Christian Clarity Review

(you’ll have to respond via email as the comment section is basically not working because of the tight spam controls I have to keep on it. tychicus12@gmail.com )

pre- white paper…hopefully.

Just wondering if anyone could offer definitions of money other than the standard “medium of exchange”. Not belittling that standard as it is a good partial definition, but I think it insufficient to cover the whole understanding of what money is and its total function in general populations as well as nation states.

I’m more interested in what way money addresses issues of free will; if free will exists; how money’s effect still works regardless of whether or not free will exists; the theory of money as a functional measure of freedom; money’s dependence on scarcity to survive as useful widget; emotional response sets and where those sets came from that regard money as a measure of the success or failure of ..particular emotional response sets ( dignity, etc..) that are equated to freedom as long as many others in the population have the same EMS, etc.

As well, how religion effects the definition of money and the emotional response sets. For instance, if you believe in a God that creates all the time, or at least has the ability to create to take care of you personally as well as others, how would your understanding of what money is be effected when compared to someone who lives by the Greek logic of “nothing is ever created or destroyed, only changed” and thus can see only scarcity and thus a mandated fight over limited resources.. ( why religion plays a role in politics; some are not afraid of scarcity based on religious distinctions, others can’t be anything but afraid of scarcity as their best honesty.. their theories of governance will be effected by scarcity or the lack thereof..of anything..) Money is a good test bed for the rest..

You would think by now ( after many thousands of years ) in the presence of money and a theory of freedom of will that says that those with free will will do what is best for themselves and the understanding that what keeps your neighbor happy is good for you as well simply from the standpoint of physical security among free willed beings in the midst of scarcity; men would have come to a solution/equitable situation that eliminated poverty using the concept of money rather than simply defining poverty to be the lack of money by some. That assumes a standard definition of poverty itself which also seems to be fluid despite the apparent advantages of nailing down one universal definition.

Other things to consider:

different definitions of money per variation of language or one universal “money” being spoken and “done” the same way under the mere camouflage of different languages?

advantages or disadvantages of a universal definition of money ( for instance: disadvantage if no free will: mere speed and frequency of exchange as functional re-proofs of supposed free will only reinforce a deception of free will if no free will: who benefits form the deception? ) Is a certain in-efficiency ( lack of speed and frequency of exchange) desirable? ( example: a machine not tooled to exacting tolerances so that it rattles a bit as it works –as a benefit ( ak-47 for example ) to the overall effectiveness of the system )

advantages or disadvantages of many distinct definitions of money or local control over what passes for legal tender

definition of money as a tool of totalitarian states/groups as opposed to the definition of money of non-totalitarian populations; totalitarian economics versus capitalism ( true capitalism is not monopoly economics ), etc.

definitions of money as distinct over varying emotional response sets..

As well, money and the mere pursuit of it keeps some away from others as simply keeping them too busy to cause trouble. (Money as peacebroker..)It seems vast world wars are not fought over money but over the definition of money and value ( who says what Valuable is..) while the cash or gold itself is simply the source of smaller wars and violences.

————–

There seems to be too much “I think the other side of the political isle knows the truth and simply isn’t doing the truth on purpose. They are the enemy!” in an assumption of free will AND an assumption that the other side of the political isle is not ever advancing its best honesty but is simply on a constant quest to push buttons in what they perceive to be their free willed opponents backward emotional response set. There seems as well to be almost a worship of best honesty for its own sake as well as if any best honesty were automatically valid.

a workable definition of money for all would seem to be an advantage even if part of that definition was inefficient as regards its own perpetuation as a whole and included a recognition of perpetually independent definitions of money. We have government as a series of checks and balances ( ideally anyway ) that oppose each other as a fight for power amongst each other purposefully that is healthy for the populace. Why can’t the definition of money be treated the same with competing definitions set up specifically to compete with the others for the benefit of the people ( as opposed to the benefit of the mere definition for its own sake to merely say we have a “complete” and “perfect” definition as adding a genuine block in the edifice that knowledge as a whole seems to be geared toward building for its own sake ) ? That way, we have money AND government working for us ( or at least staying away from us ) as a whole populace rather than money AND government being an automatic dividing principle.

it seems the only one who benefits from the in-fighting are those defining what money and value is –not necessarily those who have cash or assets within any given definition. After it is defined by ( insert group) , then it becomes a fight over how to get it and keep it –not the definition –the money — by those deceived money is a “natural” widget like air or water.

An analogy: a prisoner cannot be a prisoner unless they are educated into missing something real OR IMAGINED. A prisoner cannot be a prisoner in their own mind and heart without the concept of both freedom and restraint and the concepts of lack and plenty. The prisoner in a prison is constantly controlled specifically to always have ever-present in their mind desire and to increase a freedom that may or may not exist in reality. ( limited time outside, making small amounts of money and able to buy from a limited list at the commissary, limited everything yet increments of all of what is available, etc..) Limitation and the concept of lack of limitation must be constantly reinforced to keep the mindset of a prisoner as controlled alive at all times.

So how would or could the manipulation of the definition of money be an invisible prison? Where is the concept of Utopia as the Place of Plenty versus here and now or even the future as an idealized place of scarcity coming from and why? Why can’t we get together and define money so money works against itself to keep us safe from its more nefarious effects and provides benefits to us?

To make a simple statement that “religion is bad for government” ignores the reality of what people are as souls that can’t stop being either unique as regards total reality and immortal in a bid to simply stop mere vain argumentation. The definition of money is a good test as to why certain people are free and others are not and can be defined in a multitude of ways as is already the case.

Rather than having a mere theater of best honesty that is always a fight because it is based on competing models of reality and manipulated definitions of ..everything, let’s see what God will do here and now through us as blessings on all to knock out one source of constant irritation: money. Money effects taxation, the need for taxation, amount of taxation; budget, ..a lot.

But not everything. The people are what is important, not some ideal that can be forced on us which we must supposedly serve for its own sake. For myself, I will look to God to work through you with His working through me.

So lets work on it. What do you think?

I know elections are coming up. No hurry. We’ll be here after they are over. These things cycle through. We’re still here after having gone through many of them.

I’m a new creature in Jesus Christ. That’s who and what I am and He is where I’m coming from: non-scarcity. You are going to have to deal with Christians. Christians have to deal with non-Christians. Everyone is going through a lot of false accusation. And none can compromise.

so..

what do you think? It is a Christian principle that you must be free FROM each other (as part of new birth, your sole loyalty is to Jesus Christ, not any idealization of what Jesus might be to another person..) in order to really be brethren to each other in Christ. In a certain manner of speaking, what God does uniquely through you is what you bring to the table, not simply re-copying what you think other people are doing..). You can’t be caught up in trying to carefully “do” what you perceive to be the Emotional Response Set of the other person toward them. You have to be free from all Emotional Response Sets in order to be a brother to all in Christ. So for me as a Christian, ..let’s define money to get it off of us, us off each other, and yet get a blessing from its presence among us.

The love of money is the root of all evil. So let’s put a stink and some ugly on money and make it work anyway as God does it through us. If it bothers you that I’m a Christian and in theories of free will “I” display my faith, how will that hinder a benefit of us working together? If you truly think you’ve got free will and I’m simply denying my own, part of the theory of free will is that in free will ANYTHING can be accomplished. And in Christ, He will do as He pleases at all times, which does NOT mean catastrophe for all. At the least we both have different hopes that are both positive in their own way that can be put together for benefit for the people. In coming up with a new definition of money we take away the ammunition of the “other side” ( no matter what side “they” are on ) that is based on its present definition –the disenfranchisers are disenfranchised WHILE those who think of the world in terms of scarcity are placated.

If you are a Christian and think this some sort of compromise, you are deceived. Our kingdom is NOT of this world and the plain fact is that there can be no kingdom building in reality even if some are deceived they are doing it already. True Just government takes into account the literal ever-presence of sin and sinners until the new heavens and the new earth and that while sinners must be born again, some will never be. Yet here we all are on the one planet by the will of God, each in his or her own state of being.

Luke 16:1-12 And he said also to his disciples, There was a certain rich man who had a steward, and *he* was accused to him as wasting his goods. And having called him, he said to him, What is this that I hear of thee? give the reckoning of thy stewardship, for thou canst be no longer steward. And the steward said within himself, What shall I do; for my lord is taking the stewardship from me? I am not able to dig; I am ashamed to beg I know what I will do, that when I shall have been removed from the stewardship I may be received into their houses. And having called to him each one of the debtors of his own lord, he said to the first, How much owest thou to my lord? And he said, A hundred baths of oil. And he said to him, Take thy writing and sit down quickly and write fifty. Then he said to another, And thou, how much dost thou owe? And he said, A hundred cors of wheat. And he says to him, Take thy writing and write eighty. And the lord praised the unrighteous steward because he had done prudently. For the sons of this world are, for their own generation, more prudent than the sons of light. And *I* say to you, Make to yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, that when it fails ye may be received into the eternal tabernacles. He that is faithful in the least is faithful also in much; and he that is unrighteous in the least is unrighteous also in much. If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who shall entrust to you the true? and if ye have not been faithful in that which is another’s, who shall give to you your own?

timothy

Matthew 6:24 No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and will love the other, or he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

In the Name of Jesus Christ, Amen