Tom Usher wrote or added | Those of you who have read me for very long will probably know that I practice what I refer to as semantical theology. Here, concerning this video, it applies as saying that David is right that repentance is first but so too are love and truth and peace and all the rest of the good as being one: God. This is an excellent presentation, and the end statement is something with which I agree without qualification.
Let me add this: Then said Jesus, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34)
There is forgiveness, and then there is forgiveness. All these things come to understanding by the softening heart. The hardening heart loses wisdom.
Much confusion is shown in the term "unconditional love," which is often the supposedly "modern" equivalent of agape love, as meant by Paul, and often also what is meant in the Catholic (including Anglican/Episcopal) and Eastern Rites by Eucharistic love (Holy Communion; Christian communal feast).
There is, however, no such thing as across-the-board "unconditional love" rendering conditions null and void. God rightly loves Jesus more than those who hated him and murdered him. There is nothing wrong with it. The problem arises when people think that love means no conditions should be placed upon anyone that would render that one separated were the conditions not met. It is as saying that there is no Heaven because everything Holy is falling in with all that is evil. That of course, is the opposite of Jesus's work.
Jesus teaches about the New Earth and New Heaven where the separation of evil from the human heart and the heart of the whole of humanity on this plane of existence has occurred in both the temporal and spiritual future of those who believe and act accordingly and to the best of their abilities, always repentant in earnest before and after they fall, always forgiven when they get back up, which can only truly be done in earnest.
Interesting, Tom, Thank you. "There is, however, no such thing as across-the-board "unconditional love" rendering conditions null and void." Makes sense to me: never did under the other view that all you have to do is "be saved" and no matter what you atrocity you committed, you will be forgiven, while those who are not saved, though living the life of a near saint, will go to Hell.
18 hours ago • Like •
Thank you, Betty. Yes, the whole thing comes under the general heading of "liberality." It's a very deep bone of contention between the Reformed (some) and pretty much all the rest of "Christendom." There are some "Protestants" who are really an extreme form of pre-Christian Gnosticism where they are "licensed" to do evil. It's about the most twisted aspect of anything called Christian and where they still mean Jesus as Christ, I've ever seen.
It's part of why there are Christians running around with literal swords in anticipation of slaughtering the demon-possessed in the streets. The wrath is not something any follower of Christ is to take up. All readings to the contrary are in error.
It's why the Pentagon is full of those claiming to be Christians but are not. It's why there are so-called Christian-Zionists.
It's a real mess that most people simply want to avoid straightening out.
It has to be straightened out though. It will be too. That's my belief. That's my faith. That's my prophecy. It is spiritual and will manifest in the here and now, whenever and wherever that will be at the time.
17 hours ago • Like •
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)