Hello Piggy and Tazzy,
More concerning your replies:
Again, you answered as follows:
"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."
In a word, 'No'.
It would also depend upon how long and how often you've been engaging in the activity and how you are defining problems. After all, Dick Cheney offers up rationalizations for redefining that which is clearly torture. We posit that that is exactly the same thing the psychiatric community did when it shifted its base from the truth that homosexuality is a pathogen. Cheney has a not so hidden agenda. He started out hidden behind plausible deniability, but as time goes by we are all becoming privy to the truth of raw imperial grabbing. The neocons still dish out lame excuses to serve as cover for their utterly greedy followers and base. Their cover has been completely blown however. They've been made, to use the American expression. We know their make. Their mark, their seal, is showing.
Have you redefined "problems" for the sake of the downward direction? Have you done this for the sake of your agenda that is also in the downward direction? Is homosexuality enlightened and enlightening? Is it Godly?
To the point, are you what would be called "the exception to the rule"? Isn't it generally true that homosexuals experience many disease states they would not otherwise were they not engaged in homosexuality? What about those you know in the homosexual community? Do you know anyone who has experienced or is experiencing any negative physical conditions he would not were he not to have engaged in homosexuality? Why did all the homosexuals die of AIDS? Each person taken dies in his iniquity. Is sin relative? Yes it is. It is also absolute—absolutely the opposite of God.
Now, all the terms used here are used within contexts. The Real Liberal Christian knows for instance that the mental and physical overlap. Also, the correctness of the alleviation of pain and suffering is situational. We do hold with situational ethics. It would have been wrong of Jesus to avoid certain pain and suffering he experienced in his life here. Even saying "life here" must be qualified in the mind since he is still alive and still here in spirit and our very flesh (brain matter, literally, and it doesn't stop there).
You wrote earlier, "Using diseases as an argument supporting a religious view or outlook is just silly." It is not silly. Even the term "silly" as you used it here is the result of evil pejoration. Silly meant deserving sympathetic treatment. Over time, the term was twisted for effect. The evil ones twisted the word for effect. They manipulated perceptions in this way. They took a good word and corrupted it out of the corruption in their hearts. They defiled themselves.
They don't want the masses being sympathetic. It doesn't serve those who lord it over others under the falsehood that there is no morality but rather only brute force and savagery, etc. Therefore, they constantly work pejoration against Jesus Christ.
The language is the battle field for the emotional condition: The soul. The language creates. God is the word. The term "gay" has undergone the same process. It isn't settled yet. Righteousness wins. It always has from the beginning and always will. God is righteous and God is the only eternal one. God was before any falling away. God will be after all coming together. It's marvelous. The word righteousness is eternal. Satan cannot defeat it but rather will be, and already has been, defeated by it.
Why was there any falling away? Relativity, differentiation, and becoming again are the answers.
Whether a given physical problem is indicative of wholeness depends upon the entirety of the thrust of one's revelation. Jesus came to heal the sick. They were healed by their faith and his in God. Yet, Jesus's body underwent severe physical abuses. Was it masochism on his part? No it was not. Was it sadism on the part of the abusers? Surely it was. That's the point. We can't help but see it for what it was. Their lust did it. That same lust causes all the problems. It is the disease. All the synonyms of selfishness are all descriptors of the one disease. All diseases are of that one.
Taken in the relative sense only, there are many dimensions to the entire question of homosexuality. Why is it that some extremely promiscuous homosexuals carry HIV and seemingly never exhibit negative symptoms? Why do some people come down with AIDS from one or few encounters and come down quickly relative to the average? Clearly there are many variables. What of that carrier though? What symptoms of the disease that is selfishness is he manifesting? What will befall him in the end on account of that chosen aspect of the one disease, the absolute disease of selfishness?
Is any of this to say that no one else in society is culpable? We say absolutely not. Individual responsibility is a real thing. We overcome individually. Jesus went on ahead alone in that sense. Even so, there is collective responsibility. He was and is responsible for his flock. It is why he underwent what he did and went on ahead leaving trained and instructed shepherds behind. How well have we done? How well are we doing? Where have we gone? Where are we heading the flock? Are we defining ours into worthlessness fit for cutting off and burning up? Who among us is pathogenic? Who is tempting whom to cave into clearly and plainly defined sin? Who has caved in and refuses to repent?
It is why both individuals and whole nations and even the whole species experience(s) the negative consequences of the behaviors of each and all.
We are promised that in the end individuals have their names written in the Book of Life and that all the nations will be judged and sorted. The question is where does homosexual behavior fit within that whole. On balance, is it good or bad (understanding that both neutrality and tipping at all to the bad are wholly bad)? Where is the line? The line is at selfishness. How is selfishness determined? Selfishness is unwholesome. Is this circular? Absolutely it is. Is it logical? Absolutely it is also logical.
Jesus came to tell us what is best. What is best is not illogical. Perfectly logical and what is best are identical.
Jesus's revelation raises all the so-called "hard questions" that neocons and others seek to avoid. Alberto Gonzales, the infamous, last, former U.S. Attorney General said that the U.S. could avoid the tough questions of torture. He was suggesting that the law just use sleight of hand. What a reprehensible suggestion that was and is. That is such a temptation from the devil that it should have elicited outrage. Unfortunately, as a sign of the times, it did not even raise an eyebrow. It is a living nightmare. It is bringing forth hell on earth.
Jesus's revelation raises the question of means justifying ends. His means are justified by his ends. His ends justified his means also. There is nothing wrong in that, per se, in his case alone, because he is the only one who has gotten it wholly right so far or ever will. The only way for anyone else to also get it wholly right is to follow him and become him, join him, be one with him. That may be difficult for egos, but too bad. Right is right.
The way is narrow, but the impact is infinite goodness.
Such concepts appear esoteric to those unfamiliar with the language of the revelation of Jesus Christ.
The question is, is homosexuality of God or the devil. Is it fractionizing where God is the whole? Is it of the metaphorically but aptly described unfruitful branch that will be cut off and burned up, or is it of the path that leads to bringing forth wholesome fruit?
We tell all that it is of the former. We speak the truth. We come in the name of the LORD.
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)