I want to add clarifying language concerning so-called civil disobedience since it is a term that can range from the harmless to the most destructive.
Civil authority is supposed to come from authority granted by God. Of course, people have been arguing over the nature of God since the first offense even if people didn't have the words to match the emotional reactions.
Let me put it this way though. The Godly state is peace. It is absent evil. Think Heaven. So, the highest law requires that humanity behave in accordance with peace. Again, the term, in this case "peace," is not the same concept in everyone's mind. This is why theology is semantical. This is why each word or term in the name of this Church speaks to that very issue. (See also: "About Our Name")
- Civil authority has always gotten it wrong.
- The church of Rome especially was co-opted by the violent and, therefore, antichrist worldly empire.
- Certain people competing for power against that church had no better idea of the true nature of God or, like so many so "high up" in that church, really didn't care.
What resulted was a taking away of power from the Roman Catholic Pope. Power moved through a series of empires eventually to the British and then American Empire, which is now inflicted with death throws, an inherent part of the historical unfolding.
Currently, what constitutes the highest law of the land according to secularists and within the borders of the United States of America is hotly debated. The U.S. Constitution is held up as the highest law while it says that legal treaties are also on that same level. In other words, such treaties are incorporated into that Constitution without being subservient. It's actually contract law. This sets up ambiguities when treaty language doesn't jibe with the Bill of Rights or when treaty obligations tie or should tie the hands of the U.S. executive, etc.
It goes much deeper than this though. For instance, the U.S. Constitution grants freedom of religion while the Christian religion is inherently non-secular. The New Commandment of Jesus, understood from the total context of his words and deeds as related to everything, is by definition, the highest law for Christians. Everything Jesus teaches fits with this. All his laws are equally Godly. There is both relativity and a leveling at the same time. This is a paradox. It is not irreconcilable though but required. To understand it has not yet been given to everyone who can grasp it. We are working on that as required of us by God our savior.
Now, how can a secular constitution grant freedom of religion to the spiritually "free" Christian and then make demands upon the Christian that are contrary to the teachings and deeds of Jesus Christ without being ridiculously hypocritical? It can not. Hence, the cobbling together of so-called Enlightenment Era political ideals fails miserably. The American Founding Fathers (largely guided, wittingly and unwittingly by Illuminati/Freemasonry, humanism, syncretism, and deism) got it wrong.
This does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church or the Calvinists, for instance, were right. All are partially right. The problem is that humanity must remove error in order to truly progress. In fact, that part of humanity that refuses to remove error from its thinking will be extinguished. This is cause and effect on both the divine and worldly levels at the same time. It too is a paradox but not irreconcilable.
So, what does all of this mean for the issue of civil disobedience? It is incumbent upon Christians always to bear in mind the ignorance of others, what they've suffered, how they've been abused into confusion, etc.
We have all been abused to some extent and fallen to selfishness (evil). We all require mercy and forgiveness, hence we are all required to grant those to others or suffer the consequences of our own continued hypocrisy.
It is also incumbent that Christians understand that incorrect laws are nevertheless human attempts at what those humans think best even when those laws are horrible. Really, it's saying the same thing twice here.
The worst, brutal dictator is the most in error. He or she is suffering from the greatest self-delusion the result of previous errors right down through existence culminating in every present moment in the manifestation that is that brutal, confused dictator. Does this mean that we are to have compassion for Satan?
In one connotation, Satan is the essence of evil that must be rooted out of the human spirit, soul, and mind. Jesus and others referred to spirit, soul, mind, and heart (the symbolic, and more, seat of emotions).
Is the worst worldly dictator Satan, per se? He is in the same way that Jesus is God. Here's the issue for the Christians though.
When is a human being in a position to know when someone will never turn but continue forever in the downward spiral into torture? Jesus never condemned anyone. He only said what leads to ruin and called people to stop making the errors.
All reading that says Jesus will be back in violent vengeance is short of the mark. Such reading comes out from hardened hearts. Softening causes a completely different reading, the only correct reading.
When a Christian disobeys false authority, that Christian still abides by the law of Christ. What you don't see in the Gospels is Jesus doing civil disobedience in the sense called for today in the commonly used sense of the term "civil disobedience." When he healed on the Sabbath and was confronted by the so-called religious authorities, he proved that he was not violating the law. He didn't heal on the Sabbath to break the law. Today though, many protesters target to break the law to get attention to their issues, many of which are in dire need of attention.
When an anarchist breaks a store window, he is not cleaning the temple and overturning the tables of the moneychangers. Main Street is not yet the temple. Main Street is Mammon Street, less so than is Wall Street but nevertheless still mammon-based.
The temple was not to be a place of usury and profit making via conversion fees or any other commerce. Jesus was sent to say it. The real temple is within and is to become manifest everywhere. There is to be no commerce anywhere. (See also: The "Christian Commons")
When protesters are unable to show that they are not breaking the highest laws, they are failing. You will note that Jesus was not charged with a crime when he cleaned the temple. The powers that be (certain members of the Sanhedrin) were far too aware that he was plainly right on that score. They "convicted" him for joining God. They called it blasphemy, even though Jesus had already disproved that by using their own law. Jesus pointed it out to them that King David said they were "gods." They held David's written revelation to be their law. Jesus showed their hypocrisy and hence their unworthiness to sit in the judgment seat. Did they get up and out and offer it to him, who was of vastly superior judgment? They did not. They rather murdered him for wholly evil, Satanic reasons.
You see, Satan wants to be God but that doesn't mean that joining God is Satanic. Satan wants to replace God with whatever Satan wants. Jesus didn't do that. Becoming one with God is not becoming Satan.
What about Lucifer, is he Satan? There is Lucifer and then there is Lucifer. "Lucifer" is a name with connotations. It is semantical. The name depends upon the context. That's why Lucifer was Nebuchadnezzar II but also Jesus. The false light was Nebuchadnezzar II. He was held up and held himself out to be the source, the provider, etc. He was the humanist (Nimrod the rebel) become god. That's the Lucifer of the Garden of Eden story. That's the serpent light, the Dark Sun, the confused duality, the fractured soul who ends up eating grass with the beasts. Jesus on the other hand, is the real light. He is the real-light bringer. He is not against YHVH but rather explains how YHVH and the Elohim is/have been misunderstood and that others (Satan and usurping, human monarchs, etc.) have been confused by the masses (at the hands of the apostate priest and priestesses and others) with the concept of God and the Host of Heaven.
You can change the name you call God, but God's real aspects are what matter.
Therefore, Jesus's YHVH is not the demiurge of Gnosticism, as much as the Gnostics would like to think so. The hardness of people's hearts is the sole reason for all the perceived harshness in God's acts. The hardness confuses Satan (the essence of evil; not the fallen brother who can return) with God.
When you "protest," don't break the law of Jesus Christ. Then you will not be breaking any law that the apostates can make stick. Jesus remained nearly silent when they tried him. He did that for your sake so you would have this information to use for righteousness' sake. You don't have to remain silent in the face of charges, but you can. Feel the movement of the Holy Spirit in terms of where and when to do and to say what. It's what Jesus did.
Don't block others or smash windows or throw rocks, etc., to protest. Don't take up the sword or gun. The truth is sufficient, and the truth is anti-violent. The truth turns the other cheek, always, no matter what, as Jesus did time and time again.
Jesus trusts in God to take the innocent children who trust God and to take those parents too who also trust that Jesus is right when he instructs them not to kill even to save the fleshly lives of their own children. The earliest Christians went singing with their children to be sacrificed by the Satanic-hearted. They overcame the evil. They led their children in the path of righteousness. Satan didn't get them in the end. They didn't fall.
Don't prevent others from having their say. Don't shout them down but rather answer their charges in peace if you answer them at all. This assumes that you've been speaking truth since the self-authorized finally level charges at those who do.
Why was Pontius Pilate raised up so that at that time and place he would wash his hands and allow Jesus to be abused and murdered in accordance with the desires of the mob? The war for Heaven (what constitutes Heaven) was still raging and still is in the minds of those who don't know the real Heaven. Pontius followed Satan. So did the Chief Priest of the Talmudists even more so. So did the mob.
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)