| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
 Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 21:26:18
|
Hi Its2Die4,
I have spent 8 to 12 hours a day for over six months trying to learn the ins and outs of this process call Redemption at Law. There is so much to understand, and so many different viewpoints on what works and what doesn't that it is very time consuming to try and sort it out. But, once you do, you will be amazed that we haven't learned about this years ago. I believe the reason behind that is, it is now time for the redeemed to come together to be ready for whatever our Lord has for us to do.
Peace be with you all,
Lewis |
 |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 23:29:28
|
Lewis,
Your link does not work for me.
Doer |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 11 Jul 2003 : 23:58:48
|
Pursueagelife,
Do you file tax returns? Do you own property? Do you have a Driver's License? ALL of these things REQUIRE you to KNOW THE "LAW" -- according to Caesar's rules.
So there is Spiritual Law, and there is earthly law. We all must know both, to live in harmony in both worlds. Redemption also has two sides. To be redeemed Spiritually, one first needs to go through the earthly process. If this is not the case, then why were we put here?
Redemption in Law may may seem complicated, but not moreso than learning how to drive. At first it seems intimidating, but as one learns more and practices the learning, it becomes as "natural" as driving.
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2003 : 13:40:37
|
There is a definite flaw that I have found in the UCC redemption formula. The UCC, in the instance of the redemption process, is generally used to protect the weaker party (acceptor) of a contract; as I understand it, the “person” offering such a contract is assumed, at law, to have afforded himself protection through the construction of the contract itself. Therefore, prior to using the UCC for protection, one must first determine who is offering the contract and who is accepting the contract. A false interpretation of who the stronger and weaker parties in a contract are, can cause a poor, if not fatal, legal reaction by the one wishing to rebut any or all parts of a contract. Thus, common sense dictates that the “person” offering a contract has no legal standing to complain about the construction thereof; thus, the weaker acceptor of such a contract has the full protection of the UCC and the legal system at large.
At first glance, the contracts that the Federal Government “present” appear as though they are actually being “offered” by the Government to the individual; this simply is not so. All of these written presentments are written in the first person; in other words they contain phrases such as: “I will,” “I accept,” “I agree” and so on. Common sense dictates that the individual who first affirms (signs) such a contract is legally the “person” that is offering that contract. Since the people have individually offered their children to the STATE through a contract (Birth Certificate) that is legally considered to be of their personal construction and they have given themselves no recourse or remedy within that contract for redemption, they have no standing at law to breach the contract that they have offered the STATE. The Social Security Number is thus issued to the child per the request of the parents, not the request or demand of the STATE. These STATE owned children are then taught in the STATE schools to affirm these original contracts by affirming similarly constructed contracts such as the drivers licenses, student IDs, W-2 Forms, W-4 Forms, 1040 Forms and the like. No one has the legal right to complain about a contract of his own construction or choosing. It is, of course, legally assumed that each individual had the opportunity to alter or reconstruct any contract that he wished to offer to another party. UCC redemption is, therefore, a legal breach of a contract of ones’ own construction; thus, it is an act punishable by the legal jurisdiction in which the original contract exists. One can legally claim that he has been forced into accepting a contract; however, one cannot, to the best of my knowledge, legally claim that he was forced into offering a contract. Thus, the courts of colorable jurisdiction will avidly defend the rights of the poor deceived Government Agency that was coerced into a contract of compelled performance by the private individual. The UCC is there to protect the [poor defenseless] Government, not the people; anyone who says otherwise is selling something.
The Government [Caesar] is able to protect itself through the construction of the contracts by writing the contracts; it further protects itself by having these contracts offered to them; thus, it is afforded the full protection of the courts. Truly, His People have been sent out as sheep among wolves. From those who believe that the UCC, with its roots in the Babylonian Talmud, will protect them from Caesars grasp, I ask this: “What section of the UCC protects one from the tyranny of a contract that he himself has offered”? I have been searching the UCC for five years and, thus far, have found no such section. Good luck on that quest. I look forward to any specific reference of protection that anyone can give; personally, I do not believe that one exists. The Government can use the UCC to protect itself from individuals, but individuals generally do not posses a similar contractual protection, because the rights desired are assumed to be inclusive in the contracts that they have offered the Government. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.
Peace and Grace,
Loy
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2003 : 19:37:32
|
Loy,
WE did not give the "government" the right to use our good names without compensation for our property. Our parents may have done birth certificates, etc. But as Sovereigns within the purview of our Creator, we have not only the RIGHT, but also the DUTY and OBLIGATION to be good stewards of that property.
So we reclaim that property with a Common Law Copyright of our good name. FROM THIS POINT ONWARD, we control the contracts that we enter into, in a CONSCIOUS way -- whereas before we were entering contracts in an unconscious way. So the “government” no longer has the privilege of using our good names for commercial benefit to them -- without our consent.
Tell me where my logic or assumptions are in error. Thanks.
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 12 Jul 2003 : 19:40:41
|
Loy,
An individual is also a corporation. It is our strawman, the unincorporated corporation, who is the weaker party (acceptor) of the contract. What the government is after is the corporation, the strawman.
There is no way out of this trap - or, the only way I out I know of is to let them know who you are, everytime you sign something. I have to work and nobody will let me do that unless I sign, so I let them know who I am. That's enough to scare them!
|
|
|
|
Its2Die4
Regular Member
uSA
28 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 02:06:42
|
Loy,
You said:
All of these written presentments are written in the first person; in other words they contain phrases such as: “I will,” “I accept,” “I agree” and so on. Common sense dictates that the individual who first affirms (signs) such a contract is legally the “person” that is offering that contract. Since the people have individually offered their children to the STATE through a contract (Birth Certificate) that is legally considered to be of their personal construction and they have given themselves no recourse or remedy within that contract for redemption, they have no standing at law to breach the contract that they have offered the STATE.
I am new to this Redemption methodology and new to evaluating law etc. however, it seems logical that if in fact a person (parent) signs what appears to be an innocuous application for a live birth record for their child and then many years later once that child becomes an adult they discover that the application was not only an application but was also a binding contract, binding and pledged their very flesh and blood and all of their assets to their loving trusting government for the remainder of their life without their knowledge or consent… please tell me if I’m wrong but, common sense dictates that the original contract certainly did not fall within the legal requirement of what’s called in contract law as: “Full Disclosure” did it? Furthermore, is that not fraud in factum? And a host of other crimes including: theft, deliberate deception, larceny, slavery, etc.? Regardless of the contracts wording (“I agree”, “I will”, etc) would it not also be relevant who originally prepared the contract? Taking into account who composed the contract content? Particularly since, logically speaking, it’s always assumed the party that prepares the contract/agreement prepares it from their perspective and for their benefit, thus the other “person” becomes the weaker of the two, no?
Loy, you seem to be a bright person with much thought dedicated to the topic of Redemption. It’s curious that you had not thought of these points yourself? Is it because you’ve already dismissed these particular possibilities as legally inferior? Or what exactly?
Keith |
|
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 02:55:25
|
Doer,
Let me explain the flaw in the theory that you are the acceptor of the contract. If I were to offer you a contract, the first thing I would do is to write out what goods or services I was to offer through that contract and what I expected to receive through that contract. Next, I would sign the contract and offer it to you; if you accepted the stipulations of that contract then you would sign it, and the contract would be legally binding. Did the Government ever offer you a contract that already had a signature on it? I doubt it. In order for a contract to be valid it requires the affirmation of two parties. The first “person” to affirm the contract is the “person” that is offering the contract. That is the only way that it can be. I wish that you were correct in your assumption that we are the acceptors of these contracts even more than you believe that we are; the fact is, as I see it, that it’s simply a legal impossibility. Wouldn’t you agree?
With this in mind, it would appear that the Government has simply drawn up a contract [or ten] that we knew that they would accept. Theoretically, we had been given the opportunity, prior to signing under the penalty of perjury, to alter or rewrite that contract(s) in any way that we so chose. Once that contract has been read and signed, we then offer it to the Government in a form that they, of course, will accept. By this means we have created our own STRAW MAN and have legally abandoned our good names by choice. Regardless of our intent, LEGALLY this is what has happened. So you see the “person” that wrote the contract is not necessarily the “person” that is offering the contract. Employers use these same tactics in their employment applications; that’s why they can pilfer through their employees’ bodily fluids at will. Can you say Babylonian Mystery Religion?
You said “WE did not give the ‘government’ the right to use our good names without compensation for our property”. You are absolutely correct, but they never do use your good name; they only use the STRAWMAN name [it just sounds like your good name]. I’ve been begging the IRS for eight years to use my good name, and they will not do it. You further stated, “So we reclaim that property with a Common Law Copyright of our good name”. Which name did you Copyright your good name, or the STRAWMAN name? When I filed a UCC 1 form several years ago I used my own good name to gain ownership of the STRAWMAN name. Are you sure that you have a Copyright on your good name? If you do, then something has drastically changed in the UCC that I don’t know about. Please enlighten me as to this change. You went on to say “FROM THIS POINT ONWARD, we control the contracts that we enter into, in a CONSCIOUS way -- whereas before we were entering contracts in an unconscious way. So the “government” no longer has the privilege of using our good names for commercial benefit to them -- without our consent”. Unfortunately my friend, we were the ones that offered the contracts, as I have already explained at length. Legally we have always been in control of the contracts that we entered into; the defense that you have entered into an unconscious contract that you yourself have offered to another party is a legal absurdity, regardless of truth. Truth has nothing to do with what has happened legally. Truth has bearing in Law it has no bearing at law. Facts have bearing at law, and the facts show that we offered them all of these contracts. The Government has our signatures listed first on these contracts as proof that we have offered them these contracts; therefore, the “I didn’t know what I was doing” defense simply won’t hold water long. If your using this defense with the IRS, I’m warning you now that they have attorneys at the top that understand these facts, and there is a rough road ahead of you that I am looking back on as I speak. I hope that you have better luck than I had. I’m still resisting with all that I have and the UCC kept the IRS off of my back for several years until it finally made it to the boys at the top. The fight is now on, and I’m now convinced that the UCC is of no effect to my defense.
I yelled UCC redemption for years my friend, at some point I believe that you will become as disenchanted in that defense as I am. I wish I could shed a beam of hope on the UCC strategy, but I’ve been there and done that, and found it wanting for effect and flawed from its inception. Caesar already thought of that one, perhaps you should move along. The Government has protected themselves through the writing of the contracts, and they are afforded the full protection of the UCC and the statutes at large in the enforcement of those contracts, and we who have offered these contracts have no legal right to complain! I cannot emphasize that enough. What is right or wrong is not of ANY legal concern to the Government or the courts [like there is actually a difference].
Reading your posts is like looking into my own past, a couple of years ago I was arguing all of the same points. I worry about you my friend; whatever path you choose be very careful. As for me, I hope to get to the point soon that I may dissolve these contracts through long-term neglect and lack of use. That is the only viable option that I see. Take care my friend, and please consider what I have said. I would be glad to share with you any and resources at my disposal to help you on your path. I even have the $1500.00 tax statements with the latest updates, if you would like free copies. I will no longer use them. You could at least compare what I have tried with what you are trying. Who knows, perhaps I’ve missed something, and you might set me straight. I somehow doubt it though. More importantly, you may find that we’ve walked the same path and you might thereby avoid the problems that I have encountered.
Take Care,
Loy
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 07:36:11
|
Loy,
You seem to be right in what you say regarding the "offering" of a contract on the government's terms. However, you may have missed the point that OUR PARENTS created our Strawman, and not we. Can THEY give away our RIGHTS? I think not. Slavery no longer exists here -- not even voluntary (although some may argue regarding IRS, licensing, etc.) So selling children into servitude is no longer allowed.
Therefore, we STILL have the RIGHT to take back control of our good name with Common Law Copyright -- and a SACRED DUTY to do so. If this is not the case, then why is this process working? The government, to my knowledge, never laid claim to our names, but merely uses them without our permission for profit -- only because they have not been called to task on the matter, due to our ignorance.
Furthermore, contracts can be broken or terminated for a number of reasons, one of which is that we were DECEIVED at the point of execution. Did WE in fact initialize the contract -- or were we INTIMIDATED into doing so? Is this not extortion? The heart and mind and Soul SCREAM with OUTRAGE at this abomination -- this DECEPTION -- this INJUSTICE!!!
It is so utterly BLATANT -- and yet Caesar carries on his merry way, continuing to extort vast sums of wealth from the people of this miserable earth. Putting aside the fact that these wretched people DESERVE to be fleeced because of their self-centered apathy, the entire process wreaks of an unholy stench.
So you make a very good point – BUT -- I am not so sure that it applies in this situation -- because of the “prior claim” that we have on our good name, which claim was NOT seceded in the course of our signing all those “benefits packages.”
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 08:07:44
|
Loy,
I very much appreciate your advice and admonition. Somehow that "Guy Upstairs" has protected me from the cold clutches of the IRS and their soul-less process. But I see the day soon coming, that the battle lines will be drawn between them and myself. I rub my hands in anticipation.
So I will take you up on your most kind offer. Contact me through the private Email service on this Forum.
Meanwhile, you may want to check out the Yahoo Group, freedomnewsbank. It is far more practical than this site, and the people there are discussing cutting-edge issues relating to the Redemption Process. They charge a small yearly fee to maintain the Group, but it is very well worth it.
One of the things that I was completely unaware of, is the vast difference between courts of equity vs. courts of law. Since 90% of all courts in Caesar's system are in equity, we must understand the difference to survive, since the two systems work EXACTLY OPPOSITE of one another. That is why so many “patriots” are serving hard time today. They were blindsided with equity, while they tried arguing law -- in complete ignorance.
If this is new to you, then you need to “get up to speed” immediately. But if you already understand this, then I do not see where the problem lies with your efforts at justice. The UCC is the “law of the land” -- indeed, of the universe. But it is only a tool with limited scope -- as powerful as it may be, when used to collect debts. The Common Law is supreme above all this c r -- --. That is what I trust to protect me.
I am relatively new to all of this, but I clearly see the validity of these PRINCIPLES. That is the key. If you understand the PRINCIPLE involved in ANY thing, then you can work to the effect (the minutiae). It is like having a “secret formula” or “skeleton key.” You are able to unlock and control the specific situation by applying it. Without understanding the Principle involved, all the knowledge about specifics will do no good, because the application will be wrong.
We need to share more of our experiences.
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jul 2003 : 12:55:26
|
Loy wrote:
You further stated, “So we reclaim that property with a Common Law Copyright of our good name”. Which name did you Copyright your good name, or the STRAWMAN name?
You copyright the fiction/strawman name because that is the name you don't want anyone using. You would copyright the name jOhN hEnRY dOe if that is not your name.
The strawman name is the font they use on birth certificates today. After 1960 they changed the font on birth certificates to ALL CAPS. If you were born before 1960 your name on your BC is still in upper and lower case.
|
|
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 22:15:30
|
Doer,
You like to get to the root of a problem, and so do I. Let me explain where I see the roots, and I will welcome any criticism that you may wish to make to rebut my conclusions. I will further welcome any counter theory that you may have on this topic. First order of business must be jurisdiction; we can’t do anything legal without jurisdiction, now can we? Top jurisdiction is YHWH, God our Creator, next in line is God’s Word, since He Spoke the entire universe into existence; universe actually means a single spoken sentence (Genesis 1:1). When He says: “Let there be (…)”. There Is (Genesis 1:3, 1:6, 1:14)! Jesus Christ, the Son of God is third in this line of jurisdiction; He was “manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil”(1 John: 3:8). His jurisdiction was won when He defeated Satan in the desert (Matthew: 4:10). He went further to die on the cross for the salvation of those who believe in Him. This act created the next jurisdiction the non-commercialized Christians who believe in Him (Matthew 18:6, Mark 9:42). The next in line are those not yet believing in the Christ, but yet have the possibility or choice of redemption through His Blood. Near the bottom is Satan, the prince of this world (Genesis 3:14, John 12:31). Pagan Governments are at the bottom; they are inherently fictitious entities, which have a pecking order over their lower branches and under the people who instituted them. Common Law basically follows this order of jurisdiction.
Satan does not have the power to create something out of nothing, but he does have the power of contract; he tried to make a contract with Jesus in the desert, and Jesus refused his offer. I believe that nearly all of the power that Satan has on this earth is what he gains through contracts. He has virtually no other inherent power left since Jesus the Christ defeated him. Satan is thus Lawfully bound to a lower jurisdiction; one must therefore volunteer to be his subject in order for him to gain a loftier jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Satan has perfected the art of contract to a degree almost unimaginable and through his willing and unwilling disciples has gained power in this world beyond fathomable belief. The process is absolutely brilliant in the most despicable sense; though, it’s not as complicated as you might think.
The process of these deceitful contracts works something like this. Suppose for a moment that I was able to draw up a contract to offer you, and I try to deceive you through that contract by attempting to rule over you. If I were to reveal my intent with full disclosure in the contract, you would refuse to enter into that contract because you do not wish to be my slave. Conversely, if I were to write the contract deceptively so that you did not know my true intent, then the contract would be wanting for Lawful status through my lack of clear and complete disclosure. This contract would be unenforceable, and you could tell me where to get off if I tried to have it enforced. I am, however, determined to make you my slave and since I can’t offer an intelligent individual, such as yourself, a bogus contract, I will have to convince you that it would be a good idea if you had my protection, and further convince you to contract with me to the effect that I will protect you. All along, of course, I’m actually planning to enslave you. Now, being your, soon to be protector, you naturally trust me, right? If you didn’t trust me, why would you want me to protect you? So, as your new trusted friend, who better to help you draw up our contract than me? Oh yeah, you’ll be mine soon; all I’ve got to do is get you to sign on the dotted line. I can now write that contract out in the most confusing manner possible, I don’t want you to understand too much. But, there will be a lot of benefits that your sure to understand. However, I’m going to leave your payment terms to me rather vague and very open-ended. I type up our budding contract on my letterhead, and load it up with legal psychobabble. Now I’ve written our new contract in the first person with a lot of “I will” and “I agree” sort of language. Next, I get you to sign the contract first so that you can offer it to me for acceptance. You do so, and I break out my red rubber “accepted” stamp and you’re mine. You just offered me an open-ended contract. Can you say blank check? Don’t give me any “lack of disclosure” garbage either. If you had wanted to put limitations on your payment you should have put it in the contract, I was working on the assumption that I could name my price if and when protection was given per our contract. You cannot prove that this was not your intent, show me in our contract where you said I couldn’t take everything you own in payment, if I so chose. The legal burden is on you buddy. I’ll tell you what, how about I just swallow your camel and I’ll strain you out a gnat any time you need one, how would that be? You don’t like it? Too bad! That’s the deal, and the courts will protect me because I’m the weaker party in the contract, and as such the courts are bound by duty to protect me. If you don’t give me everything that I want, I will sue you for breach of contract and lack of disclosure, and I will most certainly win. How dare you not tell me that there were limitations on how much you would pay? You gave me a blank check; there are legal implications for bouncing a check you know! If you put the Government or Satan in the place of “I” our situation is summed up. Is it right? No. Is it fair? No. Is it legal? You bet it’s legal. The UCC says it’s legal. You have the God given freedom to offer the most stupid contract in the world and if someone accepts it, you’re stung! The game is over!
The UCC recognizes that the Common Law is in full effect, except where it is displaced by the code. The only way to displace the Common Law by the code is through a contract. The UCC race was run before it even started. It appears to be protection from the Government or anyone who would deceive us through a contract; however, in the instance of voluntary servitude, it is the very chain that binds us. We tossed Common Law into the wind when we offered the contract to the Government. We recreated ourselves in the image of the beast. The Government could not rule over us otherwise. The people created the Government, and the only way to legally rule over their creator was for their creator to request a position of servitude. The legal slavery that we endure is, therefore, our cross to bare, not the Governments’. A fool neither gets nor deserves an even stake.
I could go on forever, but I think I’ve given you the basics here. The only protection that we now have is through Jesus the Christ. It’s time to pick up our cross and follow Him. We must beg His forgiveness and stop blaming others for our own stupidity and sins. He told us that if we swore an oath evil would come (Matthew 5:34 thru 5:37). We went against His Words and have found that, as always, he was one hundred percent correct. There are many ways of fighting the beast; the only successful ways will be through Jesus and the Laws of our Creator. It will not come through the Talmudic pagan Uniform Commercial Code. It, my friend, is the chain that we must break. I welcome your opinion of this analysis. Much to my dismay, I think that you will find it to be accurate in essence. I hate being the Devils advocate, but you my friend have greatly underestimated the intellect and treachery of our foe. He has been perfecting the art of contract for thousands of years. Do you still honestly believe that we can use his rules against him? I don’t believe we’ll beat Satan on his home field. It’s time to call in the Varsity Team, don’t you think? I apologize if I seem harsh and insensitive. I’m not trying to judge you my friend; I’ll press the high-powered finger of accusation against my own head, you decide if it deserves a spot on yours. I am not fit to judge anyone; all of the other sinners call me sensei (James 4:11). It has been said that many are called, but few are chosen. I think I was pushed, virtually obsessed with finding the truth. I’ve found that I prefer somber wisdom to ignorant bliss. I see what is in front of my face, and now the hidden things are coming to light (Obadiah 1:4 thru 1:6, 2 Corinthians 4:2). It is a truly frightening and humbling experience. You seem to have a similar lust for truth. Be careful what you wish for, it’s tougher than you think (James 1:25).
Best Hopes,
Loy
|
|
|
|
loybost
Regular Member
USA
29 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 22:26:55
|
Livefree
Been there, done that. I understand the UCC redemption process and have, in the past, followed it to the letter. I've read the UCC from start to finish numerous times. You offered them that NAME under contract. UCC redemption is the illegal attempt to withdraw from your own contract. I'm sorry my friend, it has no standing in Law nor at law whatsoever. You can't revoke a contract that you initiated without the consent of both parties. Fat chance that's going to happen. Think about it.
Peace and Grace,
Loy |
|
|
|
Livefree
Advanced Member
USA
270 Posts |
Posted - 14 Jul 2003 : 23:31:45
|
"You offered them that NAME under contract. UCC redemption is the illegal attempt to withdraw from your own contract."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I offered them that NAME under contract. So what? I'm in charge of that NAME now. I am taking back what they took without my prior written consent, that's all. They can do whatever they want with their contracts - they are void if they don't spell my name right.
|
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 00:10:53
|
OK, time for my $0.02 worth. Sorry to disagree Loy, because you make a very brilliant argument, but any contract can be cancelled. I put that in the same category as any Patent can be beaten. I have not seen a Patent issued in the last 50 years that I couldn't beat. I have not seen a contract (expect one) that could not be terminated. There are always ways. The one contract that can not be broken is the contract of either Life or Death. We either choose Life in our Savior or Death in the underworld. But, any contract written by man or government can be broken or cancelled. I don't have the time to play the game of "prove it", but that is my stand on the issues in the recent posts.
Peace to you all,
Lewis |
|
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 03:48:00
|
Loy,
We may differ on the assumptions of jurisdiction. They are assumptions until proven as Law. Certainly it is obvious that the highest jurisdiction is of our Creator. This is a given and indisputable. But what do you mean by, “God’s Word?” This cannot be the spoken word, because our Creator does not use that method. He uses the “wordless Word” -- which is “spoken” into the heart of every Living Soul. This is instantaneous communication, and there is NO DOUBT as to the message. We perceive that Word as CONSCIENCE -- the direct “voice” of our Creator trying to guide us in the moment. This is how HE “spoke” the Universe into manifestation. Human words, on the other hand, need “interpretation,” and they are full of doubt and controversy.
As to Satan -- he may be lowest on the totem pole relative to the Spiritual Universe, but he is highest relative to the material universe. SATAN RULES THE WORLD! Period. Your articulation of his methodology on earth is a very good one. But let us understand that he has enormous power -- especially to deceive. And you are very right to say, in effect, that he uses this power to gain even more power, by deceiving us into “willingly” giving up our individual life-force to him.
Because we are SPIRITUAL BEINGS, first and foremost, we have the power to transcend this worldly realm. Yet with all of Satan’s power, he does not have this option.
As to “Jesus” (whoever THAT is) – he appears to me, to have been only a messenger -- albeit a Divine One. He showed us the worm-hole to the Other Universe, but only we individually, naked and alone, can enter it. For this information, he sacrificed his life. However, let us leave that tussle for a future debate.
No -- we cannot “beat Satan on his own field.” But he has only one “law” -- and that is of this earth. It is manifested as “statutes” -- as in statue -- cold, dead, unmoving, unchangeable, inflexible, graceless and constrained. We, on the other hand, have access to Spiritual Law -- as manifested in the Common Law. This is LIVING Law -- imbued with the Living Breath of Life and Love and Grace and Power and Beauty. We CANNOT give away our Soul. That belongs to our Creator, and is destined to return there again. This is the “fly in the ointment,” as far as Satan is concerned. He can chain us physically, and often does, but he has no power to chain our mind or heart or Soul. And even if we think that we have given him jurisdiction over these areas, there is ALWAYS an out. This is called REDEMPTION.
“As above, so below,” is the ancient oracle. If there is Spiritual Redemption, then there MUST be a physical one. As difficult as it is to find either, we inherently KNOW that they exist. I think Lewis has it right, in stating that ANY contract can be broken (except The One). So we must continue on our quest, until we find the methodology to do that. I have the feeling that we are close -- oh, so very close.
Be Well,
Doer
|
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 15 Jul 2003 : 09:25:03
|
Greetings Brother Loy, and all.
When One is "born again", then the Kingdom becomes visible, as stated in John 3:3. A wilderness walk is then started to enter into the gates of the City. Quite a bit of baggage will be left behind, as the burden of carrying worldly things becomes un-bearable. Yes, there is a redemption process. The U.C.C. redemption process is for those who think they can carry worldly things into the Kingdom. They intend to protect their ass-ets. This is absolutely counter to the Master's words. "Sell all that you have", "lose your life and you will then truely save it". {Who saves?} Yahushua {aka Jesus in the world}...Yahushua translates "I will Be Salvation". He is and was the firstborn among many brethern. It is only through the stake {cross] that we will die and be resurrected. Our cross. Yahushua was so sure He was right, He set His face like a flint, the destination was a lonely hill called golgatha. He presented NO paper work to Rome, answered them not a word. "On the third day" YaHuWeH brought forth His Firstborn Son. So called satan has already been defeated. Rome {civil law} owes a blood debt to the reigning King...and knows this. [They killed an innocent man}.
A Law maxim states; the Law of blood and kin can not be overcome by civil law. The Abrahamic covenant is Unconditional. Somehow folks overlook what Abraham and Isaac were willing to do!!! YaHuWeH saw all.
Yahushua's blood sacrifice put The Seal on the Covenant. A signed, sealed, delivered document. And folks think they need to add some paper work to make it complete? ...and they overcame by the blood of the Lamb...the word of their own testimony...and they loved not their lives unto the death. Just what part don't we understand? {the part about self sacrifice}.
In all fairness, many good men think U.C.C. redemption is the way to manifest the Kingdom. Woops...I made a mistake, I called men good. There is none good, but YHWH. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 12:18:48
|
Hi Robert-James,
I appreciate your point of view. However, I think you have painted those in the redemption process with too broad a paint brush. I for one, do not subscribe to your description. To me it is a means of utilizing what my Master has made available to me. It is trying to follow the examples set forth in the book of Nehemiah as to how to deal with Caesar and his system.
I have no ass-ets. The things I get to enjoy and use are not mine but are my Father's and he has graciously allowed me the priviledge of caring for them and hopefully using them in his service.
Somebody wrote that you can't use Caesar's laws against him. But I ask you, isn't that exactly what Moses did with Pharoah? The 70 years of captivity was up and Moses was asking Pharoah to honor their right to leave. But, when Pharoah did not honor his own law, the Almighty stepped in and forced him to honor it. I believe I see the same thing happening in our world today. It is just not as obvious as in the days of Moses.
Peace to all in the Name of our Lord,
Lewis |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
19 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 12:23:21
|
Dear Doer:
Who has the time to invest in studying to proficiency in so-called law? Law has one purpose or so the scriptures say and that is to increase sin and thereby increase death. God is the one foisting on us the hoodwink of law. Who could spend the time reading the volumes? The interpretations of the volumes? If one did, it would change the next year. The courts would set it on end with some crazy ruling as they do all the time. The Roman Whore cares nothing for law, she is the great lawbreaker who enforces so-called law. She is designed and empowered by God for one purpose - to sew up all the idols of men in one place, Armageddon. Where God will make an end of man's false delusion as to who he thinks God is. God is behind all the idols, answering the delusions of man to lead him into further idolatry. Read Ezekiel 14:1-11.
There is no Satan, except the one designed and empowered by God. Satan is the ruse of God to lead the divided man into a three fold deception of male vs. female, jew vs. gentile and slave vs. free. These three are the realm of law which again culminates in Armageddon. This is the plan of God to drive men with all his idols, including law, to total madness hence to a total sanity. Man will be totally surprised at where the salvation is found. It is in each man and woman begging to be turned on, their is no external savior. All external saviors are idols of mass delusion. Jesus spoke to the masses in riddles and parables so that the truth would be understood. Right? Wrong. He was and still is hiding the real deal. It was so seeing they would not see and hearing they would not hear. Jesus did not come to bring peace but a sword and that sword is Armageddon. Christ and the Anti-Christ kingdom born out of the godspell are two prongs, or two hands, or thesis-antithesis driving man to Armageddon. This is the hoodwink and God himself is the 33rd.
Only pursuit within, unlocking your trueself will make it. All pursuit by external means, books, saviors, religions, etc. etc. will all be pushed into the cleansing fire of Armageddon. Each man could opt out of Armageddon by forging life within. He then would fear no physical calamities as the flesh is the realm of law and deception.
This is by design. All so-called scores in Satan's column really score in God's column. He is the doer of good and evil, see Amos 3.
Pretty wacked out huh?
God is in the mirror
and Hermes is at work,
collapse the opposites
and Hermes will have no work. |
Edited by - n/a on 16 Jul 2003 12:35:02 |
|
|
|
True North
Advanced Member
USA
163 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jul 2003 : 23:09:17
|
pursueagelife
When people are 'close' to the truth it is sometimes harder to discern the falsehood from Amet. Go back to the Tyler's World forum http://66.201.79.149/tylersword/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=574 and 'hear' what lawgiver 1 said. And maybe you need to look at my post on the blood while you're looking.
'A'int' nobody got the whole picture yet but be sure that the 2nd adam is the firstborn among many.
Respectin' your perspective but hearin' with Ruach HaKodesh. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
UCC "Redemption" Scheme
