I agree with him and disagree with him. This is how it is concerning everyone. One can agree with Satan (proverbial and actual) if it is daylight and Satan says it's daylight. Satan can agree with God that way and vise versa. This truth is missing everywhere in people's thinking. They don't carry it into discussions. They don't approach others from that perspective. I don't say this for the sake of finding common ground and then just resting on it. Doing that is the great error of ecumenism and syncretism. It's the great error of American democracy that is necessarily coupled with the threat of violent coercion.
I agree with Satan up to a point. Everyone does, even Jesus. Getting along with Satan is tolerating Satan's confusion. In Jesus's case, it is never condoning it though. Also, there does come a point when Satan's confusion is no longer tolerated and he is thrown out. That can be in a very literal sense or can be in a spiritual sense — let go of selfishness within. The most literal sense is Satan casting out Satan, meaning in Jesus's terms that turning to the offense of violence is Satanic. It is falling to wrath. It is tempting that part of the spirit. Spirit there means the whole spectrum of spirit. God versus Satan within the context of wrath and violence is dividing that spectrum such that the two different natures are wholly incompatible in the final analysis. The "wrath of God" as commonly used is not God but Satan. In saying that, I am not saying that God is Satan. Satan is the god of this worldly world. God is also, but right now, the people don't know God. They know Satan.
The "natural world" is a term or expression that is of unclear understanding. The material versus the spirit (metaphysical) is ill defined in the minds of humanity. The arguments about what is what and how to describe things in order to communicate and to make progress or not have been based upon this dichotomy for millennia. The ancients argued and debated this. The struggle continues.
Marx for instance argued that there is no spirit. At the same time, he argued for what he thought best and right. However, if there is no spirit, there are no consequences after the materialized self that is flesh alone in Marx's book. Without such consequences, human life, as Marx claimed to know it, is subject to a state that is lower than the law of the jungle. Humanity is then ruled by those who force their will upon others. It is Machiavellian.
If, however, there are consequences of the type Jesus expressed, then Machiavelli and Marx are in Hell and following their errors will take one there to die there too.
There is no proving material versus spirit to the satisfaction of either side by the other. No matter what happens, a materialist in this sense can choose to believe that material is still behind the event. If I am being guided by the Holy Spirit in any way, the materialists can choose to believe that the Holy Spirit is in reality just an ancient being who has already progressed through all the technological and scientific process and is simply using the knowledge of the same, which processes are at this point still beyond the human materialist's ability to understand — but in the view of most such materialists, will not remain the case. Hence we have the Star Trek mentality, where technological and scientific so-called advancement will allow man to one day expose God as a fraud, an impostor. However, at what point in this scheme of the materialists do the materialists make of themselves gods while missing the true nature of God?
If man can replicate and fabricate anything and live forever even through Big Bang cycles, who is he? Will he imagine himself the God, or will he remain aware of his humble beginnings? Will he, in fact, remain humble? Will he imagine that he is self-created by his own, individual, non-collective will? Then who will be the other God's in his world? Will they just be the same beings with whom he did evil battle since his first such fight?
Jesus holds that all souls were with God, which souls return to God (true nature; truly civil). I agree. Jesus holds that those who return are one with God. I agree. The one soul is many. This unnerves people because they don't trust themselves and hence don't trust any other or others not to turn back after all guards have been dropped. Once burned, afraid that, that fire will re-present itself when one is least prepared. This is where faith in the ultimate trustworthiness of the top being or beingness is either believed and lived or the soul remains doomed. According to Jesus, if it is believed and lived, perfection is attainable as the gift from that ultimately trustworthy being. I agree. Machiavelli and Marx and Thucydides and many, many other philosophers and historians, etc., did not.
For Jesus, the word (God; the name) is manifest. I agree. For us, this is rationality. It is the highest form of reasoning. It is empirical on its face. It is self-evident. It is the ultimate perfect state that is the most pragmatic condition. Its results are perfect. Also for us, there is a place where the so-called scientific method yields nothing further. It hits a wall through which it cannot pass but the metaphysical can and does.
God informs our ordering, which is our economics (how we run our house). Our house is our state. It cannot be secular. Doing this properly brings God's will to Earth and Heaven to Earth. The secular is apart — apostate.
So, why have I gone into all of this on a post directed at the subject of Alex Jones? Well, Alex says he's a Christian. He rails against what he defines as evil. In so doing, in railing against what he calls evil and for what he calls good in a way that is inconsistent with the message of Jesus Christ, he is misled and misleading his willing audience. They and he are lost.
Alex mistakenly conflates the following with Christianity: capitalism; patriotism for the U.S. Constitution; liberty, as supposedly enshrined as the Bill of Rights in that Constitution; and Jeffersonian democracy and republicanism, as the American system of government. What Alex and his ilk fail to appreciate is that Thomas Jefferson was an aristocrat, an elitist despite his views concerning yeoman/freeholder farmers.
Jefferson was a slave-owning adulterer who enslaved his second wife and enslaved his children he had by her, which wife and children Thomas never publicly acknowledged — hardly a paragon of virtue or an exemplar of right-mindedness and proper vision but rather the opposite. Therefore, consider the source of your Declaration of Independence. Don't march in lockstep to Jefferson's so-called Humanist and Enlightenment tune on the broad way to Hell.
Jesus was not and is not a capitalist, an American patriot, or one who holds out the Constitution and Bill of Rights as sacred. Jesus's message and Jeffersonian democracy are at odds. Jefferson was antichrist.
The logical conclusion of all of Jesus's teaching and deeds when taken as a whole context is against money and private capital. The proper state of affairs is giving and sharing all with all. Capitalism is slavery to unrighteousness. The U.S. Constitution is the work of fractured souls trying to outsmart themselves.
Now, Alex and his followers and many of those who appear with him on his shows an non-adversaries of Alex profess to hate war except when fought against those who would seek to abandon the U.S. Constitution for something else. The discussion never moves to the question of what would be better than the U.S. Constitution, as if there is no such thing as Heaven.
In order to preserve, protect, and defend that Constitution, Alex advocates violent revolution against all others who feign patriotism in Alex's terms. Alex is right that there are forces in high places who are pretending to be Patriotic toward the Founding Fathers' vision, even though that vision was mixed and fraught with utter hypocrisy. Alex is worried about the motives of others and rightly so on a certain level. His views though are very parochial. He is missing the level on which the real battle is being waged and over what.
Alex is of the mind that the New World Order will be a dystopian nightmare. What the Founding Fathers brought forth though was on the path to that very evil. They did not bring forth real Christianity, not even close. They employed unchristian means, and Alex is reaping it.
There is Worldly Empire. There is a spirit behind it. I've said, above, what that spirit is. The 1776 status quo was a part of that worldly empire. The Founding Fathers spoke of empire building. They were imperial competitors. It was only a matter of time before other huge unfolding empires would bump heads with the U.S.
The Western Hemisphere was claimed by the U.S. under the Monroe Doctrine. Now with communications and travel making the world ever smaller, how could the U.S. be what the neoliberals and neoconservatives call isolationist while also being militaristic and safe from those who would seek to devour the U.S.? That all of course is mundane. The divine is not playing out on that level. Jesus doesn't shoot guns or press any buttons to launch or give any words thusly to attack. Satan does.
What is being played out is Rome versus Christ where Rome is the American Empire and the allies and vassals under it that in reality still includes the European Union and NATO but also Israel, Japan, and more and more India.
The wealth, power, and control of the various spirits (aside from God) ebbs and flows. Russia and China have been bobbing for centuries. Latin America is attempting to dissolve the Monroe Doctrine and to replace it with its own doctrine where they run their own nations whether separate or together. How is the elected Emperor for a term, Obama, handling it all?
What are his courtiers telling him that the Supreme Leader, the top, hidden plutocrat, wants him to do? How obeisant is he now and will he remain? How much real power will he attempt to take unto himself? Does he have what it takes to be Augustus Caesar? I don't see it. I see Obama as just another Clinton-Bush.
As for Clinton, Alex was informed by the Waco Massacre. Let me say openly right up front here that the federal government completely mishandled the Branch Davidians and David Koresh. It did not have to end the way it did. It should not have started the way it did.
The government deliberately decided to attempt to take Koresh while on the Branch Davidian's property. It was a very evil thing to do no matter how imbalanced David Koresh was. What with all the weapons and ammunition on the property and David Koresh's prior statements that he would fight the government if it attempted to violate his Old Testament religious beliefs, the outcome was inevitable.
The government did what it did to make an example of the Branch Davidians. The "liberals" are still working very much along the same lines. The Bush administration targeted "liberals" and Muslims. The Obama administration is targeting "paleoconservatives" and "libertarians" as potential right-wing, violent extremists.
Back and forth, the two main political parties move against each so-called extreme end of their false spectrum they created and nurtured and protect via wholly unfair and unjust means — controlling the political, governmental process to keep out saner and sane minds, such as Jesus's.
Are there violent extremists? Is the U.S. government extremely violent? The answer to both is yes. What's the solution? Peace is the solution, and it will not be brought by way of a new type of the Roman Legions. Pax Romana was not the real peace. It was itself the tyranny of evil just as Pax Americana is tyranny.
Furthermore, in his libertarian-capitalist zeal, Alex is the witting or unwitting dupe of the major oil corporations. Alex's Global-Warming denial is right out of the oil industries play book. They say "let do" or laissez faire. Let us pollute. Let us continue to pump too much carbon into the atmosphere. Alex doesn't understand that there is no right-principle in capitalism. Capitalism is unprincipled. It's why Jesus is against it. If Alex will research the strongest proponents of capitalism, he will find the Godless and antichrist. Their think tanks are funded by the Godless and antichrists. It takes hardly any effort to connect the dots. It simply requires removing the blinders or breaking the spell cast by those Godless antichrists.
Alex conflates a number of concepts all as being amassed or arrayed against "liberty." He is right that there are those who use environmentalism as a cover. However, while doing this, Alex does not simultaneously and with as much fervor laud real environmentalism for what it is that is Creation Care and enhancement and even the Golden Rule. Do you want your house ruined? Then don't ruing the environment, where all your neighbors are trying to live right now. Alex conflates environmental legislation with all the evils associated with coercion against Alex's brand of liberty. It's hypocrisy inherent within the Jeffersonian system.
Many of the founders were Jeffersonian. Others were with Alexander Hamilton and as federalists, became the Federalist Party, which is the spirit of the neoliberals and neoconservatives in both the Republican and Democratic parties. Alex, whether he knows it or not, hates Alexander Hamilton and all that for which he stood and still represents, which is most embodied in the Federal Reserve System. Hamilton was the Paul Warburg of his day.
Where do I come down on this split between Jefferson and Hamilton, et al.? I don't. The logical outcome of the right spirit on each side is Heaven on Earth, and the logical outcome of the wrong spirit on each side is Hell on Earth. Each side has on its side partial-truth and partial-falsehood. The parts on each side that are truths are from God and if followed to the exclusion of the false will result in Heaven coming to Earth. The reverse is also true.
Alex offers the Bill of Rights in strict constructionist, literal terms. I offer the Christian Commons in both literal and figurative, spiritual terms.
The selfish and violent will fight and die next to Alex. The unselfish will fight without human hand and die and live next to Christ.
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)