Comments for REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:59:59 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 Comment on APTLY NAMED BOAT "SPIRIT OF HUMANITY" BLOCKED BY ISRAEL: HOW TELLING by Tom Usher http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/2009/07/03/aptly-named-boat-spirit-of-humanity-blocked-by-israel-how-telling.html#comment-5779 Tom Usher Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:59:59 +0000 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=3250#comment-5779 Thanks Mikes. I left a comment over on your site.

I'm a rough customer, but Mikes is a nice guy who doesn't shy away from the the tough issues though. If my style bugs you, maybe Mikes' will suit you. Go check out his site regardless.

I find his posts contemporary and often soothing.
I'm a rough customer, but Mikes is a nice guy who doesn't shy away from the the tough issues though. If my style bugs you, maybe Mikes' will suit you. Go check out his site regardless.

I find his posts contemporary and often soothing.]]> Comment on APTLY NAMED BOAT "SPIRIT OF HUMANITY" BLOCKED BY ISRAEL: HOW TELLING by Mikes Sumondong http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/2009/07/03/aptly-named-boat-spirit-of-humanity-blocked-by-israel-how-telling.html#comment-5777 Mikes Sumondong Sat, 04 Jul 2009 02:38:46 +0000 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=3250#comment-5777 May this war end the soonest possible time.

Tom,

Here's my way of thanking you: <a href="http://your-dailyword.blogspot.com/2009/07/recommended-christian-blogssites.html">Thanks</a>
Tom,

Here's my way of thanking you: Thanks]]> Comment on IRAN UPDATE: U.S., U.K., ISRAEL, ANGLO-AMERICAN-ISRAELI EMPIRE-AXIS OF EVIL by Tom Usher http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/2009/07/03/iran-update-u-s-u-k-israel-anglo-american-israeli-empire-axis-of-evil.html#comment-5775 Tom Usher Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:11:34 +0000 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=3248#comment-5775 2005 elections: Ahmadinejad 61.7 %; Rafsanjani 35.9% Comment on PART 12: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: CALL TO TRUTH TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BUT ARE PAULINES (FOLLOWERS OF PAUL AND NOT JESUS) by Tom Usher http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/2009/02/03/part-12-to-debate-to-get-at-and-to-show-truth-is-christian-call-to-truth-to-those-who-believe-they-are-christians-but-are-paulines-followers-of-paul-and-not-jesus.html#comment-5774 Tom Usher Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:25:39 +0000 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=2935#comment-5774 Touching on other of your points/questions:

Jesus was subject to the higher power. He was subject to Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate doesn't fit with your Pauline interpretation.

Wrath: Jesus said do not be wrathful. No ruler ordained of God after the New Testament may execute wrath.

I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding that Satan is still falling from Heaven. The kingdom is within. When Jesus taught and people grasped it, Satan fell. The Empire/Beast is falling and will fall all the way.

You did not admit that the God of Moses was not the same understanding of Jesus's God.

As for Titus versus Ephesians 6:12..., you make my point. Here's the deal. Paul isn't saying commit murder on the orders of Obama, but at the same time he is saying it to the people who can't get Jesus. That's the problem. So, why didn't Paul simply teach the people what Jesus said rather than writing his own stuff? He doesn't know. Look, when they haul us before them as they hauled Jesus before them, we don't draw our swords any more than did Jesus. We allow them to be in error against pure righteousness. When they say, pay your taxes. Well, to pay them if we are on the Christian Commons will require that someone still earning within that outside system to be the fish with the coins in its mouth; but we will pay. When we are asked to "be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing," we say this is error.

No human being is God's angel of death. The angel of death is the enemy. Yes, ultimately he isn't allowed to hold the righteous. He is though still the enemy. He is the serpent. He is the Antichrist with a capital A. He is the king who drags them before him and cuts them to pieces and deceives the people who are supposed to exercise mercy and forgiveness at all times. He is not Jesus. Jesus warns against becoming that king. Jesus was offered to become that king and rejected it. Have you not been offered? Dwell on that some before moving on. Do you get it? If you don't, don't just gloss over it.

I see from some of your commenting that you appear to undervalue or even be unaware of the fact that Jesus never rises above his lowliest servant. Cyrus did do what you said he did, but his empire was not of the God of Jesus. His empire was still the Beast. At the time though, in relative terms, he appeared vastly more softhearted, and he was. Nehemiah though returned and said some right things when he consulted his conscience, but he was not Jesus proper. He was headed in that direction though relative to many who went before and pretty much most of those who have come after him. Certainly, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not on Nehemiah's level even after millennia to learn.

In questions such as concerns Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart, you are dealing with tautological paradoxes. God determines all things but we have free will. It is a true paradox, meaning that God does determine all things and that we also do have free will. The problem is with Aristotelianism. People want Newton and not quantum mechanics. I don't hold with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I accept the wave-particle duality. It isn't irrational to me at all. When Jesus says all things are possible with God, he doesn't mean some things. He literally means all things. "The wisdom of God passeth all understanding" for a while.

Actually, the darkness is both literal and figurative. This is something I'm not at liberty to discuss in full detail, as it would benefit the enemy.

No, "the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve" didn't occur as in a final battle in Heaven. Satan was in enthroned in Heaven until Jesus. Read Enoch. Satan is still enthroned in Heaven in the minds of many. The Luciferians have him there still. By Lucifer, I don't mean the real bringer of light who is Jesus.

As for John's Revelation, just as with Jesus's ages, they are both past and present and future until the end. We are not at the end, far from it.

As for Moses, the offences will come. They will come by human beings possessed. This is how evil is pruned. God does let Satan operate. Those sealed by God will not be held by death. Who are they? They are not those who didn't repent of their own wrath. Why is that? Heaven cannot be Heaven with such spirits within it.

As for Peter, I have addressed that in my comment above.

About scripture, did Jesus get the New Testament wholesale from the Old? Jesus valued the Holy Spirit speaking directly to his followers. We have the Old Testament. We have the New Testament as recorded. Nowhere does it say that the testament of the Holy Spirit is finished coming. Jesus specifically said that greater things will be done. How do we reach that by remaining at Paul's level or Peter's or any of the Gospel writers?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak to you telling you things not already written by the Gospel writers? Even John wrote that if everything about what Jesus did were to have been written down there wouldn't be room for the book. He didn't mean it literally of course. It was a figure of speech to inform us that the Gospels are not an exhaustive accounting. That's not a problem though because the New Commandment is a summation and the recorded words and deeds are enough for the purpose of dividing out the goats from amongst the sheep. It does though clearly suggest that it is folly to assume that more won't unfold.

People are yet to prophesy and to dream dreams. Things are yet to come that have never been seen before. Jesus knew that before he left.

Peace, love, and truth are one.

Tom
Jesus was subject to the higher power. He was subject to Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate doesn't fit with your Pauline interpretation.

Wrath: Jesus said do not be wrathful. No ruler ordained of God after the New Testament may execute wrath.

I don't know why you are having difficulty understanding that Satan is still falling from Heaven. The kingdom is within. When Jesus taught and people grasped it, Satan fell. The Empire/Beast is falling and will fall all the way.

You did not admit that the God of Moses was not the same understanding of Jesus's God.

As for Titus versus Ephesians 6:12…, you make my point. Here's the deal. Paul isn't saying commit murder on the orders of Obama, but at the same time he is saying it to the people who can't get Jesus. That's the problem. So, why didn't Paul simply teach the people what Jesus said rather than writing his own stuff? He doesn't know. Look, when they haul us before them as they hauled Jesus before them, we don't draw our swords any more than did Jesus. We allow them to be in error against pure righteousness. When they say, pay your taxes. Well, to pay them if we are on the Christian Commons will require that someone still earning within that outside system to be the fish with the coins in its mouth; but we will pay. When we are asked to "be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing," we say this is error.

No human being is God's angel of death. The angel of death is the enemy. Yes, ultimately he isn't allowed to hold the righteous. He is though still the enemy. He is the serpent. He is the Antichrist with a capital A. He is the king who drags them before him and cuts them to pieces and deceives the people who are supposed to exercise mercy and forgiveness at all times. He is not Jesus. Jesus warns against becoming that king. Jesus was offered to become that king and rejected it. Have you not been offered? Dwell on that some before moving on. Do you get it? If you don't, don't just gloss over it.

I see from some of your commenting that you appear to undervalue or even be unaware of the fact that Jesus never rises above his lowliest servant. Cyrus did do what you said he did, but his empire was not of the God of Jesus. His empire was still the Beast. At the time though, in relative terms, he appeared vastly more softhearted, and he was. Nehemiah though returned and said some right things when he consulted his conscience, but he was not Jesus proper. He was headed in that direction though relative to many who went before and pretty much most of those who have come after him. Certainly, Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu are not on Nehemiah's level even after millennia to learn.

In questions such as concerns Pharaoh and the hardening of his heart, you are dealing with tautological paradoxes. God determines all things but we have free will. It is a true paradox, meaning that God does determine all things and that we also do have free will. The problem is with Aristotelianism. People want Newton and not quantum mechanics. I don't hold with the interpretation of quantum mechanics, but I accept the wave-particle duality. It isn't irrational to me at all. When Jesus says all things are possible with God, he doesn't mean some things. He literally means all things. "The wisdom of God passeth all understanding" for a while.

Actually, the darkness is both literal and figurative. This is something I'm not at liberty to discuss in full detail, as it would benefit the enemy.

No, "the war in heaven between Michael and the Dragon occured sometime before the serpent appeared in the Garden of Eden tempting Eve" didn't occur as in a final battle in Heaven. Satan was in enthroned in Heaven until Jesus. Read Enoch. Satan is still enthroned in Heaven in the minds of many. The Luciferians have him there still. By Lucifer, I don't mean the real bringer of light who is Jesus.

As for John's Revelation, just as with Jesus's ages, they are both past and present and future until the end. We are not at the end, far from it.

As for Moses, the offences will come. They will come by human beings possessed. This is how evil is pruned. God does let Satan operate. Those sealed by God will not be held by death. Who are they? They are not those who didn't repent of their own wrath. Why is that? Heaven cannot be Heaven with such spirits within it.

As for Peter, I have addressed that in my comment above.

About scripture, did Jesus get the New Testament wholesale from the Old? Jesus valued the Holy Spirit speaking directly to his followers. We have the Old Testament. We have the New Testament as recorded. Nowhere does it say that the testament of the Holy Spirit is finished coming. Jesus specifically said that greater things will be done. How do we reach that by remaining at Paul's level or Peter's or any of the Gospel writers?

Doesn't the Holy Spirit speak to you telling you things not already written by the Gospel writers? Even John wrote that if everything about what Jesus did were to have been written down there wouldn't be room for the book. He didn't mean it literally of course. It was a figure of speech to inform us that the Gospels are not an exhaustive accounting. That's not a problem though because the New Commandment is a summation and the recorded words and deeds are enough for the purpose of dividing out the goats from amongst the sheep. It does though clearly suggest that it is folly to assume that more won't unfold.

People are yet to prophesy and to dream dreams. Things are yet to come that have never been seen before. Jesus knew that before he left.

Peace, love, and truth are one.

Tom]]> Comment on PART 12: TO DEBATE TO GET AT AND TO SHOW TRUTH IS CHRISTIAN: CALL TO TRUTH TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE CHRISTIANS BUT ARE PAULINES (FOLLOWERS OF PAUL AND NOT JESUS) by Tom Usher http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/2009/02/03/part-12-to-debate-to-get-at-and-to-show-truth-is-christian-call-to-truth-to-those-who-believe-they-are-christians-but-are-paulines-followers-of-paul-and-not-jesus.html#comment-5772 Tom Usher Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:29:26 +0000 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/wordpress/?p=2935#comment-5772 Hello Gary Hicks and All,

It appears that point-by-point is not completely your style. I prefer it, but put it aside often since it throws so many people. I do come back to it though when I detect a major, witting obfuscator, which isn't difficult to detect.

Okay, among others, people appear to approach scripture in two different ways. One is taking it on traditional authority. The other is starting more so from scratch. So, we have committees established by traditional authority itself which committees poured over writings and arrived at decisions as to what to allow into the canon (to take as the law from God). On the other hand, we have people such as Jesus who, with a critical eye, spotted and pronounced as hypocrisy that naturally just can't jibe with the finished state of perfection which is and who is God. Therefore, God's law must be perfect. Imperfections denote something other than God at work, with the exception that God must bring us along, meaning that if we are in a hardened position, the final state won't be able to be seen, so imperfect states must be employed to graduate (albeit not necessarily un-dramatically) to greater and greater perfection. Of course, that employment can rightly be viewed itself as the perfect approach to gaining the hardhearted for God the softhearted — no false paradox there. It is true and therefore reconcilable without resorting to irrationality. In other words, it's not hypocritical. It wasn't hypocritical of Jesus to come here to this lower, hardened state. It was perfect.

Now, where does Paul fit in with this? Well, we have it on that authority mentioned above that he was everything he said he was. So, they appeal to him as the authority. We have Luke's account. Luke was himself necessarily Pauline therefore to no small degree. We have Peter, who obviously struggled mightily with his own issues of backsliding — a pattern that we don't know was ever finally ended while he was in the flesh. So, let's employ Jesus's method of critical analysis.

The following is taking the Pauline Epistles as one. I don't say that the textual or higher critics don't have their points here. I am though approaching the Pauline letters as one because I'm concerned first with the major errors in behavior stemming from taking those letters as infallibly authoritative.

We have Paul going after the law where the connotation is primarily if not entirely ceremonial. At the same time, we have Paul introducing ceremonial law that he justifies on mundane grounds. In fact, there are places where he clearly states that he is speaking for himself and not from the Holy Spirit on such matters. He speaks of women being silent in Church. I've read the apologetics. No need to raise them with me. They are speculation only. He wrote what he wrote. He said women are to be silent in Church, period. He didn't qualify it. I know that's discounting "interpreting" based upon other of his writings, but bear with me here so I may get to the greater point. (I do interpret things based upon the whole). Part of Pauline apologetics includes taking the reader to other Pauline writings to say that Paul couldn't have meant it as a blanket law. In other words, we are to give the Pauline material the benefit of the doubt and expect everyone to do the same. However, that was not Jesus's approach to scripture or to the rationalizations of the Pharisees and others. Jesus simply pointed out hypocrisy, which many Pharisees actually recognized and didn't attempt to further rationalize but rather went silent, that is until Jesus gained too many followers for the Pharisees liking. Fearing being removed from their positions of authority, they conspired and did have him murdered.

In addition to remaining silent in the congregation, Paul also introduced head coverings and long hair for women and bare heads and short hair for men. These are arbitrary concepts from Paul's head and not from God. Can we take them as perfect devises to bring us along? Where does Paul have us drop them for what is better and best? Rather than that, Paul tells us to stop asking questions. However, Jesus says to ask.

I could go into a great deal of detail here, quoting and citing books, chapters, and verses, but why do it?

Now, if we come back to Roman's 13 in light of the above indication of hypocrisy, why would we there in Roman's 13 give the Pauline literature the benefit of the doubt? Why not take it as we take his commandment that women are to have their heads covered and that men are to have theirs uncovered when praying?

Do you hear Jesus saying to go into your closet to pray and take off your hat? For Jesus, one's closet can be the great outdoors. Jesus certainly prayed in the desert alone. Would Jesus say to the person standing at the South Pole during the Antarctica winter to take off his head covering before praying for rescue? Sure, with sufficient faith, that person could be transported to safety or be in a protective bubble there in an instant. Every budding Christian's mind isn't instantly at that level though. "Closet" is figurative with Jesus. Head coverings with Paul are not.

No, what Paul wrote has led many to misbelieve that they are to follow the orders of the secular "authorities" even when those orders are in direct contradiction of the New Commandment. This is my concern. No amount of apologetics for Paul repairs the misleading because there are too many other such contradictions, all of which are absent with Jesus taken without Paul.

Giving Caesar back his coined mammon is not the same thing as selling one's soul by joining the Pentagon and not repenting and quitting. Once that door is opened, there is no end to following wicked orders. Hence we have self-professing Christians sitting in air-conditioned rooms in cushy chairs in front of computer screens directing predator drones firing missiles that are murdering babies. Those murderers then go home to their families as if they have served their country to protect freedom and those families. They will also go to church services on Sundays and worship the God of their minds that tells them that murdering those babies was all right. From there, what evil cannot be rationalized away?

Look, I read writings of atheists that up to a point I can agree with completely. What matters is where I part company with them, not where I can find agreement. I can find plenty in the Pauline letters I don't cross out. Paul, as with everyone, even Satan proper, speaks truths. It's when they are half- or partial-truths that matters and subjects them to being moved behind one or another. This is why Jesus told Satan to get behind him. Well, I'm passed Paul. That's how it is.

The whole foundation of truth doesn't crumble on account of this, quite the contrary.

Are you aware that Antonin Scalia, the Roman Catholic associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, justifies the death penalty based upon Romans 13? He does that to the complete exclusion of Jesus's admonition never to kill. There will be those who will rush in saying, but what about the parable of the king who has them brought before him and cut to pieces. Is that king, king Jesus?

Jesus speaks using the most highly refined semantical understanding I've ever seen or heard. His parables are a lesson in not jumping to false conclusions and in requiring being able to see the figurative allusions that escape the hardhearted. Jesus's God is not the God to whom one calls for wrath to be executed upon the wicked. Satan commits suicide. He jumps into the Lake of Fire.

I know this type of thinking is difficult for most if not all right now. The most literal have the most difficulty. The highly figurative are not guaranteed either. Plenty of poets are atheists. Consider though that Paul said the church would be transported into the sky <b><u>forever</b></u> while other prophecies say the kingdom will arrive on Earth. There is a place where both are true, but this is not taught in the churches today nor has it been since Jesus walked the Earth nearly two thousand years ago. It is now though with me.

I don't know your background. I don't know what denomination you claim if any. Consider though that once the conclusions from Romans 13 are shown not to jibe with the New Commandment informed by all of Jesus's statements and deeds, then we can take the Church back to Jesus where war is not allowed and neither are greed or depravity and not based upon arbitrariness but pure consistency that can withstand any level of scrutiny.

Here, the final appeal against this Real Liberal Christian Church is that anyone can justify anything using scripture. That doesn't work though against me. I don't cherry pick Jesus. I take him in total. His call is to perfection, and there is no hypocrisy in perfection.

So, my challengers are left with having to point out even the slightest hypocrisy in Jesus in a way that their charges stand up against any refutation. I have yet to see that done.

They have pointed to the cleaning of the temple, but the temple is a place of rules where only the voluntary truly reside and no one was harmed by the cleaning. They have pointed to Jesus asking God why God forsook him, but those challengers don't return after Psalms 22 is explained and how Jesus was tying in the whole of prophecy with his statement for our endless edification. They complain about his cursing the fig tree, but they don't understand the implications for those who have stolen the rightful inheritance of all others and who do not bring forth. The fig tree was Jesus's and refused to acknowledge. Jesus showed the results of such hypocrisy on the part of the tree. The tree cursed itself. It was its own worst enemy. Had Jesus been wicked and hardhearted and not the proper son of God, that would have been another matter. They say Jesus did not honor his mother when he rebuked her, but they don't understand that Jesus knew the times and places for things and was informed of the Holy Spirit more so than was she, bless her soul nevertheless.

There are those who avoid all of this by appealing to not asking the tough questions. They falsely imagine that if they don't search their souls, they will be left with the excuse of ignorance. That though shows their awareness of righteousness being deliberately avoided and is no excuse. There are those who insist that we aren't to lead Holy lives as to say that it can't be done until God miraculously causes the transfiguration, transformation, regeneration, or whatever name one applies to it. However, working up to leading a Holy life is such regenerating. Nowhere does Jesus say to wait before being better. He does say to wait, but that's in a different context to mean be patient, don't give up and not to suggest not to be pruned of whatever wickedness remains within that is outwardly manifest in evil deeds.

Well, I won't go on here right now. This much is sufficient.

Capitalism and worldly militarism are not justified. Many other things are also not justified, but many have attempted to twist Christianity into finding capitalism and militarism as being justified. It has led to many lost souls who would otherwise have never professed Jesus or would have been truly found as opposed to tricked into the synagogue of Satan, as it were.

What has happened is that the pacifism of Jesus has been covered over by the glorification of the militarists. Eusebius of Caesarea and his "The Life of Constantine," is an abomination for instance. So, even to this day, we have so-called conservative Republican Christians who are rabid militarists. The U.S. military is loaded with self-styled born-again Christians. This is the worst thing on Earth. It represents the greatest apostasy there is. I mean in degree. It is taking Christianity and twisting it such that more people are deluded into imagining that they are Christians when they are actually doing the most sinister work of the devil that is worldly imperialism — the greatest theft, which includes the theft of souls forever unless they repent soon enough. They are the branches and leaves of yet another fig tree that too will wither and died. Am I cursing them? No, I'm warning them. I'm not threatening them.

Oh, but if we don't fight them, they'll come here and kill us. That's one of the arguments of the Zealots to whom Jesus said put up your swords and Isaiah said to beat those swords into plowshares, with which Jesus agrees, of course. Look what happened to those Zealots. It's why Maccabees is not canonical, frankly. The law was already known. It's worth reading but for discernment.

Lastly, we have the homosexuals claiming harmlessness. It's preposterous. I left a comment over on the <a href="http://www.abpnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4199&Itemid=9" target="_blank">Associated Baptist Press</a> site as follows:<br /><blockquote>Hello Miguel De La Torre,

This is exponential confusion. First of all, this is supposed to be a Christian site, yet it is advocating for militarism. Nowhere does Jesus advocate for militarism. He addresses the militarists and calls them to renounce violence. Second, "obedience to their country's call" here includes going into a clearly illegal war, even mundanely illegal. Where does it say that one blindly is to march off to war? Are you at all familiar with the case of Lieutenant Erin Watada? He refused to deploy in an war illegal under U.S. and International Law. Of course, deploying in any war is against Jesus's commandment. A real military hero is one who quits under good conscience directed of the Holy Spirit. Now here comes this site putting forth that under the mundane law, the religious are not to use their religious views in coming to secular decisions. That's also specious. If the voters vote-in a theocracy without violating any of the current laws, that would be that. I'm not for it, but it would still be legal under the U.S. Constitution if they could muster sufficient votes. Now you want homosexuality in with the already immoral and ungodly military. As I said, it is exponential confusion. Sure, don't coerce the homosexuals. However, the position on this site is that there's nothing inherently un-Christian about homosexuality. Well, there are many sins Jesus didn't name verbatim that you are still holding out as sin. If you can show me that homosexuality is being as harmless as a dove, I'll relent. So long as homosexuality, per se, remains inherently harmful in all cases, a belief I hold, I will maintain that no Christian has any business suggesting that homosexuality is acceptable.

Peace</blockquote><br />Again, Peace
It appears that point-by-point is not completely your style. I prefer it, but put it aside often since it throws so many people. I do come back to it though when I detect a major, witting obfuscator, which isn't difficult to detect.

Okay, among others, people appear to approach scripture in two different ways. One is taking it on traditional authority. The other is starting more so from scratch. So, we have committees established by traditional authority itself which committees poured over writings and arrived at decisions as to what to allow into the canon (to take as the law from God). On the other hand, we have people such as Jesus who, with a critical eye, spotted and pronounced as hypocrisy that naturally just can't jibe with the finished state of perfection which is and who is God. Therefore, God's law must be perfect. Imperfections denote something other than God at work, with the exception that God must bring us along, meaning that if we are in a hardened position, the final state won't be able to be seen, so imperfect states must be employed to graduate (albeit not necessarily un-dramatically) to greater and greater perfection. Of course, that employment can rightly be viewed itself as the perfect approach to gaining the hardhearted for God the softhearted — no false paradox there. It is true and therefore reconcilable without resorting to irrationality. In other words, it's not hypocritical. It wasn't hypocritical of Jesus to come here to this lower, hardened state. It was perfect.

Now, where does Paul fit in with this? Well, we have it on that authority mentioned above that he was everything he said he was. So, they appeal to him as the authority. We have Luke's account. Luke was himself necessarily Pauline therefore to no small degree. We have Peter, who obviously struggled mightily with his own issues of backsliding — a pattern that we don't know was ever finally ended while he was in the flesh. So, let's employ Jesus's method of critical analysis.

The following is taking the Pauline Epistles as one. I don't say that the textual or higher critics don't have their points here. I am though approaching the Pauline letters as one because I'm concerned first with the major errors in behavior stemming from taking those letters as infallibly authoritative.

We have Paul going after the law where the connotation is primarily if not entirely ceremonial. At the same time, we have Paul introducing ceremonial law that he justifies on mundane grounds. In fact, there are places where he clearly states that he is speaking for himself and not from the Holy Spirit on such matters. He speaks of women being silent in Church. I've read the apologetics. No need to raise them with me. They are speculation only. He wrote what he wrote. He said women are to be silent in Church, period. He didn't qualify it. I know that's discounting "interpreting" based upon other of his writings, but bear with me here so I may get to the greater point. (I do interpret things based upon the whole). Part of Pauline apologetics includes taking the reader to other Pauline writings to say that Paul couldn't have meant it as a blanket law. In other words, we are to give the Pauline material the benefit of the doubt and expect everyone to do the same. However, that was not Jesus's approach to scripture or to the rationalizations of the Pharisees and others. Jesus simply pointed out hypocrisy, which many Pharisees actually recognized and didn't attempt to further rationalize but rather went silent, that is until Jesus gained too many followers for the Pharisees liking. Fearing being removed from their positions of authority, they conspired and did have him murdered.

In addition to remaining silent in the congregation, Paul also introduced head coverings and long hair for women and bare heads and short hair for men. These are arbitrary concepts from Paul's head and not from God. Can we take them as perfect devises to bring us along? Where does Paul have us drop them for what is better and best? Rather than that, Paul tells us to stop asking questions. However, Jesus says to ask.

I could go into a great deal of detail here, quoting and citing books, chapters, and verses, but why do it?

Now, if we come back to Roman's 13 in light of the above indication of hypocrisy, why would we there in Roman's 13 give the Pauline literature the benefit of the doubt? Why not take it as we take his commandment that women are to have their heads covered and that men are to have theirs uncovered when praying?

Do you hear Jesus saying to go into your closet to pray and take off your hat? For Jesus, one's closet can be the great outdoors. Jesus certainly prayed in the desert alone. Would Jesus say to the person standing at the South Pole during the Antarctica winter to take off his head covering before praying for rescue? Sure, with sufficient faith, that person could be transported to safety or be in a protective bubble there in an instant. Every budding Christian's mind isn't instantly at that level though. "Closet" is figurative with Jesus. Head coverings with Paul are not.

No, what Paul wrote has led many to misbelieve that they are to follow the orders of the secular "authorities" even when those orders are in direct contradiction of the New Commandment. This is my concern. No amount of apologetics for Paul repairs the misleading because there are too many other such contradictions, all of which are absent with Jesus taken without Paul.

Giving Caesar back his coined mammon is not the same thing as selling one's soul by joining the Pentagon and not repenting and quitting. Once that door is opened, there is no end to following wicked orders. Hence we have self-professing Christians sitting in air-conditioned rooms in cushy chairs in front of computer screens directing predator drones firing missiles that are murdering babies. Those murderers then go home to their families as if they have served their country to protect freedom and those families. They will also go to church services on Sundays and worship the God of their minds that tells them that murdering those babies was all right. From there, what evil cannot be rationalized away?

Look, I read writings of atheists that up to a point I can agree with completely. What matters is where I part company with them, not where I can find agreement. I can find plenty in the Pauline letters I don't cross out. Paul, as with everyone, even Satan proper, speaks truths. It's when they are half- or partial-truths that matters and subjects them to being moved behind one or another. This is why Jesus told Satan to get behind him. Well, I'm passed Paul. That's how it is.

The whole foundation of truth doesn't crumble on account of this, quite the contrary.

Are you aware that Antonin Scalia, the Roman Catholic associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, justifies the death penalty based upon Romans 13? He does that to the complete exclusion of Jesus's admonition never to kill. There will be those who will rush in saying, but what about the parable of the king who has them brought before him and cut to pieces. Is that king, king Jesus?

Jesus speaks using the most highly refined semantical understanding I've ever seen or heard. His parables are a lesson in not jumping to false conclusions and in requiring being able to see the figurative allusions that escape the hardhearted. Jesus's God is not the God to whom one calls for wrath to be executed upon the wicked. Satan commits suicide. He jumps into the Lake of Fire.

I know this type of thinking is difficult for most if not all right now. The most literal have the most difficulty. The highly figurative are not guaranteed either. Plenty of poets are atheists. Consider though that Paul said the church would be transported into the sky forever while other prophecies say the kingdom will arrive on Earth. There is a place where both are true, but this is not taught in the churches today nor has it been since Jesus walked the Earth nearly two thousand years ago. It is now though with me.

I don't know your background. I don't know what denomination you claim if any. Consider though that once the conclusions from Romans 13 are shown not to jibe with the New Commandment informed by all of Jesus's statements and deeds, then we can take the Church back to Jesus where war is not allowed and neither are greed or depravity and not based upon arbitrariness but pure consistency that can withstand any level of scrutiny.

Here, the final appeal against this Real Liberal Christian Church is that anyone can justify anything using scripture. That doesn't work though against me. I don't cherry pick Jesus. I take him in total. His call is to perfection, and there is no hypocrisy in perfection.

So, my challengers are left with having to point out even the slightest hypocrisy in Jesus in a way that their charges stand up against any refutation. I have yet to see that done.

They have pointed to the cleaning of the temple, but the temple is a place of rules where only the voluntary truly reside and no one was harmed by the cleaning. They have pointed to Jesus asking God why God forsook him, but those challengers don't return after Psalms 22 is explained and how Jesus was tying in the whole of prophecy with his statement for our endless edification. They complain about his cursing the fig tree, but they don't understand the implications for those who have stolen the rightful inheritance of all others and who do not bring forth. The fig tree was Jesus's and refused to acknowledge. Jesus showed the results of such hypocrisy on the part of the tree. The tree cursed itself. It was its own worst enemy. Had Jesus been wicked and hardhearted and not the proper son of God, that would have been another matter. They say Jesus did not honor his mother when he rebuked her, but they don't understand that Jesus knew the times and places for things and was informed of the Holy Spirit more so than was she, bless her soul nevertheless.

There are those who avoid all of this by appealing to not asking the tough questions. They falsely imagine that if they don't search their souls, they will be left with the excuse of ignorance. That though shows their awareness of righteousness being deliberately avoided and is no excuse. There are those who insist that we aren't to lead Holy lives as to say that it can't be done until God miraculously causes the transfiguration, transformation, regeneration, or whatever name one applies to it. However, working up to leading a Holy life is such regenerating. Nowhere does Jesus say to wait before being better. He does say to wait, but that's in a different context to mean be patient, don't give up and not to suggest not to be pruned of whatever wickedness remains within that is outwardly manifest in evil deeds.

Well, I won't go on here right now. This much is sufficient.

Capitalism and worldly militarism are not justified. Many other things are also not justified, but many have attempted to twist Christianity into finding capitalism and militarism as being justified. It has led to many lost souls who would otherwise have never professed Jesus or would have been truly found as opposed to tricked into the synagogue of Satan, as it were.

What has happened is that the pacifism of Jesus has been covered over by the glorification of the militarists. Eusebius of Caesarea and his "The Life of Constantine," is an abomination for instance. So, even to this day, we have so-called conservative Republican Christians who are rabid militarists. The U.S. military is loaded with self-styled born-again Christians. This is the worst thing on Earth. It represents the greatest apostasy there is. I mean in degree. It is taking Christianity and twisting it such that more people are deluded into imagining that they are Christians when they are actually doing the most sinister work of the devil that is worldly imperialism — the greatest theft, which includes the theft of souls forever unless they repent soon enough. They are the branches and leaves of yet another fig tree that too will wither and died. Am I cursing them? No, I'm warning them. I'm not threatening them.

Oh, but if we don't fight them, they'll come here and kill us. That's one of the arguments of the Zealots to whom Jesus said put up your swords and Isaiah said to beat those swords into plowshares, with which Jesus agrees, of course. Look what happened to those Zealots. It's why Maccabees is not canonical, frankly. The law was already known. It's worth reading but for discernment.

Lastly, we have the homosexuals claiming harmlessness. It's preposterous. I left a comment over on the Associated Baptist Press site as follows:
Hello Miguel De La Torre,

This is exponential confusion. First of all, this is supposed to be a Christian site, yet it is advocating for militarism. Nowhere does Jesus advocate for militarism. He addresses the militarists and calls them to renounce violence. Second, "obedience to their country's call" here includes going into a clearly illegal war, even mundanely illegal. Where does it say that one blindly is to march off to war? Are you at all familiar with the case of Lieutenant Erin Watada? He refused to deploy in an war illegal under U.S. and International Law. Of course, deploying in any war is against Jesus's commandment. A real military hero is one who quits under good conscience directed of the Holy Spirit. Now here comes this site putting forth that under the mundane law, the religious are not to use their religious views in coming to secular decisions. That's also specious. If the voters vote-in a theocracy without violating any of the current laws, that would be that. I'm not for it, but it would still be legal under the U.S. Constitution if they could muster sufficient votes. Now you want homosexuality in with the already immoral and ungodly military. As I said, it is exponential confusion. Sure, don't coerce the homosexuals. However, the position on this site is that there's nothing inherently un-Christian about homosexuality. Well, there are many sins Jesus didn't name verbatim that you are still holding out as sin. If you can show me that homosexuality is being as harmless as a dove, I'll relent. So long as homosexuality, per se, remains inherently harmful in all cases, a belief I hold, I will maintain that no Christian has any business suggesting that homosexuality is acceptable.

Peace

Again, Peace]]>