Libya: Qaddaffi-Backing, Right-Wing Socialism Versus the Christian Commons

I posted the following on my Facebook Wall:

Oh, there's no doubt the US and its allies are going to arm the Libyan revolutionaries because stupidly the Qaddaffis have failed to heed.

Two of my "Facebook friends," who have taken to tag-teaming me, decided to once again attempt to build up right-wing socialism against left-wing socialism but more so against the Christian Commons.

Des Brittain

Heed what? Gadafi has every right to crush an armed rebellion funded by the CIA and Soros and helped by undercover British and American special forces. Viva Gadafi!

Tom Usher

I didn't say the US and the others should pound him.

I've said Qaddaffi shouldn't pound people wanting multi-party democracy as opposed to a one-party dictatorship.

You're being extremely anti-democratic, not that violently coercive democracy is the solution.

Viva Qaddaffi? Heaven forbid! He's a very corrupt and selfish man who has raised up a pack of ravening wolves for sons.

If you like him, you have serious problems with knowing the difference between good and evil.

Thomas Smitherman

You have an obsession with dividing complicated, mixed individuals and phenomena into "good" and "evil" camps. Is raiding a military base and stealing the weapons and then attacking cities as well as military installations good? If not, then is fighting against that evil? Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"? That is to say, he has been in power 41 years and does business with most of the world but one day he just decided he didn't like some groups of civilians and ordered the army to massacre them. Do you believe that? Undoubtedly, civilians died due to the Libyan army airstrikes against the rebellion. If there were a mutiny at US military bases in, say, Colorado, something similar would happen. The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes. Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?

Tom Usher

Oh, Thomas, you can't stand the teachings of Jesus who did exactly what you constantly rail against in me.

"Where did he get off calling them serpents. They were so complicated." You're full of it, Thomas. The more you come at me this way, the farther you fall away from the one you claim to worship if you were ever close. I have my doubts now after all this Qaddaffi supporting.

"Is raiding a military base and stealing the weapons and then attacking cities as well as military installations good?" No.

"If not, then is fighting against that evil?" Yes.

"Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"?" What exactly did he mean when he said he would create rivers of blood and have his security forces go door to door to round up the traitors? Are you unfamiliar with his track record in dealing with political prisoners?

"That is to say, he has been in power 41 years and does business with most of the world but one day he just decided he didn't like some groups of civilians and ordered the army to massacre them."

That's stupid. The people started protesting, and he had his killers start shooting them dead in the streets. Where were you, under a rock?

"If there were a mutiny at US military bases in, say, Colorado, something similar would happen." As if I would condone either side in that.

"The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes."

No kidding. Tell me something I don't already know.

"Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?" Where do you get off calling yourself "Christian" since you can't tell the difference between good and evil regarding Qaddaffi killing people who don't want to live under his corrupt regime?

Why don't you two Stalinists go find some people to throw into a Gulag to torture and leave to die since it can't possibly be evil to you since it's, well, Stalinism or may I say Satanism without you freaking out, unable to comprehend.

I called upon the US not to use violence. I rip the US over its wars — all of them. Where were you?

"Oh, there's no doubt the US and its allies are going to arm the Libyan revolutionaries because stupidly the Qaddaffis have failed to heed." That was what I wrote. It says nothing about agreeing with the Obama administrations attacking, does it? Well, does it? No.

Just remember your stance here when you face your maker as to why you were backing Qaddaffi.

I'm not backing Qaddaffi or the violent revolutionaries or the worldly Empire. You can't say the same. That's your problem for not being very bright about it all even though you think you are.

I don't like this new Shift-Control paragraphing system. It's too easy to hit the Enter key posting the comment before it's done.

Thomas Smitherman

Hey, I think you act and speak foolishly sometimes, but I definitely don't mix faith in Christ and His religion with how you read the political situation in the world. Your words, and their motivations, are repugnant.

Tom Usher

You don't even know that Qaddaffi is being evil. Jesus called people serpents for doing less unrighteousness than Qaddaffi, but you can't see Qaddaffi as an anti-Christ force in this world.

What do you know about faith in Christ and His religion? You think Qaddaffi might be on the narrow way to God and Jesus, do you? Well, if you think that's even possible what with what Qaddaffi has been doing for decades and is doing right now, you sure won't make it regardless of whether or not I do.

You are rebuked here but don't get it. Your ego is in your way.

Thomas Smitherman

your positions and accusations: (1) armed rebellion is bad but so is supressing it —*contradictory, but stemming essentially from your de facto Puritan-anarchist position that all force, and thus the State, is an unnecessary evil. (2) "rivers of blood"—*clearly aimed at the armed rebellion; (3) track record handling protestors —*we agree on this, but not on the fact that it is not relatively remarkable...if you can attack Libya for this, you can attack at least 50 other countries in the world. (4) "That's stupid. The people started protesting, and he had his killers start shooting them dead in the streets. Where were you, under a rock?" —*There was no grand massacre of protestors. Violent repression? Yes, but not on an exceptional level either. Massacre? No. I think the good vs. evil story and imperialist propaganda have taken a life of their own with you. (5) Neutrality in the case of rebellion —*You condemn as evil those who act with the instinct of self-preservation. Either the rebellion is correct or one must tacitly support the State. Stop pretending everyone but you is evil. (6) "Stalinists" —*A Stalinist supports the policies of Stalin. Most Russians have a favourable view of Stalin's role in history, but this has little to do with a desire to re-adopt Marxism-Leninism. (7) "I called upon the US not to use violence." —*You supported the unattractive/hardly tenable position that the Western media were 100% right (or not right enough) about Qadhaafi, but that nobody can really do anything about it. If your propaganda were as effective as you think it is, it would have the effect of spreading support for the bombings. The bombings, and consequence of a prolonged civil war, have caused the deaths and sufferings of far more people than would have otherwise been the case. The real point should not be pacifism, but rather that the war, like 99% of wars, is based on a lie or (unsubstantially) partial truth. It is your "logic" getting people killed.

Thomas Smitherman

(8) "Just remember your stance here when you face your maker as to why you were backing Qaddaffi."—*Firstly, I am not backing Qadhaafi in the sense that he is my ideal Libyan leader; I am backing him vs. a group of armed bandits armed by the West and army base raids and I am backing Libyan independence. As for my soul, it may be in trouble, but not due to politics. Empires, dictators, revolutions, "democratic" politicians come and go; but the Church is still there and has dealt with all of them. (9) "I'm not backing Qaddaffi or the violent revolutionaries or the worldly Empire." —*You don't back anyone but yourself in all cases. You say everyone is evil then if someone calls you out on being ridiculous you quote something vague and irrelevant to the situaiton from Jesus to say they have turned against Christianity (meaning, presumably, your hetereodox one-man "church").

Thomas Smitherman

Committing an evil act does not make you evil. What do I think about Qadhaafi? I don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup. I do know if he were evil, he could have set up the political and economic system of the 70s-80s to be a lot richer and more powerful by selling out his people and creating a private, oligarchic system of control over natural resources. I think in the 90s-2000s, his righteousness, whatever its level had been, declined. He made a lot of compromises with the West (who sold him out anyway) which made his family very wealthy. I also sense and have read/heard that he smokes a lot of cannabis. I don't find him to be very responsible; and a coup carried out from WITHIN the Libyan Arab Islamic Socialist system, would be most agreeable (as I have said before). His overthrow by a mystery armed gang with shiny new kalshnikovs and foreign volunteers, with help from several Western navies and the CIA, under the flag of the old monarchy, is **NOT** progressive. You cannot seem to understand the difference between doing something evil and being evil. I heard from your own fingertips you used to make your income in some dirty way you would not own up to. So are you evil?

Thomas Smitherman

And what type of ego does it take to make impossible judgments like "State = force = EVIL = anti-Christian; so governments deserve to be overthrown, but the rebels kill people so = force = EVIL = anti-Christian; so my position is the government should be overthrown but nothing should replace it, but something probably will and it will be EVIL and an enemy of God"...or..."associating with dictators and govts with blood on their hands (=all of them), who are EVIL, is EVIL, so 99% of Christian Church history is EVIL; the Patriarchs, bishops, and Popes were political figures so all of them were tainted with EVIL and did not understand Christinaity like *I* do"..."at least I am GOOD, because I do as Jesus would do, I am an internet troll who confronts the EVIL Pharisees with my keyboard...I attack all sides of all conflicts as EVIL (though I have favourites so apparently some are more absolutely evil and corrupted than others)...I find those who do not believe everything they hear in the Western media and berate them for associating what I have heard is EVIL (not knowing anything about the countries in question, but that is the media's job)...I can evil tell people they are probably going to Hell because they are EVIL and I am GOOD, besides, Jesus did it, and I must emulate Him, so I am supposed to speak as He does!" ???

That's verging on the psychotic.

Tom Usher

What's the matter? Did you have another fight with your wife?

Talking with you has turned into an exercise in beating all around the bush. Jesus was a pacifist. He lived it. He taught it. He taught that human violence is sin, always. You reject it and necessarily Jesus with it. Never once did he teach to be violent under any circumstances.

If I'm wrong, cite his words that prove it. If I'm right, admit it.

I beg your pardon? If someone says he engaged in wrong-doing, that IS owning up to it.

Thomas, every time I mention Jesus's direct teaching on anything, you call it vague.

Your problem is that you are not interested in living Christianity. You just want to go through the liturgical motions and then leave the building thinking you're now out in the real world of politics.

We've been around and around and around on these semantical points, but you've never caught on for a moment.

Christianity is politics, always.

"Committing an evil act does not make you evil." Wow, are you ever way off. That's your "Catholicism." That's your violent-crusade-condoning spirit.

As for heresy, I'll worry about what God thinks about that, not your Popes.

If you judge a person's Christianity by a head count, then you better look around.

Tom Usher

Tom Usher

"You have an obsession with dividing complicated, mixed individuals and phenomena into "good" and "evil" camps."

"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matthew 25:33). You rebuke Jesus when you rebuke me for dividing camps. Don't tell me I'm taking this out of context or being vague. Just admit you've been stupid.

"Did you really believe the propaganda that Qadhaafi was "attacking the civilian population"?" He definitely shelled and shot unarmed civilians in civilian centers that had gone over to the popular uprising. Des seems to think the Qaddaffis have every right to do that. I wonder how much understanding Des and you have about the difference between left- versus right-socialism. Des has said he's of the left, but the two of you support the right-wing of socialism, which is elitist-authoritarian/totalitarian rather than grassroots and consensus. That's a fact regardless of what some Russians think about it. They need to do some deep soul searching right along with you.

"Undoubtedly, civilians died due to the Libyan army airstrikes against the rebellion. .... The Libyans are also dying now under NATO airstrikes. Where do you get off seeing this as good vs. evil?" Those who had non-violently assembled were not engaged in evil. The evil began when the shooting, etc., began. That shooting began on Qaddaffi's side. There's no point in discussing it with you if you don't see that as a starting place for assigning responsibility as to who were the instigators. Qaddaffi was the instigator unless you are going to blame every thrust of the regional uprisings. Just saying that George Soros is for something therefore it's bad is mighty weak argumentation.

"I definitely don't mix faith in Christ and His religion with how you read the political situation in the world." You mean that you believe that I have faith in Jesus despite my worldview. You mean that I shouldn't question your faith in light of your worldview. Well, that's wrong. The perfect Christian worldview is Jesus's worldview. He did, and does, have one. He did, and still does, read the political situation in the world. He has his views. The question is, which one of us is closest to his views? If you are, then I should adopt whatever it is to which you hold that is closer. If I am closer, then you should adopt whatever it is to which I hold that is closer.

"Puritan-anarchist"? "Puritan" is a loaded term. If you mean the English Protestants of the 16th and 17th centuries, I don't subscribe. If you mean that we should be pure: "Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God." (Matthew 5:8), then of course I'm a puritan. Why aren't you? What's wrong with you?

"Anarchist" is also a loaded term. I am certainly not opposed to good government. What is "good"? "The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked." (Matthew 13:38). You don't believe that the distinction can be made by looking at the actions and results of those people. If they can be identified though, why not kill them now? "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." (Matthew 13:29). You don't get that though. It's lost on you. You fault me for getting it. You think Qaddaffi is right to burn his enemies and if the innocent get burned too, that's just the price of your right-wing socialism.

Lest people become confused, let me explain to them that you come from "conservative," even monarchistic roots and imagine you've moved from right to left by moving from monarchy to dictatorial socialism. You just don't get it that any absolute monarch could have done as well or better than Qaddaffi vis-a-vis the general population. He made himself king but simply without adopting the title.

You hate it that I preach another way where Qaddaffi and his enemies and the innocent, etc., come to see the light of the teachings of Jesus. You hate it with a passion. You say I obsess over bringing forth Jesus's vision for us here and now, but you are obsessed with my obsession because you hate the implications of the truth that reflect poorly upon your own choices.

You claim my "de facto...position that all force, and thus the State, is an unnecessary evil." I don't accept your premises. The state does not have to be coercive if everyone accepts Jesus's teachings and acts accordingly. That's what I advocate. It's necessarily consistent with Jesus. You don't advocate it. What you advocate is inconsistent with Jesus, and you know it. You are a witting apostate, as is everyone who agrees with your views here about this issue of the "State."

""rivers of blood"—*clearly aimed at the armed rebellion" Wrong. He was referring to everyone who disobeys him, even down to the level of his order that there will be no public gatherings (it has been reported that six people couldn't even spontaneously gather in public due to his paranoia about losing his position via democracy). Those who would have continued would have been subjected to whatever it would have taken for Qaddaffi to coerce them into obeying him. His decree is law in his view and apparently in yours also. I reject that. The law is, "whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12) and "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. ... Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (Matthew 22:37-39). Clearly, Qaddaffi's actions are illegal. You though, as has become obvious, as a Christian in name only, appeal to a different authority.

"if you can attack Libya for this, you can attack at least 50 other countries in the world." I don't advocate violence. If you mean that I can rebuke "50 other countries in the world," you are correct.

"I think...imperialist propaganda have taken a life of their own with you." I don't use the Empire's propaganda in that way. I point out the Empire's false propaganda. Even now, I am routinely calling for the media to pin down Barack Obama about the UN's "Responsibility to Protect."

I speak about exactly what Qaddaffi has done. You write that Qaddaffi is not as bad as massacring whole cities, a la Joshua. You want to think about it in relative terms. I always think in relative and absolute terms at the same time. You should learn to do that. Even while you write in relative terms, you complain about my supposedly favoring sides. What I have said, and stand by, is that Qaddaffi had the greater sin relative to the unarmed, peaceful protesters and then even those who took up arms against his violent suppression of those protesters. That in no way condones the violence on any side. It also obviously then does not give carte blanche to violent revolutionaries. I may agree with aspects of the Spanish Civil War socialists and the French Revolution Jacobins, but that does not mean that I agree with everything about them or their actions. They killed your priests because they saw those priests as reactionaries, as tools of the oppressors. Many priests were reactionaries, but Jesus would not have said to kill them. That's just how it is.

"You condemn as evil those who act with the instinct of self-preservation." I do not. What I say is: "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it." (Matthew 16:25). I say that to the violent revolutionaries. I tell them the law handed down by Jesus, the Supreme Lawgiver. You don't because the law and the love of the truth are not written on your heart.

"Either the rebellion is correct or one must tacitly support the State." That is false if you mean violent rebellion. I do not support violent rebellion, and I don't tacitly support the Qaddaffi Regime as the state for the reasons I've said above, which you have probably, if you are being true to form, already chosen to ignore (the law according to Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior — you claim or more correctly, feign).

"Stop pretending everyone but you is evil." I don't pretend anything, and I don't say God is evil or Jesus is evil. I do agree with Jesus: "none good but one, God" (Matthew 19:17). You are not that kind of good or that kind and degree of the absence of evil, Thomas. No one but God is God. I am heading to God. As to whether or not I'll be finally standing next to God as one with God in the Highest, finally chosen as such, is for God to decide; and anyone who doesn't like that can lump it.

Now, I've told you numerous times that I think in both relative and absolute terms at the same time, always. It is not my fault or problem that you don't get that and can't do it (yet). There are people who work good in the world and who are good in that sense. When they are being good, they aren't being evil. When they are good, they are not evil. We are what we do, Thomas. If we are evil, if we do evil, we can by God's grace repent of it and should. That's what I say, but you don't like it. You look only for ways to try to tear me down, but it hasn't worked and won't. You aren't convincing God that I'm wrong and you are right.

"You supported the unattractive/hardly tenable position that the Western media were 100% right (or not right enough) about Qadhaafi, but that nobody can really do anything about it." Everyone who can accept it can adopt Christianity. That's the only way for the Christian. A real Christian can't say to others to do what Jesus said not to do and to not do the things Jesus said to do. You disagree with that though because you claim to be a Christian while you tell people to fight and kill. However, Jesus said not to.

"If your propaganda were as effective as you think it is, it would have the effect of spreading support for the bombings" if people are as you are, conveniently selective and often indifferent to (compartmentalizing at best) Jesus's teachings. I don't advocate being selective. I say the world must go for the whole message and live it. The fact that they don't is anticipated in Jesus's teachings. The fact that they will is also. The goats won't. The sheep will. You sort it out.

"The bombings, and consequence of a prolonged civil war, have caused the deaths and sufferings of far more people than would have otherwise been the case." You don't know how many would have died had the UN (the de facto supranational government/State) not acted. You don't know how prolonged the fighting will be. Saying that doesn't mean I called for the UN to bomb anyone. I called on Qaddaffi not to kill anyone and for the US and UN to be humanitarian. I first called also though for the protesters not to take up arms. There's not a speck of inconsistency in my worldview and Christianity, which are one and the same, of course.

"It is your "logic" getting people killed." No, actually, it's your illogic that is getting people killed. You say kill. I say don't. You focus on self-defense. I focus on the evil one to rebuke him. You don't rebuke him because you don't like being rebuked. You want to continue doing whatever it is you should not.

"I am not backing Qadhaafi in the sense that he is my ideal Libyan leader" That's proof of favoritism you deny I may exercise when you say I can't sort good from evil or prioritize. You don't do what you preach at me; but you won't say, "I'm sorry, Tom. You are right, and I am wrong." You never do. Would you choke on it?

"I am backing him vs. a group of armed bandits armed by the West and army base raids and I am backing Libyan independence." You are backing Qaddaffi, who is a thief for giving what belongs to all the people to his sons and daughter. You conflate the Qaddaffi Mafioso family with Libya. The Qaddaffi family isn't Libya. The whole Libyan people is Libya. Had Qaddaffi's rule been put to all the people in a free-and-fair vote, would he have lost? He wouldn't allow anyone to find out. He'd rather murder and torture and falsely imprison thousands than find out. I more than suspect he knows he would lose an election. As I've said though, such democracy that's coercive is not the law. The consensus law of Jesus is the law.

"As for my soul, it may be in trouble, but not due to politics." You put "politics" in a box and set it aside. Your politics, what you support or don't concerning government, is definitely not able to be set aside concerning the disposition of your soul. You don't understand the micro/macro aspects ranging from you to God and Satan and back. I've tried to tell you this before, but you are slow of your own choice. You are not in your early teens anymore, Thomas.

"Empires, dictators, revolutions, "democratic" politicians come and go; but the Church is still there and has dealt with all of them." The real Church has, but the fake church has been them. You don't believe that there was a Great Apostasy. I do. I know there was. I know that Rome co-opted and subverted and suppressed the real message of Christ. I know that the Popes' so-called Apostolic Succession is false.

You ignore that while you are a self-professing Anglo-Catholic-Orthodox adherent that those three excommunicated each other. You have a major problem especially with the Anabaptists, when of all the denominations post the Great Apostasy and short of pure restoration (that I wholly support), the Anabaptists are the closest to Jesus's message of the main groups: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, and Radical Reformationists.

"You don't back anyone but yourself in all cases." I back the movement to God. Anyone doing that gets my backing in that. Where anyone deviates, I don't back it. You have a problem with that. That's your problem, not mine.

"You say everyone is evil then if someone calls you out on being ridiculous you quote something vague and irrelevant to the situaiton from Jesus." Well, I'm quoting from Jesus in this reply. None of the quotes is vague except to those who can't grasp them, and none is irrelevant. I have shown you how Jesus said that only God is good (not evil — has no evil in him), yet you call me out as ridiculous for saying it. Now, aren't you ashamed? Will you admit it openly, or do you need a cover? My goal has never been to shame you openly. You though never back off and see the light. You just insist upon coming back at me with completely indefensible nonsense where Christianity is concerned, and you are claiming to be a Christian and are trying (but utterly failing) to tear me down in my Christianity.

"one-man "church"" Well, have you taken a poll? Who is informed about what your church and you advocate versus what I advocate? It is your goal that people not come to see it and not freely choose. You can't eat at the trough but lie there barking at anyone wishing to enter in.

""What do I think about Qadhaafi? I don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup. I do know if he were evil, he could have set up the political and economic system of the 70s-80s to be a lot richer and more powerful by selling out his people and creating a private, oligarchic system of control over natural resources." You say you "don't know what were the proportions of good and evil in the motives of his 1969 coup." Then you say, "I do know if he were evil...." First you admit to not knowing. Then you go on to attempt to show that he wasn't. You speak in both relative and absolute terms at the same time but don't know what you're doing. He could have been worse is no proof. He has been bad enough. You think that he didn't accomplish a police state where he was the absolute monarch and sole sovereign. You're a dupe. It's your right-socialism error.

"His overthrow by a mystery armed gang with shiny new kalshnikovs and foreign volunteers, with help from several Western navies and the CIA, under the flag of the old monarchy, is **NOT** progressive." These are relative things. A palace coup was not in the offing because he had it all sown up on the inside long ago. Only his family might have been able to overthrow him, but they are mixed up and disjointed. The violent revolutionaries are mostly the young men of the cities of Libya. The weapons they have are on display. They aren't "heavy." The "West" was very late to the trouble and is not making the Mujahideen-error of the Carter administration.

You claim of me that I hold "the government should be overthrown but nothing should replace it." How many times have I said to you that the Kingdom of God is government? "...nothing should replace it." Hardly. You just don't want it. It would spoil your sin. What are you doing or wishing to do, diddle little kids or something?

You call me an "internet troll." Have you been stalking my Internet activity? Have you been visiting around to where I've left comments and come to the false conclusion that I "troll"? Who's on whose FB Wall? Do you even know what Internet trolling is? I don't go out "trolling," as an "Internet troll." I attempt to engage people to bring forth the light of truth. Trolls do the opposite.

Several years ago, I searched on "Jesus" and "communism." I ran into sites where I left comments clarifying that Jesus is a communist but not a Marxist. Some of those comments resulted in fairly extensive back-and-forth comments. It hardly constituted trolling. Exactly where have I trolled in the sense meant by "Internet troll"? If you can't point to it, if you can't show I have a habit or have shown a pattern of seeking out people to troll upon them, you owe me an apology.

Do you ever admit when you're wrong, Thomas? Do you ever apologize? I wonder.

You say I "have favourites so apparently some are more absolutely evil and corrupted than others." One can't be "more absolutely evil." You are showing just how little you understand about relativity.

You claim that "I find those who do not believe everything they hear in the Western media and berate them for associating what I have heard is EVIL (not knowing anything about the countries in question, but that is the media's job)." By "find" there, you mean troll for them, which I do not. I come across people but don't berate people for not believing "everything they hear in the Western media." I regularly dispute what is in the Western mainstream media. I do it more often than not. You make these asinine, sweeping statements about me all in an attempt to tear me down but all the while just falling and falling yourself. This is bearing false witness, Thomas.

"...not knowing anything about the countries in question"? How is it that I don't know anything about the countries in question? You claim to be allowed to have a position about Libya. You have written here what the West should and shouldn't have done/do. You've written in no uncertain terms that you understand the makeup and backing of the revolutionaries. How did you come to "know" all of that? What sources have you that I haven't on all of this? I've heard/read elsewhere and in some detail every one of your positions as put forth by others. Why is it that you are right to have decided for Qaddaffi while I am wrong when I have the same or more information? You spin it a bit to suit your own singularly unique hodge-podge of Christianity/secular ideologies, but nevertheless, your sources are not "insider." You aren't privy to anything I haven't seen or heard on Libya, at least not that you've stated to me.

In addition, it's telling that before these recent Arab uprisings, you, as you've written, agreed with me some 99% of the time. However, before these uprisings, I was writing extensively about Palestine, Israel (Zionism), Iran (nuclear weapons, etc.), and many other nation-states. Why is it that you didn't complain that I was writing about countries I know nothing about (not that I actually know nothing about them)? You will say that Libya was a closed society, yet Qaddaffi has been in the spotlight. He has given his speeches. The dealings of Libya vis-a-vis the rest of the world have been in the public domain for decades. He hadn't been getting as much attention since his "conversion" to more neoliberal economics, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't plenty to read about Libya from non-mainstream sources. Why is it that I could know more about Palestine and Iran than Egypt? You didn't like the people who started the overthrow of Mubarak, yet Mubarak was not nearly as socialistic as Qaddaffi. You just were against his overthrow via "NGO's," etc. Your position makes no sense other than you hold it simply because you disagree with the West's approach towards right-wing socialism so you're against the West even when it's forced by the world to change from supporting the likes of Mubarak.

Well, I was opposed to allowing the Zionists to topple Iran (by supporting the "Green" revolution) based upon a pack of lies about Iran's nuclear program and poor and twisted reporting about Iran's election returns and polling results. If Iran has a nuclear-weapons program, prove it. Don't give me the "we know" crap the way they fed the people about Iraq's supposed nuclear-weapons program. That's what I've always said. Then prove to me that Iran can't have nukes when so many others do, including Israel.

Mubarak was not comparable to the Iranian situation and neither is Qaddaffi. Now, if the US tried to take down Hugo Chavez, unless Chavez were to have turned himself into a Qaddaffi and refused to subject himself to multi-party elections for the sake of the "revolution," I'd be speaking against the US actions whether violent or not.

I do want the Iranian regime changed but not for the sake of the evil that is Zionism, and yes, it's an evil.

What you appear to hate is that I am taking it to the next level. I am evolving the conversation. I am rising above to where things must become more consistent until perfectly non-hypocritical. I have pointed out the hypocrisies and am calling for their elimination. You though are vastly status-quo oriented relative to my movement.

Let me be extremely clear. I am not a "right-wing" socialist, never have been, and never will be. I defend the giving-and-sharing economic model, which is socialism. At the same time, I condemn the forcing of self upon others. Democracy is a problem where the people don't have all the information to make truly informed decisions. So, on the secular level, democratic socialism, non-strongman socialism, non-lord-it-over-them socialism, open-society (sounds like Soros, doesn't it?) socialism is best. When all of that is perfectly understood, it becomes Christianity, per se.

Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. (Mark 10:42-44 KJV).

You see, that completely flies in the face of right-wing-dictator socialism; but rather than stand up for Jesus's teaching, you promote why you think dictator-socialism is proper. When confronted straight on by this, you call such direct applications of Jesus's teaching vague and irrelevant, thereby making yourself demonic, an instrument of that which is anti-Jesus, also called anti-Christ.

You further say I claim of myself that "I am GOOD." I am good when I am. When I'm not, I am rebuked and love it. You don't love being rebuked though. You hate it. I have said over and over and over that I am not perfected, but here you are actually boldfaced lying about me. I am a work in progress.

You also attribute to me the following: "besides, Jesus did it, and I must emulate Him, so I am supposed to speak as He does!" It is amazingly anti-Christ of you to write that. You actually put that out there as if my doing it is wrong. Yes, Jesus did it. Yes, I am to emulate him. You don't think so? Yes, I am supposed to speak as he does. You are amazingly off. I can't fathom just how in the dark you are about Christianity. Of all the things you've written to me, this is likely the closest you've come to self-identifying as a son of Satan.

I don't want to interact with you anymore. I've spent many, many hours on it, and you've only gotten worse — your real stripes are coming out. Get thee behind me, Satan. Yes, you!

Maybe you'll change. If you do, I'm sure you'll find a way to let me know. Until then, I've heard enough of your repetitive attempts to tear me down. You've not said anything truly new to me in months now, and I'm not interested in reading the same crap positions over and over from you.

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.
    • Scott McQueen

      Nation will rise against nation, there will be earthquakes, famines, pestilence. But these are just birth pangs. Not one is good; come quickly Jesus!

    • Thomas

      Okay, bye bye! Remember to repent, remember humility, remember you are not jesus Christ, remember you don't know Russian or Arabic, you are not well travelled, you don't know what goes on all over the world and don't pretend to. Remember you can't emulate Christ by saying you are spiritually perfect and others are evil. Remember you are the one divorced, not I. Remember not to be a coward by seeking to slander others while restricting their right to respond! Remember the Church is not evil, it is an institution characterised by men, partly corrupted, partly righteous, and the sacraments are just formalised morality! Remember you are not too good to confess and you are not your own master! Maybe if you change, you will be okay. I pray we may all find salvation.

      • Are you alright? Your writing is really slipping. I mean, we all make writing mistakes; but you never used to make so many if any. As I said before, you worry me.

        Now, thank you for sort of attempting to remind me about some good things. As for the bad things you've written here, well, of course I won't be employing them.

        Speaking of humility, how many languages don't you know, Thomas? Also, are you the world's authority on Russian or Arabic? You know you aren't. You also know that there are plenty of Russian speakers who don't know much about Russian politics, especially in the geopolitical sense. What would you do were I to learn Russian? What would you do if I were to come to be able to speak it better than do you? Would you genuflect before me? Am I to bow down before you because you know a few languages and probably not nearly as well as you'd like others to think you do? Satan knows every human tongue, Thomas. Don't you know that? He doesn't know the song that will be sung in my Heaven though and never will and whether you like that or not.

        Have we discussed my travels? My mother has been around the world more than once, but she would never claim to know more about global politics than do I. You don't admire Hillary Clinton, but she's out traveled you how many fold? Will you now defer to her on all things?

        You, Thomas, have a major deficiency in logic. You also have a major ego concerning your bit of knowledge of languages and that you've been to a few places. How well do you know the US and Canada, Thomas. I've been to 49 states and all across Canada several times. I've been to Mexico, the UK, Continental Europe, and behind the Iron Curtain. So, why don't you calm down and check your head before it becomes too big to fit through the strait gate? I haven't done more traveling because I decided not to spent money on myself but to pay down all debts and then save for the Christian Commons. I also didn't want to continue contributing to increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere the way I used to. You don't care about saving for the Christian Commons though. You just want to run down someone who's actually interested in walking the talk. Of course, that galls you because your Roman Catholicism has had centuries upon centuries but has always sought to withhold the Christian Commons because your popes have always! worked for worldly empire while lying to the masses. There's no point trying to deny it. History that no one can deny screams it out to the Highest Heaven. God sees it all. God knows I'm not lying about it. He knows you are the one twisting about it, not I. So, you confess, Thomas. You confess to God that you've been attacking the one between the two of us who has been speaking truth about your church.

        I think you need to remind yourself of this: "you don't know what goes on all over the world."

        You are once again trying to give others a completely false impression because you are a traditionalist who defends the Roman Catholic popes who engaged in violent crusades and hate me because I don't subscribe to the fallen dogma. I have never claimed spiritual perfection. I have told you that repeatedly, but you seem drunk on bitterness.

        "Remember you are the one divorced, not I." You will be if you keep it up. You use my divorce as a dagger, but you don't know the circumstances of it. You don't know whether or not I had cause per the Gospel. Yet you presume to crucify me holding me up against your brand new, hardly tested, marriage.

        "Remember not to be a coward by seeking to slander others while restricting their right to respond!" I'm the coward? I provided you with a link to this post. I left the commenting open to you. You didn't even enter your whole name for the comment or supply a link to any place were others might see where you live in more ways than one. No, I don't fear you, Thomas. I just grew tired of the source of your confusion, as the post clearly shows.

        "Remember the Church is not evil...." Right, but your church isn't that Church. Your church is some twisted, grotesque thing in your heart and head where it's okay to murder others and pound them and burn them for your brand of socialism, just as I said in the post.

        "Remember you are not too good to confess and you are not your own master! Maybe if you change, you will be okay. I pray we may all find salvation." Do you, Thomas? Do you really pray for me? Did you ever ask God whether I had lied to you or misled you, as I had asked you to do? Did God tell you that Tom lied to you? I know he didn't, and so do you.

        Now, if you are done using me as a father figure you take pleasure in trying to kick around, I will accept your "bye." Maybe in a few years after you've done some growing (pray) you won't hate that father in your mind so much or at all.

        Bless you, Thomas. I would like to see you find pacifism rather than the spirit of death who is Satan.

        I'm sorry you are so unhappy. I tried to help, but you spit in my face over and over. I forgive you though. I'm not bitter about you. I'm just tired of your spiritual immaturity (I think that's actually being generous -- putting it mildly).

        It's all too bad. There were a few moments there along the way when I thought you and I could become real toward each other. You obviously had a different plan.

    • Thomas

      Just to be clear, since you took the liberty of publishing this whole conversation without asking (which you have done in the past), so it may be googlable, this mess started by me commenting on disagreements you had with Des. I did not know the man before, and still do not. We are FB friends and he seems interesting. That does not mean I agree with everything he says, but that is another story. I stand up for people falsely accused of being evil or Satanic. You throw such epithets around in the absence of the ability to debate issues dryly. These are not character traits that can be surmised from a false reading of world events or an unfortunate geopolitical orientation. Evil is the desire to do wrong; to take pleasure in wrong; to think wrong is right. Loving abortion is evil. Loving war is evil. Participating in war is not evil (it can be, but the situation is typically more complicated).

      For whatever reason, you took these counter-attacks personally to the level you went off. The central problems are (1) your assumption you can call people evil for what amounts to their analysis of events (not their values); and, consequentially, (2) your inability therefore to work through disagreements with people who substantially agree with you. From what I see, you are someone who would demand to set the entire agenda and would be quick to splinter over minor disagreements, taking these as marks of the Antichrist/evil/Satan. This is why, if that has never been clear, I have drawn parallels to extreme Protestant and Trotskyist sects, constantly splintering from one another, obsessed with "purity" of doctrine.

      These are problems you need to work towards solving if you want to be successful in your own endeavours. I think perhaps my pointing out of your lack of success (you raised 50 bucks) is what made you more angry than anything.

      In terms of maturity, I had the above tendencies far more marked than I may still retain them in my school and early university years. In some ways perhaps I was a better person then - more concerned with my own purity as well and scrutinising all my thoughts morally...however, I was also more militant, rigid, and difficult to get along with. Importantly, for your own standards, I had no peace. I was overly judgmental and lacked wisdom and perspective.

      It is my gradual drift away from proto-Anabaptism to orthodoxy that I may credit an increase in wisdom. Anabaptism was, as they say, an "epic fail". As a communistic movement, it lasted barely a year or two; as a church - just a little longer (history and empirical experience are also important). The Anabaptists quickly descended into moral corruption and violence of the type they accuse Rome of - but 100 times faster. All Extreme Left sects, even moralistic ones that profess a belief in God (while paradoxically hating authority), end this way.

      This brings me to a final correction - though I could make many more - Anglo-Catholicism and Orthodoxy do not together comprise 3 churches that have excommunicated each other; they consist of two traditions which overlap and are in partial communion. You repeatedly refer to me as Roman Catholic and talk about "(my) popes". I am not and never have been RC in any sense. As an Anglo-Catholic, Benedict XVI has invited me to take the fast lane to conversion, but I think I will decline. Anglo-Catholics within the CofE had a long tradition of cooperating with Orthodox clergy; though that has been sabotaged by moral and theological liberalism in other quarters of the Anglican Communion.

      It is in any case the general catholic/orthodox tradition that believes and practises the regeneration of life and celebrates the death of death in its liturgies. This is what the cycle of confession and communion are about (whether you find them symbolic or literal). This is what the æsthetic of the Chrysostom Liturgy, and certain other western rite liturgies (not Novus Ordo so much) seek to attain - the healing and regeneration of the soul on at least a weekly basis. Attending religious services which consist of angry political sermons (be they conservative, liberal, or socialist) provokes anger and self-righteousness. Avoiding liturgies to pursue only social work may begin as noble, but soon descends to spiritless Marxism. Avoiding church to read the Bible at home ignores the very obvious point that the framing of the Bible comes not without mediation from the fingertips of God, but via the church, which elected, constructed, and interpreted the canon. This is also a rich cultural tradition that ignorant men have sought to destroy - to the detriment of our entire civilisation.

      So, as I am writing about religion, I should also be reflective. I apologise for my apparent anger in 1-2 of my posts. I do not believe I started it (that it set you off to tell you not to imply Des is on the side of Satan because he doesn't believe Qadhaafi massacres civilians for fun is *your* problem). I do not think what I said was factually wrong, but the wording may have had mixed motivations (correction vs. emotion). All the same, I doubt anyone will read the above posts here (well, maybe nobody will anyway) and think I am more angry a man than you.

      The point is to keep a level of debate concerned with the facts of the matter, not emotional drivel based on what you think, based on very limited and biased information, is going on. And yes, I know my information is limited in many cases too. The point is - if your information is limited enough - you cannot make any extreme claims about "genocide"! As you have not done here in this discussion, you must avoid emotional reactions, so easily manipulated by others, and the sin of slander.

      • Is the line drawn on your secrecy at where Google returns links? When was I informed about that? Do I even know it yet? You were never left in the dark by me about my publishing. You found me via this blog. I gave you links. You always had an opportunity to perhaps give good Christian reasons as to why what you've written to me on Facebook (FB) where some 600+ million can search and find the "whole conversation" should not also be on this blog. Were we speaking under the stole? If so, why wasn't it through private messaging? You chose to come to my FB Wall to repeat over and over your same false allegations. It is my prerogative as to how I am moved by the Holy Spirit in dealing with that. The results are what they are.

        You throw such epithets around in the absence of the ability to debate issues dryly. These are not character traits that can be surmised from a false reading of world events or an unfortunate geopolitical orientation. Evil is the desire to do wrong; to take pleasure in wrong; to think wrong is right. Loving abortion is evil. Loving war is evil. Participating in war is not evil (it can be, but the situation is typically more complicated).

        There we have the typical Thomas Smitherman mind. This is Thomas Smitherman: I am a Christian. I follow Jesus. Jesus says not to take up the sword in war. I say Jesus is wrong. I am still a Christian. I still follow Jesus. When Jesus and I disagree, I also change and do what Jesus tells me to do. I disagree with Jesus. I don't change though. Tom Usher is wrong. He is a Christian. He tries to follow Jesus. Jesus says not to take up the sword in war. He says Jesus is right. When Jesus and Tom disagree, Tom changes to do what Jesus tells him to do. I am wiser than Tom. I will go to Tom's Wall and blog and show the world that I am right and Tom is wrong. I can't understand what this paragraph says, but that doesn't matter. Fundamentals are for people who don't know Russian and haven't traveled to Norway. I am confused but I not. Tom is not confused but he is. Help me, but don't help me. Save me, but don't save me. Rebuke me, but don't rebuke me.

        Defending war against Jesus's teachings is not just a counter-attack against me but against Jesus. Defending war against Jesus's teachings is not only analysis but a statement of the values of the one engaging in that counter-attack, not that Jesus was "attacking" anyone or that I "attack" anyone when I say that defending war against Jesus's teaching is an evil thing to be doing and one may rightly judge a tree and its roots by its fruits or a man by his words and hence Des by his anti-Christ, evil, position and yours with his.

        You have always disagreed with the basics, Thomas; but you account that as being my "inability therefore to work through disagreements with people who substantially agree with" me.

        Knowingly disagreeing with the teachings of Jesus is or is not a mark of the Antichrist/evil/Satan? It is. All real Christians know this. You disagree. Ergo, you are not Christian. That is purely divine logic. There is not one bit of falsehood in it.

        You though take it and "have drawn parallels to extreme Protestant and Trotskyist sects, constantly splintering from one another, obsessed with "purity" of doctrine" by way of saying that knowingly disagreeing with the teachings of Jesus is not a mark of the Antichrist/evil/Satan.

        You really need a course in logic. You've studied Russian and traveled, but you haven't learn to speak logically in a place called Heaven. Learn that language and travel there. Then I will be favorably impressed by the movement of the Holy Spirit of truth within you. Then I will account you that fertile soil of which Jesus so beautifully and rightly spoke and that you have read but woefully ignore.

        "I think perhaps my pointing out of your lack of success (you raised 50 bucks) is what made you more angry than anything." It never occurred to me to think in those terms. More people don't give more to the Christian Commons for all the various reasons there are for not doing so in this worldly world. A prime example is the likes of you, who came to tear down rather than build up. How much money do you give to the Anglo-Roman-Eastern churches, Thomas and why as opposed to the Christian Commons that is obviously closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ? Does that speak about you or about me? Who's the one between us who is not bringing forth?

        This blog covers the radical evil of the economic crisis caused by the rich and waged on the backs of the poor. Yet you fault me that souls haven't contributed more? This blog has been censored, blocked, deleted, moved down the list, attacked, ridiculed, persecuted, whipped, and crucified right along with Jesus, but you are here to help "counter-attack" this blog and me. Bless you, Thomas. Bless you for cursing me, and you know why. You know what that brings to your mind. It's called the Sermon on the Mount that you so despise.

        In terms of maturity, I had the above tendencies far more marked than I may still retain them in my school and early university years. In some ways perhaps I was a better person then - more concerned with my own purity as well and scrutinising all my thoughts morally...however, I was also more militant, rigid, and difficult to get along with.

        Is that a confession in search of answers, or do you imagine you have arrived in a superior position relative to my own?

        I am not militant, but I was extremely "popular" at times. I have been criticized by former close friends for not still being loose with them and therefore popular. Jesus is not popular with those same people. He is not popular with you. He is with me.

        Importantly, for your own standards, I had no peace. I was overly judgmental and lacked wisdom and perspective.

        This is tiring of you. You had no peace, but you have it now because you were militant but in your view perhaps a better person morally so therefore I am the you of not too many years ago? Thomas, grow up. Stop trying to pin your confusion on me. I am not you. I have never been you.

        You credit yourself with "an increase in wisdom," but you don't listen to one pointing out your failed logic. You have always chosen to gloss over your breakdown where you refuse to be that fertile soil.

        Now you launch into an attack on the Anabaptists, many of whom still exist as Peace Churches and who live with all things common, per Acts, etc. and call it an "epic fail" because of the evil that arrayed against it, which array you do not count as evil. You also show a complete lack of historical truth concerning the whole matter. Telling about you, you judge others by the failures of yet others to do the right things. You claim to be Christian and socialist and Roman Catholic, yet the Roman Catholic popes waged war upon others claiming to be Christian who actually lived and still live the socialism you claim. The Roman Catholic popes refused the "laypeople" exactly what you claim you want for those people, but you defend those popes as apostolic successors of their claimed first bishop, Peter. You don't call that an "epic fail," but it is. You rail against the voices in the wilderness, Thomas. You would have hated the lone prophets, hated and despised by the popular congregations of their days.

        You do not know the lineage of the Peace Churches. You lump in with them those who were never of them. There were sects within what came to be term "Anabaptist," Thomas. There were militant sects while there were pacifist sects. Your corrupt church attacked them all. Your corrupt church murdered the innocent. That is not an "epic fail" with you though.

        All Extreme Left sects, even moralistic ones that profess a belief in God (while paradoxically hating authority), end this way.

        What "Extreme Left sects, even moralistic ones that profess a belief in God (while paradoxically hating authority)" have to do with the Anabaptist Peace Churches/sects? They have nothing to do with them. What authority do they hate? If you mean the supposed authority of your popes, what's not to hate? Did Jesus grant those popes authority to murder the innocent in cold and hot blood? He did not. If you think he did, you are, as I've said, in serious trouble for your politics -- speaking evil, even blaspheming the Holy Spirit of truth.

        You attempt to defend Catholicism as not being Roman Catholic because Henry took it upon himself to tell the head bishop of Catholicism to go to Hell so Henry could attempt to have heirs. You want to split hairs for the sake of false doctrines anyway you turn. I was raised in an Anglican household, Thomas. My father was the Dean of an Episcopal Cathedral. You have nothing to teach me about the meaning of Anglo-Catholicism. I know what it is. You aren't correcting me about it. You also took my statement about excommunication out of context. The excommunications occurred.

        You constantly have appealed to the "authority" of tradition, but here you are peddling away from that authority. You will selectively pick and choose which broken apostolic succession to follow while attacking (your word) me for my not following any of them.

        I will spare myself from commenting upon your "liturgical" waxing. Your liturgy is nothing without proper first-principles, and you don't have those. Your idea that one must "commune" with you is in error. I do not commune with you and won't under the present circumstances of your words and deeds and repeated refusals to stand corrected. There was a time I would have, but I would have been communing with what I knew of you, Thomas, at that point and not what I have since learned of your stiff-necked refusal to admit to Jesus's clear and plain pacifism in words and deeds.

        massacres civilians for fun

        That never crossed my mind. I don't even think it now that you've brought it up. Look, you are defending Des, but Des is for Qaddaffi (Qaddaffi's spelling) killing those who oppose Qaddaffi's rule. You don't count that evil. You don't count that as evil coming out from Des on account of the content of Des's heart. You attack me for rebuking him. That's all your problem to deal with God. Go pray to God to guide you to the truth about what is or isn't evil and when and where and why to stand up and speak and to refute and to rebuke, etc. You know, rather than spending time in a service, you really should just go off with the Bible and read it for the very answers you quite obviously have never received, have never been gifted with, via any such service or sacramental motions. All the liturgy in the world isn't going to do a thing for you if you don't seek the ultimate truth.

        Liturgy without truth is play acting from Satan. You don't like hearing that though. Well, too bad. You've heard it.

        I do not think what I said was factually wrong, but the wording may have had mixed motivations (correction vs. emotion). All the same, I doubt anyone will read the above posts here (well, maybe nobody will anyway) and think I am more angry a man than you.

        God is watching, Thomas. God is always aware. You are too worried about what people think, people who aren't concerned with doing God's will.

        Now, you've had your say. You've actually beaten it to death. You don't connect the dots of Jesus's teachings with your own words and deeds. I shown that here clearly. You have been obsessed with me because I as no other in your whole life have challenged you to be as Christlike as you can conceive it and come to learn it. You have fought that tooth and nail via your words. You have tried to test me and tempt me and to do all manner of evil, yes evil, against me but have failed, even epically since these words are recorded forever no matter what happens in the transition to the New Earth. It is an epic struggle for Thomas's very soul.

        Your attack consist of saying to anyone who disagrees with you that anyone who is not omniscient may not speak while you speak and say you are not omniscient. That is bankrupt.

        You preach to me but have been given no authority from God. Anyone who rejects Jesus's anti-war teachings, as you reject them, has no authority over me. You have no authority here, Thomas. Your preaching is a waste. It is fit only for the dung heap.

        You are not a minister of Christ's Church. You have not ministered to me but I have to you only you have rejected it.

        Go look in the mirror. Go try to commune with God rather than your apostate priests. Try to turn your obsession with me to an obsession with God. Then be obsessed with me. Then you'll know me. If you don't know God, and you don't right now, you don't know me. Only people who know God truly know me. If you think that's egotistical, you don't know God and his Gospel. Read it. You haven't read it.

        The Good News is that I don't need you, Thomas, that I may go to Heaven to be with God and Jesus. I can go there without you. You can stay behind while I can go there. I'm heading there with or without you. If you don't want to come along, then don't. What are you to me? You are my brother only if you go with me to that Heaven. You can't get there preaching anti-pacifism, and all the high priests and priestesses of your Anglo-Catholic congregation who say otherwise can't get there either no matter how much money you give to them or how many wafers and sips of wine they give to you.

        Oh, and this post is getting hits. You're being read by some very interesting sorts in and out of government around the world, as is always the case with this blog. Your knowledge is limited. You were sent by God but not known to you so that others too would hear but not understand.

        "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the self-proclaimed wise and prudent, Thomas Smitherman, and hast revealed them unto the limited and non-Russian speaking and non-Norway visiting, Tom Usher. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because the self-proclaimed wise and prudent, Thomas Smitherman, will claim this is vague and irrelevant. I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast preached this firery sermon that the self-proclaimed wise and prudent, Thomas Smitherman, can't hear or understand today, that the self-proclaimed wise and prudent, Thomas Smitherman, hates with all his anti-purity:

        "Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."

        "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

        "I speak not of you all: I know whom I have chosen: but that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me."

        "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." It doesn't say except for you, Smitherman.

        So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

        It is your problem, not mine, oh self-proclaimed wise one, Smitherman, that you don't understand how to read that in light of today.

        Remember, bye-bye. I show you the door out and close it behind you. Don't knock or enter here seeking to undermine Jesus's teachings. That spirit is not welcome and is and will be cast out.

        • Is the following unclear?

          Remember, bye-bye. I show you the door out and close it behind you. Don't knock or enter here seeking to undermine Jesus's teachings. That spirit is not welcome and is and will be cast out.

          It is not unclear. However, I received the following from Thomas's hand:

          Καθολικος - "universal", "general" < preverb 'kata-' "down" + root 'hol-' "entire". The catholic faith reaches beyond Rome and refers to the doctrine of the early church, undisputed for quite some time. It is not the property of Rome. To claim all catholicism is Roman is dense, though I say this not out of fear of the RC Church which has been, despite its few errors, instrumental in creating most of what is good in Western Civilisation. Ορθοδοξ < 'ortho-' "right, correct" + dok- "praise". The orthodox faith is found beyond Greece, Russia, and Palestine. Incidentally, while neither the Eastern nor Western traditions teach outright pacifism, each has had some pacifist bishops, and the Church has historically been an engine for *opposing* war. And yet, it is not physical death which is the church's obsession, but spiritual death. To think the history of the Church is full of corruption and godlessness and torture is precisely the sort of sectarian puritanism that is your destructive weakness. Will you tell that to all the martyrs of the Church, whose doctrine you decry here? Do you find yourself to be wiser than the church fathers, though they worked with (*not uncritically!*) the political representatives of Rome and Constantinople? Do you think there was no Christianity between the years 100 and 1530 but a group of Germans suddenly resurrected it? I own no sword, nor gun, nor anything beyond a kitchen knife. I have never been in a fight even (can you say the same?), refusing provocations. But I don't condemn all those who do. That is not of the Church. Raw grabs for power and money (usury, rape, etc.) are clear examples of evil, but the situations that bring a man to participate in a war are far more complicated. To condemn him blanketly and project yourself as morally superior is WRONG. You are constantly (though openly and brazenly!) mistaking the call to emulate Christ as the right to issue mass condemnations of people (rather than actions). When you are called on this, you say, "See, he is against emulating Christ!" This error is plain for all to see. Though you claim I speak evil, you find it necessary to answer my cold language with ever more venomous emotion. You can always choose to stop listening...

          How many true Christians do you know who upon hearing the following

          Remember, bye-bye. I show you the door out and close it behind you. Don't knock or enter here seeking to undermine Jesus's teachings. That spirit is not welcome and is and will be cast out.

          would return with all of that and especially in response to what I had written before it? I can think of none.

          That will be Thomas's last statement allowed on this blog unless he repents of his manifest errors against truth. It's not as if he doesn't know where he's ignoring and twisting. He knows full well.

          I will address his comments for the last time.

          First, you will notice that he did not address any of the scripture I mentioned, any of the actual words or deeds of Jesus to which I referred.

          Now, Thomas is what is called "an expert in the obvious." In addition, while citing the obvious, that is the obvious to anyone who has gone into such matters even cursorily, Thomas attributes to me that I was unaware of those obvious things he states. Also while doing that, Thomas twists the obvious to yet further avoid the scripture and/or deeds of Jesus in their full context. He does that all the while with the goal of avoiding effort on his part to live up to those words and deeds. In other word, Thomas is a fake Christian.

          Before Thomas was born, I knew that Catholic means universal. The fact remains that the Roman Catholic Church claims, and still does in large part, albeit fudged, to be the one and only "universal" representation of Jesus's Church. It used to be more adamant about it. However, because it discovered that, that was a losing battle and because it didn't want to completely disappear, as it should have, it "compromised." What it has never done though is renounce its claim outright. Of course, Thomas will ignore and twist this in his mind so he may falsely imagine that he has somehow escaped the facts.

          The Anglican Communion is the result of King Henry VIII splitting with the "universal" church over his right to divorce and remarry. It's as simple as that. Before the split, the Roman bishop, the Pope, was the head of the church in England. The one and only reason for the split was Henry wanting an heir. In splitting, Henry said quite clearly that he rejected the Pope's Apostolic Succession, the Pope's claim to being the supreme head of the whole Christian Church on Earth -- no exceptions. That's all there is to it. Henry wasn't a theologian. He did know what he was doing. His bishops knew. They discussed it.

          Now comes Thomas Smitherman attempting to wow readers with his ability to read a dictionary and cut and paste Greek -- none of which is new to me: the definition, the Greek, or the computer "magic."

          What Thomas doesn't want you to consider is that he, Thomas, has been arguing for tradition and Apostolic Succession and against those who broke with it while Thomas also wants to eat that cake, meaning Thomas will break with the Popes where he damn well pleases without rhyme or reason but just where he has done it and will then turn around to defend his arbitrary and baseless, in terms of scripture, reasoning, if one can rightly call it reasoning. I don't. I consider it the absence of reason. I consider it unreasonable -- unreasoned.

          I know what the real universal Church is. I know it is not the Roman Catholic Church; and what is more, Thomas Smitherman knew that before he replied with what he did. It is either that or he's really stupid.

          The point here is whether Thomas Smitherman can ever address points head on. He hasn't. Does he or doesn't he say that the Apostolic Succession of Rome broke long ago? He appears in some places to not believe that while in others he does not -- how it happens to be convenient to him as he attempts and fails to defend his indefensible positions. This is a manifestation of his first-principle confusion.

          You see, I don't hesitate to say that, that Apostolic Succession never existed. Which bishop of Rome ever had the right to claim the thrown immediately to Jesus's right, as it were? None is the answer.

          Thomas states:

          The catholic faith reaches beyond Rome and refers to the doctrine of the early church, undisputed for quite some time.

          Contrary to Thomas's false claim, hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics (most of whom don't even use the term Roman Catholic but simply Catholic about themselves) believe that all people calling themselves Christians who do not recognize the infallibility of the Roman Catholic Popes in matters of faith is a heretic and no Christian -- not a member of the one true and "catholic" church.

          To many if not most of them and certainly to their Pope, even though he is wishy-washy about it for the sake of regaining membership, Thomas is a heretic and false Christian no matter what he has to say about "Catholicism."

          "...undisputed for quite some time" by whom? Thomas refers to those who agree with him on that point. I don't dispute with him on that point; however, I am a heretic in the eyes of both the Pope and Thomas. You figure it out. I have.

          ...though I say this not out of fear of the RC Church which has been, despite its few errors, instrumental in creating most of what is good in Western Civilisation.

          "...few errors"? Hold that thought while you also read Thomas's "moving" sentiments regarding the martyrs of the Anabaptists.

          Ορθοδοξ < 'ortho-' "right, correct" + dok- "praise". The orthodox faith is found beyond Greece, Russia, and Palestine.

          Oh, we all thought there weren't any Orthodox churches or members anywhere but Greece, Russia, and Palestine. Thank you for enlightening us all, Thomas, with the obvious. What would we do without such teachings? Yes, that's sarcasm. Sometimes it's appropriate.

          Incidentally, while neither the Eastern nor Western traditions teach outright pacifism....

          You see there that to Thomas, those who do teach it are nonexistent, not worthy, as proper denominations. He has a real problem with the Peace Church because he can't bring himself to be taken to be fed to the lions -- to lose his life in the flesh for Jesus's name while gaining his life in the spirit, in Heaven, also for that name.

          Consider the next statement of his in that light.

          ...each has had some pacifist bishops, and the Church has historically been an engine for *opposing* war. And yet, it is not physical death which is the church's obsession, but spiritual death.

          His apology for the core of his denominations is that there were some within who were closer to Jesus. Thomas says this even while he actually disagrees with those same pacifist bishops. Thomas does not hold with those bishops. He takes the side of those Popes (all of them) who, as with Thomas, couldn't bring themselves to do as Jesus commanded -- such as turning the other cheek and never taking up the sword (or kitchen knife) for any reason including to "save" the flesh but not soul of one's own innocent fleshly offspring but rather leave the violence to God and Satan so as to not get it wrong and to not be part of the problem that is violence, per se and always.

          To think the history of the Church is full of corruption and godlessness and torture is precisely the sort of sectarian puritanism that is your destructive weakness.

          Here is Thomas, as always, unable to read the Gospel or even Paul (Thomas is Pauline). Jesus made clear that there's no room for Thomas's partially good churches. It's all or nothing. Paul certainly held with that idea too. Anyone who has read the Gospels and Paul's epistles has seen the words on the pages. It's no guarantee that those words were understood or retained to any degree. Thomas certainly hasn't read them with understanding. He constantly writes in direct contradiction of them on this point about sectarian puritanism. There is sectarianism. Thomas is a sectarian. There is a calling to purity, to becoming a Holy people, in Jesus's words and Paul's. Thomas is anti-purity, as anyone with a mind can readily read right here.

          "...full of corruption and godlessness and torture...." This shows Thomas's continual stumbling over semantics. No matter how many times I try to show him, he just cannot see the light.

          The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness! (Matthew 6:22-23)

          Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. (Matthew 18:8)

          Thomas doesn't get it. He doesn't have a single eye. He has mixed eyes. Therefore, how great is his darkness! One does not have to be perfected yet to come to understand this and to seek that "single eye." Thomas insists that anyone must be perfect to even begin. He would duck and dodge on this, but everything he's written says I am right about this.

          Will you tell that to all the martyrs of the Church, whose doctrine you decry here? Do you find yourself to be wiser than the church fathers, though they worked with (*not uncritically!*) the political representatives of Rome and Constantinople? Do you think there was no Christianity between the years 100 and 1530 but a group of Germans suddenly resurrected it?

          Here is Thomas wanting to take each person individually while apologizing for the so-called whole.

          I have zero problem with each and every Christian word and deed. Thomas knows that about me. Thomas though wants to say that there is no reason to have a problem with that his church's eye is not that single eye of which Jesus so correctly spoke. I am not allowed in Thomas's confusion to point to the actual "corruption and godlessness and torture" to say to those who do not engage in that "corruption and godlessness and torture" to come out from her, that church.

          As I said to Thomas but that he continually ignores to his own peril:

          Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (Matthew 12:33)

          Thomas detests that saying of Jesus though. I am forbidden in Thomas's mind to bring it to mind in this context, which is the exact context where Jesus wants it applied.

          That saying applies to "the political representatives of Rome and Constantinople," as there is no such thing as separation of Church and state for the real Christian. The New Heaven and New Earth are one and the same, through-and-through. This is the new wine. This is the spirit into which each human must be reborn or fail. I say it outright here and elsewhere to Barack Obama and to all the other worldly leaders on Earth. What part of that doesn't Thomas comprehend?

          Do you think there was no Christianity between the years 100 and 1530 but a group of Germans suddenly resurrected it?

          Has he read my post and comments above about the Anabaptists? If I believed the Peace Church Anabaptists resurrected the Church, I'd be an Anabaptist. I am not an Anabaptist. I have made clear where I agree with them though, and I make no bones about the fact that I am certainly much closer to them than I am to Thomas's church. I have also written on this blog about how certain of the Anabaptists are coming around more to my way of thinking about proselytizing (as Jesus most certainly did) rather than keeping apart in fear of contamination. Where I differ from most Anabaptists concerns the Pauline. As I've said, I'm not Pauline, although I don't reject everything Paul wrote or that has been attributed to him. I simply differ with him on a number of issues.

          ...Do you find yourself to be wiser than the church fathers....

          Where I agree, I agree. Where I don't, I don't. I don't agree with everything every Church Father wrote. They argued amongst themselves. Also, by Church Fathers, I'm referring to those held out as such by the various denominations. I don't count each of them as being equally the father of my vision. I pick and choose as I see them agreeing with or disagreeing with Jesus's teachings. I do not account them as automatically more endowed with the spirit of truth than am I. I count Jesus as my primary teacher because I have yet to be left thinking he was mistaken on any matter in his public ministry. If someone can show me where he was wrong, I'll take that into consideration. None has yet, though many have tried.

          I own no sword, nor gun, nor anything beyond a kitchen knife. I have never been in a fight even (can you say the same?), refusing provocations. But I don't condemn all those who do.

          Again, this is Thomas's convenient semantical confusion.

          Whom have I condemned? I have condemned no one. I haven't thrown anything other than the essence of evil into the Lake of Fire. Let souls become free of Thomas's reservations. Let them let go of what Thomas insists upon clinging to -- his kitchen knife in his mind as he fantasizes about how he couldn't bring himself to not use. How dark is that calling!

          What does he mean that he has never fought while asking me if I have and then saying he doesn't condemn me if I have? Is this forgiveness or condoning further violence? It is the latter even while he claims his superiority for having never faced the situation where that kitchen knife is handy and he's tempted in reality rather than in his fantasy.

          Well, Thomas, unlike you, I have faced such situations in reality -- many times. However, the question is not what have I done but whether concerning those things I have that were wrong, that I have repented. So, you have lived an untested, sheltered life while I have not but have heard the call to overcome falling to temptations. For that, I'm called evil by you, for everything you've written here has been an attempt to get others to see me as the problem where you are the light.

          Raw grabs for power and money (usury, rape, etc.) are clear examples of evil, but the situations that bring a man to participate in a war are far more complicated. To condemn him blanketly and project yourself as morally superior is WRONG.

          Are you speaking to me or to Jesus or to both of us, and God while you are at it? I say you are addressing all three of us without question. You are doing that while assigning to us that we are responsible for the condemnation or falling and pain and suffering that results from souls caving into violence. The teaching of pacifism is superior to the teaching of violence. Where did your Lord and Savior say to you to take up that kitchen knife? He never did and never will, but you can't hear him or me even while I repeat him to you.

          You don't think violence is clearly evil. I do. Violence is evil. There isn't going to be violence in the New Heaven and New Earth. No one who hasn't been there, no one who didn't come from there, will be there. The goats that reject pacifism won't be there. They didn't come from there. Whose side are you on, Thomas? You are on the side of the goats. Do you know which spirit you are of?

          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)

          You are constantly (though openly and brazenly!) mistaking the call to emulate Christ as the right to issue mass condemnations of people (rather than actions).

          I have addressed the "condemnations" aspect. I neither judge nor condemn. I repeat Jesus's words to you. As for not calling people to action, what is the Christian Commons, nothing? I have seen no greater call. To me, it is completely consistent with Jesus's message. It is not my fault that you, Thomas, can't see your way clear to abide in it. It is your choice for you, not mine for you. Just as you can't bring yourself to not take up the kitchen knife, you can't bring yourself to take up the Christian Commons.

          When you are called on this, you say, "See, he is against emulating Christ!" This error is plain for all to see.

          When I am called out by you when you bear false witness is no negative reflection on me but you. You are against emulating Christ. Who can doubt it? As for what happens to you for it if you don't repent of it, why should I believe other than what Jesus said? He didn't judge or condemn you but said your preaching will land you other than with him in the Highest. What's it to me if you fall and fail after I've said everything one can in patience and perseverance to dissuade you? I am not you. We are not one. We are not interconnected or interdependent. We are born of different spirits and will go our separate ways. Amen.

          Further comments by Thomas will no longer be allowed on this blog. He has exhausted his welcome. He has overstayed. He should not have even returned after I wrote:

          Remember, bye-bye. I show you the door out and close it behind you. Don't knock or enter here seeking to undermine Jesus's teachings. That spirit is not welcome and is and will be cast out.

          Nevertheless, bless him. Nevertheless, I would do unto him what I would have others and him do unto me. I did that. I told him what I would want others to tell me. I would also that others would make clear I'm not wanted in the purity that is Heaven if I intent to bring the unclean in with me rather than being cleaned upon entering in and remaining so. I have been told, and I repeat what I've been told for your edification -- for the edification of those who can receive it.

          It's too bad Thomas isn't glad for me but rather obsessed with trying to tear me down and the Christian Commons and to lead you astray into apostasy with him.

          God bless the Church. It is God. I don't find Thomas within it. Do you?

          The temple is cleansed.

          Here endeth the lesson.