[NOTE: This post has been subsequently added to the series "Entrecard" because it is referenced in the email response to Entrecard's decision.]
There are blogs about all sorts of things. Most of us have heard the expression, "everything under the Sun." It wouldn't be misleading for one to say that blogs when taken as a whole universe (and there are those who call it the blogoverse or coinage to that effect), to say that the blogosphere touches upon everything under the Sun.
When people come to this site, each is an individual with what is referred to as his or her baggage: The sum total of each persons experiences filtered in a singularly unique way at the very moment of entry. What are each person's completely unique conceptualizations of each and every term (word), on this site? Just how loaded is each term?
What is meant by "loaded"? It means here that a term triggers emotional reactions. Depending upon the circumstances or context, it can suggest that people won't be able to get at the root on account of the battles they consciously and subconsciously wage. A loaded term is as saying, "on guard," as used in fencing and dueling with swords. They are often, through no fault of their own, fighting words or words that incite quarreling, even when that might not have been the original intent in choosing certain words or couching them in certain ways.
The term "Christian" is a loaded term through no fault of its own. Rather than slowdown to get all the way to the root and publicly agree, which I have yet to see on the part of even one person who has come here and left a comment, including those who are clearly sympathetic to the cause of the Christian Commons Project (Better than not; Also, not that everyone who is sympathetic will ultimately not take it all the way; Some will take it all the way: The elect!), most and nearly all commentators have thus far either avoided openly seeking and discussing and agreeing with the very essence of the term (which is the only true path) or have looked for opportunities to exclaim touchÃ©, which means to claim a hit (a touch) in fencing or in the case of verbal debate or even heated argument, a successful criticism or an effective point in argument against their vague notions of Christianity. The vast majority fall into the latter class or category.
I stand against things and for things. The things I stand against are the opposites of the things for which I stand — no mystery there. I stand for cooperation versus competition. Does it mean I don't compete? No, it doesn't mean that because the term "compete" has its range of meaning. When I say that I stand for cooperation versus competition, I'm saying something that cannot be understood without other terms, which terms also require conceptual understanding ad infinitum (having no end). That's one way of viewing it — one perspective. There are absolute terms. In the end, all terms are absolute; however, and I will employ a loaded term here, one knows those absolutes only from "God's" perspective. Now, that should give the reader some conceptual understanding of the very meaning of "God": The absolute meaning. Is it a point of contention in the world? It is absolutely a point of contention in the world, hence correctly labeling it or classifying it or categorizing it as a "loaded" term. The name God incites through no fault of the absolute meaning but only the lack of understanding, the lack of getting at the root, avoiding openly seeking and discussing the very essence of the term.
What happens is that many, most, people come here with their own ideas, which is impossible to avoid. What they do is use their own definitions to argue or debate. They use the loaded, and generally conceived as negative, connotation, at least negative within their group or category. What they don't do is put their worldview to the test. Many, again most, come here believing that upon seeing the terms and without any hesitation, launch missiles.
Now, many people came here supposedly to defend Matt Oxley, who calls himself the Raging Reverend and who is a proselytizing atheist of a certain subcategory of atheism. They did not do any discovery. They just saw the term Christian and launched missiles, so to speak.
Now, I don't know Matt in that I have not been around him. He may very well be what is considered personable by the mainstream. His family members still professing Christianity, as they know it, may welcome Matt with open arms. However, I'm not here concerning the superficial. I'm here about root causes and more so, the very root itself.
So, to many, Matt may be affable, amiable, convivial, amicable, approachable, congenial, cordial, genial, good-natured, sociable, friendly, delightful, enchanting, even captivating. Therefore, I'm the opposite of those things to Matt's supporters here for having said that his blog is not religious or spiritual but rather their opposites and for that but more so other reasons, it should be clearly categorized as "Atheist." Whether that might be a subcategory of "Religion and Spirituality," is something I didn't preclude but no one offered up as a possibility.
Any "tampering" with Matt appears verboten (forbidden) in the minds of many, as if further refinement of classification is inherently evil.
Of course, it's always evil in the eyes of those who want to be accepted and then come to dominate and then exile those whose acceptance they sought without any requirement for conversion on the part of those accepters. I'm not asking Matt to remain an atheist but accept me so I may come to dominate and then exile him. I'm asking him to convert to what he never was: Christian. I don't want him in that voluntary place with me, as is, though, which is the Real, New Heaven that is going to come to the Real, New Earth and will dominate within each heart: Freedom from evil; deliverance; salvation. He can't be there unchanged by definition. It wouldn't be Heaven with atheists there.
There are antonyms to a pleasing personality: Unfriendly, annoying, vexing, repelling, traumatizing, alienating, and sickening. Hurtful, harmful, offending, even infuriating, are also the opposites of pleasing.
We have to look at surface versus core and root or ultimate essence.
To what degree is Matt cognizant about his adopted root, and what is that root? Is it good or the opposite of good? Matt stands in here for everyone. This applies to each of us — to every single one of us.
Now, Matt has an agenda the surface of which he is not hiding. He calls Jesus a myth for instance. Does he truly believe that? Whether or not he does, it matters that people are being told that Jesus is a myth. It's of huge significance.
There are myriad reasons people allege this about Jesus. There are many more reasons than are people making the claim, as each may have many reasons. From the Christian perspective though, it all comes down to the same root.
The main reason given by most is that Jesus was invented to get people not to fight back when being controlled by the evil state robbing them of freedom. There are many variations on this theme.
Let's work backwards in broad strokes. It's not the only way to do this, but bear with it.
Right now, we have many people saying they are Christians. How many obey the state? Let's go back. The state didn't adopt "Christianity" until well after its founding. The Roman Empire declared Christianity as the state religion. Before that, it legalized Christianity. Before that, it tolerated Christianity somewhat. Before that, it persecuted Christians. It murdered them. It tortured them. It made sport of them: Feeding them to the lions, etc. It treated Christianity as the enemy of the state and the state's official religion. Rome was not the only state that did these things. Rome's vassal states did it as well. Israel did it for instance.
So, who would invent a religion that the state hated so much in order to get people to obey that state? The answer is, no one. Was it a long-term plan that would play out over millennia to replace that state, and what is freedom? Let's look deeper.
Rome was threatened by Jesus. Roman soldiers were turning to peace on account of the message in the historical story of Jesus, which was almost "current events" at the time. Whole armies refused to kill. I could go into greater detail, but the broad strokes here suffice. Were those soldiers being free? They were being free of war: Evil. That wouldn't do for the Empire.
Being free is being free of evil. Evil is enslavement. Warfare is slavery. Violence is slavery. Violent, coercive Empire is slavery. Harmful, selfish behavior is slavery. Now, there is a way to use the term slavery that might seem contradictory here: Slavery to righteousness. However, the context has changed. The connotation has changed. This is semantical theology. It's why this site is named the Real Liberal Christian Church (About Our Name). Matt Oxley takes exception to that because it doesn't work to his anti-Christ advantage, as do other detractors who either haven't looked into it or can't comprehend when they've tried, or have seen it and do understand but have chosen to be enemies of Christ.
Who were the disciples of the disciples of the disciples? There is a historical audit trail of discipleship. Disciples of John, for one, are in the undisputed historical record. John related to them John's firsthand experiences living and working with Jesus.
Paul traveled all about founding churches and leaving a record that is largely corroborated by Luke's historical account called the Acts. The churches are documented in history. Paul says, and Luke says, Paul met the original disciples and brother of Jesus, James. Paul says, and Luke concurs, Paul had persecuted the followers of the actual, historical Jesus. Paul was an outlaw much of the time in the eyes of the state. So were the others.
More to the point though is that the message in the Gospels, if followed, turns the state right-side up and then levels it, which results in something never seen before and certainly not what the powers that be (the secular state or apostate state) want, quite the contrary. The only way that this truth has yet to come to fruition is by means of that state subverting this truth.
So, when people work to destroy Jesus, they are working against everyone's' best interest as individuals and as the collective that is humanity because that secular and apostate state is evil. When Matt seeks to destroy the message of Jesus, the degree to which he knows what he's doing doesn't alter the fact that he is doing harm (an antonym of nice, friendly, pleasing, pleasant, and comfortable): The root.
A blogger by the name of EuroYank was part of the Entrecard network for a short time until accusers who have remain anonymous fingered him for crimes that were never stated publicly, and EuroYank's blog was deleted from the network. He has yet to recover from the abuse. In the heat of this, Matt Oxley, who was and is an Entrecard moderator (insider), came here to this blog and left a message suggesting to everyone that he would get to the bottom of the issue and let us know. He never did that. He has given his reason here as being put off by the possible "attacks" on his atheism. However, his excuse didn't keep him from commenting here on other matters when his blog might be impacted (meaning people might not be so easily and literally tricked into visiting Matt's blog).
In addition, we have the issue of the meanings of all the terms as Matt is using them versus how I'm using them.
You see, Matt Oxley's attack on Jesus is an attack on everyone's best interest. His attack on Jesus shows that he isn't nice or friendly at his root. He is confuse, but he isn't nice or friendly in the true, root, absolute meanings of those terms.
This site stands for:
Total pacifism (non-coercion by anyone, including but not limited to capitalists, socialists, democrats, or republicans whether lowercased or capitalized)
The totally voluntary giving and sharing all political economy, and
Sexual harmlessness (if it's harmful whether you know it or not, you sin in doing it)
Getting to this place in the mundane can be claimed by secularists. They can claim that human technology can provide the very best. The historical Jesus didn't use human technology though.
The means (God) Jesus used (mutual) work where there is no hypocrisy. Humanity is riddled with hypocrisy. It's much worse now than it was. It's getting worse even while people are reading this truth and spreading it/discussing it. Things are being placed into starker and starker contrast until the prophesied separation occurs, and it will.
Naysayers call it rational to doubt or to disbelieve with "certainty," which doubt precludes Heaven on Earth. That's not rational. They lock themselves out and block the doorway for those who might otherwise discover they have the key. With perseverance though, one may walk through walls, even fly through all of them faster than Einsteinian light and without human technology.
If you treat God as a cartoon character, the butt of jokes, you'll never learn. You won't evolve.
Finally, if you have fallen for Matt's plaintiveness in his comment on this site and you don't know that Matt Oxley attacks, just do a Google search on "Matt Oxley" in quotation marks so you'll be searching on the "phrase." You'll see that Matt does what he alleges on this site that he doesn't like and what supposedly kept him from commenting: Chameleon. What you read on this site that Matt has added isn't what you get all the time. I don't mean here where something he said in confidence or in private that might be taken out of context. I mean his completely public facade.
Matt is only one of thousands, tens of thousands, millions, even billions, who do this. Understand though that Matt is well accepted within the atheist-out movement that is modeled after the homosexual's campaign to out themselves, meaning to come out of the closet.
I, on the other hand, am not only not well accepted within the huge circle of people calling themselves "Christian," I'm rather reviled so far. That's because most people calling themselves Christians have more in common with Matt and Matt's atheist than they have in common with me, by a long shot.
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)