Facts

Facts of Life

Facts about the gospel of Jesus Christ and His doctrines:

• Fact: We are suppose to be seeking the Kingdom of God which is the Kingdom of Heaven at hand not seeking a retirement after death.
• Fact: The kingdom is for the living not for the dead.
• Fact: The kingdom was taken away from the living Pharisees who were not bearing fruit because they did not know Moses and therefore did not recognize Jesus.
• Fact: The kingdom was appointed to the living apostles who proclaimed Christ as their king and did contrary to Caesar.
• Fact: Religion is not what you think or say about God but the what you do about the will of God.
• Fact: Pure Religion is taking care of the needy of your society without any help from the governments of the world.
• Fact: If you or your Children or your parents or even the members of your congregations or Church are being taken care of by the world and its social welfare systems through men who call themselves Benefactors but exercise authority over your neighbor then you are not practicing pure religion.
• Fact: If you are participating in the benefits of such covetous practices then you are not keeping the Ten Commandments and do not have real faith or love of Christ and your spiritual salvation is in danger.
• Fact: Pure Religion has always been very organized in order to provide the daily ministration of pure religion.
• Fact: Many people who claim to be Christians are actually not but are workers of iniquity.
• Fact: more facts to come...
• Fact:
• Fact:
• Fact:

Psychology of Denial

And how can human beings gifted with the ability to analyze complex information ignore facts directly in front of their eyes? And refusing to see it even when ignoring the information might be disastrous?

Strong emotions, such as desire, greed, pride, revenge, feeling of status, shame, fear of humiliation, among others, may exert an influence over a person's mental ability to interpret the validity or even the existence of facts. The talent to make fact-based decisions may depend in part on the values taught in society and accepted as Social virtues.

Values are often dependent upon social constructs which work in the mind almost like mathematical formulas of faith. These formulas of faith may be identified as ideology which are defined first as,"A set of doctrines or beliefs that are shared by the members of a social group or that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system."

As a term ideology is the science of ideas or of mind. The French philosopher Condillac applied the term to the history and evolution of human ideas,rooted in a knowing based on feelings or sensation and emotions rather than reason.

Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper. Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion or culture, or it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.

completeness transitivity substitution, continuity, monotonicity.

Moral Theories The Consequentialist theory of morality is based on forms of utilitarianism, where only the consequences, or outcomes, of actions matter.The consequential theory of morality may seem simple since it is based on what is most beneficial to the individual.But long and short term benefits over time may create conflicts.

A Deontological theory is based on certain duties or obligations that are considered intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of consequences. an example is that parents have an obligation to take care of their children and children have an obligation to care for their parents. Immanuel Kant, reasoned one must “act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means.”

There may be multiple duties or obligations in your societies Deontological theory of morality which may create moral conflicts. Putting your child welfare first may cause a violation of other duties and obligations such as telling the truth or at least not bearing false witness.

There is also a moral theory of Justice as Fairness as suggested by John Rawls who describes society as consisting of free citizens who hold equal fundamental rights and must cooperate within an egalitarian system which may include political, constitutional, social, and economic institutions.

1. The equal liberty principle of individual rights to choose the practice of freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest or restrictions that infringe upon those rights.
2. The equal social and economic opportunity.

Equality of outcome can only be accomplished by a violation of the first principle and an arbitrary authority to limit that violation.

First: each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (i.e., to vote and run for office); freedom of speech and assembly, liberty of conscience and freedom of thought, freedom of property; and freedom from arbitrary arrest.

Rawls’ primary argument for the two principles is that they would be chosen over any variation of utilitarianism, which he considers the strongest opposition to justice as fairness. Constrained by the veil of ignorance, the parties in the original position (as mutually disinterested rational agents) try to agree to the principles which bring about the best state of affairs for whatever citizen they represent within society. Since the parties are all unaware of precisely what social role they will occupy, they strive to maximize their individual shares of primary goods. These goods are defined as “things that every rational man is presumed to want” regardless of this person’s rational plan of life and include (among other things) rights, liberties, social opportunities, and income.4 Rawls argues, largely through the appeal to the maximin rule, that the parties in the original position would favor the equal liberty principle over variations of utilitarianism. He further argues that the parties would support using the difference principle to regulate the distribution of wealth and income instead of a principle of average utility (constrained by a social minimum) because the difference principle provides a stronger basis for enduring cooperation among citizens.

The full application of justice as fairness can be regarded as a 4-stage sequence. The deliberations concerning the two principles occur at the first stage. With the two principles established, the parties then progressively thin the veil of ignorance and, as they acquire more specific knowledge about society at the subsequent stages, determine more specific principles of justice. At the second stage, the parties learn more about society’s political and economic circumstances and create a constitution that is consistent with the two principles. At the third stage, the parties agree to laws and policies which realize the two principles within the context of the agreed-upon constitutional framework. At the fourth stage, the parties possess all available information about their society and apply the established laws and policies to particular cases.

One of Rawls major tasks in presenting justice as fairness is to show that the society it generates can endure indefinitely over time. To achieve this aim, Rawls deploys the just savings principle, a rule of intergenerational savings designed to assure that future generations have sufficient capital to maintain just institutions. Additionally, Rawls argues that the society generated by the two principles is congruent with citizens’ good and that citizens can develop the necessary willingness to abide by these principles. As a result, the society generated by adherence to justice as fairness is stable and can be expected to endure indefinitely over time.

Notably, however, the arguments for the stability of justice as fairness that Rawls presents in A Theory of Justice do not prove convincing. Rawls does not account for reasonable pluralism, a critical aspect of any constitutional democracy with the guaranteed liberties that Rawls specifies. Thus, Rawls recasts his arguments for the stability of justice as fairness in Political Liberalism and strives to demonstrate that citizens, despite reasonable disagreement about many issues, will agree on a limited, political conception of justice through an overlapping consensus of their individual viewpoints.

   John Rawls, Political Liberalism: Expanded Edition (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), xli (fn 7).
   John Rawls, A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition (Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 15.
   Ibid., 53.
   Ibid., 54.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism states that actions are morally right if and only if they maximize the good (or, alternatively, minimizes the bad). Classical utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (as well as many contemporary utilitarians) take ‘the good’ to be pleasure or well-being. Thus, actions are morally right, on this view, if and only if they maximize pleasure or well-being or minimize suffering.

This approach is sometimes called hedonistic utilitarianism. For hedonistic utilitarians, the rightness or our actions are determined solely on the basis of consequences of pleasure or pain.

Utilitarian theories may take other goods into consideration. Preference utilitarianism, for example, takes into account not just pleasures, but the satisfaction of any preference.

Utilitarianism can also be divided along other lines. Act-utilitarianism claims that we must apply a utilitarian calculation to each and every individual action. By making this calculation, we can thereby determine the moral rightness or wrongness of each action we plan to take.

Rule-utilitarianism eases the burden that act-utilitarianism places on practical reasoning by establishing moral rules that, when followed, brings about the best consequences. Rule-utilitarianism can be illustrated by the rule “do not kill.” As a general rule, we would be better off, that is, the best consequences, or state of affairs, would be brought about, if we all followed the rule “do not kill.”

Objections to Utilitarianism:

There are a number of objections to utilitarian theories, both in their act- formulations and in their rule- formulations.

(1) Act-utilitarianism, for example, seems to be impractical. To stop to calculate the possible outcomes of every act we intend to make, as well as the outcomes of all of the possible alternatives to that act is unrealistic. Moreover, it may hinder one’s ability to bring about the best consequences – for example, in cases where a quick response is vital (as in responding to a car wreck).

(2) Others have objected to utilitarianism on the grounds that we cannot always predict the outcomes of our actions accurately. One course of action may seem like it will lead to the best outcome, but we may be (and often are) mistaken. The best it seems we can do, then, is to guess at the short-term consequences of our actions.

(3) Objections to utilitarianism have also been made on the grounds that it is excessively demanding and places too large a burden on individuals. Since utilitarianism says that acts are morally right if and only if they maximize pleasure or well-being, it seems that leisure activities, such as watching television, may be morally wrong because they do not maximize well-being. Any person watching television could, after all, be doing something else – something that would maximize utility, like helping others or volunteering.

(4) Finally, utilitarianism receives criticism because seemingly immoral acts and rules can be justified using utilitarianism (this criticism is applicable both to act- and rule- utilitarianism). Genocides, torture, and other evils may be justified on the grounds that they, ultimately, lead to the best outcome. Unjust rules – for example, laws that legalize slavery or apartheid – might also be justified on utilitarian grounds.

(3) Virtue theories encounter problems with moral dilemmas in which two (or more) virtues conflict. In other words, the requirements of one virtue may be opposed, or contradictory, to the requirements of another. The requirements of honesty, for example, require us to tell the truth, even if it is hurtful. The virtues of kindness or compassion, on the other hand, point to remaining silent, or perhaps even lying, in order to avoid harm. Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics takes its philosophical root in the work of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Virtue theories claim that ethics is about agents, not actions or consequences. Living an ethical, or good life, then, consists in the possession of the right character traits (virtues) and having, as a result, the appropriate moral character.

Unlike deontological accounts, which focus on learning and, subsequently, living by moral rules, virtue accounts place emphasis on developing good habits of character. In essence, this means developing virtuous character traits – dispositions to act in a certain way – and avoiding bad character traits, or vices of character.

Character traits commonly regarded as virtues include courage, temperance, justice, wisdom, generosity, and good temper (as well as many others). This approach to normative ethics also emphasizes moral education. Since traits of character are developed in youth, adults are responsible for instilling in their children the appropriate dispositions.

Objections to virtue ethics:

(1) The first difficulty, which any virtue theorist must surmount is figuring out which characteristics count as virtues (and which count as vices). Given that different cultures sometimes hold different traits of character to be virtuous, it seems that virtue ethical theories are susceptible to the difficulties involved with cultural relativism.

(2) It also seems that virtuous characteristics can be exhibited even when the actions carried out are immoral. Courage, for example, is often regarded as a virtue, but can there not be courageous bank robbers? It certainly seems that a bank robber could exhibit courage while robbing a bank, yet we generally agree that robbing is morally wrong.

This consequence is problematic because the aim of any normative theory is to arrive at standards, or norms, of behavior for living a moral life. In the case of the courageous bank robber, it seems that the bank robber lives according to the standard set by virtue ethics (that is, he acts courageously) but his behavior is nevertheless immoral.

It may be suggested in response to this objection that the courageous bank robber, though meeting the requirements of the virtue of courage, fails to live according to the standard set by some other virtue – for example, honesty. This response, however, only serves to highlight another objection to virtue ethics – competing virtues. Summary of Moral Traditions

Consequentialism:

Focuses on the consequences of an act to determine if the act is moral or immoral

Deontology:

Focuses on the act. Certain acts are intrinsically right or wrong.

Virtue Ethics:

ideology (which substitutes belief for facts), inertia (change requires significant energy), momentum (the desire to will obstacles out of our way), impulsiveness (wanting it now!) and stubbornness (no one will change my mind), and we can easily relegate facts to a far corner behind several pieces of heavy mental furniture.

Early Church Checklist

The early Church was warned that a strong delusion would deceive many who failed to repent and do the will of our Father in Heaven. They would become workers of iniquity through the covetous practices of the Nicolaitan making the word of God to none effect again. Early Christians sought the Kingdom of God and His righteousness through the Corban of Christ.

Checking faith

"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22

The New Testament Church was appointed by Jesus who was the Messiah a.k.a.Christ who was the highest son of David and the rightful king. They were to serve the early Christian community.

At Pentecost everyone who got the Baptism of the Apostles professing Jesus as the Christ were cast out of the welfare system run by the Pharisees through the Temples and synagogues of Herod's government because Jesus said that system of sacrifice or Corban was making the word of God to none effect.

The people of Judea, like the people of Rome, had moved from being a Republic to an autocratic government which eventually oppressed the people, as 1 Samuel 8 predicted through their sloth and covetous practices, according to the prophets and Proverbs and even Polybius. The voice of the people had rejected God and through wantonness electing men who could exercise authority one over the other.

They had more and more slothfully neglected the personal responsibility in their mandated practice of "Pure Religion" through charity alone. The people have become dependent upon government welfare and benefits provided at the expense of their neighbor were snared and entangled again in a yoke of bondage.

Believers of Jesus

Believers in Jesus, who was the Christ, and a different kind of King who taught a different kind of government, were doing something different than Rome and the Pharisees. The Modern Church today is not doing what that early Church did nor are they doing things the way the early Church did things. In many ways the early Church was more like early Israel was meant to be. The Corban of the Pharisees was making the word of God to none effect and therefore not bearing the fruit God intended. The same could be said of the Modern Christian.

Those people who gather in patterns of Tens as Christ commanded expressed their faith by public Baptism and a daily ministration which provided all the social welfare benefits through charity. They were excluded from that public religion or welfare system and had no more access to their Temple treasury and its benefits. That welfare system of the world which had been created first by the Hasmoneans and then by Rome and Herod made the word of God to none effect.

Those believers who were baptized at Pentecost were redeemed from one system much like Egypt.

Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist, Jesus and the early Church advocated a Daily ministration for the needy of the Christian community that was dependent on Charity only and it was not like the system of Corban of Herod and the Pharisees nor the free bread of Rome. It was their practice of Pure Religion that brought them into a Christian conflict with Public religion and the Covetous Practices of the World. History is repeating itself.

Early tithing

All the Early Christians at Pentecost had to suddenly take care of all the needs of their society through charity alone with no forced government welfare or free bread from the Phariseeswho controlled the temple or Rome.

Because the ministers, who were appointed the Kingdom of God by Christ, were not allowed to be like the other governments of the world they could not exercise authority one over the other like the rulers of those other governments who were the fathers of the earth we were not to apply to any longer.

This practice of the real Religion of God brought those followers of Moses and Jesus, who had been called Jews and would be called Christians in Antioch, into conflict with people like the Pharisees who were engaged in the covetous practices of public religion through the temples of Herod and would eventually bring about a Christian conflict with Rome and its public religion and temples.

The Early Church was doing many things that the Modern Church does not do and the Modern Church does many things the Early Church refused to do which got Christians persecuted by different governments of the world from time to time. Still, Early Christians not only survived but they thrived during the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The tithing and all the different offerings were freewill offerings because there was no enforcement means.

The Levites were tithed to according to that service. What service?

The temple priest were providing all the social welfare for the people of Early Israel through freewill offerings even before they strayed from The Way righteousness and Herod made his temples out of stone.

From the beginning the Stones of the Altars were to be living stones. The stones and Tabernacles were symbols of a system the fed the social bonds of a kingdom of God and His righteousness through the perfect law of liberty and love.

The early Church provided all social welfare for the people through a daily ministration of pure Religion unspotted by the "world" of those rulers who called themselves benefactors but exercise authority one over the other.

We are told that “the primitive Christian demonstrated his faith by his virtues; and it was very justly supposed that the Divine persuasion, which enlightened or subdued the understanding, must at the same time purify the heart and direct the actions of the believer”

The Modern Christian is often seen doing daily what those Early Christians were persecuted and even killed for not doing. We may use the same words but their meanings and usage have often changed over the years. Links are provided for your convenience and examination.

Audio

Download Recording Congregations of Record - What Are They?

Download Recording Three Questions?

---

The Checklist

Modern Christians vs.	Early Christians
Modern Christians practice a redefined Religion.	Early Christians practiced Pure Religion.
Modern Christians depend on civil administers who call themselves Benefactors but compel contributions to provide legal charity.	Early Christians depended on ministers of Charity operating in a network of tens through love.
Modern Christians depend on men who exercise authority for their welfare entitlements.	Early Christians provided another type of social welfare through Charity and hope.
Modern Christians seek Benefits that are provided by the world Christ's kingdom was not of.	Early Christians only receive benefits that are unspotted by that world.
Modern Christians eat at the tables of the world and the fathers of the earth with a covetous appetite.	Early Christians set the table of the Lord with charity and hope loving one another in a networking Kingdom of Love.
Modern Christians think that they are children of God because they say they love Christ.	Early Christians were the brethren of Christ because they were doers of the will of the Father.
Modern Christians think that they are forgiven because they say they believe in God and say they love Christ.	Early Christians knew Jesus died that they might be forgiven and they are only forgiven when they forgive others.
Modern Christians think they just have to say they believe to obtain Eternal life.	Early Christians believed they had to seek to keep the commandments to obtain Eternal life because Jesus said so.
Modern Christians think they do not need to do anything like Abraham, Moses and others, but claim they have faith because of what they say they believe.	Early Christians knew they had to strive to do the will of the Father if they truly believed.
Modern Christians make men of the earth their Father, despite what Jesus said, by praying to men who exercise authority to obtain benefits at the expense of others through what could be called Public religion.	Early Christians Did not call any man on earth their Father, but had their own Private welfare to provide a Daily ministration through charity by Pure Religion, not the Covetous Practices of the public welfare of Rome.
Modern Christians think that Communion of the Father who is in Heaven is eating a small wafer of bread. But they depend on the Fathers of the earth for their daily bread.	Early Christians knew that the ritual of the Lord's supper was just a symbol. The real Eucharist was thanksgiving which provided a Daily ministration .
Modern Christians think it is okay to covet benefits provided by men who take from their neighbor by exercise of authority.	Early Christians knew that they could not inherit the kingdom if they were covetous.
Modern Christians think the Kingdom of God was postponed, instead of appointed to the Apostles.	Early Christians knew the kingdom was at hand.
Modern Christians think they are saved no matter what they do.	Early Christians know they must seek the righteousness of God if they are to inherit His kingdom
Modern Christians think they are saved by what they think is true faith.	Early Christians know that faith with out works is not real faith, but is dead faith.
Modern Christians sign up for every socialist program from public education and Social Security to Food Stamps and healthcare which are all forms welfare provided by forced offerings of your neighbor despite Christ's warning about the Corban of the Pharisees.	Early Christians died rather than sign up for the public welfare programs of the governments of Rome and other countries which brought about the Christian conflict.
Modern Christians take oaths and swear binding themselves to the will of others often to obtain benefits provided at the expense of others.	Early Christians and for centuries Christians were persecuted and executed because they refused to take oaths or even affirm because Jesus and James said above all else stop the taking of oaths and swearing.
Modern Christians apply or pray to Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other	Early Christians knew Christ forbade that we be like the Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other.
Modern Christians elect rulers all the time and when they Cry out God will not not hear them because they would not hear their neighbor's cries.	Early Christians knew that in 1 Samuel 8, God warned that to elect rulers to take and take and take from their neighbors was a rejection of God.
Modern Christians think they do not have to be Doers of the Word, but all they have to do is say they believe.	Early Christians knew Jesus told them if they wanted Eternal life they needed to keep the commandments, which included not coveting what belongs to their neighbor.
Modern Christians love the benefits of Benefactors but who exercise authority.	Early Christians knew that in Proverbs 23 and Daniel 1, God warns through His prophets that you should not desire the benefits of these men who called themselves Benefactors but who exercise authority.
Modern Christians do not know what Peter meant about coveting or becoming Merchandise and curse our Children	Early Christians knew that Peter tells us that Covetous Practices those benefits will make us Merchandise and curse our Children with debt which is bondage.
Modern Christians have returned to the Bondage of Egypt by becoming employed by those rulers who exercise authority.	Early Christians knew God forbade us to ever return to the Bondage of Egypt by becoming employed by those rulers who exercise authority.
Modern Christians Want socialist benefits by everyone having One purse even if they are actually Biting one another.	Early Christians understood that the Corban of the Pharisees was a forbidden Welfare scheme of having One purse.
Modern Christians, like the Pharisees. have left what should have been their first love and concern.	Early Christians repented and attended to "the first work" which included a Daily ministration.
Modern Christians depend upon Public religion through the Temples of the state becoming snared as surety for debt.	Early Christians depended upon Private welfare through the Church and bore fruit with their love and daily ministration provided by charity and the perfect law of liberty.
Modern Christians think fellowship is the friendly association, especially with people who share one's interests while praying to Benefactors who exercise authority.	Early Christians knew that fellowship was the voluntary system of social welfare run according to the perfect law of liberty through charity.

Comparison check list

This Christians check list is a comparison between what early Christians and Modern Christians with some biblical references that should come to mine.

Might Not be a Christian	Might be a Christian
Thinks the word Christian is defined, "a person who has received Christian baptism or says they are a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings but covets the benefits of the world."	Believes Christian is defined, "a person who believes in and follows The Way of Jesus Christ, doing what he said." By caring about his neighbor's life, liberty and property as much as his own.
Says they Believe in Jesus Christ but does not do what He said.	Strives to do what Jesus Christ said to do. And attends to the weightier matters.
Does not do what the early Church did about the welfare needs of the people in the practice of Pure Religion but sees nothing wrong with the types of welfare offered by the world.	Does do what the early Church did by providing welfare for one another by gathering in a network of tens as commanded by Christ through charity rather than force.
Believes in Socialism to help the needy of society and because of their covetousness they are Workers of Iniquity.	Believes in Charity only to help the needy of society in the practice Pure Religion.
They may legally be forced to join systems of forced healthcare because they have no voluntary one in place.	They have their own system of health share based on love, charity, and would be exempt from government sponsored Health Care (like the Amish) and from systems based on force .
Covets his neighbor's goods through Benefactors who exercise authority one over the other.	Strives to provide a Daily ministration based on Charity by daily Sacrifice.
Sought a system of social Welfare like the Corban of the Pharisees or just went along and are often Workers of Iniquity.	Seeking and working diligently for a system of Welfare based on Charity alone.
Ministers tell the people if they need bread they can pray to men who call themselves Benefactors but exercise authority one over the other.	Ministers tell people to supply bread to the needy of their congregations by faith, hope, and Charity through the Perfect law of liberty.
Ministers downplay the importance of DOING the Word of God suggesting that what you think or say will save you.	Ministers tell the people that doing the will of the Father in Heaven is a sign of true faith and not doing so is a sign that their faith is dead and they are in need of repentance.
Ministers tell the people it is okay to covet benefits as long as they are provided by governments who take from your neighbor or borrow against the future of the people.	Ministers tell the people to provide benefits through the practice of Pure Religion and if they want Eternal life they shall not covet their neighbors goods even through the governments of the World.
Ministers tell the people that forgiveness simply takes place in the mind.	Ministers explain to those who were forced to pay into a now bankrupt society, that forgiveness also applies to forgiving those debts and how there is a choice to go a different way as Christ and John the Baptist instructed..
Ministers tell the people to obey men who claim authority but do not tell you why your under their power even though Paul would not go under the power of any.	Ministers help the congregation exercise what Jesus called the "weightier matters" so they may have a right to obey God rather than man.
Ministers "say" to repent but do not tell you what that means.	Ministers tell you what you are to Repent of and why.
Ministers tickle their ears to make them feel good.	Ministers encourage them to do good and rebuke them in love when they do not.
These false Christians do not like to be told they are not doing what Christ said.	True Christians appreciate the truth and actually strive to do something to change their conversation in the world.

If you need help:

Or want to help others:

Join The Living Network of The Companies of Ten
The Living Network | Join Local group | About | Purpose | Guidelines | Network Removal
Contact Minister | Fractal Network | Audacity of Hope | Network Links