A PROBLEM WITH TANGLE.COM ALLOWING PROFESSING ANTI-CHRISTS?

UPDATED: Tuesday, December 22, 2009:

The following was a comment over on Tangle:

Well, actually they [Santa Claus and Jesus Christ] have even more in common than the video states. On the velvet issue, well, many of Jesus' representatives on earth seem to be quite partial to velvet... the Queen, the Pope, Ted Haggard... And another major similarity is that, while they may have at one point been based on real historical figures, in addition they have attributed to them many fictional supernatural powers......... But yes, there are differences, parents for one only lie to their children about Santa until the child is around 6, where as parents continue to lie about Jesus well into the offspring's adulthood, often disowning them if, on the weight of evidence, their offspring fail to maintain the illusion for their children........ And while both claim to monitor morality, only one makes a distinction between desirable and undesirable behaviours, and yes, he also "grades on a curve" making a distinction between behaviours like taking a cookie from the cookie jar and murdering your family while they sleep. The other makes no such distinction, what's more as long as you subjugate yourself to him he'll forgive you for any of them. Personally if we had a choice I'd prefer to go with the santa claus mode of moral control, which is akin to positive reinforcement, as opposed to the Jesus form of morality which promotes moral nihilism with the threat of torture, not for bad behaviour but for not believing in something without evidence, akin to the parenting methods of Herr Fritzel........ So, who would you prefer we celebrated on Christmas? A jolly fat man who rewards you for your good behaviour and is available to everyone regardless of their belief system, or an exclusive messiah who preaches moral nihilism and threatens you with torture for not yielding your existence to him........ I don't know, perhaps I'm being a Grinch. Or perhaps I'm trying to enjoy holiday season without theocratic history deniers trying to maintain their illusory hold on the holiday season, which does not correspond to the date of Jesus' birth, but corresponds to the pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.

I left the following comment over there in direct response:

When I joined this site, I was under the impression that it was at the very least only for those who professed Christianity.

All comments, etc., are moderated. They don't even show up until they've been approved.

Now I see the comment labeled " [deleted] posted a comment. Wednesday, December 9, 2009" below that is decidedly anti-Christianity. If I had thought that this Christian site was open to anti-Christs joining just so they can do what they can do on nearly all the other non-Christian oriented sites, I wouldn't have bothered. What's the point? I can and do debate elsewhere with those who don't profess Christ.

I joined this site to commune with those who already profess and perchance to meet up with those who cut through all the things that are clearly at odds with the full-context message of Jesus at least as stated in the Gospels. I considered it a rare opportunity.

Now, since this James has dared to be here insulting, twisting, and yes, blaspheming, and even cursing (oh yes, it's cursing – speaking evil about) Jesus's message and deeds, let me address his claim:

"moral nihilism with the threat of torture, not for bad behaviour but for not believing in something without evidence"

First of all, James hasn't bothered to read the Gospels. He may have glossed over them, but he certainly didn't read for comprehension. Jesus never preached or exemplified moral nihilism in any sense. Jesus most certainly did make clear that different sins gain different stripes and that there are greater and lesser sins. All real Christians know this:

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more. (Luke 12:47-48)

Read it, James, and learn to speak truth. It will lead you to becoming a Christian.

Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:10-11)

Again, read it, James. Stop spreading falsehoods about Jesus. Bother to learn and you won't.

In addition, Jesus never threatened anyone with torture but rather warned souls away from the spirit that does torture. Jesus and Satan are not one and the same, far from it. They are polar opposites. Jesus never called down the wrath. He made clear that that's the other spirit.

And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. (Luke 9:54-56)

James takes torture and does even an extra twisting of the message of Jesus. James says that Jesus was not only not warning of the evil consequences of evil behavior, but James takes it even further a field stating falsehoods about Jesus by saying that Jesus is threatening souls for not believing in "something without evidence," by which he means God of course concerning whom this James obviously claims there is no evidence.

Evidence? I'm satisfied with the evidence. James isn't the arbiter of what constitutes evidence. His approach is arrogant.

God does not reveal God to those who are unreceptive. That's a good thing. That's why there's a separation. That's why Christians won't have to spend eternity with anti-Christs. I'm glad for that even while I don't wish ill on anyone.

Again though, Jesus didn't and doesn't threaten anyone. All the readings of the parable that take Jesus as the one who cuts people to pieces don't understand who Jesus is and who it is Jesus is speaking of. They don't understand that Jesus raised the standard on Earth and in Heaven. That's why it will be the New Earth and New Heaven, just as it's the New Testament. If the old were good enough, there never would have been Jesus.

There are negative consequences for selfish behavior. That's not a bad thing. If there were no negative consequences for bad behavior, then the most evil would get away with everything forever. That would be a Hell while there would be no Heaven or God. I can't think of anything dumber, can you? The bad thing is the bad behavior in the first place.

Anyway, I don't know why James was approved for membership and furthermore why his comment below was allowed.

If this site is going to be a no-holds-barred debating forum open to all (atheists, anti-Theists, Satanists, etc.), let me know. If I stick around, I sure won't be all warm and fuzzy with them.

I don't cotton people telling lies about Jesus trying to give God and him a bad reputation based upon lies and distortions even right here on an ostensible, hopefully real (I assume the site owner(s) are sincerely trying to be Christian), Christian site. The comment moderators will have to let Christians speak about "serpents," etc.

Is Tangle ready for that?

Will Tangle give the boot to those professing Christianity who stand up to the anti-Christs and rebuke them in no uncertain terms? It remains to be seen.

I copied James in a direct message to him so he'd be sure to see it. The following was his reply message:

I know what you mean, God is really not stepping up to the plate when it comes to Tangle's web-user-interface. [That was in reference to the fact that I had to submit my message 3 times. Of course, Satan is the one who causes problems.]

You'll find I've already replied to your message below on the video page. But since Tangle is clearly not geared toward a debate format there is no "reply" option. If you visit the video again you should see it there, unless it was disallowed. It wasn't abusive or employing bad language so if it was disallowed then I really don't have the energy to retype it, and hey you can feel victorious that the powers of censorship (that you clearly support) have won out over reasonable dialogue.

Just on the Anti-Christ point, I'm assuming you mean this as an insult, however, as only one of us professes a belief in such an entity I find it difficult to take offense. Although I do take offense at the fact that another human being, who knows nothing about me, is actively trying to offend me.

And to your point (which I didn't address in my reply). While Jesus and Satan are not the same person, they are both elements of your religion, and your God supposedly created both of them, and your God is one of them. I can understand how you would get confused in light of such nonsense, but you can't say that God is innocent regarding the "threat of torture" that is a part of your belief system. I never said that Jesus would actually do the torturing.

I really challenge you to look at your book objectively, when you read something disgusting, be disgusted, don't try and square it with you modern morality, you don't have to. Your modern morality is simply better.

While you are clearly annoyed about my presence here, I'd like you to know that I am not employing a double standard here. You are welcome to visit the atheist youtube any time you like... oh wait, there is no such place. But seriously feel free to visit richarddawkins.net or reasonproject.org or another secular site if you want to expose yourself to other world views. You wont' have anyone commenting "why was he ALLOWED on this site".

James.

My reply:

You really don't know what you're talking about. I've been on tons of atheist sites, left comments, and also been ignored, censored, and even banned.

You clearly don't know how to think about the fact that it was more than reasonable of me to think that Tangle's screening of people was directed at allowing in only Christians.

My comment was clear. I have zero problem debating anti-Christs. My signal to Tangle was also clear that if they are allowing anti-Christs, such as you, on Tangle, then they will have to be prepared for people like me standing up for Jesus and against the lies.

You're insulted being called anti-Christ when you are anti-Christ. You assume my motive and take offense at what you assume. You think you're a reasoning person.

Of course I support censorship. You let anything and everything into your house then. It must be horrible there.

You say I "can't say that God is innocent regarding the 'threat of torture' that is a part of your belief system." Watch me. God is innocent regarding the threat of torture. Who do you think you are telling me what my belief system is and isn't?

"I really challenge you to look at your book objectively, when you read something disgusting, be disgusted, don't try and square it with you modern morality, you don't have to. Your modern morality is simply better."

I'm returning to God. There's no modern in it. The New Testament has always been. You just can't bring yourself to seeing it. You want to do whatever it is that you believe Jesus forbids.

You're so pissy about this particular site. You just ignored my words in my comment. You just ignored the whole point of the comment. That's par for the course for you though. I can say that without "knowing" you. I've already heard enough from your one comment I've read and then this reply message to know where you're from.

"You are welcome to visit the atheist youtube any time you like... oh wait, there is no such place." "oh wait, there is no such place. But seriously..." Cutesy doesn't mean squat.

You have zero idea who I am. I've been to richarddawkins.net and reasonproject.org. You're such a know it all. I converted to Christianity in my late forties. What do you think I was before that?

What are you doing here besides being an Internet troll?

Now, let me add here that in no uncertain terms, warning of consequences is not a threat and the lack of negative consequences for iniquity is not free will.

The will of God is not that human beings become hardened against each other and do wickedness and commit offense and call down wrath in consequence. James doesn't get that. James doesn't understand the real wisdom and the real knowledge and the highest reasoning. He rather blames what he considers a non-existent God and thinks that matter and energy sprang from nothingness, if he even pronounces on such.

One should think that the agnostic is far brighter than the atheist or more precisely the anti-spirit. At least the agnostic has the sense to say he or she doesn't know where the material and the spiritual starts and stops.

The atheist "knows" there is no God, and the anti-spirit "knows" there is no spirit. They have the evidence, which is the absence of testing-results; however, God has made clear that such testing yields spiritual ignorance and inability.

I have taken God on faith and been shown that which will not yield to James' self-styled knowledge he calls "science," as if metaphysics is not knowledgeable even though I have been shown that which were James privy, he would not deny either. He tests though, so he's blinded.

Jesus will not reveal himself to such and for good and right reason. Thank God Almighty there is separation for and conflation of real-truth lovers.

This post is directly related and follows on: TANGLE "TERMS OF SERVICE": ATHEISTS AND OTHER SELF-ADMITTED ANTI- AND NON-CHRISTIANS

I would like nothing better than for [deleted] to see the light. I do not judge him or condemn him or seek the wrath against him. That's the other spirit that does that.

Peace,

Tom Usher

We had another go-round:

"You really don't know what you're talking about."

Great way to start a reply...

"... also been ignored, censored, and even banned."

I know I never banned you or advocated to ban or otherwise not accept your presence on any forum. I know this, because I have never and would never advocate this... unlike you.

"anti-Christs"

You might be better to call me an anti-christian, I don't think anti-christ goes quite far enough and I certainly have more of a problem with Christ's followers than Christ himself, after all, Christ's morality was fairly progressive for the bronze age, modern Christianity's morality is falling further and further backwards in opposition to modern moral progress.

"they will have to be prepared for people like me standing up for Jesus and against the lies."

Thanks captain obvious, if I didn't think I would get a reply to my comments I would probably not think it worth making the comments.

"You're insulted being called anti-Christ when you are anti-Christ."

I believe I specifically said I did not find the term "anti-christ" insulting, because I don't believe in such a person. I only assumed you were meaning for it to sound insulting, and that intention I find, if not insulting, at least a bit sad.

"You say I "can't say that God is innocent regarding the 'threat of torture' that is a part of your belief system." Watch me. God is innocent regarding the threat of torture. Who do you think you are telling me what my belief system is and isn't?"

Are you joking? No response, just "Watch me"??? I'm not telling you what your belief system is, I am stating what logically follows from your belief. I can "Watch" you tell me that a circle is a square, it doesn't make it true. You don't have to use a logical argument, you can just make unfounded assertions if you please, but I can assure you I won't find them convincing... (this is absurd that I need to explain this to you)

"The New Testament has always been."

I'll put that in my list of most ironic things said. How could something "New" have "always been"? Oh that's right you don't use logical reasoning, you just assert things... right, sorry I'll just go back and "watch you".

"You just ignored my words in my comment."

Perhaps you skim read my message but I did state that I addressed the majority of your argument in the video comments section. I added that if my message was censored then I don't see any reason to repeat it, especially considering your support of censorship. So you can understand why I'm all "pissy" about censorship.

Hey and don't get so upset. We're just having conversation here.

""oh wait, there is no such place. But seriously..." Cutesy doesn't mean squat."

Sorry, I was making an indirect point. I know you have difficulty picking up on those. My point was, there isn't an online closed community of atheists, because I, along with the majority of atheists, am a reasonable person, who doesn't oppose open argument but who does oppose closed communities, or any sort of cultish behaviour.

"You have zero idea who I am. I've been to richarddawkins.net and reasonproject.org."

I only said you were welcome and that your presence won't be objected to and that you won't be censored. I didn't mean to assume that you hadn't visited those sites already. I did actually read your message stating that you've been involved in these arguments before.

Please forgive me for speculating, but your reply has been full of ad hominem attacks on me, all of which seem to have come from wrongly assuming the worst of intentions on my part. Is this how you make all your arguments? It comes off as very aggressive and makes you sound like you don't really care about the subject. Thanks for saying I'm a reasonable person, it would be nice to be treated like one.

"What are you doing here besides being an Internet troll?"

Getting an idea of what the parties of God are up to for my own interest and offering a reasonable counterpoint to what would other wise be a crescendo of back-patting (I guess you'd call this second part "trolling" - I'll put that down to your clearly demonstrated opposition to freedom of speech).

So you were an atheist until forty...? Hmm... Forgive me for my skepticism (it's a bad habit) but I've heard many people tell me they became christian later in life and invariably what they mean is "now I am such a devout christian that I would no longer call what I was before christian, even though I would have called myself christian at the time" or otherwise the Kirk Cameron form of atheism which is "before I was a bad person, I didn't care about anyone and just did whatever I wanted, therefore I was an atheist, cos that's what all atheist's do because they're evil", which is similar to the George W Bush atheism from where he "found God" who got him off the booze.

I don't know, but I find it hard to take your statement at face value. I'll be happy to be told I'm wrong.

Cheers,

James.

Here's my reply:

I took a look, and I see that you are much younger than I am.

I also see that you don't understand the semantical, divine language (divine logic) of the Christian revelation at all. You should study more.

As for your post-comment that was censored, would Tangle verify that for you to me?

Anyway, why would you not save a long comment and message me with it?

My comments and replies were loaded with scripture that showed you that you had been misinterpreting scripture, but you don't bother to even admit that.

Conversing with you so far has been a waste of time.

You think you understand reasoning and logic, but you're not able to follow even my points concerning scripture or you just conveniently (ignorantly and shortsightedly) ignore them and just keep building upon your errors.

I said I wasn't a Christian. You assume that means I told you I was an atheist. You call yourself logical?

How can something be New that has always been? You don't know? No, you don't know. You think you're smart? If you're so smart, why don't you know the answer? You weren't even smart enough to ask. You just act toward me as if I don't have the answer and wouldn't be able to relate it to you. Well, with your closed mind if you were true to form so far, it would fall on deaf ears anyway.

I won't throw pearls to swine or give the dog the children's food. If you're unaware of the figurative language and aren't interested in learning what it's all about from Jesus's perspective, then continue on your present "modern" course.

You really think you're more moral than Jesus was and is? Do you know how to define moral?

Christ's morality was fairly progressive for the bronze age.

How are you more "progressive" than was and is Jesus? Humanity would make real progress following you rather than Jesus's teachings? Does your ego fit through your door? Certainly your head would. Is there any room in your room anyway since you don't censor or ban anything?

"You're insulted being called anti-Christ when you are anti-Christ."
I believe I specifically said I did not find the term "anti-christ" insulting, because I don't believe in such a person. I only assumed you were meaning for it to sound insulting, and that intention I find, if not insulting, at least a bit sad.

You don't get it. You were insulted because I called you anti-Christ. You have no idea what I'm saying to you, do you? You were insulted that I called you anti-Christ because you assumed.... Do you not know that in logic there can be thousands of assumptions between premises? Well, now you do if you're willing to admit that you've just been shown something. Can you do that, or are ego and confusion impossible to overcome?

I'm not telling you what your belief system is, I am stating what logically follows from your belief.

You are so illogical. My belief system is such that illogic has no place in it. A person who doesn't know another person's premises cannot state what follows from those premises, yet you attempt it and think yourself logical. Have you no shame?

....this is absurd that I need to explain this to you.

You have explained nothing. When you tell me anything I didn't already know, I'll let you know. It hasn't happened yet.

Do don't follow things very well. You change the subject. You take my point and repeat my words back at me couching them in a point I didn't even attempt to make. "Pissy" was not about how you claim to have taken it. That was not my point.

....don't get so upset.

I'm laughing at that. You haven't the faintest idea of how upset or calm I was when I wrote what I wrote or how upset or calm I am now. If you think I was upset, your just one for assuming way too much. I didn't give you another thought after I wrote what I wrote. I didn't dwell on it at all. My pulse rate didn't increase. I don't know what you think being upset entails, but how I was and am does not register as upset in my book. Perhaps you've never been upset to know the difference. I've been upset in my life. I know the difference.

""oh wait, there is no such place. But seriously..." Cutesy doesn't mean squat."

Sorry, I was making an indirect point. I know you have difficulty picking up on those.

Nothing was lost on me, James. I was as clear as can be that your method was cutesy, which doesn't score any points. I'm not the one who missed the other person's point, James. You were.

You don't oppose any closed communities? So I can come into any community of yours anytime I want and stay as long as I want and do and say anything I want? You'll have plenty of if, and, and buts concerning all that. I don't have that problem because I have no problem not allowing in what I don't want in with me.

Do the pedophiles get to act out in your house? What about the war-mongers, do they get to kill in your house? Oh, perhaps those things are immoral to you. Perhaps your belief is that those are immoral and shouldn't be allowed in your community with you. You can prove it, but you can believe it. You have faith that you're right. It's your cult of moral atheism. Of course you use the perfectly good word cult as a pejorative because you lack the ability to speak semantically and with multiple connotations in the same sentence. It's all too confusing for you, so I must be stupid. Read that again: It's all too confusing for you, so I must be stupid. Also, don't try to use the same thing back on me. Try to be original. Plus, when you did that before it didn't work, meaning it was illogical. You made no valid point.

....your reply has been full of ad hominem attacks on me

You're going to have to do better than Aristotle. "....ad hominem attacks" is illogical. There's no such thing. It's a logical fallacy parading as pointing out a logical fallacy. By the way, that's original with me. I'm the only person I've ever known to write it. I'm also right. This is where the mundane gets left behind by the divine. You won't try to work that out in your head before spouting off though unless I say that. So, I said it perchance you'll think it through and learn and grow rather thinking you're the one between us with the lock on reasoning.

Thanks for saying I'm a reasonable person....

Did I? You are not on balance reasonable, not even close. You may say some reasonable things when taken in relative terms against some even more unreasonable persons. That's all.

...your clearly demonstrated opposition to freedom of speech.

You just love to miss the points. The issue was the forum and the representation by Tangle that Tangle was for Christians and their children, which it is not because you are here and you are not alone. Freedom of speech in the public sphere is not blanket no matter what. Tangle though is private property regardless. Now those are mundane points, and you really shouldn't be having them go over your head repeatedly.

...skepticism (it's a bad habit)....

Then why do you engage in it? If you didn't mean what you just wrote, then why did you write it? How do you expect to be taken seriously if you're going to engage in bad habits even if you think you're not supposed to be taken seriously?

What you really meant is that you're calling me a liar, even though I didn't say I was an atheist. For someone who said "....ad hominem attacks," you sure are hypocritical. I don't have a problem with discussing personality, since that's what you are, but you like to engage in what you call ad hominem even when you are just assuming things. That's a double twist of illogic.

...but I've heard many people tell me they became christian later in life and invariably what they mean is "now I am such a devout christian that I would no longer call what I was before christian....

What does that have to do with me? It has nothing to do with me.

I don't know, but I find it hard to take your statement at face value. I'll be happy to be told I'm wrong.

You're wrong. Why would you believe me now about it and not before? I was not a Christian. I attended church until I was 11 and never had said that I believe Jesus was the son of God other than mouthing it in the way people mouth the creeds the same way I was forced to mouth the pledge of allegiance to the flag or required to recite whatever. The political-socialization process of the pledge of allegiance to the flag actually had a much more immediate impact on me. It's something younger people can grasp (mistakenly) more readily, just as they can grasp atheism before they ever hear of, and come to know, God.

By the way, you told me that no atheists would never censor me or ban me; but when I told you they had, you said you would never. What you didn't do is say, "Oops."

Do you admit it when you're wrong or always just continue right on as if you didn't make a mistake based upon your faulty premises?

Well, I wish you no ill, and I do think you know full well that Tangle misrepresents itself as being for Christians and their children when it allows you in. What would a site for atheists and their children be if it allowed me in? It would be a site for both and for debating. Tangle did not hold itself out as being for both and for debate between Christians and atheists.

You also know full well that I said I debate atheists all over the place. You like to miss the points.

I see zero point in pursuing this with you. Do you see any reason to continue? You're not going to admit the mistakes you made concerning scripture. You're not going to ask Tangle what it was in your reply comment that caused them to censor you.

You don't believe me because you don't tell the truth and not because I don't.

You claim to doubt the things I say about myself because you know your own dodgy ways. You did dodge all over the place in what you have written here.

I speak about Christianity and not about what you call it. Just because there are false-Christians doesn't prove any of your attempted points. If you were to read Jesus and be honest about it, you'd see and know that he's way ahead of you on it. You have nothing to teach him. It's all the other way around. He knows all of your arguments, but you know nothing of his truths. You're too puffed up with your own reasoning ability, even though you should be embarrassed by all of your mistakes in that regard.

If you change your mind after actually reading the Bible, which you have not done, let me know.

Everything I wrote in my comment was not addressed to you. Your "captain obvious" quip was illogical.

Peace and the blessings of God to you, James,

Tom Usher

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.