Hello Piggy and Tazzy,

Your comments are in block quotes.

Thanks once again for the reply, Tom.

Dialogue is proper, provided it be in earnest. If one truly is seeking the truth, one will find it.

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.

You consider that our interpretations are or might be incorrect? We appreciate specificity.

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.


There is merit in the portions of what you say that are genuinely shared and which state the truth. Understand, however, that the Pharisees stated meritorious things. It is why Jesus discussed the concept of the wolves in sheep's clothing. Satan is an angel. Satan is a shape-shifting spirit. The worldly world is full of such.

George W. Bush actually believes some of the things he says even when he's stating something true. If you think I meant to say false there, I didn't.

The problem with George concerns stating either falsehoods or truths when he's up to no good (wittingly and unwittingly), which is more often than not, even almost always. In other words, he knows that nearly all of his time he spends being deliberately dishonest and hypocritical. He does that in spite of his public pronouncements that he believes in Jesus Christ, which we do not accept.

When viewed in light of Jesus's admonitions, an honest person (though fallible in this context—a perfectly honest person is infallible: Truly divine), will have no choice but to focus on the misleading aspects of George's policies and practices rather than spend time flattering him each time he says something that is obviously true and he means it. Such positive reinforcement has its place, but the full message is drowned out right now by people doing just that—flattering. The neocons spend their time doing that. They work it and work it to get the masses to focus on viewing George as being in essence right leading to yet another war this time on Iran. He is in essence wrong. He is in essence with Satan, as are all neocons, as are all hypocrites, as were all the hardhearted hypocrites in the Old Testament and the New.

It is the whole that matters. In wholeness lies incorruptibility. God is one. God is whole. God is incorruptible, by definition. God is our aim—being one with God, not usurping, which isn't possible anyway, but who would want to other than the self-deluded devil?

This is how we approach your position. Where does it lead? Does it misdirect due to any error, or is it the message of Jesus that leads directly to God? We don't look for common ground to live side-by-side with others who disagree with us. We look for needed course corrections to get on and to stay on the narrow way to God.

We step back as far as possible to see the whole. We get in as close as possible to see the details. Where we find inconsistencies, we correct our thinking. This is consistent with Jesus's teaching. If you can say it is not, explain.

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.

I watched the clip. I learned nothing. We don't uphold the hypocrisy in the Old Testament. We are New Testament. The clip points to the hypocrisy in the Old Testament. That's what Jesus did.

The writers copied Jesus but only so much. They don't dare go all the way. They'd be fired for telling the whole truth. The greedy corporation and its sponsors wouldn't stand for the truth. You know that. The capitalist shareholders and board members would fire the executives.

Where's the selfish, private gain in whole-truth-telling? There isn't any. That's the point! Don't be duped via drama.

It's a tool of propaganda artists. Read about perception management by the Pentagon. This is a spiritual war for hearts, minds, and souls. Whose side are you on? That's all that matters.

If you will read our site, you should find that there is no one fighting against the false-Christianity of so-called conservative Republicans more than are we.

The clip though suggests that homosexuality is not a position of hypocrites; however, homosexuality is inherently held by hypocrites. It is unavoidable.

You don't want to be harmed {as you have blindly that is selectively defined (taken one connotation) the term harm to suit your mistaken purpose}, hence the term "bash" that is used so often; yet, you willingly, knowingly, promote and engage in that which is harmful without doubt. It is anti-New Testament. It is antichrist.

You say you love each other, but you harm each other. Where is the real love in that? What each of you is doing is using the other selfishly and pretending that it fits with Christian love. Oh, don't get us wrong, you have mixed emotions about it all. You need to un-mix them and discard the evil ones. You are denying your form. You are engaging in a disordering of purpose. Your priorities are confused. You are headed toward annihilation, not heaven. Change your emotions. The rest will follow.

The TV clip is fictional. How can it matter? Remember, you said the following:

The Harry Potter books are FANTASY. Can't you stupid religious nutcases understand that?


Now why does the clip from the TV show that is "NOT REAL!" matter, but Harry Potter books not matter? You are tangled in your talk, and we didn't set you up.

"And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men. Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?" Matthew 22:16-18.

We hold that the argument in the clip is not with us. It doesn't signify whole righteousness with us. It is error—falsehood. It is loaded with all the contrivance that the shows' creators could bring to bear on the emotions of their audience—all fake in the means and end. However, Jesus's parables are not fake in means or end. Do you see the difference? That's not a rhetorical question.

Art is only as good as it leads to righteousness that is not full of half-truths such as that clip. In the clip, the woman was silenced. Do you think Jesus would have been, or do you think in keeping with the character, the fake president would have been?

Would the minds of the writers be convicted by their consciences to know to concede? Are they that honest, or would they continue twisting and avoiding?

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst." John 8:7-9.

Do you see the parallels?

Does that TV-President character ever authorize war that harms and is an offense against humanity and God? Turn the other cheek not some of the time but every single time. Throw no stones ever. Does he bring forth? Where are the poor? Has he led the nation to feed them all? Is that how he won by advocating pacifism and feeding the lambs and sheep? You know the character is a hypocrite. The character is no model to follow. It doesn't take much to be an expert in the obvious. What great writers, what a great show, what a great network, what great executives, what smart advertisers, what a terrific investment, what profits (not prophets), all that avoid the whole truth: No greed, no violence, no coercion, no sexual harm, giving and sharing all, pacifism, sexual harmlessness, God.

What is the setting? The White House: Rich, powerful in the worldly sense only, and coercive. When bisexuals and homosexuals hold office, which they do, then there is just more of the same (compounding error).

Point me anywhere that refutes Jesus. He is the one I follow. I don't follow the old Moses. I follow the new Moses who now follows Jesus. Jesus is irrefutable. Jesus pointed to the sin of Sodom. Do you dispute that?

You can't win against what is right. You are left only with the option of converting—changing direction.

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.

Jesus said (we paraphrase) that those who love the truth will know it when they hear it. He didn't spend time trying to convince people. He spent time just getting the word out before the coming wrath from the spirit. He spent his time dividing.

That's where we are too. This discussion with you is for the benefit of any who are led to it. If you two don't convert, so be it. No one can force you and be right in doing so. Truly turning to God is always voluntary.

Now, you have yet to be specific in answering my questions. I have answered all of yours. This dialogue will quickly become a waste of time and be unfruitful for other visitors and readers if you are unwilling to cut through to the core issue of harm. You avoided answering certain questions.

If you know the Gospel, if you have a sense of Jesus, you will know that answers were forthcoming to those that answered him. Therefore, if you wish to communicate with me, back up in the conversation and answer the questions posed; otherwise, I won't waste my time even giving you the time of day. I seek the lost sheep, not the forever dead in the spirit of falsehood that is avoidance.

Finally, what is your position on pedophilia, and on what do you base your position?

  • 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.