ATHEISM, ECUMENISM, SYNCRETISM, DISTORTION: THE TRUE CHRIST-SPIRIT INSTEAD

[NOTE: This post has been subsequently added to the series "Entrecard" because it is referenced in the email response to Entrecard's decision.]

This post is a continuation of yesterday's post; however, it is not sufficiently Entrecard oriented to merit proper inclusion in that series.

The following addresses much of the thrust of the comments on yesterday's post.

We have here people who don't read carefully enough. As I say, everyone has room for improvement; however, there is such a thing as reckless disregard. There is such a thing as obvious lack of care and concern for focusing in on actual points rather than assigning the points of others to God and to Jesus and to me.

People rush in here knocking down straw men they set up in their minds. They knock down arguments I never put forth.

Mostly, they want to throw away Jesus on account of the historical acts of apostates, as if Jesus is the cause of those who go astray or were never of the fold in the first place.

They (some) come in saying all religion is bad. They base that on, among other things, the evil acts of anti-Christs who claimed and claim to be Christians. Therefore, all atheists should immediately be put to death because even one person claiming atheism sins once. Do you see how ridiculous is the position of these particular attackers and haters of Jesus concerning whom this description fits?

They come here with their cartoon-character visions of God and Christ.

God is spirit. Yet, certain atheists, therefore I can say atheists without the "certain," assign to me the position of believing in an old man in the sky. They don't mean figuratively. They mean it in the most literal sense imaginable.

Well, little do their minds grasp, but God can manifest as an old man in the sky. God can manifest in me and in you. The spirit is what the spirit does. We are what we do. When they are Christlike, they are doing Christlike things. This is how it is.

The atheists who put forth comedy, cartoon Gods are on a lower level than are the Fundamentalists concerning toward whom they seek to engender laughter with their, the atheists', immature and ignorant visions.

These fundi atheists imagine themselves to be so smart; however, when caught in blatant errors, they do not admit the errors but rather continue on in the spirit of obfuscation. They further twist my words, put words in my mouth I never uttered, and avoid addressing the points that clearly show their errors. They do this while claiming that it is I who am using typical dodgy tactics.

When I say Hitler had an evil demonic spirit possessing him, one atheist (Ron) claimed I'm saying he is Hitler. He says this to mislead — to avoid the point of Hitler's spirit, which he did avoid because he wanted to distract readers from the point — from the type of thinking. I don't say this was conscious on his part. I don't give him that credit.

On one hand, he wants to pigeonhole me into the most literal construct he can conjure up. On the other hand, he says I'm making him the figurative Hitler. It is a maneuver that unmasks his hypocrisy. I'm a literalist but a figurativist when it suits his self-deception, unreasoning, and irrationality. He's a literalist who doesn't recognize when he's appealing to figurativeness in a way that works to show his attacks against me don't hold.

What these people fail to understand is that I can and do speak the language of the revelation on both the figurative and literal levels. I see the various contexts. I understand the various connotations. They do not. They are ignorant about it. Anyone who can speak it and understand it accepts it, by definition. This is Christianity. It is not the atheists' science. I set the definitions in this, my religion, as Jesus has set them. The atheists have no say in the matter.

We have fundi atheists come here more than suggesting that I advocate not calling the so-called science what it is (based upon testing in the final analysis and nothing Christian or faith in the spiritual, at least not that the self-styled scientists know). This is not to say that within a certain context that this science is not scientism and religion, for it is faith in itself.

Concerning intelligent design, it is epistemological. It predates so-called science, which is so-called because it is a misnomer — the actual meaning of the word science meaning knowledge. Some of those who call themselves Biblical Fundamentalists give God and Jesus a bad reputation with those who don't know better. Just because certain of such Fundamentalist use the concept of intelligent design does not mean that they originated the concept or properly understand or use it.

Making aware of the concept of spirit is not necessarily the act of dumbing down. It is fallacy to conclude otherwise.

Claiming that I have said that atheists must teach intelligent design as part of their system is a lie. Intelligent design is not of their system. The Creation is not of their system. Their system is only that of doubt and testing.

The Deists in general certainly hold with Intelligent Design. Thomas Paine, the secular humanist, for instance, held with it. That of course is not proof for the unbelievers. It is simply to say that the atheists want nothing but their faith-based construct taught as even a possibility for consideration. In other words, they want (certain of them want) a mental dictatorship of atheism to hold secular, violently coercive power.

Well some things are certainly worth dying for, and I for one will have this flesh give up my ghost for the sake of the truth, the way, and the life I know is fact every bit as much as anyone knows anything exist at all. You see, I have firsthand experiential knowledge that no one may take away from me. I have interacted directly with God the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

Yes, God is the Holy Spirit. There is no separate person. There are persons in whom the Holy Spirit can, will, and does abide, but no one who knows the Holy Spirit lays claim to being the source other than the Holy Spirit.

I don't care what the Nicene Creed says about it. Those people were the minions of the radically violent and egotistical Roman Emperor, Constantine I. He has no part in me nor I in him. He had no part in Jesus nor Jesus in him. Constantine co-opted, usurped, twisted and ruined. The atheists are part of his prey, and he won in that sense for a time to a degree. It isn't over, and there is much more to things than have yet to meet the eyes of the atheists.

No one has seen the shape of God except the Son. I see the shape of God when I am the Son — one with, as Jesus rightly teaches. If atheists can't grasp, that's not my fault and no amount of appeals to immature cartoon-character assassinations will alter any of it.

It is not my fault that the atheists who have come here whining against Jesus can't comprehend or think on the level. What is the definition of oneness to them? Well, some atheists (such as those of the Venus Project concerning which I've recently written) are working mightily in vain further to co-opt the Christian message — anything in an attempt to refine the cunning deception that is Godlessness and God usurping really. In the final analysis though, license to iniquity always lies at the heart of their cause, always. They may claim on the surface that it does not, but they are in denial.

They have been abused and have hardened against God as a result of assigning the cause of the abuse to God rather than where it belongs, which is with the enemies of God that they make of themselves.

Love is doing no harm. Doing no harm is putting forth the best, nothing less. The vision Jesus showed, demonstrated, his unselfishness, his putting himself last (thereby making himself first), is the best. The vision of atheists leads to death relatively speaking.

God does not do for the testers what will reveal God on their terms. They preclude God. This does not diminish God in anyway the atheists imagine. They don't believe in God's existence in the first place. It is they who are not real. God is the perfect. That is the real. The rest is only relative to it and either approaching or veering off or heading even in the opposite direction where the proverbial Satan has dominion — woe.

One is either given this or not. This is a tautological expression of resignation. It is the way of it. The atheists are blind to God. They are Godblind, just as some are colorblind. Where true Christians see red, the atheists see gray. They lack.

Now, RE Ausetkmt of BadGalsRadio has also revealed herself here as being an ecumenist and more so a syncretist. These positions, but especially the latter, are decidedly un-Christian. RE is simply wrong. RE says that God the spirit can't exist without the non-spiritual. That is fundamental error. In the Real, New Heaven, there is only the spiritual even though there is the manifest and even a type of incarnation. There is no anti-spiritual in that domain. That domain is not dependant upon it's opposite. That domain is coming here in spite of the efforts of secularists seeking to destroy all spirituality. It is coming because souls want to be delivered from evil and do give all credit to the delivering spirit that is God the Father of Jesus and myself and others who will.

RE has used the term "tolerance" in condoning that which keeps down. Now, she's trying to allow for Matt's message. Matt's message though kills RE's. Is she hoping that by not denouncing atheism that atheists will turn to God and see God in one another? Atheism seeks to kill God and to see God in no one. All the spiritual healing and love from whenst it can, and will, come the atheists seek to deny to everyone else. That's not love. Due to the subversion of the Jesus Movement of the first century, the atheists seek further to subvert into Hell on Earth in their utter blindness and distortion and fractured souls they don't even acknowledge.

To reach Heaven on Earth, Jesus is the prerequisite understanding. RE says Matt's message is as valid as is Jesus's. This is not true. His message and method, means, and ends will not deliver whereas Jesus's will. RE is doing a disservice to everyone by taking her erroneous and misleading position. Matt's vision is not of equal value to that of Jesus's. RE claims that she can be and is a Christian while also being non-Christian.

Jesus made clear that there are not many paths to God. To claim otherwise is to deny the crucifixion in all its import and implications. It is to deny that Christ Jesus is the resurrection. No Christian believes that Jesus is not the one. He was sent with the particular message. Divergent messages are not on target to God. They will not arrive. Those who hold otherwise, deny Jesus. Why do they do it? Ego is one answer. It comes down to self apart from God and bloodline versus spiritline.

Now, RE appeals to everyone to accept everyone else's belief so we may all live together. However, Jesus came to separate the wicked from the righteous. I for one am glad. I want to be separated from wickedness. I don't want to live with the iniquitous. I don't want to abode with atheists or pedophiles or purveyors of porn and spam or with warmongering murderers and torturers and with covetous land grabbers who lie that God gave them leave rather than that their own imagination conjured up excuses for stealing the God-given inheritance of our human brothers and sisters.

Oh, RE warms me that I might find myself in a smaller category than I might think. No. I know where I stand concerning the innumerable host of the Real, New Heaven. I know where I stand relative to those who desire to do evil on this Earth. I am unconcerned with being popular amongst evildoers (including George W. Bush, may he yet turn) who think they act with impunity just because Satan hasn't slapped them to death in ways concerning which they will come to have no doubt that they are in the Hell of their own creation — having sown what they will reap in their unrepentance that is there ultimate hypocritical selfishness.

RE is wrong. All religions are not God. Jesus made clear that many worship at the synagogue of Satan who is not God. Satan is his own ego. Jesus is last. Satan is always first. Satan is the spirit of torture that RE says she hates. There are torturers whose very religion it is to torture. Is it equally valid with my belief? It is not.

Now, RE has made clear that she is no pacifist. Jesus is though, and all who follow him are also. Therefore, RE does not follow Jesus. This is but one way in which she does not follow Jesus. RE's claim to Christianity is false. Were it not so.

RE licenses herself to things that are decidedly anti-Christ. She knows this. I have come to see it over time. Although, "BadGals" is telling, in spite of the title, I communicated and left room for growth and possible redeeming qualities, as I need to be left room for growth. I don't preclude RE's or Matt's or Ron's or anyone's turning. The time is for the Spirit to decide, just as Jesus does not arrange the thrones in Heaven. Neither do I arrange them in Hell or on Earth.

Wicca is not on par with the message of Jesus. Satanism is not on par with the message and deeds of Jesus. Islam and Talmudic Judaism are not on par with the message of Jesus. Buddhism and Hinduism are also not on par. Nothing other than itself is on par with the message and deeds of Jesus. Only Jesus's pure spirit will get anyone there to the perfect that is God and Heaven that will manifest here because of it. It is written. It is known and is growing even as evil is in its death throws.

The only path is the New Commandment. There is no fully understanding that or doing it without accepting exactly what Jesus said. RE does not accept the whole of what Jesus said. She's made that quite clear on this blog in her comments, especially of late.

She has made clear that she holds that Jesus was in error concerning non-violence. You may read her comment for yourself, which comment is unmistakable for its anti-Christ position, which means against Christ's teachings and deeds, etc. Advocating violence is anti-Jesus. There is no way around it. RE wrote:

...we should return our Fist to the other cheek. it might have saved Jesus, if he adopted Bob Marley's Stance and Learned to Run Away and Fight the Second Day when his Posse was with him.

my motto is Take a Machine Gun to a Knife Fight and You'll Be Ready from a safe distance. but take a spray bottle of tabasco and draino and you can get right into the action.

I asked her to reconsider, but she rather returned defending atheism as equally valid with Jesus's call to all to put up the sword. Now, will this make me popular with RE or anyone else? That will depend upon the direction of the movement of the heart: Hardening or softening.

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.