Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego vs the World
Isn’t it interesting that when Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were confronted with government agents demanding to be worshipped (or else), they didn’t have a committee about the matter. They didn’t look through the Torah to see if, when God gave the first commandment, there was enough of a loophole to bow down, but not worship.
And it is interesting that they did not bring up the concept of “this is ok at this point because we are not in the tribulation yet.” I enjoy a good sermon, but there is something that is lacking in almost every one I hear: valid application to the people listening. Unfortunately, not every church is as nice as the one my wife and I go to, so I can’t just raise my hand and say, “hey, wait! This doesn’t just apply to a future you erroneously think we will never see!!” So, instead of shouting witty one-liners from my seat in the back row (where all good Baptists should be sitting), I break out my mobile study room and start comparing what the pastor says to what the Bible says.
And while a pastor might use such a passage to tie into “persecution coming to America,” or the loss of religious freedoms that may happen “someday,” I realize his preaching has a large error. This is because there is no freedom in America, let alone freedom of religion. Like China, there is only one acceptable religion: the religion of the State. Sure, there are churches, and temple halls, and mosques every other block, but these institutions are only acceptable so long as their preaching does not disrupt the agenda of the State. Almost every one of these are run by leaders who may be republican, democrat, or apolitical, but almost none will speak out against the institution of the State as immoral. None will speak about taxation being glorified theft. Most probably have never considered the idea that the State itself may be immoral. And many are taught that God himself established the State (Its not in the Bible, but people say it is).
And so, with the mindset that the State was and is, the Bible must be twisted to support this idea. And this twisted State supporting version of the Scripture is taught and believed by so many that any persecution is not obvious to them. They have an idea that they live under religious freedom simply because they observe a religion allowed by the State, but religious beliefs that do not support the idea of the State is de-facto prohibited in America, and socially unacceptable in almost any church.
Try not standing for a piece of cloth when “all kinds of music” is played. When it was commanded that they bow before a statue of the king, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego did not. But in America, most Christians expect their brothers to stand before a cloth, the symbol of the State, and pledge their allegiance to it, and show reverence while the national anthem (or hymn, same difference), is played. You may not be thrown into a fiery furnace yet, but you will face difficulties because of it.
Try living as the Amish, who live by their convictions regardless of what the State commands them. They still sell raw milk, which the State has declared to be illegal. They build homes without electricity, which the State has declared to be illegal. They will not allow themselves to be used as soldiers for the State. They have been persecuted by the State for refusing to believe the State is God, or that the State is the mediator between God and man.
Christians that try to live according to the Bible will face persecution in America. Its not going to be the kind that you hear in your Sunday School class. Its not going to be a door slamming in your face or someone spitting on you, but a strong retaliation from the world system, the State. Christians, and others that choose to live a moral life, have been getting arrested, beaten or killed for some time now. Most choose to ignore it, labeling them extremists, or telling themselves that following God somehow would make them immune to a backlash from the State.
Perhaps we don’t want to think that persecution is active in America because that would mean that we might have to face it. If there is little to no persecution in America, then we are living a perfectly normal life if we never face difficulties. So we acknowledge it occurs elsewhere, and live in fear of “when it does come,” thinking we can still control the world system and make it not attack us. Fact is, persecution is pretty much universal, and you will always be faced with making difficult decisions. Well, unless you subscribe to the State religion.
You can't use the term "Christian" without implying that you need the State, that the "body of Christ" is a body of people who accept the State, as a legitimate source of liberty, or that the "church" is anything other than a physical body of people (usually sanctioned by the State — here, as a nonprofit appendage thereof). If the body of Christ is a metaphysical body within, the same within all as within one, independent of time or place, which may come into being, as the self from whom one lives, when one makes such Christ, through the Word thereof one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control (therefore such self within replaces one's corporeal self without as the subject of the liberty one has in common with others), then we are talking about a whole different paradigm of self-government. The latter is what the real person (the Jewish man who was crucified, some 2,000 years ago) had in mind, i.e., the man Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, in the fourth century CE replaced with Jesus. The Jesus of Christendom and the theology of "Christianity" are designed to preserve the status quo (the rule of man over man); the person Jesus replaced was too dangerous to permit to live, through the untarnished Word thereof, so the Word thereof was corrupted by the powers that be. His Jewish name was Jehoshua (pronounced Yehoshua in Hebrew). His mission was to replace the rule of man over man in whatever package it might be wrapped (generally, political government or anarchy), with the rule of Jehovah only. In Yehoshua's case, his idea of how to achieve such feat was with himself as the one who provided the body (self) from whom we may live, in a union with Yehovah within, therefore the sole purpose for the existence of such self is to serve as a truly permanent, indispensable partner with Yehovah, in a union therewith, as described above. As such, such premise of self eliminates any material or ethical dichotomy, which always exists in relationship with others, when we choose our corporeal self as the subject of the liberty we seek, i.e., regardless of the source of the liberty, which we might choose therefor. (This means that one must use physical force or the threat thereof, in order for such self, i.e., in any union with any source of liberty, as a means of self-control, to survive.) This is because our corporeal self depends upon the material existence thereof, which, in turn, requires the use of physical force or the threat thereof in order to establish, enforce or sustain any union therewith with any source of liberty. The opposite of such self and the paradigm of liberty to which it is limited is an immaterial self in a union with an immaterial source of liberty, and where the whole of such union may reign from entirely within based entirely on volition. By making such self and such union one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control, we may eliminate the external reality of our life as a domain in which any kind of physical struggle may occur, because of our choice of self-determination.
In sum, the choice of our corporeal self as the subject of the liberty we seek may not exist without creating a material or ethical dichotomy, between the self from whom one lives and the self from whom all may live, in relationship with either a common source or one's corporeal self, as the case may be, as one's means of self-control. Such is the root of all physical struggles over one's choice of freedom, the stuff from which the rule of man over man thrives, and the birthright of one whose destiny is a function of the laws of physics that govern physical matter (synonymous with reducing one's life to that of a physical object — or making one's life part of a whole, which may be bartered or sold by the strongest and most powerful).
WHEREFORE, unless one chooses a metaphysical self (within) in a union with a metaphysical source therein, one has no single being of self, as the subject of the liberty one seeks, which one may share in common with all. Without a single being of self, from whom all may live, independent of time or place, as the subject of the liberty we seek, all we have is a state of chaos (whether planned chaos, such as that which is provided by the ideology of political government, or unplanned chaos, such as that which may be provided by the ideology of anarchy).
THEREFORE, the Christ within, the same within all as within one, as described above, provides a common self and a common source (a single self in a union with a single source), therefore creating a whole, which is independent of the need to use one's hands (physical force), in order to establish, enforce or sustain the reign thereof. The reign of such union within, as one's whole, exclusive means of self-control means that we may then control everything in the material (external) reality of our life (from A to Z, including how we defend or protect our corporeal self or any possessions thereof) based entirely on volition (based entirely on voluntary agreements, each free to function as a fully integrated, comprehensive whole, i.e., independent of any extrinsic authority in one's life, with the power to violate any term thereof). For it is only when we choose a self and a source therefor, whose existence is entirely a function of volition that we may realize a state of true freedom (here, divine freedom), a freedom where the means is consistent with the end, a freedom where everyone stands on the same footing (because nothing exists in the external reality of one's life, which may prevent such from occurring, i.e., as an intrinsic reality of one's choice of self-government), and a freedom where there cannot be any physical struggle with anyone because of one's choice thereof. Such is the way out of the hell, the hell that is the world in which we live, a world created because of our choice of our natural, corporeal self, as the subject of the liberty we seek (i.e., regardless of who or what we choose as the source of the liberty thereof).
Are you commenting about the post, or evangelizing your ideas?
Both. Hopefully you found something interesting in what I said, that was the purpose. I perceive that, essentially, your ideology makes a distinction between your idea of "Christian" and other's idea thereof. However, you may consider that you might not be going far enough, e.g., that the real person whom Christendom claims is the Christ is not a physical being or someone who was resurrected as such, but an entirely metaphysical being of self, the same self from whom everyone everywhere may live, based entirely on volition (here, volition in the service of Jehovah within, as one's exclusive, sovereign means of self-control). Such premise of self eliminates the pillars upon which Christendom generally rests, which is that one's best, highest choice, as long as one is living on earth, in a corporeal body, i.e., as a being born of earthly parents, is the choice to live for one's corporeal self or a surrogate on behalf thereof, as the subject of the liberty one seeks. In sum, your identification as a Christian, talking about what is true or false (moral or immoral), is beset by a contradiction (a material or ethical dichotomy), between the self from whom you live and the self from whom all may live, in relationship with a source therefor, whether the source therefor may be shared in common with others or not. As such, the premise from which you speak is simply more of the same old same old (essentially, "jingoist") — using an innately contradictory frame of reference, trying to make sense of life. The real thing is simply a choice away, not more of the same old same old (denying the Christ within, as the only subject we need, in order to achieve a truly just, last peace between one and all, the same for all as for one, as described above).
I think you need your own website rather than just comments on this blog.
You put a lot into them, much more than I have time to read and respond to at the moment. Don't hate me if it takes a while to get back to you.
I understand. Is it possible to republish your article, giving credit to its source (e.g., By antijingoist, www .http://apathyonline.net/archives/397)?
It's possible to do anything, and would appreciate the linkback.
Thank you. Is there a reason for abbreviating Abednego?
Oh, thats me copy-pasting hyphenated text split by a line break in my Bible program.
Fixed.