EUPHEMIZING LANGUAGE OBFUSCATING HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR DANGER OF MORE DISEASES AND DAMNATION

Katharine Houreld's Associated Press article, "2 U.S. Bishops Consecrated in Kenya," (below in-full) demonstrates mainstream acquiescence to euphemizing the language, thereby, obfuscating homosexual and other behavior that places bodies, minds, and souls in grave danger.

We write the following in the spirit of warning people not to fall but to stop and turn. It is practicing the Golden Rule, as we would wish to be warned away from evil error. Please read it in that light.

Where's the line of these false-liberals? If homosexuality is all right, what about three-somes (Ménage a Trios)? Is that all right? What about pederasty and pedophilia? Surely if two men can engage in sexual intercourse then a man and a boy can too. Is incest all right? Why doesn't society just say now that it is fine and healthy for whole families to openly engage each other in sexual intercourse? Well, there's the issue of birth defects that result.

Well, there's always so-called safe sex. If generation after generation just uses condoms, what's the harm? If it feels good, do it. But don't pederasty and pedophilia turn the stomachs of children who haven't been twisted over time by predation? Yes they do, because pederasty and pedophilia are naturally disgusting.

Is adultery acceptable? Is bestiality condoned? What about sadomasochism? That must be all right too.

Why then did Jesus tell the adulteress to go and sin no more, since she wasn't sinning, according to these false-liberals? Is it that the line has just been moved as much as can be tolerated in small, evil bits? As soon as the people are used to open homosexual displays, then the people will be asked to digest some further depravation. No?

Oh yes. There is an age-old agenda being put out there now to be accepted or rejected. Either Sodom was fine or it was full of sexual perversion constituting an unacceptable and intolerable disease state. Which do you think was the case?

We say the so-called homosexual revolution is the slippery slope to the utter degradation that is hell. We say they don't intend on stopping their libertine drive at just getting the people to accept and condone homosexual depravity. We say they plan to continue bringing in more and more putrefaction from hell until the gates of hell are shut and locked for good—literally for good, which is for righteousness' sake.

How can we handle these questions without sarcasm and irony, which are not of the spirit that is most conducive to encouraging people to turn away from harm (iniquity) no matter how much others attempt to sugarcoat it (wolves in sheep's clothing; the devil outwardly appearing as an angel of light but leading only to decay)?

Homosexuality is harmful. It causes and spreads numerous, serious diseases. It is itself a disease, despite the recent change by psychiatrists and psychologists.

There is nothing liberal about it.

This new twist in the meaning of liberal will be stopped and reversed. This conflating of two irreconcilable connotations will not stand. The real liberal {who is giving and sharing and additive (bountiful through God)} is not one and the same as the person who says it is fine to be harmful and unwholesome. That conflation is false. It comes from the dark side. It is evil and must be stopped dead in its spiritually dead tracks.

There was never anything gay about homosexuality. Gay means cheerful and merry but even more. Some homosexuals conjured up the idea of appropriating the word "gay" for its euphemistic, psychological effect. The ploy won't stand the test of time.

If anyone is cheerful and merry, he or she is not necessarily homosexual. That's how it is, whether some homosexuals like it or not.

They chose the term gay, because it was, and still can be, a great word. People loved that word for what it stood for and still really stands for. Now the concept was diminished by a long lapse in language that fully connotes the real meaning of the word gay. What can and should be done? Use the word properly. Use the language properly.

Gay means gay and liberal means liberal. They don't mean homosexual or sinful.

The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. Isaiah 32:5

Righting the language is required. The language reflects the condition of our hearts, minds, and souls.

By KATHARINE HOURELD, Associated Press Writer

More than a century ago, Western missionaries began streaming into Africa looking for souls in need of salvation. Now, conservative American priests say it's their church that needs saving.

On Thursday, two U.S. priests were consecrated as Anglican bishops in Kenya, the latest in a string of priests who are defecting to African congregations because of the American church's liberal stance on gays.

"The West used to send missionaries to Africa and the Third World," said Kenyan Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi as he consecrated Bill Atwood and William Murdoch. "But now the Third World is sending its missionaries to the West."

Atwood and Murdoch left the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the worldwide Anglican Communion, because it allows the ordination of gay priests. As Kenyan bishops, the men will return to their homes — Atwood to Texas and Murdoch to Massachusetts — to minister to 32 congregations under Nzimbi's jurisdiction.

The issue has heightened significance for Murdoch, whose brother is a gay priest in Massachusetts. After his consecration Thursday, Murdoch said: "My brother and I love each other and we always will .... The difference of opinion we have regarding this issue will not distract us."

The spiritual head of the Anglican Communion, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, had asked African archbishops not to consecrate U.S. priests to help avoid a schism. Nzimbi said there had been no direct communication with Williams over Thursday's ceremony.

Williams has no direct authority to force a compromise because each Anglican province is self-governing.

The Anglican Communion has moved toward the brink of splitting since the Episcopal Church consecrated its first openly gay bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, in 2003. Most of the fellowship's 77 million members are based in the developing world, where homosexuality is strongly discouraged and often illegal.

Africa, home to half the world's Anglicans, is dominated by conservative leaders.

"Homosexual practices violate the order of life given by God in Holy Scripture," said Archbishop Drexel Gomez of the West Indies, one of 10 Anglican leaders or their representatives who attended the consecration ceremony at Nairobi's All Saints Cathedral. There are 38 Anglican leaders, or primates, worldwide.

During Thursday's ceremony, Atwood said accepting homosexuality is "a cruel falsehood."

"The very core message of the Christian church is being abandoned," he added.

Rosalind Hackett, professor of religious studies at the University of Tennessee, said the dispute was part of a wider shift in Christianity, with African churches increasingly confident in challenging Western interpretations of theology.

"They feel they have the right and capability to determine the agenda," Hackett told The Associated Press. "The 21st century is Africa's moment."

A split would hit the communion financially because the small but wealthy Episcopal Church, which has 2.4 million members, provides a significant chunk of the fellowship's budget. Next month, Episcopal bishops will discuss demands that they pledge by Sept. 30 not to consecrate another openly gay bishop. If the bishops refuse, the church could lose its full membership in the communion.

Both sides of the argument say the issue goes deeper than simple acceptance of homosexuality. Liberal Anglicans say the Bible's message of tolerance means there should be a place for everyone in church, but conservatives say that is bending the word of God to fit fashion.

Six other U.S. priests have been consecrated as bishops in the Rwandan church and another in Nigeria. One more American priest will be consecrated in Uganda on Sunday, where a radio journalist was suspended on Thursday after he aired an interview with a lesbian guest.

Davis Mac-Iyalla, who heads Nigeria-based Changing Attitudes, an organization of gay Anglicans, said arguments were being used to mask political struggles within the church. African archbishops "are being used by Western conservatives because they want to control the church," he said.

Not all African Anglicans are opposed to homosexuality, Mac-Iyalla added.

"My Scripture has not condemned me," he insisted. "Jesus came and died for everybody."

Source

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • I'm a bit torn here. Though I was raised in a time when homosexual acts were a criminal offense, I've come to find I lacked specific citations to their being forbidden.

      More particularly, I would decry the common inability to distingush between the hoo-haw about that and what I consider a much more grievous error - assault on children.

      There may be a need to worry less about the errors of a minority with a sexual dysfunction and more about relationships between people being perverted by hate and the 'correcting' of others.

      The Pharisees we have always with us.

    • opit commented above:

      I’m a bit torn here. Though I was raised in a time when homosexual acts were a criminal offense, I’ve come to find I lacked specific citations to their being forbidden.

      More particularly, I would decry the common inability to distingush between the hoo-haw about that and what I consider a much more grievous error - assault on children.

      There may be a need to worry less about the errors of a minority with a sexual dysfunction and more about relationships between people being perverted by hate and the ‘correcting’ of others.

      The Pharisees we have always with us.

      Homosexual acts are specifically forbidden in the Old Testament. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (King James Version). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. As for the New Testament, Paul is specific. "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Romans 1:27. However, we must always turn to the words of Jesus to be sure. It isn't written anywhere we have that Jesus said don't do homosexual acts except by implication. We use inference. Jesus specifically told his disciples to be "harmless as doves." This is only one of the many things he told them that implies his anti-homosexuality, but we don't need more than this one statement to demonstrate that. If he told them to be harmless as doves, the only question then that matters is whether or not homosexuality is being as harmless as a dove. Since homosexuality results in a long laundry list of diseases negatively affecting the entire being, we know it is far from harmless. Ergo, it is forbidden behavior for the Christian. It's that simple.

      You state that homosexual acts are relatively less offensive than attacks on children. Well, those who commit the greater sin will receive the greater stripes, not from real Christians but as a consequence of falling further for having failed to heed the warnings. Jesus taught us to take care not to violate even the smallest commandment. One cannot be keeping the greatest commandment while violating the lesser ones. He called for consistency. Rather than point to attacking children by way of suggesting that we ought not to be concerned about homosexual behavior, point to perfect righteousness that is God by way of saying that we each must stop all iniquity.

      Also, teaching children that homosexuality is not something to steer clear of is at best negligent and actually results in many children being assaulted by homosexuality. It is an attack on the being. It fractures the soul. It is the opposite of wholesome building. All adult homosexuals who come down with the various disease promoted by their behavior were once little children many of whom were raised with a twisted concept of tolerance that leaves the impression that homosexual behavior is condoned rather than simply summarily rejected but without stoning. That's where the Old Testament and New Testament part company. Moses stoned them. Jesus cast no stones.

      "The errors of a minority with a sexual dysfunction" in Sodom turned into the entire city being directly afflicted. The disease is a contagion. The lowering of resistance makes more and more souls susceptible. Raise your resistance. Strengthen your immune system. It's righteousness. It's God acting, dwelling, within.

      As for perversion by hate, Jesus taught that we are to hate our family members and ourselves even while we are to love our enemies. What is it that we are correctly to hate? It is iniquity. It is good and right to hate iniquity. You hate attacks on children. It is good that you hate that. You should hate it. You're supposed to hate it. It's evil. Are those who attack children your enemy whom you nevertheless love? Well, doing unto the attackers of children as you would have others do unto you (despite your own failings) is the right approach according to Christianity. Behaving in a way that if everyone were to behave that way we'd all be in Heaven already is how Jesus behaved. It's the right example. Being silent, not calling for higher behavior that precludes homosexuality and its inherent dangers, is not behaving as Jesus behaved.

      If we hate our own iniquity, it means our conscience is working. The more we hate iniquity within, the better our conscience is working. The conscience of Jesus worked so well that he didn't fall. It worked so well that he rather rose.

      As for correcting others, salvation is correction. One must love being corrected, guided, by God. The more we listen and adhere the better. "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 12:47. He's warning people out of love. He's telling them that there are consequences. He's practicing the Golden Rule.

      Also, you want people who attack children to become corrected (to straighten out their crooked, twisted behavior), don't you? Wouldn't you tell anyone doing it to stop the evil behavior that is harmful to children? You'd be working to correct them. Whether or not the people listen and stop, you'd still be doing the right thing for the children and those perpetrators.

      One day, we won't have the spirits of the Pharisees with us. There will be no more hypocrisy and doubt retarding the benefits from the Holy Spirit.