Rick Staggenborg posted to my Facebook Wall:
Today's blog on Soldiers For Peace International is unique in that it is an attempt to tie together key concepts from the online book of essays Stop the Madness: The Diary of a Soldier For Peace in the War to take Back America that explain why I am convinced that humanity is undergoing a shift in collective consciousness that will save civilization from self-destruction.
Don't take my word for it. Check out this video of John Perkins explaining his similar vision.
For those interested, there are hyperlinks to the original essays exploring these concepts in more detail throughout this blog.
Now, it's fine that Rick posted to my Wall, but here's my reply:
John Perkins is New Age. I'm not interested. I've heard him.
Easy does it.
Rick didn't like that:
Apparently not enough. I am surprised that you would judge someone because his spiritual beliefs do not seem to mesh with yours. I see no essential differences between the essence of Christianity, Buddhism and the best of Hinduism.
I do not include Judaism or Islam only because they teach proscriptions on behavior and require acceptance of other beliefs that I do not happen to believe in. Although in theory Judaism is a very broad religion that has it own version of the Golden Rule (as does Islam), both have a long list of forbidden behaviors that both say are God's commandments.
I would not characterize Perkins as "New Age." He seems to me to believe in the unity of all things, which is a scientific fact as regards the physical universe and a commonly accepted belief about spiritual reality in Buddhism, shamanism,animism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity. The Trinity is one such formulation, where the Holy Spirit binds us to God and to one another through Christ.
What is your specific objection? Please don't tell me it is just that he doesn't belong to your religious club! I know that you don't believe in eccumenicalism m but I never took you for a fundamentalist. Anyone who thinks Christ wanted us to follow some belief system someone created out of minor points in the Bible doesn't get the essential message. We are all equal in the eyes of God and our only duty is to love each other as we would want to love ourselves.
How do we become one if we cannot recognize that if we all follow this commandment that we can end war and other injustice. Every atheist I know understands that. The main reason they are not at least agnostic is because they don't know the difference between faith and reason:
No, Rick, I've seen many hours of his stuff and read more articles of his than I can remember. However, I know a great deal about the New Age Movement; and I know it is decidedly anti-Christ. He is New Age.
I've had run-ins with many Hindus. They can be very hostile and very dishonest. I don't paint all Hindus with one brush, but that's the nature of Hinduism. They can have the gods they want, so some of them have some really nasty spirits they're following. I know you know that, so you don't have to defend yourself about it.
There's a huge spiritual war going on Rick. I don't know how much you've been exposed to the nitty gritty of it. I've gone way, way in.
Of course, my out-front blog on a number of issues has made me a target.
You and I had a rather long discussion once on matters that are closely related to all of this.
Perhaps you should study more about the real roots of the New Age movement in terms of its literal anti Jesus beginnings.
Have you studied Theosophy and it's history? I have.
I get rusty on it, but as soon as someone comes along, such as you just have, all the thoughts that weren't front and center come rushing back. It's dark side, Rick Staggenborg. It's definitely dark side. It's very self-centered -- very!
They want Christianity dead. Think about what that means. I don't mean they want just certain denominations gone. I mean they want Jesus dead, as in no more teachings of Jesus being followed. That's a fact. Check it out.
Perkins is no Jesus-lover. Try to pin him down on it, and I guarantee that he'll mess up the definition of love. He will not use the term as Jesus did, in Jesus's context.
As for your statement: "Anyone who thinks Christ wanted us to follow some belief system someone created out of minor points in the Bible doesn't get the essential message," that's rather patronizing considering you are not a Christian.
No, I don't fit the description of a Fundamentalist as they define themselves; however, I do read Jesus and know that you, Rick, don't get Christianity if you think one can be Christian and any other religion at the same time. There is no being Christian and Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim or Jewish (as in Talmudic Judaism or even Mosaic Torah) or any other.
As for your statement: "...the unity of all things, which is a scientific fact as regards the physical universe and a commonly accepted belief about spiritual reality in Buddhism, shamanism,animism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam and Christianity."
That is absolutely not a Christian tenet. Where did you get that idea: New Age twisting. It's total bull. Christianity is about separation. It's about deliverance from false religions for one.
I'll be happy to discuss it with you but not from the perspective that you know more about Christianity than do I. You don't. Some people may, but you definitely aren't one of them.
I like your anti-war position. I like plenty of your views but not this New Age confusion.
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)