-Pg.

1DATE: Sunday, April 3rd--Thursday, April 21, 2011 -Page 1-

This is a letter that David Matthew asked me to pass around. He also asked me to write notes on it, so I chopped it up and inserted my notes where I felt like it. TITLE: WAS JESUS CHRIST (YESHUA) THE “ULTIMATE COMMUNIST”? By David-Matthew E. Strunk and Zevi My name is David “Matt” Strunk, known as “Matthew David” by the group commonly called “the Brothers” or “The Church of Fort Collins”. “The Brothers” are a group of Christians who broke off from another group commonly known as “The Bretheran” and officially known as “The Jim Roberts Group”. The Jim Roberts Group has a reputation of being a “cult” by the mass media and by most other Christians. I myself, having met very few of them but having heard much about them by the group who broke off from them and settled mostly in Fort Collins, CO. called the Brothers, view them not so much as a cult but more as an ultra-Conservative, ultra-legalistic, militant and yet non-violent group of Christians who take their Christianity very seriously. Most “cults” by definition usually have a leader who demands his/her followers provide constant cash flow for the leadership of the church (usually one person) and have doctrines that are not even remotely “Christian” although they may or may not borrow heavily from (and misinterpret) Bible scripture. In the case of the Jim Roberts Group, money is not an issue at all, rather the issue seems to be an unyielding allegiance to, and obeying of, all of this man Jim Robert’s particular interpretation of Bible scripture. The above descriptive paragraph is just to introduce myself and explain how I met, and know, Zevi. A few days ago during a phone conversation, we were discussing communism and Christianity, and Zevi was trying to explain to me how he drew parallels between them. I made some comments about the concept Zevi was trying to convey to me, and he liked my comments so much that he asked me to go think on it some more and write out a series of notes about it based on our conversation that he could later use in enlarging and clarifying his concept into a synopsis he could use as a basis for perhaps a sermon, or perhaps a sort of written thesis paper on the subject. I’m not really clear about what my friend Zevi has going on there in New Orleans, having not visited him there yet, but I imagine he probably has some sort of commune-style Christian group going, a sort of tightly-knit yet loosely-organized church similar to the one he left we used to just call “The Howes St. House” (then later the “Meldrum St. House” after a move) back in Fort Collins, Colorado. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: My name is Zevi. I first came to know Matt at the house he referred to called the “Howes street house”. This house was my first or second residence after rejoining many of my fellows in Colorado who had, for the most part, done tours of duty with the Jim Roberts’ group. This was a group I had ridden bikes, camped out, hitch-hiked and dumpster-dived with, studied under, revered, and loved, for almost seven years. About a month after I got booted out of the Jim Roberts group, I traveled to Asheville, NC, where was a large camp I had recently been on the road with. Within a number of weeks, half of that camp broke itself off from the Roberts group. We were intending to stay together and re-form somehow. There was an unmistakable sense of optimism and excitement among those of us that now found ourselves in a newly independent small group. I feel that many of us who made up this splinter group had come to an awareness, a common awareness, of a few of the major faults of the Roberts group, together. My excitement was based on the hope that we would be able to continue together in a life of faith, essentially like that we had been living, albeit with major modifications to the parts of the Roberts group praxis that we found to be error-prone. We were beginning to go through a process of adaptation, and as far as I am concerned we were making positive strides. It would have been nice if we had come to a sense of where we were and where we were going in an atmosphere that was familiar and normal to us, but we were soon to be flooded with distractions and confusion in the ranks. We made mistakes that started this process. News leaked to some of the families that there had been a split, and news also leaked to some former members who had developed attitudes and/or doctrinal positions that were very hostile to elements of the faith we still held in common. We were inundated with visiting parents and ex-members, and almost everyone returned home to their families for a longoverdue but probably gluttonous visit. We were also invited to participate in another ex-Roberts group project in Colorado, a project that we were to learn questioned

-Pg. 2everything, and would come to embrace a baffling array of influences and advisors from every corner. Coming into continued contact with these others in Colorado forced a number of changes on our little splinter group. One of the most troubling changes was the abandonment of the economic practices that underscored life in the Roberts group. That group was sharply distinct from the vast majority of normative Christian groups and denominations, in that they took literally and put into practice, in particular, Yeshua’s requirement that believers “forsake all”—that is—renounce all of their personal possessions and property. “Forsaking All” is a requirement for entry into the Roberts group, and the group developed a lifestyle and methodology surrounding that teaching and other economic teachings of the New Testament that is so far outside the mainstream of American civilized life that the question arises as to whether or not they are actually a part of that civilization, or just somehow temporarily coexisting with it. When you apply the familiar phrases “in the world” but not “of the world” to the Roberts group, you can apply it in a tangible, measurable, and quantifiable economic way. They don’t pay rent, bills, groceries, insurance, and the endless other means society impresses its citizenry into economic servitude. As I write this, it’s a few days before Passover. I don’t celebrate Easter, but I do enjoy a good Passover Seder among close brothers and sisters. So the Exodus story has been on my mind lately. The children of Israel were shepherds and the Egyptians were farmers. There is a parallel between the relationship between the Egyptians and Israel, and the story of Cain and Abel. Abel was a shepherd, was respected by God, this was certainly true of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their children, who went down into Egypt. Cain was a tiller, like the Egyptians, and as Cain slew Abel, “every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians” (B’reyshit/ Genesis 47:34). As Cain built the first recorded city in the Scriptures, so were the Egyptians great builders of cities and potent developers of a rich civilization and culture. Shepherds were, on the other hand, a rough and rugged people, almost like dusty Arab cowboys, primitive and backwards by comparison, living only in temporary dwellings, and not likely to own land or build cities, because of the demands of requiring ever new pasture. The “richer” you were in cattle, as Abraham was, the more traveling would become an increased necessity, and the value of land ownership would diminish; even become a nuisance when others owned it and claimed exclusive use. Now keeping sheep and tilling ground are what you call “modes of production”. What seemed to happen during the lead up to the Exodus is perhaps what is a familiar situation: primitive nomadic people, when they come into contact with civilization, sometimes kind of camp out on the fringes of the villages or trading outposts, become gradually more and more dependent on the settlers way of doing things, and then their population, which nomadicism and lack of surpluses has held in check, begins to spike, compounding the difficulties of escaping civilization’s orbit. It is clear that the population was a factor in the enslavement of The Israelites (Exod 1:7-14). It seems, that initially, the Israelites were holding to their keeping of sheep in the land of Goshen. However, they eventually, by one means or another, were sucked into the mainstream economy within the land of Ham. They had become slaves, an economic asset, and part of the productive forces of Egyptian civilization. The great pyramids were built by slaves, and it is unlikely that slaves did not play an enormous role within the economy of Egypt. When God moved to liberate them, it seems that economics cannot be ignored as a possible factor in the motivations of Pharaoh the protagonist in the Exodus story. It’s like Wal-Mart, or a huge factory, being asked to allow all of its employees to just take a big religious pilgrimage. Who’s going to run the store? Move the bricks? Run the checkout machines or the riveters or harvest the fields? What will that do to profit margins? God was moved to action, in part, because of the bitterness of the life of the Israelites. In Psalm 12:5 it says, “For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set [him] in safety [from him that] puffeth at him.” It seems that God is moved to action on behalf of innocent suffering. It must be pointed out, however, that where the Israelites were set in safety from the Egyptians, was not simply a different and higher social class bracket within the Egyptian society. He didn’t just “bless them” by making them rich and prosperous in Egypt, He brought them out of that civilization altogether, and into the wild. Back to the stomping grounds of their shepherding forefathers. Moreover, he brought them into a setting in which, even though there was not likely to be much class division from one former slave to another, class divisions would tend to rapidly dissolve and not be likely to develop. Firstly, they were traveling, no one owned the land in the wilderness of Sinai (there could not have been a “landed gentry” class), and the constant moving would tend to make accumulated possessions more of a burden than having any utilitarian function or social value. The mode of production in the desert could be classified as “foraging”, like the hunter-gatherers. They did have cattle in the desert, but their food supply was based on “Manna”, angel’s food, the ambrosia of the sky. Division of the manna was perfectly equitable: “And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness [there lay] a small round thing, [as] small as the hoar frost on the ground.’ And when the children of Israel saw [it], they said one to another, It [is] manna: for they wist not what it [was]. And Moses said unto them, This [is] the bread which the LORD hath given you to eat.’ This [is] the thing which the LORD hath commanded, Gather of it every man according to his eating, an omer for every man, [according to] the number of your persons; take ye every man for [them] which [are] in his tents.’ And the children of Israel did so, and gathered, some more, some less. And when they did mete [it] with an omer, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack; they gathered every man according to his eating. And Moses said, Let no man leave of it till the morning.” (Exodus 16:14-19) Also, the food was not sold (there was no “merchant class”), it belonged to everyone, and God had to be acknowledged as the source of

-Pg. 3their sustenance. In the Roberts group, we were always out on the streets or studying, and we would find enough food in the dumpsters or elsewhere to support a richly varied and nutritious diet, once it was processed, prepared and cooked. The most notable aspect of this life was that everyone looked out for the whole and its members, and therefore everyone was looked after by the whole and its members. Enough people would put into the group that, no one had to be overly concerned with their personal welfare. We could not have maintained such a high standard of living inside but outside civilization if there was not such discipline, cooperation, and organization. We were like a small tribe or military detachment, although completely pacifistic. The Jim Roberts group is, in my opinion, a close to perfect example of what might be considered “Christian communism”. They certainly do not refer to their practices that way and probably would not be comfortable with that distinction. Simply because Americans typically associate the word communism only with Soviet Russia and Karl Marx, communism is considered a dirty word in America, and most people are afraid and scared to identify themselves too closely with dirty words. Members of the Jim Roberts group would identify, without hesitation, Lenin, Stalin, Marx, the Soviet Union, the communist manifesto, and ALL that crap, as being agents of, and of the dominion of Satan. They are certainly not THAT type of communists. To be fair and candid, they would place George Washington, George Bush, and George Clinton into the Satan category with equal speed and decisiveness, but that still does not make them THAT type of communists. There is another type of communism, though, that just has to do with small group sharing and cooperation, which they DO practice. I lived that way for almost seven years, and it is an excellent way to live. The Roberts group, at least while I was with them, were experts in this type of communism, being taught it right out of the pages of the Christian and Hebrew Scriptures, which, they studied for hours and hours everyday. To say they study it “religiously” would be an injustice of understatement. Once my friend Doug and I were hitchhiking from Santa Cruz to Seattle. We got a ride from a hippy type guy with a van, and after several hours of continuous conversation, he exclaimed “you guys are, like, hella into the Bible.” “Yeah”, I probably responded. “I mean, hella!” “yeah” “I mean, HELLA!!!” The former members that I mentioned earlier, came to Asheville and later in Fort Collins brought a destabilizing number of criticisms and teachings contrary to the Roberts group praxis. There were a group of these teachings that effectively undermined the communal economy we had enjoyed, or at least many of us had enjoyed, during our tenure in the group. They pushed us with these teachings right back into the mainstream economy, our communal bonds were severed, and we fell apart. The Howes street house, where I met Matt, was a house full of people pushing each other away from themselves, because, economically, everyone was forced to fend for themselves instead of handling our economics as a highly organized unit. The equality we enjoyed in the Roberts group was absent. And sharing was on the wane. I don’t know how the decisions related to these changes were reached, but these were among the main causative factors in the collapse of the Fort Collins “brothers” that Matt was talking about. We had stopped living communistically, and still tried to live communally, wondering why it wasn’t working anymore, why we couldn’t pull it together. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: So, I imagine what Zevi was trying to ask of me during our last phone conversation was to write out some notes based on my thoughts about his idea of the similarities between true Christianity and real Communism (as opposed to the institutionalized version of both, which is almost universally misunderstood due to the influence of Satan), so he could organize my notes into a written paper, a presentation to the New Orleans group he’s a part of. The exact thing he said to me was, “Wow, you just said perfectly exactly the thing I have been trying to say all along but I just couldn’t come up with the words to say it! You need to go write that stuff down and send it to me so I can use it!” ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: The difference between normative Christianity and Christian-communism is equivalent to the difference between church and synagogue. The Jews consider Christians to be idolaters, and murderers because of how Jewish much blood has been spilled by these “Christians”, their belief in things like the “trinity”, praying to statues, etc. Christian communists like the brothers have a deep intuitive sense that they are not the same as church Christians, and they aren’t. Something about the church Christians is just deeply different. They are from different worlds, their lives are built on totally different economic foundations and therefore everything else in each subculture is radically different.

-Pg. 4Just like small village farmers and hunters who live in the wild outside the villages: their religious conceptions are different, and much about their culture and the rest of their worldview is different. Maybe Christian communists could argue from the Bible that Christians who own private property are idolaters because private property is a sign of covetousness, and the Bible says that covetousness is idolatry. We are to be content with food and clothing. Also, Christians who own private property (they might say) have not fulfilled, or backed away from, the very first requirement of the Christian religion, which demands that a man completely relinquish all material possessions and distribute to the poor. So, non-communist Christianity is almost—by definition—hypocritical, a deep hypocrisy that anyone who is honest and a good judge of character can see and feel. And whenever Christian communism has arisen in history, it has more often than not been bloodily repressed by the church, with Christian communists being burnt, racked, drowned or starved by “Christians”, just like their Jewish counterparts. On the other hand, the difference between Christian communism and the “Communism” that McCarthy taught Americans to hate is the same as the difference between nomadic hunter-gatherers or sheep-herders and an advanced industrial economy. The difference is absolute; there can be no comparison. In the seventies there would have been fewer cultural difference between Americans and Soviets than between American Christians and American Christian communists. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: I was extremely flattered, then immediately felt guilty because, you know, Christians are supposed to avoid being “prideful”. (TURN 0VER-->) The reason I felt so flattered by Zevi’s compliments about my understanding of his ideas and his request for me to write out notes about it, is because I have always looked up to Zevi as a sort of “Church Elder”, even though he is younger than me. This is because Zevi has been a Christian longer than me, has settled upon Christianity as his one and only religious faith whereas I tend to skip around to different religions but somehow always “coming home” back to Christianity after I find flaws in the other religions, and because I feel that Zevi has fought harder to avoid sin in all it’s various manifestations and been more successful at it than I ever have. As I type this, I am sitting in a Colorado jail for multiple felonies, looking at the possibility of years in prison due to stupid things I do while intoxicated on alcohol and drugs. I have had a problem with drugs and alcohol for years and have always viewed this problem of more of a religious and spiritual failure than simply a personal one, and always went to Zevi for advice because I felt rejected by the other members of his own group, not to mention other churches, and I always felt that Zevi gave me good advice but that I just didn’t follow it well enough to affect a change. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: I don’t know what is the purpose of this flattery, I’m not an elder and Matt pretty much knows that I’ve had struggles with different sins in the past since I’ve known him. The fact that I have not done a lot of flip-flopping about religions is that I had a very vivid and intense religious experience when I was nineteen that proved to me beyond the shadow of a doubt the truth of the Bible. It had nothing to do with what’s usually considered to be the Christian religion, that is, I didn’t exactly rush to join my local Baptist church. It would have felt like a betrayal. I did glean some minor pieces of information about God, like the fact that he is merciful, from exposure to the normal Christians, but not much more. I learned that “my conscience was the direct revelation of God” from church people, but all that did for me was teach me to make the most ingenious rationalizations and psychological justifications for living a selfish life of no value. It could have killed me. Matt had had a similar religious experience to mine, but it was perhaps not as completely terrifying as mine was. But I have always been able to recognize from his testimony elements of a salvation experience like the one I had. He was full of peace, and nothing could bother him, and it filled him with faith and demanded obedience—absolute, unquestioning obedience. He backslid really bad. I had seen from my own life that sometimes I have failed terribly, and backslid into all kinds of sin, and God did not throw me away but kept something alive inside me that made me want to crawl my way back to him. It is really difficult to find our way home sometimes, and I felt like I could see something inside Matt that God had kept alive, that God really hadn’t thrown Matt away, just Matt had made things super super SUPER difficult for himself because of some of his choices. He had developed these false, egotistical, and verging on insane religious conceptions and ideas about who God was. At times it seemed like his M.O. was to get the devil help him do evil, until it was time to pay the consequences, and when the logical, rational, and predictable results of his own actions would begin to make his life difficult, he would accuse God of punishing him unjustly. He sometimes treats God as a genie in a bottle, and would wonder why that model failed to make accurate predictions. But I still think that God hasn’t thrown him away. He’s just put a hard road between him and God, and can’t find the will power or grace to walk very far down that road before the various detours start to look pretty inviting. But if someone is trying to find that road, aren’t we bound to help them?

-Pg. 5A lot of Christians look at people like Matt and do reject him, like he said. It was always pretty clear that Matt had a lot of issues that he was struggling with, and he did not exactly fit the demographic for someone that was likely to become a model believer any time soon. A friend of mine and I were talking about community recently, and he mentioned that excessive focus OF a community ON the community can be a danger. I think that’s very true. The society we live in goes to great lengths to condition people towards fierce individualism, toward self-centeredness and selfishness. Some people in churches realize that this is a direct affront against the gospel, and so they put a lot of emphasis on focusing on the family, being family-centered, or truthfully, putting the family before the self. I think there’s even a churchy TV show called “focus on the family”. That is a step in the right direction, but if the family as a unit is focused primarily on itself as a unit, it’s still basically self-centeredness one step removed. I’m not saying that if you’re family is a mess you should focus on the church instead, just that a healthy family is going to be focused, as a unit, outwardly. How can we, as a unit, show others the love of God? How can we, as a unit, put others before ourselves? Focusing on the family first is not worthwhile unless the family is focused outwardly on a community of some sort. There are a very small percentage of churches in this country who have understood this, and they are the more dedicated and perhaps often also ultraconservative groups. Churches that are comprised of members who are dedicated to their families before themselves, and made up of families that are more focused on the church community as a unit than on itself, are perhaps the closest to the correct picture, but if the church community is the primary focus of the church community, then this is still love of self, only, twice removed. “I’m part of the team, and I’m focused on the team because the team benefits ME”. A vivid example of this is evident when you examine how the members of a church community interact with those outside of itself. Are relations with others dominated by recruitment efforts? Or does the group demonstrate the love of Christ freely to those it has no hope to recruit, only to edify? Recruitment can be a selfish thing; it’s not necessarily so, as proselytizing is often viewed by the practitioner as a means of saving someone’s soul from hell, but how much of it is just trying to gain the respect of their peers and reap social rewards inside the group? For the normal church, recruiting can just mean more dollars for our plate offerings on Sundays: and that’s why they don’t care about poor people, too. I was always suspicious that this might be the case with Matt. He’s someone that I felt like was a child that had been getting spanked and spanked for years, that was angry and rebellious, but still very much getting spanked (which I consider a sign that God may not have given up on somebody—that he is still trying to “correct” them, although in some cases this can seem like the type of correction spoken of by Charles Grady to Jack Torrence in The Shining). Someone whose life was not going in a very good direction, but who was seeking to overcome at least a few things in his life. He was asking advice, and would listen, but was also quite overcome by temptation most of the time. I felt like he had that spark of faith “somewhere in there”. I felt like I could just tell. It was so tiny, and everything about him, and his situation, and his actions and decisions, seemed to indicate that he was trying to extinguish that flame with all his might, but was simply unable to fully extinguish it. I knew that if he fed that faint light, he would have hope. Also, I felt like what he needed was to be around other people that could see and believe in that spark inside him. But the church at Fort Collins didn’t see it that way. They assessed him on his likelihood of being recruited. I didn’t think that I could recruit him. I just don’t think that people get that part of being a Christian is BEING a Christian to other people, not just being Christian to your Christian friends and aloof to everybody else that’s not clambering to get into your club of elites. This “elitist” attitude is something they inherited from the Roberts group, although I would argue that the Roberts group, despite their very serious faults, at least have something that actually does make them quite elite: they are one of the only group in America and much of the World that has at least some form of methodology that incorporates Christ’s teaching about forsaking all. So if they practice some things that I don’t agree with, I tend to think that, because they know a few things that no one else these days seems to know, maybe they know something I don’t know. That is, unless it is something that I have heard from God about, or have proven it and found it wanting, but I usually will try to second-guess myself at least a little bit when I disagree with them. They live as Christian communists, they put out quite a bit of effort to apply such unpopular teachings of Christ in a social climate in which unbelievers are hostile and cynical of Christ due to the ceaseless proselytizing efforts and social impositions of the embarrassingly hypocritical and dishonest church-world on the one hand, and Church Christians that are hostile to the unpopular and more difficult teachings of Christ because their minds and hearts are consumed by the myths and lusts of industrial civilization on the other. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: So when Zevi said he liked my comments about his comparisons of (true) communism to (true) Christianity and asked me to “write notes about it” to send him, I felt like Saul must have felt after, having turned from being “Saul” to being “Paul”, wrote his thoughts about Christianity and brought them to the original Apostles and let them read it and then asked, “What do you think, guys?” and they answered him, “Not only do we like it, but we like it enough that it’s goin’ in The Book, baby!” So the thing is, I really have to watch my pride as I write this and do my best to stay “on topic” and not go off on tangents as I am prone to do, and not talk about myself unless it is in relation to an specific example of Christian communism. I’ve also decided to pray before each typing session in spite of the fact that I have had much trouble with my own faith lately- although

-Pg. 6I believe my own faith or lack thereof has little to do with this paper, as the facts of Christian communism seem self-evident to me. DATE: Wednesday, o4/o6/2011 § This paper will take several days to write, as I am only allotted a certain amount of time in the jail typing room and the typewriter itself is often out of ink due to it’s near-continual use by other inmates. I’ve said my prayer and am ready to begin. I think it wise to begin this paper with a repeat of the conversation I had with Zevi and the comments made that prompted this paper to begin with, to the best of my recollection, since it has already been about two weeks since that conversation. We were discussing a letter Zevi had sent me in which Zevi had mailed me a copy of a paper he had written describing the difference between Communism, Socialism, and Marxism. I had made the comment that any one of those forms of government could possibly work except the problem is simply human greed and the lust for power, which always trumps and overtakes any type of idealism in any society, no matter what actual form of government is originally put in place. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: That’s one of the things I’d been having trouble communicating clearly, that there’s a type of communism that has absolutely nothing to do with governments, or nations, or society at all. I told Matt that, and that’s when he was able to state what I had been trying to say about it for so long. I totally agree that ANY human government is going to be corrupt and unjust, and replacing one government with a different type, as others have said, is a huge social experiment that will certainly have results impossible to predict and upsetting to all expectations. The Bible makes clear that on the one hand, while earthly authority is perhaps a necessary evil, it is still more often than not exactly that: an evil. There is no form of human government that will ever “work” because all human government is a product and result of human efforts toward civilization. No effort towards civilization will ever work because humans are corrupt, and the only thing that a corrupt creature can build is a culture of DEATH. Just like Cain, who founded the first city recorded in the Bible after he slew his brother Abel. Today the biggest problems facing humanity and people in our own country is not the form of government, but how we are subjected to the largest, most effective, technically sophisticated system of propaganda ever developed by any society or any culture, that constantly bombards us with mental conditioning that encourages selfish consumption and individual interests (because it’s good for the economy). This is a big part of the reason our society has struggled with such widespread degeneracy. Billions and billions of dollars are spent to make us selfish and greedy and to do everything we can do to get stuff and just worry about our own life and our own ambitions. How can you expect a bunch of greedy spoiled brats to get along and not be degenerates? Matt talks about this too: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: Thus, our own country, which was originally meant as a sort of Democracy or Democratic Republic “under God” and was not meant as just a free-for-all, out-of-control Capitalism Greed-Fest but was actually meant more as “freedom of Religion” so people would not have corrupt Catholic church policies forced on them as a “religion” but could rather practice what they believed was a truer kind of Christianity (the Quakers, etc.). It wasn’t all about “the Boston Tea Party” and unfair taxes as modern history would have you believe, it was more about not being tortured & thrown in prison for disagreeing with anything the Pope had an opinion about. But then, our country turned from a Democracy into a sort of Socialistic Fascism or Fascist Socialism, controlled by corporations. Our paper dollar used to be a “promissory note” denoting title to and of a certain oz.s in gold, but no more- now, the American one-dollar bill (which is worth about $.45 on the world open market right now) is based on “market index”, meaning Wall St. It means the dollar has worth based not on weight in gold, but on how well Ford Motor Co. happens to be doing this quarter. Instead of “the United States of America”, our country at this point would be more aptly named “the United States of Wal-Mart”. All this is important because Mega-Capitalism and Corner-The-Market Corporatism, especially after Ronald Reagan deregulated industry creating mega-mergers and then Bill Clinton signed N.A.F.T.A. driving down the average income of lower-to-middle-class wage-earners by importing cheap labor into the country by the millions (no offence meant to anyone “South of the Border” reading this-after all, we did steal Texas from you, didn’t we?), created a class war of the “Have’s” and the “Have-Not1s”. This is a common tactic of Satan, because the Bible states over and over in different scriptures throughout many Books: “Do NOT make yourself a slave to any man.” The end result of ANY form of government is- no matter what type or form of government it is to begin with, is that it ALWAYS DEGENERATES into “Have’s” and “Have-Not’s” with a large group of essentially “slaves” slaving away for a tiny group of the “Masters”. This is a very simple yet effective tactic of Satan: create a class war, with greed on one side and resentment on the other, which will perpetually create false

-Pg. 7pride on one end and bitterness & strife on the other. Added together, it all spells HATE, which is the opposite of LOVE, which is the opposite of GOD. ZEVI: A major reason governments exist is for the protection of private property. It is to protect the “have’s” from the “have-nots” and the unethical among the “have-but-want-more’s”. Outside of the world of agriculture, private property, and civilization, humans self-regulate their population. Wild nature forces them to. They usually exist in small groups of less than fifty members, which can generally govern themselves quite adequately. Were we to have stayed in the Garden, we never would have had to plant or build. God has opened the way back to the Garden. It starts with giving up possession of our dearest thing: Our life, our body, and our will. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: Further along in my phone conversation with Zevi, I started to talk to him about the difference between my mother’s “version” of “Christianity”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (I use quotation marks in this case not to be sarcastic or disrespectful of my mother, but simply because the Jehovah Witnesses believe that Yeshua, or Christ Jesus, is actually the Archangel Michael, not “God in the Flesh”, and I am not sure that this belief qualifies the Jehovah Witnesses as technically a “Christian Religion, whether they believe in God or not), and I noted to him that while most if not all other Christian denominations/churches believe that Jesus acts as a sort of “bridge” between mankind and God to reconcile us with God and therefore “save” us, the Jehovah Witness version of the reason for all the events following the Fall of Man after Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit in the Book of Genesis is as follows: Basically, the serpent (Satan) was proposing to Eve, and by extension Adam, that mankind can rule himself- that we, as humans, do not need God to govern us and that we, given enough time to “work all the kinks out of the system”, can and will be able to successfully govern ourselves without God’s help or guidance. Therefore, the reason God allows evil in all of it’s sad and painful manifestations to continue unabated for so long, is so that man can have a chance to prove to himself beyond a shadow of any doubt that he (man) or his newly-appointed & chosen Master (Satan) can, is, or ever will be able to, successfully govern His (God Almighty’s) planet and/or H i s people (mankind). The Jehovah Witness, idea is that, God does not want to be accused of “playing dirty pool” by killing off Satan and his followers until they have had every last chance to prove themselves worthy of being able to rule the Kingdom they stole to anyone’s satisfaction, except perhaps Satan’s himself. ZEVI: I believe the Bible indicates clearly that all of the civilization endeavors of fallen humans are doomed to a violent overthrow by a cosmictype event. Nevertheless, people are addicted to the causes of “progress”, technology, and development. This is true even among most Christians. The book of Revelations seems to depict God at one point plaguing the people of the Earth over and over at the end of time, and them still not “getting it” and turning from their evil ways. It’s a good read. They just continue on, and never pay attention to what is coming: “Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed [them] all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” (Luke 17:28-30) Even at this time, we witness events like the nuclear catastrophe in Japan, realize we are being lied to by the various governments and even vaguely understand why, yet still we believe that somehow by this great civilization we are saving ourselves instead of destroying ourselves. God has had to let it go on for so long, I have also heard said, to give everyone an everlasting example of where rejection of and rebellion against him leads. I’m also beginning to believe that he’s only going to come in and destroy civilization at the last minute before TOTAL self-destruction. At a point when it has become self evident that had he not done it when he did, “no flesh should be saved”, (see Mt 24:22 and Mark 13:20) in the sense that he’s allowing us to come to the very brink of self-generated and absolute species extinction before he “calls” it. In the unstable world we live in, a global arch-crisis could develop in a matter of days: Nuclear War, a particle accelerator mishap, a plutonium spill, runaway greenhouse tipping point, etc. I’m not saying the end of the world is decades away. It could happen tonight, in the blink of an eye.

MATT:
I would take that even a step further and say that not even Satan would be happy with the result, because Satan is so consumed with jealousy of God, envying and coveting His Throne soo badly, that in the end, even if God were to just give it to him, in whatever is left of Satan’s heart he still would not be truly “happy” because he would know deep down that he stole it, or at the very least, if it was given him instead of him stealing it, he doesn’t deserve it. He didn’t create it, it can NEVER BE HIS, EVEN If HE AQUIRED “OWNERSHIP” OF IT.

-Pg. 8I don’t think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are that far off of the mark with that line of thinking, [Continued below…] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: Satan’s major flaw was that he became lifted up with pride. He thought that he could do things a different way than the Creator. It’s been that way with the followers of Satan, too. They think they are building some sort of super-society, like Star-Trek, to spread white technoculture across galaxies. What they are really doing is destroying humanity and the biosphere. They are changing everything about the way nature does things: from wild fields and forests to huge tracts of mono-crops; from natural selection to pesticides and genetic modification; from wild nature to factory-farms, where animals may never see the light of day or experience the world their instincts teach them to navigate. None of this is sustainable. Humans think to improve nature. Hardly imaginable is a greater strain of arrogance and pride. The scriptures teach that “before destruction, the heart of man is haughty”. Such great haughtiness can only indicate how great a destruction lies at man’s doorstep. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: …yet I think the more commonly held idea of Christianity is more accurate: God created everything for His Own pleasure, and He shares it all with us because He knows how much we would totally appreciate having it shared with us- this is why God “created man in His Image”, so that we would naturally enjoy all the same things He enjoys. It isn’t a matter of figuring out who can govern what better than whom, it is a matter of figuring out who and what God IS. WHO God is, is “The Alpha and the Omega”, the God of Gods, the Almighty, the Most High, and WHAT He is, is LOVE. And LIFE. And He created us “In His image” because He wants us to enjoy what He enjoys- All that He makes, All that He is. His very nature is to “share” things, not to “take” things, and this is the proof of His love. Why would He need to “take” anything if everything is His in the first place? But He “shares” things because, when you share, it gives choice -if I offer to share my peanut-butter sandwich with you, you have the opportunity to say “yes, I’ll have some, thanks” or “no, I don’t want any”. This “free will” to choose is the basis of 1ife itself. Because, without free will, we are nothing more than robots, and a robot has no “life”, it only appears to. By giving us free will God gave us life, and that puts us “on a par” with Him in the sense that He does things that He chooses to do out of His own version of His free will. Therefore, “life” and “free will” are inseperable; one cannot exist without the other. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: God is a giver and shares everything that is good. And here is another instance of Matt pointing out things that I’ve been struggling to articulate. God is good, and gives and shares. He’s not a “taker”, nor does he exploit or enslave. He wants us to be like him, and give and give and give till it hurts, but this does not mean “tithing” or giving to a silly Sunday church. It means giving to our neighbors and to each other, and looking out for and taking care of each other. In one sense, free will relates to “life”, but only to a certain meaning of the word. Animals are alive, in a sense, but I would say that they don’t have the same “free will” that we have. I mean, when you tell Spot to fetch the newspaper, he might decide to get it, and he might decide to look at you with those big, sad eyes, and just flop his tail a few times, but that’s not the type of free will we’re talking about. What he won’t do is go get the newspaper, spread it out on the breakfast table, and pretend-read it for the amusement of the cats, and he won’t make a nest out of it and some twigs in a tree somewhere. He MUST behave like a dog at all times. He is incapable of what we would call “sin”—veering from the type of being God created him to be; of experiencing “alienation”. He’s not exactly like a robot, per se, but in some ways he is very much the same. He is bound to do what the spirit inside him tells him to do. He must do what his instincts tell him to do. Humans, on the other hand, don’t know what they are, and they don’t know how to behave—they are alienated from themselves, and most just allow society to step in at this point and teach them how to behave, through movies, manners, customs, traditions. Or they spend their lives following strange desires, and believing all sorts of flattering self-conceits. We as a species think we’re some kind of noble enlightened creature, when in fact we’re just blind cows that obey merchant shepherds. Free will is one of the few things that are unique to our species. After this comes the ability to use reason and logic to arrive at decisions. Free will would be kind of pointless if we couldn’t cogitate between what the conflicting things little guy on each of our shoulders is telling us. Finally, the most unique thing is that we have a capacity for love. Spot has a form of affection for you, and in some ways many people might prefer this type of affection to the real thing, but a dog does not have the ability to deny himself for you when it’s not in his interests. He cannot truly love because he has no free will. He will ever do what the spirit of a dog that is within him constrains him to do. He can’t love because he has no choice but to “be”. So the “life” that Matt’s talking about is the life of the Spirit; the life of living through love, and love without freedom of the will (freedom to love or to choose not to love) is meaningless and pointless.

-Pg. 9A friend of mine was recently commenting, possibly relaying ideas of Jacques Ellul, that free will was so important to God, that he had been willing to suffer all of the atrocities that civilization has produced—in terms of humans inflicting suffering on other humans, human environmental degradation and toxification, humans inflicting suffering on animals, etc—willing to suffer all of these things that I’m sure tend to mortify and grieve his sense of justice, simply to avoid encroaching on freedom of the will. This is one of the major flaws with many forms of religion—particularly civilized forms of religion, including secular religions like State Communism, but most notably with medieval Catholicism—they sought to impose their ideals, beliefs and practices on others, often against but always irrespective of their will. God wants to be loved. To be looked for, to be sought after, to be followed, believed and trusted. There is no substance in forced “love”. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: Eve brought death into the world by listening to Satan because God did not choose to share that one treetherefore it made Eve (and Adam) a theif to eat of it. “Sharing” is an act of love, “stealing” is an act of hate. Why did God not wish to share that particular fruit with Eve? Because it was “His” and He “didn’t want to share”? Perhaps. After all, He’s God, He can do whatever He wants. But I propose a novel, perhaps revolutionary idea that maybe even Zevi might not agree with: perhaps God wants to share with His children only things we would enjoy. Perhaps “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” is something we humans would not enjoy because, who in their right mind would want to know about “Evil”? But perhaps the “evil” lay in the very act of eating the fruit- perhaps it was no special kind of fruit, no different than any other fruit tree genetically or otherwise, perhaps the sin lay in the fact God said “don’t eat of it!” and therefore, to eat the fruit was stealing. It was God’s. I think it all ties in with what God meant when He said, “I am a jealous God”He did not mean He was a “covetous” God, because how can you covet what is always yours to begin with? God wanted His children to know Who made them and Who their Parent is I that they may not be bastard children, of no importance, of shame, belonging to no one, belonging to an interloper, an adulterer, an enemy. Belonging to Satan. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ZEVI: At least in this life, I think God sometimes shares with us things we do not enjoy in the moment, but whatever he does share with us is certainly meant to be for our benefit and enjoyment in the long run. “And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:’ For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.’ If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?’ But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.’ Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected [us], and we gave [them] reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?’ For they verily for a few days chastened [us] after their own pleasure; but he for [our] profit, that [we] might be partakers of his holiness.’ Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.” Heb 12:5-11 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: It is God’s nature to share. Everything is HIS. Therefore, NOTHING BELONGS TO US. In light of this, communism makes sense, since communism is based on communal sharing. Christians, NO MATTER WHAT GOVERNMENT THEY ARE UNDER and NO MATTER WHAT COUNTRY THEY ARE CITIZENS OF, should practice communism with each other because it is the basis of Christianity. This is why the Apostle Paul got upset and admonished the Church when he discovered Christians were settling disputes “in heathen courts” instead of “within the church”. I can’t say it enough- IF YOU ARE A TRUE CHRISTIAN, BY DEFENITION YOU ARE A COMMUNIST, ELSE YE BE NOT A TRUE CHRISTIAN, more on this later, I am being kicked off the typewriter so I can “share” it with another inmate here at the jail (i.e. my typing-room hour is up). I will finish this hopefully soon, I would like to see this completed paper in Zevi’s hands and presented to his Church in time for Easter. (LATERTHATSAMEEVENING) It appears the person next in line for the typewriter changed his mind and went to bed, leaving another typing spot open for me. Must be a “God thing” that this happened, because there was one last important aspect of my & Zevi’s phone conversation that I wanted to write about, tonight, before retiring to take a break on the subject to collect my thoughts for “Phase II” of this paper, which I intend to be a sort of “manifesto” or “instruction manual” about how to put into action the concepts of Christian communism, communal property, communal living, and communal governance no matter what country, government, or

-Pg. 10regime or country you happen to be a part of (here’s a hint: the idea is to “fly under the radar” so you don’t become a target like the whole David Koresh debacle). The following concludes the phone conversation of a couple weeks ago I had with Zevi which led up to my writing this paper: I had just got done talking about the difference between what the Jehovah Witnesses believe vs. what most other Christians believe and how that relates to world governments in general and communism in particular, when Zevi made the point that man’s version of “communism” as it exists as a government today is not the same as what God intended as “communism”, and that Christians need to be practicing an altogether different kind of “communism” with each other. I sort of interrupted Zevi and more or less finished his thoughts, or what it was he was trying to say, for him by saying: “...Because nothing belongs to us anyways in the first place, up to and including our own lives. And that is what I believe makes Jesus Christ the ‘Ultimate Communist’: because He was trying to show us that Love is something to be shared and that nothing belongs to us anyways, up to and including our own lives- and not only that, but that He would PROVE IT by GIVING UP HIS OWN LIFE to US!” That was the comment I made which prompted Zevi to exclaim, “That’s IT! That’s what I’ve been trying to say! You need to go write that down!” ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Zevi: I can’t say it any better than this. When Yeshua talked about the greatest commandment being to “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, it means to put no difference or priority between ones own and ones neighbor’s needs. Your neighbor’s needs are indistinguishable from and of equal priority to your own. Without love, communism is destined to fail. There’s a strong relationship between Christ’s teachings about love and the ethic of community. The concept of the flesh, for example is the epitome of self-centeredness, the epitome of a strongly individualist entity. The whole concept of denying self, preferring others, serving others reflects the necessary spirit to ensure the success of a strongly communal culture. Love is putting others before self. When the people asked John the Baptist what would they need to do to prepare for the arrival of Messiah, he didn’t make any qualms: “He answereth and saith unto them, He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do likewise.” (Lk. 3:10; 11, emphasis added) When that principle, of loving one’s neighbor AS one’s self, is applied to the handling of material possessions, money, food, clothing, etc., especially in a group setting where you have several people living out this principle toward one another, that’s really what communism is. Communism is defined by the Webster’s Third International Dictionary (Unabridged), as “1a: a theory advocating elimination of private ownership of property or capital b: a system or condition real or imagined in which goods are owned commonly rather than privately and are available as needed to each one in a unified group sometimes limited, sometimes inclusive, and often composed of members living and working together : a similar system preventing the amassing of private goods and assuring equalitarian returns to those working…” An alternative definition that also captures some of the actual breadth of the term can be found in the Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought. There, communism is defined by Bullock and Stallybrass as: “A term denoting: (1) A set of ideas and the ideological tradition…[sic] connected with them. Historically the point of reference for communist ideas is the communal ownership of all property. Thus primitive communism refers to non-literate societies, in which basic economic resources (such as land, boats, etc.) belong to the community as a whole and not to individuals or families. Religious groups (such as early Christians or medieval monasteries) are referred to as examples of communist organization; so are historical communities, such as Sparta, the Muenster Anabaptists, or the Jesuit Paraguay republic, as well as theoretical schemes for ideal societies, such as Plato’s Republic, Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia, or Campanella’s City of the Sun.” (Def.1, 116) Yeshua “advocated” for the “elimination of private ownership of property or capital” when he required all his disciples to “forsake all” they owned to be his disciple. (In Luke 18:18-25, the famous “young rich ruler” is instructed in this way when he asks how to get to heaven; see also Mt 19:16-26, Mk 10:17-27. Church Christians argue that it was an isolated challenge for this man alone, but the same requirement is mentioned or alluded to in Mt 13:45-46, Lk 12:32-34—verse one says he was addressing an “innumerable multitude”. Lk 14:31-33 makes clear that forsaking all is how we “make peace” with God. Lk 18:28-30, Mt 19:27-30, Mk 10:28-31 show how the original disciples following Yeshua did this. Acts 4:36,37 Barnabas forsook all. In verses 34,35 it shows how the entire first church did this. Acts 5 from the beginning of the chapter shows how a couple was killed by divine retribution for being shifty and sneaky about this requirement) (NOTE: He advocated for “elimination of private property” Among his followers, on a voluntary basis—NOT a political revolution like the Marxists or socialists where other people’s wealth is TAKEN from them by force—It is GIVEN out of Love and laying down one’s life for others like Yeshua did for us—we’re to follow him if we want to end up where he is) Reading through the New Testament, you can see the different ways that sharing possessions was practiced. The most famous passages are found in Acts chapters Two and Four.

-Pg. 11“And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all [men], as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” (Acts 2:44-47) You see here also how there was the need-based distribution mentioned in the Webster’s definition. “And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any [of them] that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (Acts 2:31,32. Emphasis added) There’s a pretty much indisputable example of the disciples clearly foregoing the rights and privileges of private property. No one exerted private ownership; everything was commonly owned. They universally shared things among themselves. “And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid [them] down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 2:33-35) Where the definition talks about “a similar system preventing the amassing of private goods”, it speaks to a consistent theme in the Christian Scriptures against private wealth ON EARTH. The best example is Yeshua’s famous teaching against “laying up treasures” found in Matt 6 “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also. The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness! No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (vss. 19-24) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ MATT: That was pretty much the end of the conversation as I remember it; if anything else of importance was said pertaining to this topic during that conversation, you would have to ask Zevi, since drugs & alcohol has reduced my brain’s memory to a near-Alzheimer’s state sometimes (I have these weird “blank spots” in my memory, as if someone recorded a music cassette, then went and randomly erased 10 or 20-second spots in the middle of certain songs on the tape). However, I want to take this concept one step further before I end this section of the paper, into an area I didn’t discuss with Zevi and which I am not sure he would agree with: in general, Christians like to emphasize that Jesus was God, that it was God that gave His Own life to save us. But I don’t think Christians put enough emphasis on the fact that Jesus was a man, and I do not think most Christians understand why this is important, so I would like to take this opportunity to explain exactly why it is, not only important, but maybe THE most important aspect of His sacrifice for us: imagine if you were asked to do the same thing Jesus did, except knowing full well that you are not God and that there is no guarantee that you would be resurrected unto life after three days? Or after any amount of time for that matter? To die at the hands of people who hate you for no good reason, just to show them a lesson? Just to teach them that, truly, it is better to give than to receive, and that fear is of the devil, and we all die anyways so why not die for a good reason than to die for no reason at all? Would YOU do it? Jesus Himself spoke into my soul one day when I was 17 years old, taking a shower. Jesus Himself “waterbaptised” me under the running water of a YMCA shower where I was washing because we had no running water in the ghetto house I lived in at the time. I always wondered why He chose then to do it. Why that particular time? Why not wait until I was a little older, better able to resist sin because I would have grown out of the impulsiveness and the immaturity of youth, and would have the sense to find a good church? Why then? I was asking myself this question just a week ago, have been asking it for 26 years now, and now, writing this paper, I finally know why: because I was thinking of Jesus in terms of His humanity that day in the shower. All the times before that day, whenever I thought of Jesus, it was always with a sense of contempt— contempt bordering almost on hatred, because I never thought of Him as a man but as God “pretending” man. I always thought, “Well, if He knew He would come back to life three days later, then get to live in some kind of unimaginably joyful paradise, and not only that but also be the “king” of that paradise, then what consequence is a few hour’s of pain on the cross? And hwy would Satan’s temptation of offering Him the world and all the kingdoms of the world in all their glory even be much of a ‘tem-tation’ at all in the first place, if you knew that a few hours’ worth of pain on a simple torture device followed by a three-day death

-Pg. 12would buy you Heaven Eternal? And why does that give this Jesus guy the right to therefore condemn us, to be the One who decides if we get to go to heaven or hell or not? Shit, there’s been soldiers in the Vietnam War who had their own penis cut off, forced to put it in their own mouth, then get tied to a bamboo tree and literally get skinned alive! With no guarantee of heaven afterwards, just to prove their allegiance to our country in a war we should never have been in the first place! And I’m expected to worship & fear this “Jesus’ guy and be thankful for Him? That’s INSANE! I will NEVER bow to a ‘God’ who is such a crazy, sadomasochistic tyrant! I’d rather go to hel1 than worship someone like that!” Well, that fateful day in the shower, I wasn’t thinking of Jesus as some Superman-type God/Man Hybrid capable of all kinds of various magic & stuff, I was thinking of Him as a man. Just for a moment, I was thinking of Him as just this sort of crazy yet well-meaning and well-intentioned guy, some sort of Holy Man but more of like some kind of preacher-guy, who was a man, who, for whatever reason, felt like it was His duty to die for a bunch of stupid, ungrateful Jews thousands of years ago. I thought of him as a sort of half-nuts philosopher of sorts with some kind of crazy “agenda” and something to prove, as a man. And I thought to myself, “Well, in spite of the fact that I don’t care for His selfrighteous attitude & all- still, I think it’s pretty cool that He died for those stupid Jews all those thousands of years ago!” And that is when I heard ANOTHER voice (not my_ voice, and not “hearing voices” like a schitzo or someone on drugs, which I was not) say directly into the center of my Being which was a voice as small as an Atom but with the force of an Atom Bomb, say: “Not just ‘them’, but you, too.” And now I understand: that was why, at one point on the cross, Jesus looked up and said, “God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Because, just for a moment, He was a man, as sinful as any of us (in fact, according to scripture, as sinful as al1 of us; past, present, and future), and deserving of nothing less than the Hell that we deserve as bastard children of Satan. God had to look away, and in that moment, Jesus was fully a man, JUST LIKE US. And RIGHT THERE is the crux of our salvation. I will continue this tomorrow, I feel there’s been enough work done on this for now. (DATE: Thursday, April 7th, 201l) -PHASE II- (Christian Communism Actualized) Dear reader, I said earlier in this paper I would explain how Christians can best apply the idea of the Christian idea of “communism” (what I prefer to call “True Christianity”) during what I called “Phase II” of this paper, which I intended to be the “second half” of a two-part paper. But then some more thoughts about Jesus Christ, and how He practiced communism and encouraged His followers to practice it in His and/or their life(s), came to me, and I was going to make “Phase II” be all about these various examples. But, having said my “pre-typing prayer”, I realized that when I started this paper, during a little mini-speech I included about my need to avoid “being prideful”, I also mentioned I would avoid “going off on tangents”. So I decided to stick to what I said earlier in this paper and outline what I believe is a Biblical and viable way for Christians to live and act together in a communistic way. Then, I will add a “Phase III” of this paper, which will be the ideas about Jesus I just mentioned that I believe relate to communism. The communistic living structure I propose is what I call “Small Living Units”. I believe Christians should live together in small groups. When I say “small”, I mean a dozen (12) or less per group, per house. Probably less than a dozen would be preferable, like maybe six or eight people. The group should be small to encourage accountability and prevent “fakes” coming into the group, as mentioned in the Book of Jude, Verse #4. I also believe it is advisable to separate newer Christians from “Elders” in the sense that, at least one “Elder” should live among a group of newer Christians, but if a group includes many married couples living under one roof, the married couples should be “into the meat of it” (“Elder” Christians) because newer Christians only “into the milk of it” having several married couples living under one roof, may encourage adulterous temptations. And of course, as for non-marrieds, it should be women in one house and men in the other, or at the very least, women divided into a sort of “off limits” section of the house with the men in a likewise separated part of the house, with a “common area” like living room & dining areas being the only place of general mixing of the sexes in social situations. But above all, “small is better” is my main idea about groupsize of a communally-living Christian group. With many people in large numbers comes anonymity, and anonymous mindset breeds acting out temptations (sin). If there is only five people, it’s safe to say that none of those five people can really “hide” anything from each other for long... but fifty people? If I live in a communistic-Christian group and I’m in the closet or the bathroom or locked in my bedroom for two or three hours, am I in there reading my Bible or am I in there reading my porno magazine? And with fifty people, who is even going to check on me to find out? So, “small is better” is my mantra. Secondly, there should be no arguing over who the “leader” is. In fact, there IS no “leader” in a communistic-Christian living structure. JESUS is the “leader”. Although I was never really considered a “part of the group” because of my sinful tendencies, I spent a lot of time with Zevi’s former group “The Brothers” and the communistic living set-up they had (if you could call it that) in Fort Collins we all just referred to as “The Howes St. House” or “The Meldrum House”, and a giant, all-consuming debate went on for months on

-Pg. 13end about who the “leader” (Pastor, Preacher, Head Elder, or whatever you want to call it) would be- and this, along with a few other divisive actions & attitudes within the “group” as it was, eventually caused the whole thing to collapse, with everybody leaving the communal structure and all going their separate ways. Several members stayed in Fort Collins but all moved to separate dwellings, and formed a “church” of sorts, but that church didn’t “grow” much (I think it gained less than a dozen new members since it’s conception) and finally disbanded a few months ago when one leader died and the other leader “felt he could no longer perform duties as church leader due to family issues” (something to do with needing to focus more on raising his children). To be a successful group, strife and contention among members must be recognized for what it is: a strategy of the devil to “divide & conquer” Christians. Trust is essential in a communistic-Christian setting. Outsiders should be welcomed, but not automatically accepted into the group based on credentials from other Christians you haven’t met and/or don’t know, or any other reason. Get to know new members before letting them move in with you, allowing courtships with the women, allowing them to participate in important church decisions, and so on. I hate to use this particular group as an example, but the Satanic-influenced outlaw biker gang known as the “Hell’s Angels” have an initiation rite for new members known as “prospecting”- this is a period of time, lasting several months to, more often than not, several years, where the potential new member must “prove himself worthy” by first getting to know all the other actual members, then going through a series of “loyalty tests” to prove they deserve to be a full-fledged member. New members of a communistic-Christian living group should do something similar, but with a sense of love, patience, and perhaps even guidance & encouragement for new Christians “in the milk of it”. Members of the group should not live in fear of “losing status” by confessing sins to each other, like I saw happen in the Fort Collins group Zevi was a part of. As I’ve mentioned to Zevi on several occasions, the sad yet humorous result (at least I thought it was humorous) of hiding sins from each other is that they would all come to me and “confess” what they did or were doing wrong (sins), since they all considered me a “heathen” anyways, and who cares what a “heathen” thinks anyways? I had no consequence and carried no authority within the group, but the guilt was eating at them and they had to confess to somebody, so they would tell me. Well, what good did it do them? What good could it do them? After all, I wasn’t able to give them any Biblical guidance about it since I actually was a “heathen” and therefore thoroughly unable to help them. ZEVI: I do want to interject here and state that I was one of the people that would confess to and confide in Matt about various sins I was struggling with or other problems I was facing. I did manage to walk away from the situation he’s described with a valuable lesson. Sometimes, if others are looking towards you for guidance, or particularly when you are locked in an ideological battle with some teaching you perceive as dangerous coming into the body, and you are having to deal with people that would resort to ad-homonym tactics (attacking the messenger to discredit the message, however irrefutable otherwise), it does create a sort of pressure to maintain your “image”. What I’ve learned is that it is better to have your image destroyed than to harbor secret sin. Your image is something you conceive of and you can trust in and even sort of vainly cherish. God’s authority is not manifest behind masks, it shines through broken hearts. Something that I feel like is often way too important to “Christians” is what OTHER PEOPLE THINK. At the end of the day, all that really matters is what the TRUTH is and what God thinks. All the pretenders are going to be unmasked at the end of the ball, so don’t be one. MATT: But now I feel like I am starting to talk about myself too much, so I want to talk about a major subject and stumbling block within communal living: communication, and forgiveness. Nobody who cherishes their title as “Christian” wants to end up like the man “Paul” threw out of the church when it was discovered the man was sleeping with (sex) his stepmother. Let ex-communication be a LAST RESORT after EVERYTHING ELSE FAILS to affect repentance & change, or at least repentance. This is WHY church members such as Zevi’s own group do not confess and hold each other accountable: fear of rejection. Fear and unforgiveness is OF SATAN. It doesn’t mean you have to let your church become an ultra-liberal free-for-all, it means you have to recognize no one is more or less prone to sin than anyone else. And communication is key, because within a small group, especially a communally-living group, resentments can build up into sins and even hatred out of simple lack of communication and misunderstanding. If your roommate has his radio too loud on a nightly basis for you to get good sleep, TELL HIM (in a kind way), instead of assuming “it is more ‘Christian’ of me to just suffer it” and allow resentment to fester, even subconsciously. I had a lot more to say on the subject of communistic-Christian living, but I have to cut this paper short against my own will. I have to mail this tonight, because of some problems I am having here at the jail I’m in which might cause me the loss of the typewriter for awhile. So let me move on to “Phase III” now:

-Pg. 14I just want to quote from the book “The Convict Christ” by author Jens Soering: on Page 2 in the Introduction, the author writes: “...becoming a convict was not merely a role that Jesus assumed like a divine play-actor. In the parable of the sheep and the goats, He said explicitly, ‘I was in prison and you came to visit me... Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me’ (Matthew 25:36, 40). Just as Christ became a full, true human being at birth, he became a full, true jailbird at death.” (next paragraph says) “So scandalous is this fact that even our major Bible translators subtly obscure it. Luke 23:32, for instance, is often rendered, ‘Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with Him to be executed,’ implying a difference between the two theives and Jesus. But the original Greek text of this verse reads: ‘de kai heteroi kakouroi duo sun auto’: ‘the two other criminals also with Him.’ Thus the evangelist Luke recognized an equivalence between Christ and the thieves that is apparently considered too shocking by modern translators.” I decided to add that book quote to this paper because I saw it in the aforementioned book after I had already started writing this paper, and had mentioned in this paper that I really didn’t get “saved” or “water-Baptized” or realize the importance of what Jesus did on the cross for us all until I first realized that He was not only God, but also a man. Again, I believe this emphasizes the crux of Christian communism- nothing belongs to us, up to and including our own lives, and to share with another human being is what God meant when He said, “Love thy neighbor as thy self.” It means, empathy not sympathy. When a Christian gives food to a poor person, it should not be because you “feel sorry for” them because the act of “feeling sorry for” this other person puts you in a position “above” the other person and causes you a false sense of pride, as if it were “your” food to give in the first place and you’re “doing them a favor”. YOU ARE NOT GOD, IT ISN”T YOUR FOOD, YOU ARE NOT DOING SOMEONE A FAVOR. You should do for others from a sense of empathy, which says, “If I were that other person, I sure wish I had someone give me_ some food if & when I want or need it, and without making me feel guilty about it or belittled for accepting it!” THAT is “loving thy neighbor” as God intended, and what could be more communist than that? I was going to end this paper with some more quotes out of some more books, but I am running out of time. However, I would like to end with one final instruction: If my friend Zevi lets you borrow this paper, I encourage you to make as many Xerox-photo-copies of it as you can afford and leave copies of this in random places: on bus benches and on the bus seats themselves when you commute, inside newspaper dispensers in the city, in phone booths, in empty grocery carts at the stores, in random mailboxes. First use “white-out” to obscure my & Zevi’s full names at the beginning page of the paper so it doesn’t get us in some kind of legal trouble with some militant Atheists or whatever (and also because, as Christian communists, we should consider these ideas to be God’s and “Not ours” to claim credit for anyways), and just fill in something like “Anonymous Christian(s)” where our name(s) originally were. I came up with a similar idea back in year 2007, when I met a man who produced business cards for a living and, not feeling strong enough in my faith to be an actual evangelistic preacher but nevertheless believing in God and wanting to help people, I came up with the idea of making up a thousand or so business cards that just said “THERE I S A GOD!”, something really simple like that for people to ponder, and leaving the cards in random places for people to find. No “dogma”, no “denominations” no opinions of any sort, just a simple message like that for some poor drug-addict or soon-to-be-divorced person at the end of-their rope so to speak to find and ponder, and perhaps give them hope. But I see nothing necessarily dogmatic or denominational about this paper, maybe there is a little bit of “opinion” in it but it is mostly positive, and I think a thousand copies of this paper randomly spread out all over the place where people can find & read it for free might help. Who knows, maybe even others will make copies and it could grow the way “chain-mail” does except without the irritating demand that chain-mail usually has (you know, the old trick of “make five copies to send to friends or get bad luck” b.s.) and, man, i f i t takes a mil l ion copies of this thing to save even one soul, or even just to help someone with a personal problem they are having or just make them happy for awhile, then i t was all worth it. Sincerely, with Peace and Love, ___/~\/:7 Matt & zevi

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful