PART 2: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN

Navigation:
• Newer: PART 3: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: EXPOSING ARISTOTELIAN INANITIES »
• Older: « DICK CHENEY IS INSANE
• BLOG: Most Recent
• The Christian Commons Project™

2 Comments on “PART 2: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN”:

1. Chris [deleted]
   Monday, December 22, 2008 @ 6:46:59 AM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   Tom,
   When you say you are saved by faith you are inadvertently allowing your faith to become the source of salvation when it should only be regarded as a means to the source. Indeed, there is a difference!

   But before I expound more on that thought, let’s look at it from another angle. Let’s look at it from the perspective of you believing that you are saved by love, just as you had mentioned within your comment.

   You can’t be both saved by love and by faith at the same time and in the same sense as this violates the law of non-contradiction. You see, there can only be one source for salvation. Therefore, it must be one or the other, either faith or love. For if you are saved by love and by faith then that suggests that it is both your faith and God who saves you. After all, the Bible says, “God is love.” (1Jn. 4:8)

   But it doesn’t follow to say that you can be saved by both love and faith for the simple fact that if it weren’t for love faith wouldn’t even be an option for you. Tom, keep in mind here that the Bible says, “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom. 10:17) So in essence, faith comes from God; and since God is love, it is safe to say that faith comes from love. Hence, love is greater than faith and can not therefore be equal to it because faith owes its existence to love.

   Therefore, what all of this comes down to is that if you believe that you are saved by faith and by love, then you are inadvertently placing your faith on a level of equality with love as the source of salvation. But again, this isn’t possible as faith wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for love. So faith and love are not equal and can not therefore save you equally. Only one can save you; and that is obviously love!

   So it makes perfect sense then to use ‘through’ rather than ‘by’ when referring to faith within the context of salvation. And I am quite sure that that is why Paul was careful to word it thusly in Ephesians 2:8.

   But what’s even worse than saying you are saved by love and by faith is to say that you are saved by faith. For when you say you are saved by faith you are allowing faith to become the source of salvation rather than simply seeing it as a means to the source which saves you: that is, God.

   And if you really want to get technical about it, since James said, “faith without works is dead” (James 2:20), to say that you are saved by faith is to essentially suggest that you are saved by works!

   I hope you are beginning to see the problem with this now…
   Listen, the bottom line is this: whether you like what Paul said or not, Paul was logically correct in wording it as he did in Ephesians 2:8, as you and I are saved by grace. Period. Thus God gets all the Glory!

   But when you say you are saved by faith you give yourself the glory for believing in God when in fact you wouldn’t know that God existed if it weren’t for Him telling you so! So the only correct option that you have is to say that you are saved by grace through faith as that gives God the glory that He deserves.

   Now keep in mind here that I am not saying that you are intentionally substituting God’s grace as the source of salvation with faith, as in saying that you are knowingly allowing your faith to take precedence over God’s grace in this way. I am just simply telling you that when you take the idea that you are saved by faith to its logical conclusion that is what happens: that is, it then becomes the source of salvation. But that can not be true because only God can save you! Hence, He is the source of salvation! Not faith!

   In other words, the idea of being saved by faith is not consistent with reason; nor is it consistent with the Bible as it suggests that faith is the source of salvation. And that just can’t be correct, because if it weren’t for God’s grace you wouldn’t even have faith to believe in grace (and now we enter into the realm of free will).

   Tom, I think I have given you quite a bit to chew on here, and will therefore refrain from addressing your other issues at this time.

   Blessings to you…
   Chris [deleted]
   [deleted]

   
   
   
2. Tom Usher
   Monday, December 22, 2008 @ 7:10:58 PM (Pacific Time)
   
   

   PART 3: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: EXPOSING ARISTOTELIAN INANITIES

   
   
   

1. 
   
   Tom Usher
   

   Standing Comment, all posts and pages:

   To all homosexuals and their supporters, condoners, promoters, accepters, confirmers, and the like:

   Unless you have something completely new that hasn't already been refuted, don't bother. It won't show up.

   Rehashing what has already been refuted is a waste of everyone's time.

   I'm not interested in casting pearls before swine, giving the children's bread to the dogs, or rebuking a forever scorner.

   Learn or go away: There is zero wisdom in homosexuality. Homosexuality is wrong. Nothing any homosexual or anyone else can say or do will alter it. No one needs the Bible to know it either. It's prima facie. There's no such thing as an unrepentant-homosexual Christian. There never has been and never will be. That's the way of it. If you don't like it, change.

   Do site searches on the various topics concerning homosexuality to determine if your "point" has already been handled. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.

   ---

   The same can be done regarding militarism, capitalism, coercion, and many other main issues and themes.

   ---

   TREATMENT, RUDENESS, POLITENESS, OFFENSE, TRUTH

   Many times over the course of this website's existence, I've had commentators complain about how I've treated them and/or others. Much less frequently has anyone taken exception to those commentator's comments. I assume that's because for one, I appear to be holding my own.

   Often, I have raised the fact that Jesus called certain people "serpents." I've often also mentioned how he cleaned the temple with whip in hand, not that he used it on anyone. It certainly doesn't say that he did, and neither was he charged with it in the kangaroo court of the serpents who ended up murdering him by proxy just for, among other wonderful things, speaking out and speaking truth.

   If I say that those who are engaged in serpentine behavior are the New Testament "serpents," then why take offense at my saying it rather than standing with Jesus and me about it?

   If others don't like it that I treat others or them the way I have in this regard, why don't they take it up with the serpents and/or their own consciences and God?

   If I wanted to catch flies, I'd use honey. I don't want flies on this level. Human beings aren't to be on the level of flies. If the truth is bitter as vinegar, then ask yourself why and learn to taste it as sweet but not sickeningly so. Why attack the message and messenger, as the serpents did, and become a serpent by so doing?

   The issue is not "name calling" on some bratty, childish level. When Jesus said "serpents," he was not being as a brat. His level was completely adult to adults and children. He dared say that the children understood the clear and plain truth before the adults who, afterall, had been abused and socialized by the serpents. He still calls adults back. Those who hear him and know his voice (truth) turn around and do the other required things together as well.

   What is it for a human being to be more serpentine or reptilian than what God initially gave? What was and remains Jesus's point? What is the reptilian brain versus the vastly higher human brain with its cerebral cortex and frontal and temporal lobes and specific areas of altruistic sentiments and abilities? What are those higher areas before they are damaged, before the communication pathways to them and between them are diminished by evil that is always some form of abuse? How are those pathways reestablished or created where they never were in this fleshly life?

   The snake lays its eggs. The eggs hatch. The snake parent doesn't nurture or raise the offspring. It's every snake for itself. Human parents and family are not designed to be that way. Humans hand down the learning of nurturing. Many people get better training than do others, and many people have a greater aptitude for learning and predisposition for the higher and highest virtues. Many are less abused. People can change for the better and best though, no matter where the starting point. They only can't if they don't — if they reject it.

   Snakes, of course, also come in venomous varieties and in strangling varieties, etc., such that they have been attackers and even devourers of humans for eons, guilty and innocent alike.

   Now, Jesus knew that most people could relate to what were, and still are, largely considered "good" parenting skills and "good" "family" relations. He regularly used those concepts to get people to consider the wider implications for the whole of humanity. He did know that many would refuse. He let them go. He didn't demand secular or false-religion legislation to rein them in with threats of violence and imprisonment. He was not and is not coercive. Even his Church is a voluntary place to be.

   What he still teaches (through the written words in the New Testament and as those connect with the Old and also teaches through the Holy Spirit he definitely sent as he said he would) is, among many other things, that "good" is vastly better than has been commonly accepted and that real "family" is everyone left after all the rest have rejected the higher and highest good. He raised the standards far above the Old Testament and far above the "modern" standard.

   The American Empire and the American people in general aren't even touching the hem of his garment, let alone even attempting to stand upright and side-by-side with him.

   I point out that Jesus was, and is, a Real Liberal Christian. He is the one who brought back this censored truth that is the light. After he had spoken it and lived it and was murdered for doing so, the censors set about to re-censor it and did. They couldn't put it out though — couldn't completely extinguish the truth. I wouldn't be saying it now again with all credit to God, just as Jesus, if they had been able to completely block it.

   I point out that each of those terms ("real," "liberal," and "Christian," along with "Church") are actually redundant terms — synonyms that are so close that they become one. The term "liberal" here is not the common usage, which common usage is a deliberate corruption of the term. There is no harm in real liberalism. There is no vileness in it. There is only beneficence. "Real" may be understood as the opposite of false-hearted, dark side, and dead of the Holy Spirit. Christian is both real and liberal in those senses. To arrive at living, doing, being those full senses requires what Jesus lives, does, and is in the highest. Finally, the Church is the whole.

   Who are they who want to drag it down, censor it, work against it, lessen it, ignore it, etc.? Well, who sides with Jesus and who sides against him? Did the serpents side with him then? Do they now?

   We call war-mongers "hawks." We call "peacemakers" blessed and "doves." Why do the hawks not take offense at "hawks" but do take offense at "serpents"? "Hawks" is not yet as telling to the general public, but I must tell you that all hawks are serpents. Why do some say, "Greed is good" but take offense at "serpents"? I tell you there is no difference between the selfish and the serpents. Why do people take offense at serpents when they do not take offense at homosexuality? I tell you the homosexual spirit also comes out from the dark side. It is a choice. It is harmful. Many are abused with it. Many never overcome it. Their very brain matter is transformed by it. Then they claim it is good when it remains confusion and definitely wrong and harmful.

   Many arguments were put forth in support of tolerance. I understood that Jesus "tolerated," as in he did not execute wrath but rather told the truth and let the blind follow the blind (blind to the truth) into the ditch of their own making. I have watched while the movement has been corrupted into condoning what was once only to be tolerated. I have watched further while it has moved from condoning to promoting even to the youngest children to get to them before the truth does. I have seen evil at work, and I sound the alarm. I face censorship and other negative reactions for it.

   As the American Empire claims to be a light to the world, it murders innocent babies by Hellfire missiles fired from predator drones controlled by armchair, video-gaming serpents in uniform. It tortures those who are not even suspects. It spies on its own without even probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It lies its way into wars for spoils and control. It neglects its poor, whom it treads down for the sakes of the superrich — for the sake of the massive flow of mammon from the bottom up (no trickledown — trickledown is a farce and always has been). All is claimed to be okay in America though — that America is headed in the right direction — because soon, even "don't tell, don't ask" will be a thing of the quaint past and homosexuals may be able to sleep together and have sex in the barracks with the "blessing" of the Empire while they practice murdering the innocent for the sake of homosexual, greedy plutocrats who own them and who, in turn, are owned by the dark-side spirit named by God and Jesus as Satan.

   Whose side are you on? I speak truth to warn. I don't tell the secular government what to do other than occasionally to say what at least would be less hypocritical within their fallen, unenlightened system. I do so for spiritual reasons. What I want is the Christian Commons.

   Now, if you submit a comment:

   • Will it be twisting my words or taking parts or the whole out of context (the biggest picture)?
   • Will it be with an eye to finding out first or attacking without knowing? What are your intentions? Are they good or evil?
   • Are you with the takers?
   • Are you with the oppressors?
   • Are you for greed, selfish hoarding, violence, war making?

     The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords. (Psalms 55:21)

   • Are you for depravity and harming others and yourself sexually and psychically, torture, waterboarding, espionage, deceiving, and/or all or any of the rest of the evil spirit; or are you contrite with me toward the real God who is always peace?
   • Will you submit your real full name or be cowardly without cause? (Some have some mundane fears? I don't seek anyone's unknowing, unwilling sacrifice.)
   • Will you post on the post to which you refer, or will you slip over somewhere else thinking you'll barb me? You won't. You'll barb yourself.
   • Will you "instruct" me, or will you look for mutual edification or spiritual growth?
   • Will you complain, attack, and seek to come off as offended for others and/or yourself, or will you truly seek ultimate truth and impart real light here and to the world?
   • Will you be nothing but an Internet troll?

   What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it. Don't be tempted by the devil to stand opposed to the call of righteousness. Overcome such evil temptation. Help others to help yet others to come to righteous behavior through-and-through.

   Check out how even after reading this, people will still take it out of context and twist it to an evil end.

Please Comment:

Navigation:
• Newer: PART 3: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: EXPOSING ARISTOTELIAN INANITIES »
• Older: « DICK CHENEY IS INSANE
• BLOG: Most Recent
• The Christian Commons Project™

Most Recent Posts:
1. ON "TEXAS TEXTBOOK MASSACRE: 'ULTRACONSERVATIVES' APPROVE RADICAL CHANGES TO STATE EDUCATION CURRICULUM"
2. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 15, 2010
3. ON DYLAN RATIGAN, ELIOT SPITZER, LEHMAN BROTHERS, ERNST & YOUNG, FEDERAL RESERVE, TIM GEITHNER, BEN BERNANKE, US TREASURY, HENRY PAULSON, ET AL.
4. ON GLENN BECK, SOCIAL JUSTICE, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, COMMUNISTS, NAZIS, AND CHURCHES
5. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 12, 2010
6. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 10, 2010
7. FACEBOOK THREAD ON HAUGHT, WILSON, AND DENNETT DISCUSSING SCIENCE VERSUS RELIGION
8. JOHN HAUGHT, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, AND DANIEL DENNETT AS A PANEL DISCUSS RELIGION AND SCIENCE IN 8 PARTS
9. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 7, 2010
10. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 4, 2010
11. "CAP-AND-TRADE IS DEAD" FREE-MARKET CRONYISM SENATE AND TEA PARTY
12. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 2, 2010
13. ON HOMOSEXUALITY: A REPLY FOR A THREAD ON FACEBOOK
14. GIVING TOO MUCH CREDIT, NOT GIVING ENOUGH, MISJUDGING SITUATIONS, BLOCKING, MUTUAL REPENTANCE
15. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, March 1, 2010
16. LEVEL OF SEXUAL IMMATURITY ON FACEBOOK COMING FROM PEOPLE OF MY GENERATION IS ASTOUNDING
17. JIMMY CARTER'S TRUTH MAKES GEORGE W. BUSH MISERABLE
18. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST #2, February 27, 2010
19. TWITTER-SESSION DIGEST, February 27, 2010
20. A PUBLIC EXAMPLE OF DEEP-SEATED SEXUAL ILLNESS: THE OUT-OF-CONTROL HOMOSEXUAL PREDATOR

---

The Righteous Appeal to Softening Hearts

501(c)(3) and Additional Info

Recent Donations

Recent Donations | Show All

Period: Last 20 Donations

Donations: 7 received

---

I know you won't bury it. You are in my prayers Tom!	10.00
Anonymous	5.00
Still planting!	10.00
Hi Tom, It was my eyes! I did not see the "click here"	10.00
Anonymous	10.00
Anonymous	5.00
Anonymous	5.00

---

Donations Gross:	55.00
Paypal Fees:	-3.71
Donations Net:	51.29

---

Current Goal: 6.06E+13

WE STILL NEED:

< 60,599,999,999,948.71 >

— reflects cleared transactions only —
On the PayPal payment-page, enter a note in the "Add special instructions to merchant" text box. Your note will show in the chart above once your transaction has cleared.
— World GDP: to translate it all into Christian Commons —

To Donate Via Credit Cards, etc.:

This button opens a new, secure window/tab with 3 options. Choose your option. Choose/fill in your terms. Click the option's donate button. Your terms will appear on the secure PayPal site. It's easy.

To Donate Via Checks, Money Orders, etc.:

If you pay bills and bank online and only want to make financial donations via that method, please consider setting up an open-ended automatic payment (donation) schedule.

Make your check(s) or scheduled payments payable to the order of:

Real Liberal Christian Church

Mail your donations to:

Real Liberal Christian Church
15904 4^th Avenue South, #33
Burien, Washington 98148-1278
U.S.A.

Home/Blog | About Our Name | The Plan: The Christian Commons | Our Store | Ways to Support the Real Liberal Christian Church | Church Growth | Education and Training | Finance | Fundraising | General Administration | Human Resources | Information Technology | Membership (Join Us) | Ministers (Our Clergy) | Statement of Faith | Contact Us Securely | Privacy Policy | Report Site Errors | Links (Left Column) | Advertise On Our Site

---

Copyright © 2006+ Real Liberal Christian Church