this helps.

        God bless both of you.

        Brothers, yes or no?

        Tom

    • Chris [deleted]

      I feel a need to qualify something that you said, Tom.

      You said,

      "You stated above that you've been tempted to delete or otherwise conceal or at least obscure this discussion. That wouldn't be in the spirit of asking, seeking, and knocking or in leading the fold to truth. Wrestle (debate) with your conscience. Didn't Jesus debate them in the center of the world, as they thought of Jerusalem and the Temple building at the time? I love his spirit that did that. They murdered him for it. He also told his disciples to ask questions while he was there with them. Why are you not happy when the light of truth shines through on your blog as a result of the back and forth in comments? If you kill this discussion and questions and answers, you will be hiding the light."

      Now then, it is important to note that I was considering turning the post into a page and thereby deleting all of the comments from it because I don't want [deleted] to be a place for debate, but rather civil discussion.

      Moreover, it did get ugly in there with all of the false accusations that were made against me by Kevin who even went so far as to imply that I am a heretic for teaching something that I was actually refuting!

      If you go to the post and read the comments you will see what I am talking about very clearly.

      I felt that such comments were out of place because they are not only false, but also unfriendly.

      Hence, this explains why I was considering removing them. For because of their blatant falsity I saw no sense in keeping them there.

      Please understand that I don't believe Kevin did this intentionally to try to hurt me. I genuinely believe that he just simply didn't understand what I was really saying. For whatever reason that that was I don't know; But the accusations made against me are without a doubt false.

      Anyway, that is all I have to say about that. I don't want people to think that I have something to hide because that is not the case at all.

      I am open to discussion and willing to have my faith examined. But I am not going to tolerate false accusations being made against me.

      With that being said, Tom and Kevin, if you would just discuss the issues that you have with each other and leave me out of this I would appreciate that, as I have no intentions of entertaining into this discussion/debate further.

      Blessings to you...
      Chris [deleted]
      [deleted]

      • Hi Chris,

        You wrote, "if you would just discuss the issues that you have with each other and leave me out of this I would appreciate that."

        I'm still going to wait for Kevin to emphatically state that you were not putting forth the "faith alone" doctrine. It's central. You can't be left out of that. It's impossible.

        Chris, your blog is open to the whole world (at least the part that can afford it and aren't behind some anti-Christian firewall). You can't expect others not to discuss your blog or writings or what have you. It's not reasonable. It's not conducive to the furtherance of Christianity either. Chris, if you're going to preach to the world, which you are attempting to do, you're going to have to be prepared for people who will disagree with you and write about you in ways with which you disagree.

        Listen, I've had Wiccans, Atheist, homosexuals, warmongers, materialists, and others come here leaving comments that I've allowed to stand. I've addressed them all head on. The statements of witches are in the Bible, Chris.

        The Gospels would be nothing without the accusations against Jesus. Come on, Chris.

        Sure, I have lines across which I won't let submitted comments through. I'm not going to have a blue streak. However, let me say that someone possessed who walks in here spewing a blue streak will find help if they are at all reachable (healable).

        Jesus dealt with Legion didn't he? Legion heard and was healed. Not everyone will hear and be healed. Those spirits drown themselves. It's not Jesus's fault. Have enough faith the handle these things, brother. You can do it. Don't be offended by this.

        Chris, you have your standard on your blog. I have mine on mine. You want me to respect (in the mundane sense) yours on yours, which I've been trying to do (the things you've requested in emails and in your blog comments) while keeping the learning dialogue open in both directions. Respect mine here. Okay?

        Thank you.

        God bless all,

        Tom Usher

    • @Tom Usher -

      Tom,

      you wrote, "I'm still going to wait for Kevin to emphatically state that you were not putting forth the "faith alone" doctrine. It's central. You can't be left out of that. It's impossible."

      Well sadly in the post which was restricted over at [deleted] yourself and others didn't have an opportunity in reading a reply to Chris wherein I apologized for NOT seeing/reading "The Role of Works in Salvation" in Chris' original post.

      With this in mind and few of Chris' additional reponses since sending that post to [deleted] I'm of the opinion Chris doesn't really wish to engage in true discussion and/or desire a call to intellectual honesty. Tough words but not mean-spirited simply my observation. Debating the orthodoxy of "our" shared Christian faith is perhaps threatening to him.

      In my brief return to Christian Commons and peeks over at [deleted], Chris continually implies he has been terribly wronged in more than just a "false profession of faith alone"

      For the record, not once do I think anyone in our discussion has been mean-spirited, nor have my own words been spurious requiring moderation but again I have relayed already to Chris an apology on one misunderstanding and corrected him on his assumption on being called a heretic. Also, I have expressed my understanding of [deleted] being a private forum which can be directed by him in any way he so wishes.

      My only wish now is a call to truth and desire for these false claims of being derailed by Satan to cease by Chris for his benefit alone. His preoccupation in implying a Satanic influence has in fact lead him to create a post entitled, Dealing with Abusive, Irrational and Divisive People, which is not very accurate or impressive and most importantly dishonest.

      Tom I will now abide of your wishes in leaving, you out of this as you have "no intentions of entering into this discussion/debate further."

      • Hello Kevin,

        You wrote, "Well sadly in the post which was restricted over at [deleted] yourself and others didn't have an opportunity in reading a reply to Chris wherein I apologized for NOT seeing/reading "The Role of Works in Salvation" in Chris' original post."

        Okay, well, that's one of the reasons I posted over here too. Your apology is now out there. I think you accidentally (I use that in the mundane sense) missed what he was saying. It happens to everyone. I'm sorry when it happens to me too.

        As for Chris, I really don't know what's going on there. I believe he thinks he's doing the right thing. What I saw though was what I'll call ducking my direct questions, not that they were violent hits. He killed the whole thing rather than saying he does or does not agree with the Christian Commons Project. He shouldn't have done that. What am I supposed to do, say it was okay of him?

        He thinks what he thinks. He's judged.

        He's trying to control his image where he shouldn't be that worked up about it. It's not easy when people don't get one the exact way one wishes to be viewed or the way in which one thinks he or she is projecting, but we have to know that God knows what we're all about.

        Why Chris didn't want to engage you and now doesn't want to engage me is something he really doesn't understand himself.

        I see that you've used the terms "tough" and "mean-spirited" as not being identical. I agree that they are not. Different people have different thicknesses of skins of course and for right and wrong reasons. I've had different thicknesses myself over the decades and for different reasons, both right and wrong. We'll see.

        As for being a heretic, well, you're a Roman Catholic I take it and I'm certainly considered a heretic by Roman Catholic standards. So what? I'm not going to lose any sleep over it unless the Roman Catholic's go crazy and do terribly wicked things in the name of Jesus, which they have done, as you know. What's a heretic other than someone who dissents from Roman Catholic dogma in this case? I definitely don't agree with the Roman Catholic dogma.

        As for [deleted] being a "private forum," I take it that you simply mean that he has private control concerning who will post what. He could block the general public from viewing too, but apparently he doesn't want to be that kind of private. He wants to preach but not allow debate. I can't see it. It makes no sense to me.

        As for "Satanic influence," "satanic" is both an absolute and relative term. Everything that isn't God is other afterall. We're surrounded. Jesus was surrounded. He was tempted, just as Chris was tempted to delete the comments, which were actually enlightening and which he did in fact delete.

        You also wrote, "Tom I will now abide of your wishes in leaving, you out of this as you have 'no intentions of entering into this discussion/debate further." No, that was Chris who said that. I, Tom, was quoting Chris. He wanted us to leave him out, which I agreed to do saying only that I would wait for you to make your statement about his not having been preaching "Faith Alone," which you did and which I told Chris to just watch.

        I also quoted Jesus (paraphrasing) saying to forgive your brother. "We need forgiveness and mercy and to extend those things." That comment was deleted on Chris's blog. That was a big mistake to delete that. He's extremely concerned with what's here that may make others wonder about him, but he didn't worry about leaving you without a place to make an open apology now did he? Do I write that here because I want to hurt him? Absolutely not, I don't. He cut it off before it could work itself out.

        Well, Chris has pulled himself out as much as possible, but what's here still stands for the right reasons — light of truth.

        Is it all warm and fuzzy? The cross is no warm and fuzzy place, not that Jesus didn't sleep on the pillow in the fishing boat. He did. I'm just saying that while we want to return to the garden, we must suffer the journey. Jesus certainly did. That's why we love him as our greatest brother that all of us need to join at his level.

        Chris thinks we were ugly. Lot's of people have come here and starting from various positions ended up trying to thump me in the chest with how unloving I am when I stand up and tell it as it is. So many people have this idea that Jesus was wimpy. They want to assume that because I can be what they see as harsh that I don't contain any gentleness. That's really wrong of people. Jesus was gentle and he was tough. I don't see anything wrong there or contradictory. What do they think that a wimp cleaned the temple just because the little kids loved him and could trust him not to diddle them?

        God bless the Pope and Chris, even though I don't agree with them.

        Tom Usher

    • Tom,

      you wrote, "As for the "priesthood of all believers," you're twisted in your talk."

      no I believe I was quite clear on this point.

      you also wrote,

      "There is no institution on this Earth that has more authority than that which is given to Jesus."

      Q, who is claiming otherwise? not me nor The Church (Catholic) you'll have to explain that comment better.

      you also wrote,

      "If Jesus doesn't take it upon himself to establish a hierarchy, which he did not and does not, then neither may any of his followers."

      odd this pronouncement I was wondering if you could explain with what authority do the first apostles preach? Are they not elders of the Christian community who are to "the Way" the same as those who sat in the seat of Moses? Does not the Lord give authority unto the apostles to bind and lose in his name? John 20:20-22 and does not the apostle Paul give pastoral lessons to Timothy which stretches four generations of successional leadership? "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2)

      Next
      Q. What is the Christian Commons Project? (I think it a good idea for you to briefly explain it in this thread for others reading along) after explaining I'll then reply with a response on whether or not the "Catholic Church" is meeting or most likely surpassing your requirements.

      Finally, you wrote,

      "I can't stand what Constantine I did. Do you understand?"

      nope should I?

      Constantine was not a spiritual teacher nor was he ever bishop of Rome and for your benefit I'll explain that Constantine was called Great as a military ruler who relocated the center of his government from Rome to Asia Minor. If you are hinted at what is correctly known as, caesaro-papism, your arrows would be better focused at the Eastern Churches. I'll wait to read more from you before entering into a discussion on general history.

      "The bishop of Rome is in Constantine's shoes. Let him come out."

      you think? I suggest a study on Emperior Theodosius before jumping to conclusions about a state run religion by Constantine.

      I've discovered that many/most persons coming from a separatist background as yourself hold to an extreme revisionist point of view on general history and in particular Christian history.

      references: http://www.catholic.com/library/apostolic_success... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_I

    • Hello Kevin,

      Now let me address your points/questions.

      You wrote:

      "There is no institution on this Earth that has more authority than that which is given to Jesus."

      Q, who is claiming otherwise? not me nor The Church (Catholic) you'll have to explain that comment better.

      Leave it in context:

      Jesus didn't arrange the chairs. He never said who will be on his right or left in Heaven. There is no institution on this Earth that has more authority than that which is given to Jesus. If Jesus doesn't take it upon himself to establish a hierarchy, which he did not and does not, then neither may any of his followers.

      Kevin, the statement is clear. Jesus chose people. He did say that we here will make our fate. Well, I'm doing what I'm doing to turn things in the best direction I can conceive — that I'm given to understand. If we here say you're on the right and you're on the left, that's how our Heaven/Hell will turn out for us. I'm saying that I'm not going for it. I'm saying that I agree with Jesus for myself that I don't choose who is on the right or left. So why does the Pope think he should? When Jesus's disciples asked him whether they should go stop someone who was not one of the twelve from casting out demons in Jesus's name, what did he say? If you don't get the point, I don't know what I can do about that if anything.

      Kevin, you wrote:

      "If Jesus doesn't take it upon himself to establish a hierarchy, which he did not and does not, then neither may any of his followers."

      odd this pronouncement I was wondering if you could explain with what authority do the first apostles preach? Are they not elders of the Christian community who are to "the Way" the same as those who sat in the seat of Moses? Does not the Lord give authority unto the apostles to bind and lose in his name? John 20:20-22 and does not the apostle Paul give pastoral lessons to Timothy which stretches four generations of successional leadership? "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2)

      Firstly, in reverse order to get this one out of the way, you've read the comments here and that were over on [deleted], so you know I'm not Pauline. I've already stated why. Besides, faithful to the faith is my whole point. The Roman Catholic Church as not been faithful to the faith.

      Secondly, John 20:20-22 is the wrong citation.

      "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19 ASV)

      It also doesn't guarantee infallibility. The gates of Hell won't prevail against the Church as Jesus intends it, which is not as the Roman Catholic Church is.

      Furthermore, Jesus is the way, taking nothing away from other disciples when they don't err. Just being an ordained bishop of Rome or in the Roman Catholic Church sure doesn't make the person the way. If you think so, you're lost brother. The way is doing what Jesus did and does. I don't see the Roman Catholic Pope doing that, not even close. Bless him nevertheless.

      I'm an apostle in the same way Jesus answered them when they asked him about his authority. Why should I be different? The Roman Catholic Church isn't authorized to keep God and Jesus from dwelling within me. It isn't authorized to keep the Holy Spirit from instructing me directly. What I've just said takes nothing away from those who lived with Jesus. They were given huge power. They taught and passed on the stories. Of course people learned in a lineal way. In that sense, there is a direct succession to me. I don't need nor does God require of me that I have the official sanctioning of the Pope for this. The fact that the Popes in history made such a mess of things speaks volumes about how the succession they claimed was far from superior and not unbroken. They shouldn't have been followed. Yet, they used the temporal, coercive, violent, deadly state to terrorize people into following them. That was wicked. That wasn't from Jesus. If you think otherwise, well, that's too bad for you and for anyone you sway to that false belief.

      Now, if you want openly to say here that there have been apostate Popes, which you should certainly should and have put yourself on the spot concerning it, fine. Do it. It will just be truth-telling.

      Kevin, you wrote:

      Next

      Q. What is the Christian Commons Project? (I think it a good idea for you to briefly explain it in this thread for others reading along) after explaining I'll then reply with a response on whether or not the "Catholic Church" is meeting or most likely surpassing your requirements.

      Anyone worthy will click the link and read. Comments are open there too. You can link from within your reply here.

      If you even slightly suggest that the Roman Catholic Church is even remotely doing what I've put forth in the Christian Commons Project you're amazingly off. The Roman Catholic Church denies and withholds the Commons from the body.

      You wrote:

      Finally, you wrote,

      "I can't stand what Constantine I did. Do you understand?"

      nope should I?

      Constantine was not a spiritual teacher nor was he ever bishop of Rome and for your benefit I'll explain that Constantine was called Great as a military ruler who relocated the center of his government from Rome to Asia Minor. If you are hinted at what is correctly known as, caesaro-papism, your arrows would be better focused at the Eastern Churches. I'll wait to read more from you before entering into a discussion on general history.

      Constantine did what he did. The church didn't tell him what to do. He told the church, and they didn't tell him he was wrong for making war. Should you understand that? Yes, you should understand that.

      I'm a pacifist, Kevin. I don't hold with "just war" nonsense. That's just false-heartedness. Jesus was a pacifist, even when he cleaned the temple. The Popes were not and, are not, and never have been. They've all been wrong. The church gave Constantine a pass. Theodosius doesn't alter that.

      Kevin, Constantine was full of it when he suckered everyone into fighting in the name of Jesus. If you don't agree, that's your problem.

      So, Kevin, who are you? Declare yourself. What's your exact relationship to the Roman Catholic Church?

      Thank you in advance for doing that.

      Blessings,

      Tom

    • Chris [deleted]

      For the record, Kevin did apologize, but not exactly for what he appears to be implying he apologized for.
      What he specifically apologized for was saying that I didn't include Eph. 2:10 in my post when it was there the whole time.
      Don't you remember that Kevin?
      You admitted that you missed that reference, which is included in the section that is entitled: The Role of Works in Salvation.
      But Kevin, you did not recant your false accusation against me that I was teaching 'faith alone'.  And if you did, you didn't do it in a way that was intelligible to me.  
      In fact, even in your comment here it appears that you are not actually saying that you were wrong for accusing me of teaching 'faith alone'; but maybe others see it differently than I do.
      But if you mean to apologize for this, then I will accept your apology.
      And as for the reason why the comment wasn’t included concerning the apology about Eph. 2:10, it was because it still contained accusations; and at that point I had had enough of your accusations against me.  
      That’s when I took the matter to you privately via email wherein I informed you that I would not post your comment unless I knew that you weren't accusing me of teaching the faith alone doctrine in it because I saw no sense at that point in putting up comments that made more of the same accusations against me.  
      Furthermore, in an email that you sent me, you did state that you didn't believe that I am a heretic.
      However, this left me in confusion because in some of your comments that you made on the post, you implied that I was guilty of teaching a heretical view on salvation, and even went so far as to suggest that I was making a revision to Christian orthodoxy.
      Now then, Kevin, how is it that you could imply that I was teaching heresy and then say you don't believe I am a heretic?
      It seems to me that if someone is teaching heresy then that means that person must be a heretic.  But maybe you don't see it that way.
      Kevin, please keep in mind that just because I deleted all of the comments from the post that doesn't mean I didn't keep a record of them.
      I have a record of every comment that was made in that post.  Granted, I don’t have the comment where you apologized for accusing me of not including Eph. 2:10; but that is  only because in that same comment you were still giving me a hard time about the 'faith alone' issue, so it seemed anyway; and since our email correspondence didn't go well I went ahead and deleted it before saving it.  
      Nevertheless, I have saved all of your emails too; and in one of them you still appear to be questioning me about the 'faith alone' issue, as you referred me to a comment that you made wherein you used the expression, 'back to bible slinging'.  
      Perhaps I misunderstood your intentions on that.
      Whatever the case is, I would like to put this behind me now.  If you will openly admit that you were wrong for saying that I was teaching ‘faith alone’, then I will accept that in good faith.

    • [From Tom: I repaired all the bad line breaks. Your paragraphing, Kevin, may not be as you originally intended.]

      I'll try to take this point by point

      1. re: the left and the right
      Tom you ask about our place in heaven, when quoting this particular verse of scripture and I understand by doing so you are not cognizant of taking it out of context in using it as a defense against a teaching authority, magisterium of the Church on earth. The question and or explanation of left or right in heaven is a response regarding our place in heaven not a denial of magisterial authority on earth. (valid teaching authority of elders, apostolic succession) The greatest of saints saw themselves unworthy being not the first but the last, yet this denial of self does not diminish or invalid the authority of God established within the magisterial office (authentic teaching authority) of his Church. God's promise endures hence the structure of his Church on earth endures and we are instructed the gates of hell shall not prevail nor shall the apostolic succession recede for Christ foretold them "he shall be with them always" The usage of left or right ultimately has to do with right or wrong, satanic or saintly, a question of salvation for every soul and Christ's response is not a denial of his own authentic teaching authority on earth being replaced with the teaching authority of every believer as you would have us understand. The presentation (tradition of bible interpretation) you uphold Tom would make each of us our own bishop, our own episkopos and that is not only not rational, it's simply not good faith. The authority of popes do not start with men (as you've concluded) it starts with God. The promise of infallibility on teaching of faith and morals does not guarantee impecciablity of the teacher, of the pope, of the man, it promises an infallibility of instruction to others. you write, "Popes in history made such a mess of things speaks volumes about how the succession they claimed was far from superior and not unbroken" and I respond no doubt their have been anti-popes or what you've termed elsewhere, "apostate Popes" but more importantly I have to ask you to present precise examples of instruction by these Christian teaches where and when have they in administering their office as bishop of the Church taught something in grave error concerning matters of Christian faith? Tom you've claimed there was no established hierarchy (meaning teaching authority) of the Church by Christ but I strongly disagree. The Apostle Peter is mentioned first whenever the apostles are listed as a group. From the Greek Peter is known as "protos" and is understood not only as first but chief apostle. It is to Peter our Lord is described as instructed "Feed my sheep" John 21:17 and to Peter alone out of all the apostles. The Orthodoxy of the Christian faith understands this to be an affirmation of Peter as chief steward of Christ's Church on earth, similar to the Old Testament description of chief steward of the King who singularly carried the keys to the kingdom the King Isa 22:21-24. Finally, regarding this case of Authority / question of Authority you write, "The Roman Catholic Church as not been faithful to the faith" can you explain more and we'll discuss the truth or untruth of this claim. side-note: an additional title for the popes is "servant of servants" hence first is last

      2. re: John20:20-22 and Matthew 16:19 (no confusion Tom, there is more than more verse to quote which refers to the authority of Christ restricted to certain functionaries) see above regarding the keys and John 21:17, Isa 22-21-24 regarding authority to bind and lose

      3: re: The Way When I originally used that term I was using it as a title for the Church inclusive of both clergy and layperson. You responded with the following question, and suggestion or answer "Furthermore, Jesus is the way, taking nothing away from other disciples when they don't err. Just being an ordained bishop of Rome or in the Roman Catholic Church sure doesn't make the person the way. If you think so, you're lost brother." I think there's some confusion and I should attempt to clear it up as soon as possible before we continue further discussion as it seems to be a reoccurring theme. The Church (Catholic) and the Church hierarchy is not a replacement for Christ but an instrument of Christ, an affirmation of Christly authority and a promist of Jesus Christ as the head. The Church and Church magestrium does not exist without God but because of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ as the second person of the One God Holy Trinity is central in worship, central in authority and central to dogma. It is because of Jesus Christ that acceptence of his Church as the body is crucial. It is through the Church man has the holy scriptures, knows of the Messiah, knows of the promise of salvation. It is not enough to say "I know Jesus" and have a "personal relationship" or say "all I need is my bible" without first knowing these are less likely (outside personal revelation from God) if not for the instrument of Christ's annointed ministerial priesthood. because I accept both Christ and Christ's Church I could use the phrase "family relationship" to describe all that Christ desires for us. Therefore, while many non-Catholic Christians profess a "personal relationship" Catholic Christians are exposed to the "family relationship" of Christ and inturn pray that all who claim in the sonship of Christ to experience that gift of Christ.

      4. re Constantine, still not sure why Constantine is such a huge focal point but to be clear I again affirm Constantine did not have spiritual authority within the early Christian Church and expanding that a little I'll explain, Catholicism was not a creation of Constantine. If you desire to continue to discuss Constantine you'll have to be more discriptive in the point you're trying to make of Constantine to Catholicism. I understand that much anti-First Christian literature is written as hate propaganda which meligns the Church (Catholic) as being outside Christian or Not the "New Testament Church" by later separatists, all of it is easily debunked.

      5. re: who are you? Declare yourself. What's your exact relationship to the Roman Catholic Church? I am a simple Catholic layperson, in communion with First Christianity, I profess the creed of our early Christian brothers and believe as bishop St Athanusius of Alexandria, "whosoever wills to be saved must before all else. adhere to the Catholic Faith" (catholic meaning katholikos or according to the whole from the Greek words kata and holos)

      [From Tom: I made these hyperlinks. Please do this yourself in future. Thank you.]
      Links
      Isaias 22
      John 21
      What Does Catholic Mean?

      • Okay, I've added your URL http://(http://serieaweekly.blogspot.com/)" target="_blank">(http://serieaweekly.blogspot.com/) to all of your comments. Please use it consistently. Thanks.

      • Hi Kevin,

        I can't reply to all of this right now. Please be patient. Thank you.

        Have you subscribed to comment updates on this post? With your next comment, you should for your convenience. [NOTE: The subscription plugin broke with the WordPress 2.7 update. It would not allow the administrator to work with subscriptions. I deactivated it.]

        I'll also clean up the misplaced line-breaks in your comment. I think you must have used some editor that retained bad breaks and then you copied and pasted with those breaks in place.

        Tom

      • Hello Kevin,

        I'm not going to reply to your whole 2008/12/27 at 11:31am comment necessarily in one comment reply. I don't have enough time to do that right now. I've cleaned it up (bad line breaks and links) and read it. When I'm done with my series of comments responding to it, I'll say that at the end of my final comment reply. Please hold your comments until I've indicated that I'm finished responding. I will attempt to do it all in one reply though if I get done with other pressing projects soon.

        In the interim, please clarify whether or not you agree that Chris [deleted] was not preaching the faith-alone doctrine, as that issue is still hanging out there. You can do that by replying to me or Chris's last comment (2008/12/24 at 12:27am) here covering that.

        I realize he deleted the whole discussion on his blog, but that won't prevent you from making the statement here that he was never preaching faith alone in the applicable post on his blog.

        Thanks.

        Blessings,

        Tom

      • Hi Kevin,

        Here's my full reply to your 2008/12/27 at 11:31am comment above.

        SOME OF WHY I'M NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC OR PAULINE: PART 6: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN

        I hope God blesses you with this; otherwise, we walk apart.

        Tom

    • This has been resolved. I did a quick check and a non-logged-in submission clearly renders the words, "Your comment is awaiting moderation." Try looking for those words next time. You should see them next to your name at the top of your pending comment after the page refreshes once you've submitted. If you don't see them, let me know. Don't submit more than once though. Thanks.
      Kevin,
      You made 4 duplicate comment submissions to this post all on the same day using different names and email addresses. At least that's what is in the spam-holding area pending either approval (and deletion of the duplicates) by me or sending them to Akismet as spam, which will damage your situation. What explanation do you have for the following (domains and full IPs not showing to protect any innocents pending your reply; all fully logged information will be permanently saved):

      Kevinkevinede@66.71.246.xon THE CHRISTIAN COMMONS PROJECTSubmitted on 2008/12/27 at 12:53pm

      Kevenkewal@66.71.246.xon PART 1: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIANSubmitted on 2008/12/27 at 12:34pm

      Kkevinrogerwilco@70.50.140.2xon PART 1: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIANSubmitted on 2008/12/27 at 12:31pm

      Kevinserieaweekly@65.95.196.21xon PART 1: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIANSubmitted on 2008/12/27 at 11:31am

      Kevinkevinwhere@65.95.196.21xon PART 1: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIANSubmitted on 2008/12/27 at 11:26am

      You've used several other names and emails too, some of which I've deleted.
      I also notified you http://(http://www.blogcatalog.com/user/kevinatserieatalk)" target="_blank">(http://www.blogcatalog.com/user/kevinatserieatalk) of this situation via a private shout at BlogCatalog. If I don't hear from you in a timely manner, I will revaluate your comments and other matters and react as moved by my conscience guided by the Holy Spirit.
      Doing this is less than thoughtless unless you have some good explanation. This is the second wave of duplicates of this type — in this style of yours. If you have no reasonable explanation, it will appear that you are simply attempting to be a pain in the neck, antichrist, Satanic, fill in the blank..., having no good intentions.
      Please use the same name (first and last is preferred), same email, and same website if any, unless you lose your original email account or change your website address or have more than one legit website. If you need to deviate for other reasons, please say so and why.
      Blessings to all,
      Tom Usher

    • Paul Casselman

      Just an observation, no accusation. But I am wondering if you have ever found or admitted that you are wrong at any point in this web site? It seems that every point someone makes even when they appear to be absolutely right, is argued to the nth degree. If there is any point you have ever admitted falibility in your writing, I would be interested to know where I might find it.

      From: a daily sinner

      • Hello Paul Cassleman,Who appears to you to be absolutely right and about what? What have I written that offends you, and why does it?For what am I standing that you hate? What is it that I want to bring forth that is wrong or evil in your eyes — of which you can't stand the thought of coming to fruition?Is it total pacifism? Is it giving and sharing all? Is it sexual harmlessness? What is it? What don't you want?You say you don't accuse me here, but you accuse me of being wrong without supplying any evidence. You are more than implying, whether you realize it or not, that I refuse to admit when I've made a mistake where the evidence that I'm wrong is clear even to me.I call for universal repentance. I say that I have repented and am repenting. God is perfect. I'm following Jesus, as when Jesus says, "If thou wilt be perfect, go" and "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come" and "follow me." (Matthew 19:21 KJVR)How can I stand accused, as you have accused me? It doesn't follow."But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (Matthew 5:22 KJVR)Where is your cause?As for the nth degree, the nth degree is the infinite that is God. What I also say is that splitting hairs that don't exist all while leaving the weightier matters left undone is wrong. Am I right in that in your eyes or not? That's not a rhetorical question. I'm asking you for an answer.As for admitting fallibility, I will tell you clearly and plainly that I do not know everything anymore than Jesus knew everything, which he also admitted. I make mistakes.Have I never apologized to anyone? Do you know this about me? Did you search this site before testing me — working to embarrass me, not that I'm embarrassed for repenting, for I am not? Do you make yourself my confessor? Do you seek to lure me into vanity?But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, "Why tempt ye me?" (Luke 20:23 KJVR)What I say to you is to show me a better way to which I may switch. Show me the better interpretations. I have looked. I didn't begin the journey wanting to be left standing out front, alone, with no one further along on the path to Jesus and those in Heaven. Don't read too much into that, or you'll get yourself in a knot about my heart and mind. If you do, you'll be assigning contexts to me that will not cover my full meaning.So, you said you'd be interested where to find it. Now what? Do you imagine that this opens me up to being wrong about everything? It doesn't. "But of that day and hour knoweth no" man, "no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matthew 24:36 KJVR)Some say that Jesus is the Father. He never said it, in the sense they mean it.As for your calling yourself, "a daily sinner," what do you mean? Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (John 5:14 KJVR)She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11 KJVR)What is sin in your eyes, since it is different from Jesus's definition? If you mean all things not God, then I hear you. If you mean that one who is becoming is not also a part of God, then we walk different paths."Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matthew 5:48 KJVR)Do you accuse Jesus of setting up the impossible such that all must fall into the bottomless pit? I believe you do not want to be in that position. If we are unable to keep his commandments here, we will be apportioned with the goats. Yet, God is also at once forgiving and merciful. How do you reconcile these things? I reconcile them. They are reconciled within me, even though I am not perfect in your eyes.Jesus was not always perfect by his own words as follows:

        And he said unto them, "Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third" day "I shall be perfected." (Luke 13:32 KJVR)

        You see, there is perfect; and then there is perfect. There are multiple connotations at work in Jesus's language of his revelation. I love it. It is truth through-and-through. You have commented on this particular post that is about multiple connotations and synonyms and conflation of the good and the disintegration of the evil that is death and that has been disintegrated in the ultimate and since it began. For many, this is esoteric, occulted. So be it. The hard-hearted aren't given to understand, so they will be separated away. The truly repentant, by the higher standard of Jesus, will live in eternal peace (real peace) without the hard-hearted.You also commented on the first post in a series. Did you fail to read the whole?"And that which fell among thorns are they, which, when they have heard, go forth, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection." (Luke 8:14 KJVR)That is the story of the Christian Commons, why it has not been brought to fruition. This generation loathes Jesus's commandments, even the easiest of them. "I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:23 KJVR)If I am wrong in this, how so am I wrong? Where's your light? Shine it so I may see.Tom Usher

      • To Everyone,

        If you are honest, you go with the best that is offered. If you find something better, you switch to it. Show me the better way for humanity than the Christian Commons Project. I'll switch. If you can find nothing better, join or die the death under Satan.

        Has my position changed since I started this website? No, it hasn't changed. It's strengthened.

        Tom Usher

    • Paul Casselman

      I did not mean to offend you, if I did I appoligize. I guess I am just not use to the length of point/counterpoint involved here. No, I do not think you are wrong about everthing, just a few things and pointing those out is, well, pointless. Regarding Christian Commons, a noble cause: my prayers that it does come to fruition, if not now, I have faith it will when Christ returns to reign. Just my personal perception that the tone on this site does not appear pacifist, more passive/ aggresive, but that is only one fallible opinion shaped by past experience and I'm sure many will disagree, so please do not take it as an accusation, it is a perception for which only I am responsible. No need to post this or respond, I will not antagonize you again.

      • Hello PC (Paul Casselman),

        It is unusual that a visitor apologizes. Of course, people are supposed to accept genuine apologies. If yours is sincere, then by all means, I accept it. Also of course, at least I hope it's of course (meaning an automatic starting place for us), the offenses that bother me are offenses to God. What offends a homosexual or greedy capitalist or warmonger for instance, doesn't necessarily offend me in the least.

        Now, I understand that you say you're not disposed to the style on this site; but I must tell you that when you leave it that I'm still wrong about a few things but that it would be pointless to tell me what those things are even when I've expressly asked you, then that is still not helpful. It is still offense on a certain level. It isn't what God wants in other words. It's akin to bearing witness against me without supplying any evidence. I tell you point blank. You should be forthcoming, especially when someone asks; or you should not say that the person is in error. That is an extremely tough standard, but it's right. God is the strictest being even while being the most forgiving. I hope you will absorb this from me.

        I don't raise it for my sake but for the sake of the many all of whom should be treated this way, being most beneficial and conducive to bringing forth.

        As for the Christian Commons and Christ's return, I must disabuse you. Christ is already here.

        As for pacifism, non-violence and passivity are not always synonymous. Jesus did not teach constant passivity. He did teach constant non-violence. Check it out.

        You've applied the notion of passive/aggressive to me even when it is I who have said that the churches for nearly two thousand years now have woefully procrastinated by splitting hairs that aren't even there while leaving the weightier matters undone.

        You say I blame everyone for not bringing forth the Commons. You think I lack what it takes or it would be happening. You think I should be living communally already with others with whom I do not see eye-to-eye. What of this is right or wrong?

        You said you pray for the Christian Commons, but you'll wait for Jesus to bring it in for you. That will never happen.

        Peace, love, and truth,

        Tom Usher

        P.S. The comment rules for this site are that you always use the same commentator name; therefore, I've changed your last comment to "Paul Casselman."

    • Paul Casselman

      You wrote some concerning things, not sure what to say as I did not say or think them in any way.

      You wrote:

      "You say I blame everyone for not bringing forth the Commons. You think I lack what it takes or it would be happening. You think I should be living communally already with others with whom I do not see eye-to-eye. What of this is right or wrong?"

      I do not recall saying,nor have I thought anything about blame or you lacking anything nor has the thought of you living with anyone crossed my mind.

      You also wrote:

      "You said you pray for the Christian Commons, but you'll wait for Jesus to bring it in for you. That will never happen."

      I did say I would pray, but I never said I will wait for Jesus to bring anything.

      Again, these are things I did not say so I find this a bit bizare; probably best we terminate this thread and move on.

      • Paul Cassleman,

        I'm not going to further this. I'm going to cut clean through it with one motion.

        "What of this is right or wrong?" is a question.

        You said you think I have a clinical personality disorder. Who would say that unless he wanted to sway people away from joining in the noble cause that is the Christian Commons? It's an evil thing you're up to. It's sinning. You came here to cause harm to the movement of the Holy Spirit. You've set out to harm all those who would benefit by the Commons. You're either with me or against me.

        "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12:30 KJVR). And yes, if you're not with me in bringing forth the Commons, then you are definitely against Jesus Christ and God.

        And he said unto them, "These" are "the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and" in "the prophets, and" in "the psalms, concerning me." (Luke 24:44 KJVR)

        Evil, wrong people don't devise righteous, liberal devices and stand by them. "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." (Isaiah 32:8 KJVR)

        That's talking about me, not you, Paul.

        "O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh." (Matthew 12:34 KJVR)

        Now that's talking about you, not me.

        You weren't ever planning to help. You didn't start out with good intentions. You came to shoot down the messenger. Any idiot can see that. All the attempted ambiguous language didn't hide it at all even for an instant. I saw right through it even as I was reading it.

        You're not of the Commons. You aren't even remotely close.

        You don't like me. In fact, you hate my guts. You hated my guts before you left your first comment. You hate Jesus's guts too regardless of the professing you do. If you loved Jesus, you would not have run me down here but would have jumped at the chance to help me with the Commons with every ounce of your being. But no, you didn't do that. That would upset your personal, private plan.

        I've written things on this blog that leave your theology without a floor. You won't take that head on, so you decided to play this transparent game in an attempt to make me look the fool. It didn't work. It has only resulted in this necessary and Christian rebuke for clear cause.

        Look Paul, anyone who would fall for your maneuvers here wouldn't help me anyway. You've only wasted your time and helped me expose your kind for the twisting obfuscators and procrastinators you are.

        You publicly accused me of being wrong here. I asked you for the particulars. You refused. That's antichrist. Go away, and don't come back unless and until you've repented. By the way, neither you nor anyone else has a right to be offended at that.

        You'll pray for the noble cause, as you termed it, of the Christian Commons Project, but the person who devised it has a mental disorder; and you'll not help with it, which you made clear. You mouth though that you have "faith" it will be brought in when Jesus returns, even though he's already here.

        You build up the Commons but shoot the messenger. God's been watching you do all of this here. It's all magnified.

        Paul, you are why there isn't a Christian Commons already, except in my heart.

        Don't call yourself Christian. There wasn't even one iota of consistency with Jesus in your heart from the moment you entered this website.

        Tom Usher

    • Paul Casselman

      Not sure, but maybe you are reading another persons comments. In never said, nor would I say you or anyone else has a "clinical personality disorder". I am not qualified nor do I know you to make such an accusation.
      Regarding your question "What of this is right or wrong?" I am not clear as to what is being asked. If it is the visson of Christian Commons, I don't see any wrong if that is what the question is.

      Hate? I do not hate you or anyone. I dislike what people say and do at times (the sin). But I gave up hate.

      I do not know if it was intentional, I am simply pointing out that there are words printed up above that are attributed to me that I never said or thought.

      With you or against you? I am with Jesus.

      Please do not attribute any more untruths/statements to me that I have never made.

      • Look Paul Casselman,

        You submitted the comment above on 2009/01/13 at 2:17pm that says,
        "Just my personal perception that the tone on this site does not appear pacifist, more passive/ aggresive."

        I'm not "reading another persons comments." I read yours.

        Passive-aggressive personality disorder is a long-term (chronic) condition in which a person seems to actively comply with the desires and needs of others, but actually passively resists them. In the process, the person becomes increasingly hostile and angry.

        People with this disorder resent responsibility and show it through their behaviors, rather than by openly expressing their feelings. They often use procrastination, inefficiency, and forgetfulness to avoid doing what they need to do or have been told by others to do.

        Some common symptoms of passive-aggressive personality disorder include:

          Acting sullen
          Avoiding responsibility by claiming forgetfulness
          Being inefficient on purpose
          Blaming others
          Complaining
          Feeling resentment
          Having a fear of authority
          Having unexpressed anger or hostility
          Procrastinating
          Resisting other people's suggestions

          A person with this disorder may appear to comply with another's wishes and may even demonstrate enthusiasm for those wishes. However, they:

        Look in the mirror, Paul.

        Furthermore, you wrote:

        Regarding your question "What of this is right or wrong?" I am not clear as to what is being asked. If it is the visson of Christian Commons, I don't see any wrong if that is what the question is.

        My question was part of a paragraph.

        You say I blame everyone for not bringing forth the Commons. You think I lack what it takes or it would be happening. You think I should be living communally already with others with whom I do not see eye-to-eye. What of this is right or wrong?

        You also now wrote:

        Hate? I do not hate you or anyone. I dislike what people say and do at times (the sin). But I gave up hate.

        Whereas, Jesus said specifically If any" man "come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 KJVR)

        Now, if you're with Jesus then you are with me.

        You still have not answered my direct questions. You have avoided/ducked them.

        Now, I am done with you. Do you understand? If you submit another comment that does not address my questions directly and doesn't acknowledge all the scripture I have given that clearly supports me 100%, your comment will not be approved.

        That's it. You had your opportunities. The requirements are now clear. By all that is right and Holy, I can do nothing else. Here I stand.

        Tom