Not Enough: PEOPLE For Mathematically Perfected Economyâ„¢

Mike Montagne:

Mike Montagne


The original proofs of this work have been emulated countless times — remarkably and disgracefully without credit or attribution, and regularly involving substantial, blatant error which would never characterize the work of its original perceiver.


The main problem with Mike Montagne appears to be that he wants credit for ancient knowledge upon which he is standing.

And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, lo, we bring into bondage our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our lands and vineyards. And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words. Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I set a great assembly against them. And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer. Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards, their oliveyards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the corn, the wine, and the oil, that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise. (Nehemiah 5:1-12)

Usury was not allowed in Christianity at all for a very long time. The reasons were well understood, and many people down through the ages didn't lose continuity of knowledge concerning it.

Whether or not Mike knew about the Bible is a different matter. Different people arrive at the obvious independently.

Had Irving Fisher, for instance, not read Frederick Soddy?

Perhaps he hadn't.

I, however, have obviously read the Bible and will give credit where it is due.

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)

Do you understand what Jesus meant? It goes way beyond just not requiring usury but also taxes (and even money itself).

How do we get rid of it all? I've spelled that out. The only obstacles are hardened hearts. They get their own spirits. They reap what they sow. They don't sow giving and sharing all, which is cooperatively working for one and all.

See also:

How to Fix the Economy

On: The Reality of the Wartime Economy: More Historical Evidence on Whether World War II Ended the Great Depression: The Independent Review: The Independent Institute


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 Monetary Reform, United States Notes. Bookmark the permalink.
    • You summarize MPE simply as eradication of Usury, as if anybody else has unravelled the THEFT of principal on conception which is WHY interest is unwarranted before? Are you intellectually disabled? It is obvious you didn't even scratch what MPE is about. But of course you know better, isn't it? Why don't you back your phony assertions with an evidence that ANYONE came before to the same conclusion and developed the same THEOREM? Who else identified the reality of our promissory obligations?

      You can't show who else established the MPE 1:1:1 ratio and who else unravelled the banks FIRST crime of banking, that steals the principal WE create. You can't, Sir.

      Your prepostorous "article" which is nothing more than a sour and vain attempt to speak about what you clearly don't understand, is probably an evidence that you may be a bit envious of Mike's enormous work? In fact, you are your own worst enemy by lying and raising prepostorous unqualified assertions like that, while MPE is a mathematical theorem (science of mathematics, remember) and NOT some vague appeal to not "lend" at interest. We don't even borrow money from banks, never borrowed.

      Only MPE describes the inherent lifecycle of money and only MPE establish how to achieve perpetually immutable tokens of value and the eradication of deflation/deflation, and this is why nobody else could understand or unravell the riddle of usury or the ancient ruse of the moneychangers before, because they would have arrived at the same solution as PFMPE do.

      Thanks for your disservice to humanity by posting misleading unqualifiable material and distortions of our only factual solution that disproves all other erroneous monetary "reforms" by mathematics.

      • Wow, your comment reads like you are hyperventilating. I read it that way because beyond the tone, you posted it late, such that my email notification from DISQUS shows a comment at 11:03 PM my time, yet you were already over on Twitter a couple of hours later in the middle of the night here claiming I had censored you:

        "Your censorship shows you are ashamed of your prepostorous claims."

        Hmmm, will you leave that tweet up for posterity? By the way, censorship doesn't show shame by the censor. Be logical. I censor profanity not because to do so shows my shame or that my positions are preposterous.

        Look, I stand totally behind my post above. Your problem is that my post is correct. Real Christianity is way ahead of you. I don't have to defend the self-evident. There would be no banksters were there universal Christianity. That's a fact. If you don't like it, you don't like the truth.

        Why are you panicking about the versus from the bible I quoted? You seem anti-Christ in your response. Do you hate Jesus and his message of no usury and no taxes?

        Christianity precludes the need for your system. It anticipates your "findings." Don't be an expert in the obvious. Don't take credit for what was known before you.

        This reply is posted at 2:30 AM simply because I just happened to be working early and checked Twitter for something else.

        I work full time and certainly don't hover over DISQUS comments to this blog. Lots of blogs take a day to approve comments. Hold your water, as my father used to say. It appears your not good at holding your peace.

        • Brian Smith

          Tom Usher, your article above is NOT correct. Also, for 'a man of god' your ego jumps out of the page. If only you could kick your ego out of the way and look at MPE with a calm and curious mind, you could not fail to see - as an intelligent man - that it is indeed the answer the world is looking for.

      • Well, I'll take a little more time now to address your wild talk.

        "You summarize MPE simply as eradication of Usury...." No, I don't.

        What I've pointed out but that you're in too much of a hurry to bother comprehending is that you are focused on the mechanics of the spur where Jesus (and I agreeing with him) said not to inflict pain upon the horse. It was never necessary for Jesus to say that a spur hurts. He knew that. He knew why what the moneychangers were doing was evil. He didn't, and doesn't, need your Mike to explain it to him.

        If your system is to educate people that spurs hurt, then go for it; but don't sit around imagining that anyone had to go to great lengths to point that out before or else that one didn't know.

        "...envious of Mike's enormous work?" Look, if he had enlightened me, I'd be glad to say so. He showed me nothing that I didn't already know, and I didn't learn what I know from any source that learned it from him.

        My interest is in people giving full credit where due, and if everyone where Christian following Jesus, then everything in your system would be moot at best. That's the point.

        You appear to want to cut Jesus's message out of the picture. However, if you will re-read my post, you will see that I left room for Mike to be one who perhaps admires Jesus. I understand when one isn't getting the credit he is due; but as I said, I'm interested in credit going back to the real source. If you're some atheist, then you'll just have to work harder to understand Christ.

        "Only MPE describes the inherent lifecycle of money and only MPE establish how to achieve perpetually immutable tokens of value and the eradication of deflation/deflation, and this is why nobody else could understand or unravell the riddle of usury or the ancient ruse of the moneychangers before, because they would have arrived at the same solution as PFMPE do."

        That's nonsense. What riddle? I came to certain conclusions that accomplish all of that you are claiming for MPE and without resorting to borrowing a thing from MPE in doing so. I knew what I knew before I had ever heard of MPE.

    • Mr Usher, would you mind explaining why you decided to omit my comment from your blog? It was in an effort to have two people who seemingly (I thought) had the same goal in essence but were getting bogged down in minutiae about who originally came up with an idea.
      I find your censorship of my comment very concerning since it does not reflect upon you well as a christian who is suggesting he truly wishes for a resolution to such problems which face mankind.

      • Hello Earthlinggb,

        Look, I appreciate that you're trying to be what is called "civil." However, I don't ever censor people until they've gone beyond the pale. I did explain in this comment thread that I have other work to do besides jump on submitted comments. Anyway, I know you don't mean to be offensive.

        As for your view about what's going on between Adriano Lorenzo and me, as I hoped was clear, I'm not talking about the minutia of Mike Montagne's plan/"discoveries." I'm talking about that were everyone to do what Jesus suggested (commanded, as his followers take it), we'd not have usury and banksters or even money.

        If you would like to discuss it calmly, that would be fine with me. I simply found Adriano Lorenzo's approach quite shortsighted where Jesus is concerned.

        As I said, my objective is to help people see what's been there for two thousand years -- longer, in fact -- that they've been missing (for all sorts of reasons, including on purpose concerning very many of them).

        If Jesus is cast aside, humanity will crash. He prophesied that the Roman leveling of Jerusalem would not be the end of it, but that doesn't mean I'm supposed to stand around saying nothing -- letting people just forget about him. There's tons of theology wrapped up in that little saying of mine there. I don't know how much you know about it or care.

        I can see, though, that you didn't put Jesus first. That tells me plenty but not everything.


        Tom Usher

        • Appreciated Tom. Forgive my quick presumption in this case please.

          One of the issues we have as people is we tend to judge and be presumptious far too quickly I have found. An example of this would perhaps be "I can see, though, that you didn't put Jesus first. That tells me plenty but not everything."

          I would be interested to learn what exactly was meant by this and what 'plenty' it tells you?

          However, that said, let me say I am not, in any shape or form, a religious person. I was baptised and brought up in the catholic faith but I do not follow it any longer and have not for quite some time (most of my adult life in fact). Do I believe in religion at all? No. (but that is a whole other subject the way I see it although you may not agree).

          Does all of that, however, suggest I have no belief in "Jesus"? Absolutely not. Does that appear contradictory? Perhaps to some but, again, it would make for a very long conversation.

          Do I believe in a creator? Yes 100%. Is it based on faith? No. It is based upon (my own) logic. Everything we humans experience (absolutely everything) is or has been created. It is logical, then, that the universe was created (no-one can dispute the logic in this). The last logical step, therefore, is that, to be created, there must have been a creator. My only issue with religious people (of all faiths) is that they assume to know the truth of that creation - I find this to be unbelievably arrogant of those that do.

          Now back to the subject at hand: You say "I'm talking about that were everyone to do what Jesus suggested (commanded, as his followers take it), we'd not have usury and banksters or even money." I could not do anything but agree 100% with this statement. However, I'd just ask you if you would reconsider just one aspect of it: "or even money". If you'd allow me to explain (and perhaps you are already aware I don't know): "Money" is not against God or Jesus. "Money" is not mammon itself. "Money" is (or should be) nothing other than a "transactional tool" which represents the promises - in commerce - between parties. Even if, as you suggest, there would be no "money" there would, in fact STILL exist "money". Why? Because we exist on earth as a "family" and we interact with one another. If we all just sold goods and services to one another, how would we track what we have promised and what we owe to one another? 10 chickens for 1 pig for example. Or, for the purposes of better explanation - 10 chickens for a ton of potatoes let's say? Now, if the potatoes are not yet ripe for digging up but you were to require the 10 chickens immediately, then it is your promise to pay me the ton of potatoes at a later time. That would be your promise to pay.

          It is precisely that promise to pay (a promissory note) which is "money" and even if, as you suggest, "money" did not exist as we know it today, it would because it is exactly those promises which represent, in truth, "money".

          Jesus would have absolutely no issue with people promising each other. Everything we do in our interactions as individuals is a promise. Such as, I promise to discuss this with you civilly and I would hope you would consider doing also. Why? Because I know there is a solution to the world's ills and whether you wish to consider that solution as being purely the non usury teachings of Jesus or whether you wish to consider it as the work carried out by Mike Montagne re MPE which, in reality in my view, is taking the basic building blocks of Jesus' teaching and applying it to today's reality of law (which itself is corrupt beyond reason) and constitutions (again law) and economics.

          My question is: Is it important, in this case, to accredit the solution to either Jesus or Mike Montagne when it is the implementation of it which would literally change the world and remove fear, hate and want to an immense degree for the population of this planet? Would a muslim thank Allah or thank Jesus? (Perhaps they would do both). Would a buddhist? Would an atheist? Are such people not worthy of being saved by the implementation of a system you would contribute to the teachings of Jesus?

          There is a solution Tom and whether you attribute it to a star in the constellation of cygnus doesn't matter. You, Adriano and many others are speaking of essentially one and the same thing. Don't (and I am speaking to both) let detail destroy that fact. We are our own worst enemies in the face of this "monster" which enslaves us if we do resort to this.

        • Look, you are clearly not interested in preserving or enhancing people's understanding of Jesus's economics relative to my own interest in doing those things. I think that answers most of your questions.

          Mammon is money. Money is mammon. They are one and the same. Jesus was opposed to giving for recompense. There, now I've connected some dots for you. The rest is up to you.

          May God bless you with the answers that aren't to be found from Mike Montagne.

        • Greenbacker84

          Money is just record of exchange between people and a record of entitlement.

          The problem is banks/money changers have dispossessed us of our natural ability to issue promissory obligations (to one another_ and imposed interest (usury) on the money supply.

          I'm a Christian, follow Jesus Christ, and see no problem with Mike Montagne whatsoever
          As far as I'm concerned Mike has done us a great service, providing a full account of how banks rob us and how it can be easily rectified. Credit where its due.

          Ill carry on advocating MPE to anyone who has ears to listen.

        • You say you are a Christian and follow Jesus, but you do not see where money itself (a system between human beings) falls far short of Jesus's message. You don't see the difference between Mike's so-called MPE (a misnomer – it's hardly perfect) and the Christian Commons.

          As I pointed out in my last comment here (, Mike quotes Ayn Rand as authoritative on the issue of money, what it is, where it stands, or should stand in her always dead of the Holy Spirit eyes, vis-a-vis humans. You don't have eyes that see the difference between the wholly anti-Christ Ayn Rand and Jesus Christ on how people should engage each other, which necessarily includes all things economic.

          Are you looking to become a perfected Christian, or are you aiming to fall short? Why hold up as perfect that which isn't? How is doing that Christian?

          I'm not looking to put Mike Montagne down but to lift eyes up, his (and mine) also included. Are you interested in helping or hurting that?

          Coming here saying what you've said, is not being helpful to the Christian message of Jesus. It's misled and misleading. It would be good of you to see that and to then act properly accordingly.

        • Greenbacker84

          Ok, a few points then
          MPE is a monetary theorem, its not the bible, or claiming to be our spiritual salvation.
          I certainly would not claim otherwise.
          The bible warns against the love of money, usury and hoarding. MPE totally removes the money changers from the process. This is absolutely in line with my thoughts on just commerce and trade.

          Do you have a home, and if so how did you pay for it? Same applies for goods and services rendered, when I purchase a car, pay bills etc.

          Remove the banks and usury from the picture, and economically things improve massively. Its the artificial scarcity of money, the dispossession of our labour and production, and multiplication of artificial debt by interest that keeps the populace in bondage. The money changers worship mammon I agree, and the usury system keeps them in power.

          Regarding Ayn Rand I totally agree with you, she was pretty much lucifarian, advocating elitist usury and banking. Mike has been debunking Austrian/usury economics with mathematical evidence for decades now. IMO, the quote should be removed, although it could be a mistake, and no ones perfect. He has never cited her as an authority, that quotes all I can see.

          I think, and Mike would probably confirm 'Mathematically Perfect' refers to the elimination of inflation and deflation, by retiring principal as we consume of it. Its not, to me, a spiritual comparison to God himself. But, is the mathematics sound? Yes. We use mathematics to solve issues in finance, commerce, engineering to build models, it does not negate God's message to use the brain he gave us.

          I'm not a perfect christian, person, and would not claim otherwise. Your free to disagree, and this appears to be your forum. But MPE is mathematical proof demonstrating the wreckage of compound interest and usury. It does not claim to be the word of God, and Ive not heard Mike say otherwise.

        • The oneness of God and Jesus is mathematical perfection. The economics put forth by Jesus is perfected. If Mike Montagne's economic math is perfect, then it necessarily must be the same as God's/Jesus's. However, it is not the same, as you've concluded yourself. We are not talking about a subset for Mike. His advocates (seemingly most to date) and he hold out his plan as perfected economics. If they do that, then they must contend with others who take exception, which I do. If they and he wish to modify their statement, to qualify them, to take Jesus into account and give him credit for a higher calling, a better calling, a perfect calling where Mike's is less than perfect, then let them do it. Otherwise, I will maintain that Mike Montagne and his MPE are misled and misleading, aiming to cause souls to fall short of knowing what real perfected economics is and exactly who gets full credit for it.

          As for your idea of "just commerce and trade," you are aiming below the Christian message there too. I put forth secular solutions aimed at making things better but also with the clear message that those secular concepts are not ultimate solutions, economic or otherwise. They are not in that context perfect.

          If we don't discuss Jesus and his message when we discuss economics, we as a species will be forever falling short. Of course, as a Christian, you know that the ultimate truth on these matters wins out.

          I am right not because I'm egotistical about it but because I was led astray and brought back by Jesus, his words in the Gospels and how they cross-reference to the prayers and prophecies yearning for him.

          Paul wrote that the love of money is the root of all evil. That does not preclude that money itself, mammon, is also that root. Jesus's message if followed by all humanity would preclude money. There is no money as the secularists know it in heaven. Thy kingdom come. That's what I'm saying as a Christian. Are you with me? Will you spread the real perfect economics, or will you reject the light?

          Do you come from God? If so, is that your home? How much money did you pay for it? How I am allowed to stay within walls via money proves nothing good or even neutral about the concept that is money. Why do my relatives (fellow humans) insist upon gain (profit in mammon) that I may be sheltered from the elements, etc.? Does a father charge his children to come to his table to eat? Then are the children free, as Jesus said.

          If you've never heard this before, does it make me wrong?

          Mike discusses Jesus very little. He mentions Ayn Rand on the same page with Christianity, which he credits for little to nothing from what I've seen. The fact that he did that, quote Rand on top of Jesus, highlighting her where Christianity should have been the focus, reveals inner workings of his soul, his troubled mind. Your job is to evangelize. That's what I'm doing here with you.

          Now, you can promote Mike Montagne, as is, unqualified, or you can promote the Christian Commons. You can't do both and be consistent. If you reject the Commons, what will that say?

          One of Mike's ardent followers/disciples was most interested in how much money I've raised over how long. He didn't answer my question even after I'd answered his, so the discussion ended (at least for a while). What was he trying to do? He wasn't novel. Many people have claimed that because the Commons doesn't get huge monetary support from many people, it must be wrong. Others have suggested that it must be wrong because it even calls for mammon to be translated into what won't need it anymore. Many are called. Few are chosen. Few there be that find it.

          Jesus had a purse with mammon in it. It was carried by Judas. It was for handing out mammon to those who lived by it while Jesus worked to show them the other way. Am I different?

          Peace to those who can accept it. Forgiveness to those who are ignorant and hate me without cause.

          Do you concur with your fellow Mike supporter, Earthlinggb, that I'm am showing evil here?

      • maxime1793

        Usher has a history of censoring people for simply disagreeing with them
        while using his moderator's chair to make wild insults and paint those
        who disagree with him as being satanic.

        All of Adriono's and Earthling's instincts on this question are correct.

    • Well Tom, it would certainly seem as if you preach love and god and Jesus but you certainly do not come across as one who has the good grace nor even the intent of actually working on attempting to truly achieve a solution which you suggest you wish for. Your last comment to me was: "If you would like to discuss it calmly, that would be fine with me." Which is then followed by: "Look, you are clearly not interested in preserving or enhancing people's understanding of Jesus's economics relative to my own interest in doing those things." thereby ending any "calm discussion" which you. yourself, had proposed.

      It would certainly appear that, for a man of god, there is no compromise for you. Quite telling if I may say so Tom.

      Let me just end, then by re-asking this one question I asked of you: Is it important, in this case, to accredit the solution to either Jesus or Mike Montagne when it is the implementation of it which would literally change the world and remove fear, hate and want to an immense degree for the population of this planet? Would a muslim thank Allah or thank Jesus? (Perhaps they would do both). Would a buddhist? Would an atheist? Are such people not worthy of being saved by the implementation of a system you would contribute to the teachings of Jesus?

      If you would be gracious enough to simply answer that one question fully and without deflection, I'll be on my way.

      Thank you.

      • That you choose to conclude that my reply wasn't calm is your problem, not mine. I was perfectly calm when I wrote it and can see no reason why it upset you. I'm still calm. I stated a fact that should have answered most of your questions. That's what I said, and I stand by it. Why did you not take it calmly? Why did you read it as not being calm?

        How you can conclude that I don't have the intention of working on my own project is bizarre.

        Exactly what is it that I'm supposed to compromise?

        If it wasn't clear to you before, let me make it clear now. Mike Montagne doesn't have the ultimate solution. Therefore, I'm not choosing between Jesus and Mike. Do you understand that now? I hope so.

        You (and a number of other people) appear to hold Mike Montagne up as some sort of savior on par with Jesus. You (his general followers) appear to bristle at me for not sharing your view of his "findings" and plan. Is he better than the greediest capitalist on economics? He appears to be, but that's not where I started discussing him. I took exception to his attitude of not crediting God in the final analysis. Maybe I missed where he did that concerning his everything. If so, I will stand informed about it. No one has mentioned it to me yet though. I think that's what's telling. Don't you?

        As for your questions concerning religions, they don't make sense to me. I don't see what points you are attempting to make. I don't withhold solutions from any person of any religion. Did you think I do?

        Perhaps you thought I'd write you a mini-book in response to your comments. This site is many, many thousands of pages. It spells out my theology, which is also my economics, in great detail. It's not my fault that people are falling away from Jesus Christ's teachings.

        Anyway, if you don't like me, that's that. I'm not twisting your arm to be a Christian and support the Christian Commons Project, which whether anyone else wants to force the issue of ego into the issue or not, is a better plan for the whole world than Mike's. That's just how it is, and it has nothing to do with my ego. The Christian Commons is God's, not just mine. If it weren't for God and Jesus as one, I wouldn't have ever written a thing about it.

        Don't forget, they crucified Jesus. That didn't make him wrong. Whether someone is right or not is not a matter of popularity with humanity. Most of the most popular things are abominable.

        I still hope God blesses you with the whole truth on these matters.

        Peace to you if you can accept it.

        Lastly, worthiness is the degree to which one accepts and follows the truth, and the truth is Jesus Christ. One of your fellow Mike Montagne disciples refused to answer a simple question about John the Baptist and his authority because he insisted that I can't prove John's authority either way. Well, what is proof? Whom do you trust?

        If you are trying to suggest that I need to acknowledge other religions as the equal of Christianity, I don't have to and I don't. It is for others to come to the understanding that Jesus truly was and is the one and only path. If you disagree, you'll not be there. It's up to you.

        • Tom. You're one of these fire and brimstone people. Your irritation is displayed in every word you print. I'll just say this however: Don't assume because people can recognise a solution that those people are "followers". Mike's a guy not a "God". It would seem that, due to your own need to follow something or someone, you presume (and mirror) that need upon others.
          My basic point was there is a solution. Your Jesus solution (which I completely understand and acknowledge - are you capable of losing your ego to do the same?) is entirely in keeping with MPE. I'm no-one's disciple however, i just happen to be able to recognise solutions when I see them.
          My entire aim was simply to try and bring together different people with slightly different ideas, together because it is only together, as a family, that we can do your god's work in ensuring that the "devil's work" (and he's winning by a long stroke) does not win in the end.
          Your Jesus would be looking down on you shaking his head Tom. You're not what he meant by "love and treat others as you would wish to be treated".

          I'd say best wishes Tom but, truly, I do not recognise in you a true man of faith. I hope you one day are able to find that peace you speak of. You certainly do not possess it at this moment.

          As for agreeing or disagreeing with Jesus. I think he'll know and that will be between him and I. Not you.

        • Doesn't fire and brimstone work for you, not even figuratively? You think that there are no painful consequences for unrighteousness. You apparently think Jesus didn't refer to such. It's either that or you just like to twist things and/or rationalize.

          It's quite funny that you claim to see irritation in my every word right after I made clear to you that I was calm. You're imagination runs away with you. If I were irritated by you, I'd let you know. Are you trying to be irritating? Perhaps you are.

          You are a disciple of Mike Montagne whether you care to acknowledge that or not. It's a matter of definition, not some need I'm reflecting upon you. It appears to me that your own ego is in the way of acknowledging that. You credit him with originating the solution you promote but you don't say you are following him? So much for you giving credit where you claim it's due.

          So, I tell you that my ego has nothing to do with the Christian Commons Project; and you turn right around and ask me if I'm capable of losing my ego to understand and acknowledge Jesus's solution, which I said is the Christian Commons in the first place. You make no sense. You also claim that Mike Montagne's MPE is entirely in keeping with the Christian Commons, which is a ridiculous claim, absolutely ridiculous. The difference between the two is far from slight. It's huge. You haven't read about the Christian Commons to know. You sure don't understand Jesus's theology. You were defending money and even claiming money isn't mammon.

          In addition, I made clear that I was speaking about people in general and not necessarily you when I referred to his followers/disciples holding him up as a sort of economic savior (on par with Jesus; demigod at the very least).

          As for "family," you don't understand Christianity if you think that Christians are spiritual family members with non-Christians. They aren't. That's fundamental. Don't you know how Jesus defined and still defines his spiritual family?

          You say of me, "You're not what he meant by 'love and treat others as you would wish to be treated.'" I've treated you exactly as I would have others treat me. I've said not one single thing toward you that I can see in any way that Jesus would say is anti-Christ. Be specific. What untruth have I told you in Jesus's eyes, since you seem to think you know how he sees me and that he frowns upon me for how I've interacted toward you?

          You work to turn this into a petty argument and to spend your energy attempting to put me down via your claim, your presumption, to be able to see how Jesus sees me. I'm not in the least offended though because I know you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to what Jesus sees about me. I know it's your ignorance speaking. I cut you some slack because of your profound ignorance.

          You ended with this:

          "I'd say best wishes Tom but, truly, I do not recognise in you a true man of faith. I hope you one day are able to find that peace you speak of. You certainly do not possess it at this moment.
          "As for agreeing or disagreeing with Jesus. I think he'll know and that will be between him and I. Not you."

          A true man of faith then is someone who agrees with you even though you are not of the Christian religion, per your own words. You presume to judge that I don't have peace in Christ.

          I stand completely by my words toward you. You do that same things vis-a-vis me, and we'll see.

          May God bless you with the truth. I know you don't have the truth and aren't troubling yourself to seek it out but rather defend your agreement with Mike Montagne's "findings" and plan though they don't lead to God. Your syncretism doesn't lead to God. Your ecumenism doesn't lead to God. Jesus as Jesus defined Jesus in the red-letter Gospels does and nothing else. If you don't like that, that's your problem. I love it. You won't be there the way you are, and yes, I can say that. I've been given that authority. Read about it. It's in the New Testament of Jesus Christ you presume to know so much better than I know him.

          I'm still calm and not irritated by you even slightly. If your ego is bruised because I didn't get fussy the way you clearly have, too bad for you. Grow up. We don't have the same temperaments.

        • I'll leave it all to the readers Tom. ;-)

        • That you don't credit Jesus's teachings with rendering Mike Montagne's completely moot before Mike even started is your undoing. That you don't understand and say that it matters is also your undoing. Mike was offended that others have "stolen" his ideas and taken credit for them via not citing Mike.

          As I've said before, I came to no new conclusions based upon Mike Montagne's "teachings," and he still falls far short. If he wants to give Jesus more thought, perhaps Mike will arrive at the Christian Commons. He's not there now. Neither are you.

          "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given." (Mark 4:23-24)

          I believe Jesus. You don't.

          "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12:30)

          You consciously choose not to be with Jesus even though Jesus's message is the solution without Mike's falling-short teachings.

          You haven't gotten that, and I don't sense from you any willingness to even try. That's not my fault, and it's not unchristian of me to tell you -- quite the contrary.

          What difference does it make who gets ultimate credit? You are in the dark.

        • This is as good as Mike Montagne gets with his teachings:

          However, "And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." (Luke 14:14)

          Mike goes on about scripture, but he and you speak of promises and money as if they are good, okay, etc. That's falling short of the Christian Commons.

          He even quotes Ayn Rand as if she had a clue. When I quote non-Christians, I do so not citing them as authoritative about other than their own systems. Where they stand opposed to Jesus, they are outside. Rand was highly anti-Christ. Mike does not differentiate about that. He does what you do. He acts as if it doesn't matter. It matters.

          "Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection, and the base of a moral existence." -- Ayn Rand. That is totally wrong, sheer evil. Because Mike doesn't know that, he is headed away from God, as are you.

    • Any further "discussion" with you would prove completely fruitless in Jesus's eyes. I say this here solely for the benefit of others who don't hate Jesus, as you do.

      Were I Mike Montagne, I wouldn't be glad for your kind of support. I'd be very concerned that my message is fine with anti-Christs, of which if anyone is, you are clearly one masquerading as an angel of light but who is actually someone with deep, dark, anti-Christ ambitions else he would have embraced the Christian Commons rather than entering in under sheep's clothing and with the ultimate intention of running down the Christian message, which is the real light that you refuse to even attempt to uphold.

      Of course it is most important to me that people believe as I believe. That's Christianity. It was most important to Jesus too. Once however he ran into people such as you, he said this to teach his followers:

      "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Mark 6:11)

      There's the fire and brimstone you dismissed. It's right from Jesus's mouth to you. Hear him? You don't.

      Get thee behind me. As I said to you before, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12:30)

      Any "Christian" who joins with you in your false "perfected economy" will be cozying up to the darkside and will come to rue the day.

    • Patience. I have other obligations besides moderating and replying to comments.

      I see that you did what I addressed in my previous reply: "Others have suggested that it [my theology; the Christian Commons] must be wrong because it even calls for mammon to be translated into what won't need it anymore. Many are called. Few are chosen. Few there be that find it.

      "Jesus had a purse with mammon in it. It was carried by Judas. It was for handing out mammon to those who lived by it while Jesus worked to show the other way. Am I different?"

      You ask how I bought a home. How will the Christian Commons come into land unless that land is given or purchased with the filthy lucre, as Paul called it but worked for it to pay his way through the fallen world? Paul raised money for the Church in Jerusalem. Was he wrong in your eyes? Do you think that Paul thought that there is money in heaven, or that, that heaven is not to come to earth?

      Are you holding me up to a higher standard than the one you hold for Jesus Christ? It appears so. However, I know you've not thought through these matters else you would have known the answers or have long since rejected Christ, as Earthlinggb has. Read his anti-Christ comments and realize that he was going to be "civil" and calm.

      He's lost and digging his hole deeper and deeper here. Are you lost? Do you know where you are? Do you know whom you're talking to? Do you think I'm lost? Am I speaking out from darkness here to mislead?

      Why would you wish to credit Karl Marx with defining communism is the question. Communism was before Marx. Money and capitalism came after communism. Jesus lived from one purse with his closest disciples. Those disciples lived from one purse after Jesus's ascension. Heaven is not capitalism. Heaven is communism. It is not Marxism. Marx was a liar. He was raised a Christian but turned his back on God and spewed a selfish-spirited type of giving and sharing plus violence to get it. That is not the Christian Commons, communism, heaven.

      If you've never heard this before, does that make me wrong?

      You ask me how I could call Jesus a communist. How can you associate yourself in likeminded agreement about the misnomered MPE with the likes of Earthlinggb and his purely anti-Christ message? Do you remain silent while a fellow Christian is persecuted by one who speaks from darkness, one who follows Satan and hates Jesus, per Jesus?

      The more you are told, the more that is revealed to you, the more is expected of you. What are you going to do?

      • Greenbacker84


        You make very long posts none of which refute the math of MPE. Your biggest issue as that Mike is not in the 'Christian Commons'. Maybe, but that does not refute the math.

        Do you stand by your claim that money itself is evil?? (while sticking your hands out from a Pay Pal account.)

        The bible does not call money evil, it calls the LOVE of money evil (your asking for it, again).
        So, I'm assuming you DO use money, on a daily basis, either to do grocery shopping, pay bills, pay for upkeep of your home etc etc.

        Money, in its natural form (free of banking) is nothing more than a tool, a means of exchange. It can be used for good (building a church, school, growing crops) or bad (usury, hoarding, derivatives trading).

        To call a means of exchange evil is totally absurd, and if that's what you are trying to sell here (while asking for it) your in a cult.

        If your trying to bring in a 'money free society' your destroying the means of representation and entitlement on the work we produce every day. This sounds like the ZEITGEIST project another new age polemic advocating a no-money system.

        I hold you up to a higher standard as its YOU, claiming money is evil while asking for it.

        'Money and capitalism came after communism.'

        How you can say such a remark with a straight face is staggering.
        Receipts of exchange, promissory notes have circulated for THOUSANDS of years, before Marx, lenin or any other banker funded communist agents.

        Communism is evil, and Jesus was not a communist OR a capitalist. So it seems your a communist who wants to eliminate the means of exchange between people, while putting it in christian trappings.

        I also recognize your 501c3 status, ensuring you get to keep more of that (evil) money while preaching what looks like unreconstructed communism. It seems to me, you do not in fact have a grasp of what money actually is, have imposed your own ideology onto it, and hence attack a straw man while evading the true cause of economic misery (money chnagers/banks).

        Jesus, once again was not communist, capitalist, fascist or any other man made 'ism' people wish to throw upon his head.

        • It's such a shame that you don't read and think carefully. I have already addressed "the math", but you want to reduce "the math" to less than what I addressed when addressing "the math." There is nothing new on Mike Montagne's part in "the math." He simply expressed the obvious.

          Everything that is obvious can be expressed in different ways never stated necessarily exactly alike again. In fact, what I just said has been said in so many words before but never exactly as I just did. The fact that no one can find my exact words elsewhere expressing my point does not prove that I originated the point. Regardless, arguing with you over this sort of thing is proving fruitless, because you are more interested in not admitting to learning anything yourself but in rather defending what is clearly less than Christianity.

          Mike's "math" and writings are not a reflection of the perfected economy. If you think they are, if you think I have to prove his "math" within his limited context wrong before I may show a higher calling, then what's the point in talking to you?

          Concerning money and PayPal, I've already addressed that, but you've chosen to either ignore it or to fail to comprehend. The Bible does not have to say verbatim the concept of money itself is clearly evil for it to be so, for it to be clearly implied in the Bible. I already explained recompense. Money is inherently recompense. Connect the dots. The Bible doesn't say plenty of things about things that are evil.

          Where in the Bible does it say that humans are not to have sexual intercourse with dead bodies? Many homosexuals claim that Jesus doesn't even say that homosex is wrong and that, that means it's okay for them to be doing it even while claiming to be Christians following Jesus to perfection, God, and Heaven. You sound like someone using their sort of twisted reading to attempt to make your point about money.

          Plenty of things were said for the first time in the Bible in later sections of the Bible and which clarify and add to earlier understandings expressed in the Bible. If it weren't so, there would be no New Testament. Mike Montagne has not done what is comparable to the New Testament versus some Old Testament of economics. The New Testament wasn't revealing the obvious in all things.

          I do though give Mike credit to the extent he's entitled. Good for him that he saw some things that weren't readily apparent to many others. However, his plan is not "perfected." His math will not usher in Heaven on Earth. Stopping short of Jesus's full message will assure his utter failure, in fact. That you don't know that or don't write accordingly is not my problem but yours.

          The Christian Commons and a moneyless society predate the Zeitgeist Movement. They came here trying to get me to join them when they first started. They essentially had the same problem with the Christian Commons that you have: that I should overlook the differences.

          Anyway, you ignore that there is no money in Heaven and that Heaven will come to Earth. TZM people loved that though. They took my point right from this site and used it to promote theirs.

          You don't know what communism is versus Communism (the Marxist movement and political party).

          "I also recognize your 501c3 status, ensuring you get to keep more of that (evil) money while preaching what looks like unreconstructed communism." You don't understand what a 501(c)(3) is. It is not so the charity can keep more money. It's so those who give it may deduct it from their taxes.

          Is there any point in my discussing anything further with you when you completely ignore what I've already said? There isn't.

          You are profoundly ignorant about the implications of Jesus's message.

          If the kingdom of God is perfect and if there is no money in it and if it is to come to Earth and we are to do God's will as it is in Heaven, then how can money be perfectly acceptable? Answer that without deviating or beating around the bush. You can't unless you're not a Christian and answer with an anti-Christ answer. Remember when answering that Jesus had money and paid taxes even while he clearly said he should not have to pay taxes and while he said Heaven is to come to Earth and God's will is to be done on Earth as in Heaven (where there is no money).

          In a giving-and-sharing-all Christian community (the only kind of real Christianity), there is no holding out for any medium of exchange.

          All Apostles in Acts were wrong in your eyes. They held up the moneyless society between and amongst themselves while paying the outside fallen world what it demanded of them: money. For you to imagine otherwise, for you to fail to see that clearly and plainly, speaks to your hardened mentality (hard-heartedness).

          Don't get carried away with how you take that from me. I'm not saying you are therefore as wrong as the most wrong-headed person in the world. I am speaking to your heart relative to Jesus's. You are more hard-hearted than he. It is clear because you don't see money as no better than taxes between people. Yes, I pay taxes. That does not make me a hypocrite any more than it made Jesus. Go ahead. Ignore that too. It's your pattern. Ignore what doesn't fit your ideology.

          I'll not rehash all the things you've ducked from my previous replies. I will though stop wasting time with apostasy and those who ignore and duck while claiming to be Christians.