Tazzy and Piggy,

You've rejected the light. Well, that's what many souls do.

For the benefit of our other visitors and readers, we'll address the few things you said. Understand that we are not about quarreling. We just state the truth and let the souls sort themselves.

As for HHV-8, something was lost in the translation. You either didn't understand or decided to take it wrong. We retained the language of the original source material of John R. Diggs, Jr., M.D. If new information comes to light, that will be that. However, the general conclusion of the documentation is overwhelmingly undeniable that homosexual behavior is detrimental in general.

When we read Diggs' work, we took it that he was referring to sexual behavior and was not saying that all the manifestations of a named state were exclusive to homosexuals or would remain so.

Even the Wikipedia, which is scoured by homosexuals, states the following concerning HHV-8:

Gay and bi-sexual men are more susceptible to infection (through still unknown routes of sexual transmission) whereas the virus is transmitted through non-sexual routes in developing countries.

That is how we took the point. The post leaves open more revelation. That's why it says, "so far." Surely, you aren't suggesting that the entire argument rises or falls on your initial impression concerning that one point out of all the numerous things stated.

Nevertheless, it says homosexuals are more susceptible. That is a problem of homosexuality. Is everything going to remain exactly as is? We aren't saying that. We are saying that the pattern is that homosexuality leads to nothing good and only to that which is worse and inevitably the worst.

As for HIV, promiscuity and other factors have led to HIV spreading in heterosexual populations. However, if there had never been an epidemic in the homosexual community that spread via bi-sexuality, where would HIV stand now? HIV spread like wildfire in the bathhouses of San Francisco and New York and other places were homosexuals engaged in huge orgiastic behavior. That is undeniable.

Teenage pregnancies are due to socially lax attitudes about the harm of selfishness in general. Children are taught by society to seek to satisfy selfish lusts of all kinds. Those lusts are increased and even created by greedy marketers who want the money that hyper-consumptive children and their parents will bring them. Supplying condoms is just more of the same. It is saying, give in to your lusts. From there comes war and more greed. The whole spirit is one and is the source of all of humanity's problems. Homosexuality is part of that misleading spirit of temptation, caving in, and dragging others along if they don't refuse to go along.

"Gay Bowel Syndrome. Pah! There's actually no such thing!" Anyone who denies that homosexuals have major problems in that area way above the per capita incidences in the heterosexual community is just obfuscating. In addition, heterosexuals also make the mistake of engaging in anal intercourse. The proper comparison to make is with faithful, monogamous heterosexuals who don't engage in anal intercourse.

The method used in attempting to deny the truth is typical of all deniers. The method is to pick out one or two things and to try to cast the tiniest doubt and then claim that the whole was resting upon just one leg.

The question is, is homosexuality good for one or bad for one. Tazzy and Piggy, do you have any physical problems that you would not have if you were not engaged in homosexual behavior? Don't lie.

As for fidelity, the doctor's research was about prevalence. We are not saying that heterosexual adultery doesn't exist. We are saying that the spirit of laxness inherent in acceptance of homosexuality is conducive to more of itself (laxness). Homosexuals are more promiscuous, because that goes with that spirit. The laxness that is accepting of heterosexual adultery is the same reason homosexuality has been able to make such inroads into loosened society. It isn't the narrow way. It isn't through the strait gate.

We are interested in having zero promiscuity. We are interested in zero ill-health. The spirit of Jesus Christ can cure all disease. It can make the being incorruptible. Accepting laxness being pawned off as tolerance is not conducive to that spirit. It is conducive to disease and finally death of the flesh and soul in hell. That's what Jesus teaches. You say you are Christians, but you don't agree with him.

Jesus can rid the flesh of all harmful viruses and bacteria instantly and from afar. It just takes sufficient belief individually and societally. Where there was great doubt, the people could not be cured. Jesus can end all homosexuality. You and your partner don't need to continue your behavior. You can break your sexual addiction by believing in Jesus.

Straight marriages are failing that would not otherwise have failed, because of the hardness in people's hearts. That hardness is their selfishness. They will continue engaging in behavior that is shown not to be good, but they won't overcome their desires of the flesh. It is why there is greed. It is why there are wars. It is why there is sexual depravity (homosexual harm included, of course).

Harry Potter is not consistent. Harry Potter is partial truth. It is the evil part to which we object. He is a fictional character ostensibly battling evil. Her teaching method is for not crediting God and for teaching the children that miraculous things are actually not real or if they are, they are magic apart from God. Harry Potter is the authoress' vehicle for imparting that to which she wants the children to partake, to feed on, ingest, and to make a part of them. The stories are diversions away from the message of Jesus Christ. The entire language that the children are being taught and the entire lifestyle concerning which they are being prepped and for which they're being set up includes acceptance of all sorts of things that are unacceptable in heaven. Their proper inhibitions are being systematically reduced.

Watch what happens. The lines will form. The sheep will gravitate together. The goats will gravitate together. The goats will subscribe to your position regarding Harry Potter. The sheep will look to the Gospels and find the truth—the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You don't understand that J.K. Rowling hates Jesus and God. She hates what Jesus teaches. She loves the money she's made. She loves it that now she's front and center and people are heeding her word over righteousness. She wants his demise. She is of the dark side. You are duped. You are duping yourselves. You aren't being honest with yourselves. You are in denial about the satanic spirit.

Is homosexuality completely benign? That's a yes or no. Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. Matthew 12:33.

The fruit of homosexuality is not good, and you know that. Your disease in you is clinging. It has its claws dug into you. It hurts you when you try to get them out. You become afraid to turn to God.

Well, that's all I can do for you. If you persist in your denial and continue to facilitate the denial of others and the rejection of the true, wholesome, healthy teachings and life example of Jesus, you won't be there.

We don't judge or condemn you. We just speak the truth. Turn and repent.

As for the issue of serpentine qualities, this is a matter of hypocrisy. The Pharisees and Publicans gave to their immediate flesh offspring who loved them in return, but they were still being serpentine. It was and is serpentine, because they didn't take care of everyone. That's the message of Jesus. That's why we're telling you that your approach is harmful.

If all the children listen to you and not Jesus, they will die in the sense Jesus used the word. You aren't leading them correctly. You are being selective so you may comfortably continue your behavior you imagine. We tell you, you'll be sorry. We say it as no threat but as only a warning to the wise. It is not we who will devour your soul in hell, but Satan and his fallen angels.

Understand that Jesus made it perfectly clear that he is against the sins that went on in Sodom (from whenst comes the word Sodomy, meaning homosexual anal intercourse).

And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. Matthew 11:23.

He wouldn't have said that otherwise. Those of Sodom, he said, would have stopped their sexual behavior, turned, repented, and been spared. Where does that leave you? Do you need signs? Ask God and Jesus in earnest. You'll be given signs just for you. Reject them at your own peril.


Tazzy and Piggy's reply:

Piggy and Tazzy

Thanks once again for the reply, Tom.

I don't consider that I've rejected the light. I merely question the authority - no, that's not quite right - the 'interpretation' of your quotes.

I'm also impressed that you take the time to extensively counter some of the points that I make, whilst not once acknowledging that there may be some merit in what I have to say.

I'd be interested in your take on this: (it's a very short clip from the TV programme 'West Wing')

I consider it an example of how one can very easily interpret passages from the Bible rather too literally. Much in the same way that preachers can use those very same passages in which to castigate others.

Anyway, I really would be interested in your analysis of the clip.

Once again, I thank you for your time debating these issues with me. I honestly do find it interesting, informative and thought provoking - even if we're at odd's over certain interpretations.

But there again, thats what's good about healthy debate. Often, both sides (if willing to listen) can learn and grow.

Continued in the next post.


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.