Answering a New Ager

If you've read the original, un-updated post, click here to see the new comments.

If you've read the original and second update, click here to see the new comments.

Third update: Click here to see the new comments.

Fourth update: Click here to see the new comments.

Fifth update: Click here to see the new comments.

Tom Usher

[To Daniel:]

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, 'Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?' He said unto them, 'An enemy hath done this.' The servants said unto him, 'Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?' But he said, 'Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.' (Matthew 13:24-30)

Daniel, can you guarantee that you will uproot not a bit of the wheat while you use violence and kill people, or doesn't that matter enough? What if you were a bit of that wheat, wouldn't the Golden Rule then apply? Would you want the innocent to die while you are being rescued? Had you thought you considered every angle?

No one, Daniel, is both Christian and Muslim.

Xdaniel Mabsout
?
@Tom, i am not promoting violence in no way , when the physycian uses his surgical blade to cut the gangrenous leg , his not performing violence nor laming the person, he is rather saving the patient's life and he does this out of love and care while he wishes to have been able to save the life of the man , he is a hero in the middle of a battle ground who takes responsibility and acts knowing the pros and cons.

As far as being Christian or Muslim and a Budhist or a Hindu and when the religions of the natives will be revived i shall be delighted because i will have access to a new story of the creation of the world, every scripture of the world tells about me and about God , i believe them all , there are no people lesser than other and no scripture of people better than the scripture of other people, God did not tell differently to different people ; but only to SOW discord and atheism , the ENEMY makes this difference between religions , really different religions are there to support the universal understanding of truth by different interpretations. Imagine if Islam was the only religion on earth , what will be the condition ? Imagine if Christianity was the only religion, God does not want any people's or nations' monopoly of truth .

Tom Usher

Daniel,

You say that you are not promoting violence. You are not telling people to fight back non-violently. You are telling them to fight back violently, correct? Yes, it's correct. There is no way for you to have it both ways. You are stuck promoting fighting.

When a doctor gives an antibiotic, that drug kills. It does violence against the invader. The question isn't whether or not to eradicate evil. The question is how. The question is which is the way that will actually rid it once and for all.

Peace Omind appears to be closer in understanding to Jesus Christ than are you, Daniel.

When you say, "the pros and cons," what you are referring to is your inability to
guarantee that you will uproot not a bit of the wheat while you kill people.

You did not answer the questions: What if you were a bit of that wheat, wouldn't the Golden Rule then apply? Would you want the innocent to die while you are being rescued?

Why have you avoided answering? Doesn't your philosophy have the direct answers? It does not, and I know that you know it.

You believe all scriptures? To what extent? I can pick out bits and say the same. However, I believe every bit of the Sermon on the Mount. Do you believe every bit too? You do not. I repeat, you do not believe all of the Sermon on the Mount – the greatest sermon ever given.

I see now that you are a New Ager. What are your positions on Blavatsky and her Theosophy? She was very tied in with Freemasonry. There's no doubt about it. She also believed that the serpent is god and that the God of Jesus is the evil one and Satan the one to free humanity from the moral constraints of Jesus. Are you aware of these anti-Christ things? I believe you may be but avoid discussing them in front of your following.

You wrote, "...no scripture of people better than the scripture of other people, God did not tell differently to different people...."

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

That's from the Gospel of John, who was Jesus's closest disciple. It was confirmed by Polycarp who was taught by John, who saw Jesus crucified and resurrected. Polycarp was confirmed by Irenaeus who was taught by Polycarp. They are recorded amongst the ante-Nicene Fathers of the Church. They were widely known. This is very clear in recorded history. In the continuity of Christianity, the Gospel of John is well established. However, Mohammed claimed Jesus was not crucified but rather Judas. John was there. Mohammed wasn't. Whom do trust?

Jesus did say, "No man cometh unto the Father, but by me." The Father is God. Anyone who hears Jesus's story and rejects Jesus does not approach God to stay near to God but is separated out with the proverbial goats. That is Jesus's religion. That is the scripture of Christianity. It is not found in the other religions or scriptures you claim are equal to it and which in the cases of both the Qur'an and Talmud, completely reject Jesus as "the way, the truth, and the life."

It isn't for humanity to come up with a new religion. It is for humanity to hear and to heed the call of God to Jesus and Jesus to God. The unity is discussed at length in John. Have you read it?

You wrote, "Imagine if Christianity was the only religion...." It will be, and it will be the New Earth and New Heaven conflated and perfect.

You also wrote, "God does not want any people's or nations' monopoly of truth." God gave the truth, Daniel. "I am the way, the truth, and the life." Any nation that has the truth, lives accordingly, will be among the sheep and not the goats.

Do you disbelieve that God sent Jesus Christ with the truth? Be careful how you answer! Your soul is on the line.


Sara Swati

the new gang of Christians believe like the pro Israeli Jews that they are the chosen people of God and there is no religion but theirs , the truth is that they(new gang of Christians) have fallen in the pit of the ego and they believe they are superior to all others and that God when He sees the cross on their forheads will send them in the express train the heavens , good riddance, except that the whole thing is an ego trip and God has little to do with it, God does not favor religions , God favors individuals and this thing of favoring religions is a real Zionist thinking that will end up legalizing invasion and occupation as a divine right granted by God to the chosen people whoever they are .

It is not enough what the Roman Empire did to Christianity, it is not enough what the Vatican did by tampering with the original texts and hiding entire passages of the Gospel, it is not enough the abuse of school children on behalf of priests, it is not enough the Christian Zionists of the US , now we have to deal with effortless pacifist Christian who wants God to do the job and get rewarded for watching!

Xdaniel Mabsout

I am promoting self defense and not opium of the people .i am promoting reaction and not coma.i am promoting waking to ones options and not dream.

when people learn and are capable of responding then they have to be aware of the causes of these injustices and discriminate the causes.finally when one has mastered self defense and is capable of warding assaults on his own person he may turn the other cheek

My rely:

Daniel, you failed to answer direct, specific questions with direct answers. You have return vagueness. Why do you avoid giving direct and specific responses? That's not good leadership.

Sara is struggling mightily to tell the world that it wasn't moral suasion and non-violence that finally ended Apartheid South Africa but rather that everyone must have rushed in and slaughtered the White supremacists. Well, history tells the truth of the Peace Movement in the United States and elsewhere, and not the vengeful and blood thirsty, that finally ended the reign of the White supremacists. The Vietnam War did not end by the North Vietnamese fighting back. It ended because of the anti-war movement right inside the US and US military. If it had not been for that Peace Movement, the US would have incinerated North Vietnam.

Talking about right action, that Movement was the best action that happened. That was real action, not falsehood. Sara doesn't comprehend. She's too busy being angry and bitter for reasons in her background that she hasn't dealt with and overcome.

If Sara is so Hell bent for blood, why is she not on the frontline fighting? Why hasn't she been killed already in her anti-Christ "heroism"? I walk my talk as much as possible. Exactly whom is Sara advocating that you all should mass together to go execute? Will you slaughter the Zionist's babies too? Who will want your blood for such injustices? Which Zionist babies will you leave to grow up who will learn the history of how you advocated for the wholesale slaughter of their parents when there was another option that the Peace Movement has offered the world and that it is clearly exercising now with Flotillas and Convoys and articles and speeches and more, all of which is change global public opinion against the Zionists regime and its fascism, racism, violence, and other sins?

Anyway, neither Daniel nor Sara can tell any of you that in following them, you all won't be directly responsible for killing the innocent with the guilty, thereby making yourselves guilty of innocent blood. You certainly won't be able to blame it on your enemies.

Sara and Daniel think they know better than Jesus about God and what God wants – how we humans are to behave toward each other. Well, they can follow their god(s), or more so themselves, and I will stand with Jesus whether or not that means braving the Cross for the sake of the truth that is that neither Sara nor Daniel is leading anyone on the path of righteousness.

Sara, you better do some serious soul searching about your hard-heartedness and why you loathe Jesus so much who gave his fleshly life so that you might hear his Sermon on the Mount that is vastly better than anything I've heard come out from your emotional turbulence and confusion.

While I was composing my comment, another comment came in:

La Tribu de Rainbowistan

I must finish our book soon as the world needs to read it..It is called "The Gospel of Indigenous Islam"...Islam defined not as One Religion..but given its true Arabic meaning of "surrender"...Surrender to what we ask?...Well we must heed the words of Yeshua ben Joseph (the real name of the one they call Jesus)...Yeshua said,"die to the flesh"...what does this mean? Well we must remove the clouds in our mind..so as we reflect the PURE LIGHT of God (Unity consciousness/Holy "whole" Spirit..Now the Prophet Muhammad also said,"maut kable ente maut"..which translates in English to "die before you die"...Now,is not "die to the flesh" and 'die before you die" the exact same teaching?...Also Prophet Musa (Moses) said,"No-one can live and see God"...Um,does not seem to difficult to grasp they are teaching the same thing...If you ask a Hindu Baba (Holy Father)..he will tell you the same thing..maybe he will say it in Hindi..but it will have the same meaning...Well this is the GOSPEL OF INDIGENOUS (Original) ISLAM...We must remove the "clouds of ignorance" in our minds to reflect the Pure Light of God...Too many people speak about religion (re-connection) to Oneness of Being..without having any "direct experience" in matters of spiritual understanding..without GNOSIS..without being an 'arif"....Now here is the Holy Bombshell for us all..What if we change,"I am the way,the truth,and the life" to "WE are the way,the truth, and the life?"...Yeshua (Jesus) did not mean himself when he was talking.."I"=Holy (whole) Spirit..and there have been 124,000 messengers of God (Oneness of Being) in our history...All messengers of God are The Holy Spirit..and the Holy Spirit is the Voice of God..also anyone that becomes a Saint (dies to the flesh consciousness) and resurrects in "Divine Consciousness" merges with The Holy Spirit...To say Yeshua (Jesus) had a monopoly on The Holy Spirit is absurd...Anyone who professes a Gospel that is divisive works for the "Great Deceiver'...this Devil..divides...but those who have come onto The Truth work to Unite all peoples...THE TRUTH UNITES,THE DEVIL DIVIDES...I love you all...El Padre de Rainbowistan

My answer:

Oh, there is so much in this latest "La Tribu de Rainbowistan" comment that is just complete distortion and confusion.

This "La" wrote: " Jesus) did not mean himself when he was talking.."I"=Holy (whole) Spirit..and there have been 124,000 messengers of God (Oneness of Being) in our history...All messengers of God are The Holy Spirit..and the Holy Spirit is the Voice of God..also anyone that becomes a Saint (dies to the flesh consciousness) and resurrects in "Divine Consciousness" merges with The Holy Spirit...To say Yeshua (Jesus) had a monopoly on The Holy Spirit is absurd...Anyone who professes a Gospel that is divisive works for the "Great Deceiver'...this Devil..divides...but those who have come onto The Truth work to Unite all peoples...THE TRUTH UNITES,THE DEVIL DIVIDES."

When Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6), he didn't mean "I." Talk about twisting, wow, it's amazing. Talk about not understanding the oneness and the unity, "La" misses it completely! Rather than sending Jesus, God sent everyone. God sent no specific soul. God sent the "we" that can't discern the goats from the sheep. That's what this "La" wants you all to think. What kind of thinking is this? It is not a reflection of anything Jesus taught in anything recorded by his closest followers.

Who was one of the 124,000, Mohammed? Mohammed said Jesus wasn't crucified and resurrected, but Jesus said Jesus was crucified and resurrected. Mohammed said lots of things about Jesus that directly contradicts what Jesus said about himself. How can they both be messengers from God? They can't since Mohammed came after Jesus chronologically and should have accepted Jesus's teaching about Jesus rather than going off on a wild story to excuse his worldly empire building that Francis Joseph linked to (http://www.apostatesofislam.com/) but has reportedly been blocked for supplying information that Daniel was not prepared to refute with historical facts.

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:" (Luke 12:51)

What's "La" going to say about that, that Jesus didn't mean it? "La" doesn't understand it, so "La" will make up whatever about it to suit some amorphous, semantically challenged nightmare.

So, according to this "La," Jesus worked for the Great Deceiver. Now, that's blasphemy. Jesus teaches against evil and says that the wicked will be separated out. That's division and rightly so. Since this "La" is about unity or that which is not conformed to righteousness, how can "La's" soul go with the sheep?

Peace Omind

"Ž~Albert Camus~ Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend.

I would like to ask all of you in this discussion, if the God, Allah, prophets, saints, etc... or whom ever one wishes to worship or surrender to? would they agree with the above statement by Mr. Albert Camus or disagree and why?

nothing in this universe should be above anyone or thing in my opinion we are all connected energy

namaste everyone : ))

Tom Usher

Peace Omind,

The answer is no because the concept of "walk beside" and the concept of "friend" don't mean the same things to the existentialist and the Christian. The walk is different. The way is different.

To be a friend of Jesus is to love him, follow his lead, and therefore not use partial-truths to distort his message.

Is there a mundane place for "walking beside" and for being "friendly"? Yes, there is such a place; but as you walk along conversing and not beating each other, there comes a point where the existentialist either converts or sees the Christian progressing on until the Christian vanishes from sight.

If one follows Jesus's lead, one does end up at oneness and unity but not with every soul in existence because other souls reject the righteousness of Jesus that leads to the perfection who is God.

If you follow Jesus all the way to the destination, there you will find souls truly together as friends in the highest sense conceivable. It is at that place where the first are last and last are first and the servants of all who are there.

To others, they are maligned for being separated by the saving action of the God of infinity. Those others can not partake, so they seek to block the way. The Christian sees right through them and walks right through them too.

I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. (John 6:51)

What is the bread? What is the life? What is the world? Learn those things, and we will walk together and be friends.

Xdaniel Mabsout

AFTER 2000 YEARS OF THE RULE OF CHRISTIANITY , SOME PREACHERS COME TO PREACH CHRISTIANITY TO THE NON-CHRISTIANS ;
TO THESE PREACHERS I SAY REMOVE THE WOOD IN YOUR EYE FIRST ...LEARN TO DO SELF-CRITICISM...AND BY THE WAY PREACH CHRISTIANITY TO THE CHRISTIANS
NO MORE WE WANT TO LEARN NEITHER ETHICS NOR RELIGION
ESPECIALLY FROM NATIONALS OF COUNTRIES THAT HAVE INTERESTS IN SUBJUGATION OF OTHER PEOPLES AND DESTRUCTION OF THEIR CULTURES
I LOVE MY COUNTRY < I LOVE MY RELIGION < I LOVE MY CULTURE AND LANGUAGE TO THE GARBAGE GO THE SUPREMACY OF THE ENGLISH(AND OTHER USURPERS) AND HIS LANGUAGE AND RELIGION LONG LIVE ISLAM LONG LIVE BUDDHISM LONG LIVE THE DIFFERENT CULTURES AND APPROACHES ...LONG LIVE THE ABORIGINALS AND THEIR WAYS OF LIFE DESTROYED BY THE CHRISTIAN OCCUPIERS DEATH TO ISRAEL DEATH TO USA LONG LIVE THE PEOPLES DESIRE TO UNITE IN ONE GLOBAL RAINBOW FAMILY

Xdaniel Mabsout "Ž@Tom

"TO THE GARBAGE GO THE SUPREMACY OF THE ENGLISH(AND OTHER USURPERS) AND HIS LANGUAGE AND RELIGION"
Meaning they have to throw their imposed arrogance and supremacy and become normal God-loving humanbeings they have to admit and regret their blasphemy and their crimes (that they are still doing and benefitting from ) and become people like others

Tom Usher

Daniel says that because I was born in the US, "we" (as if he speaks for all people not born in the US) don't want to learn ethics and religion from me. That's utter bigotry against everyone born in the US no matter how much any American works for world peace or any of the rest of the good, no matter how much any American speaks out against racism, ethnic bigotry, greed, violence, depravity, and all the rest of evil.

Daniel also says that there has been 2000 years of Christian rule. Where? I see no Christian rule during the last 2000 years except in some tiny private pockets, and even then, it was not fully developed Christianity. It couldn't be because anti-Christs kept on persecuting Christians just as Daniel is trying to do here. No Christian has ever violently invaded anyone else's land. Only non-Christians have done that. Anyone claiming to be Christian who goes out and does the violence Daniel suggests that people should do, is a fake – no real Christian. What's more, Daniel knows it but won't admit it because Daniel has ulterior motives.

Daniel never answers any points directly. He just rants while his true stripes come out – bigotry based upon illogical discrimination. Who else fits in Daniel's book of those he hates just because they have been born in some place?

Daniel screams for the death of others. If that's what the rainbow stands for to you, I want no part of your version of it.

Daniel does more harm than good to the cause of liberating people from the heavy yoke of evil. His idea is to kill anyone with whom he disagrees. Do you think he would have had a problem spiking Jesus to the cross? Afterall, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Jesus was and is a Jew. You haven't heard Daniel telling you how his rainbow includes Jesus. What is Daniel not telling you about himself?

Did you notice Daniel saying that he would never kill an innocent Zionist baby? No, you didn't see him write anything along those lines. Did you see him answer about Theosophy and Luciferianism that is inherent in it? No, Daniel didn't mention a thing about that. He can't. He's not allowed to talk about those things because then he'd become more and more exposed for his true beliefs.

Daniel, why don't you repent? Why don't you repent of all the evil you are wishing on everyone you've cursed here? Why don't you repent of trying to make out that somehow I'm evil just because I was born in the US?

All of the American Indians alive today who were born on the land on which I was born do not agree with you. Plenty of them would want nothing to do with your calls to not listen to anyone born in the US or who is a Christian. Plenty of the people reading this know that there are Christians living on the Indian reservations in the US. Those Indians can hear my voice. They know you don't know me. They would not join you in spiking me to the cross.

Frank Belleau "Ž@ Tom

what do you know of the North American Indians, the same ones whose treaties were all broken, the same ones whose children were terrorized by Christian priests into leaving the ways of thier ancestors, the same ones who mostly live in poverty.

Does your bible not say "put not asunder what has been created" yet your kind take much delight in destroying all that was created.

If it was meant for us to all be the same, Jesus and his Dad would have made it so and it would have been made not by the hands of man!!!!

and I am Ojibway and I know what was taken from us and I know that what they are giving back are not the same thing!!!!

Tom Usher
Frank Belleau,

Did you read what I wrote? Do you even remember what the other person has said before you start writing to address that person?

What do you know about what I do or don't know about Indians? You know nothing about it. How many of the broken treaties have you read? Have you read any of them? How long have you lived on a reservation? Have I ever lived on a reservation? Tell me about it. How much Indian are you? What do you know about Indian wars before the White people ever arrived? Do you think the Indians were pure before the White people arrived? That's not what the Indians say about it, at least the honest ones I've known and talked to at length about it.

You accuse Christian priests of terrorizing Indians. You pay no attention to what I've said. No Christian priest terrorized any Indians. Anyone who terrorized Indians was no Christian. Why don't you stop calling people who don't agree with Jesus Christians? Then you'll make sense.

You bear false witness (forked tongue) against my kind and me when you state that my "kind take much delight in destroying all that was created." You haven't a clue. My kind is my spirit that I share with Jesus Christ and with the Great Spirit who is God the Creator, not the destroyer. You sound like a racist.

I don't know what you are saying here: "If it was meant for us to all be the same, Jesus and his Dad would have made it so and it would have been made not by the hands of man!!!!

"and I am Ojibway and I know what was taken from us and I know that what they are giving back are not the same thing!!!!"

The hands of man made what, all of us the same? What are you talking about?

Who are the "they" in "they are giving back are not the same thing!!!!" God and Jesus are not giving back the Indians the land as it was before the White people arrived, is that what you're trying to say?

Do you know what the New Earth and New Heaven are? If not, you need to look into it. It's readily available information on the Internet. If you're not interested, well then I'm wasting my time if I continue with you.

Are you claiming there are not Christians who are full-blooded American Indians? If you are, you're a liar! http://www.google.com/search?rls=en&q=Native+American+Christians

All religions are not the same. All religions are not equally valid. Some religions are abominations. Look at the human sacrifices done in the name of religion. Many of those sacrifices occurred in the Americas long before White people ever arrived. There is no human sacrifice in Christianity. Jesus self-sacrificed to show how much and what kind of love is bound up in his New Commandment that Daniel thinks isn't better than what Mohammed did raiding caravans, stealing, taking slaves, and raping captured women and who knows what else.

Daniel though says long live that. He also says long live the Buddhists but not the Christians. The Muslims destroy Buddhist statues and Hindu temples. The Muslims smash the idols. The Muslims and Hindus do not get along. The Hindus destroy Islamic Mosques. The Muslims and Jews don't get along. The Muslims and Christians don't get along. Why? What did Mohammed do to the Jews? He attacked them, not the other way around. He attacked them because they wouldn't accept his egotistical, inferiority-complex personality as the Second Coming and final messenger of God, and you better believe it on pain of death.... just ask the Baha'i — hardly equal to the message of Jesus. Only dishonest souls think otherwise.

Don't tell me what the Popes did. They did what Jesus said not to do. When we talk about Christianity versus Islam, we talk about Jesus versus Mohammed – nothing else. They define their respective religions. Jesus's teachings and deeds were and are vastly better than Mohammed's.

Anyone who doesn't care about killing the innocent in war is no better than those who are firing Hellfire missiles from predator drones in Afghanistan and Pakistan – same stinking, rotten, no-good spirit.


Final comment on that wicked, wicked thread:

Tom Usher

I've been at this for many years. I've seen many people avoid the actual things I've written and attempt to assign to me things I have not said and things I have not advocated but actually stood against, but this thread takes the cake. In case you don't know the expression "takes the cake," it means that this group is the worst I have encountered, ever, in terms of twisting, obfuscating, and ducking and dodging. You will never be successful with such utter dishonesty.

As for people knowing the mind of Jesus, well he spoke his words and they are recorded. Of course, some people do read them and comprehend nothing or comprehend but rail against him, such as Daniel and Sara have done here. Wow, do you ever hate Jesus. You do it without cause.

As for this expression "new gang," Sara, Jesus walked the Earth in the year zero. There's nothing new about what I've written here. Stop lying to people.

Well, I'll give Antonio one thing. He knows when the go silent. So too do I.

Here's the actual URL to that thread if you care to comment there. I don't know how tightly the post owner has his Facebook privacy settings set: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=463754&id=100000139033259

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.