GAYS MARRY; WORLD DOES NOT END: OIL REFINERIES KEEP PRODUCING; WORLD DOES NOT END, YET


When I saw the following title of someone's opinion, I just instantly thought, "How stupid": "Gays marry; world does not end." That's why I added, "Oil refineries keep producing; world does not end" to the title of this post.

Look, the world is in trouble due to selfishness and the harm of self-centeredness. Greed is a sin. Violence is a sin. They are affronts to righteousness, because they are selfish. Unselfishness is the only way into the eternal future getting better and better and only for those who choose it (unselfishness). That's the lesson Jesus taught and still teaches.

Now, homosexuality is selfish too. It is a harmful behavior. It is a harmful example. Those who engage in it after being told this and who attempt to convince others (children are automatically included) with statements such as "Gays marry; world does not end" that homosexuality is not something to avoid are being totally self-centered.

Oil refineries keep producing and the government selfishly keeps suppressing clean, non-toxic, renewable, non-plant matter alternatives. The result is the hyperbolic curve into global warming and extremely violent weather. The Earth is getting sick, and the violence is a way to shake the disease. If human beings continue down the present selfish, short-sighted course, the Earth will become inhospitable. It's that simple.

Let me tell you that all the violence of the various wars going on is contributory to the restlessness of the planet. I'm not talking Gaia here, although, I am talking awareness. I'm talking about spiritual life. The Earth is interconnected and interdependent.

Can you see the parallels with the harmfulness of homosexuality? If you can't, you're not trying hard enough.

All harmful, selfish behavior is sinful. The opposite of all of it is righteousness. Righteous behavior, if it is practiced, will lead to the New Heaven and New Earth as one.

Understand here that the terms "New Heaven" and "New Earth" have special meanings. The New Heaven is the reestablishment of real righteousness as the spiritual vision of human kind as human kind will become. The New Earth is the realm in which the transformed (some say regenerated) human beings will exist. That's the promise of Jesus Christ.

If you are a strict materialist, believe in matter as mundane science conceived of it before recent theoretical physicists began bumping up against metaphysics, you won't be able to grasp the meanings above.

One must understand that today metaphysics becomes tomorrow's common place provided humanity doesn't remain so selfish that it becomes extinct before the realization. The promise, the prophecy, is that the remnant will obtain this understanding about metaphysics and spirit/matter. Jesus was and is both, but in ultimate reality, he is fully spirit. Spirit is over matter, spirit manifests but exists regardless of whether it manifests within the range of current mass-human perceptions.

With this level of thinking, it shouldn't be difficult to fathom how homosexuality is being glossed over to the detriment of a huge block of humanity.

The rush as been put upon society by the homosexuals just as the false-Zionists rushed to grab land to create facts on the ground. The homosexuals are hoping that their inroads will not be rolled back by the truth of the harm done. Do you grasp the analogy? You should.

The homosexuals are asking to be treated as a protected group just as racial and ethnic minorities are. However, racial and ethnic minorities don't have a choice. They can't stop being racial or ethnic minorities within their given geographical boundaries. Homosexuals though always have a choice not to engage in homosexual behavior.

Perhaps you wish to argue the point from a freedom standpoint (individual liberty). That's what many cigarette smokers have done for decades. Many said that their right to pollute their own bodies with addictive, disease causing substances is their business and nobody else's. However, second-hand smoke is definitely harmful. There are costs to society as a whole. Many people who get extremely sick from tobacco use end up being treated on the dole. These are mundane arguments mind you.

I'm not saying that society should not care for those who have made bad choices. We are to be compassionate and humane. There are limits though, as Jesus pointed out. He did let the blind (spiritually unenlightened) walk into the ditch, follow each other in the dark into the ditch, because he couldn't force them not to. He couldn't be coercive toward them. Being coercive doesn't change people's hearts. It's a natural/spiritual sorting-out process. It's spiritual evolution. It's why he chooses those who hear his voice over those who do not (who refuse and reject his message of unselfishness). The unselfish will be rewarded by not having to exist on the same plane with the selfish (greedy, violent, and sexually depraved — harmful). They will be free of death of the soul.

As for freedom, all are free of Christian coercion. In that sense, those who reject Christ are free to go into the bondage of greater evil. Homosexuality is just such bondage. However, that's not real freedom. Real freedom is freedom from evil.

What the real Christian will do though is tell the truth about the harmfulness of homosexuality and then let it be. The homosexuals will make of themselves the proverbial goats regardless of all the other things they may claim to be doing that others will acknowledge as righteous. The inconsistency, the hypocrisy, is what kills the soul. The dead soul ends up far from the blessed kingdom of God: That New Heaven and New Earth, conflated in the Great Conflation.

Homosexuals are saying that this and that won't happen (the world won't end) if there is more and more homosexuality. They are wrong, dead wrong. Watch. You'll see things continue to disintegrate. Evil fractures souls. It devours them. It kills them, resigning them to spiritual Hell, literally.

I'm not saying that Hell is exactly as depicted by the Fundamentalists. Nightmares aren't always fire and brimstone. They are though still nightmares. Look at the Hell being brought forth on Earth. Look at the living nightmares to which people are being subjected including by those advocating for homosexuality. Just look at the U.S. Military and it's trending toward homosexual orgies in the barracks.

I have no doubt that there is plenty of that going on in the bases around the world. Those young men without their wives for months and months on end, year after year, have a great deal of sexual tension that builds up. With the supposed acceptability of homosexuality coming to the fore, more and more of them will be tempted to fall into the cesspool.

The full opinion is as follows:

Gays marry; world does not end
The institution of marriage has always worked as a prolonged cold shower on the libido for those participating in it, and I see no reason to think that it would be any different for gay people. Source

Well read the post linked below that includes material concerning the promiscuity inherent in many of those suffering from the disease of homosexuality. Their so-called marriages will just turn into polygamous affairs or break apart. It will cause the divorce courts to clog up that much more. That's just the tip of the iceberg though. It's nothing compared with what the other sexually diseased will begin to ask for. The pedophiles and those practicing bestiality and necrophilia, etc., will also want their "rights" too.

If you think that's ridiculous, you obviously don't remember when the thought of homosexual marriages was considered absolutely ridiculous by the vast, vast majority. Society is on the slippery slope leading to Hell on Earth for those who don't overcome and persevere.
"Homosexuals: What they ignore."

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.
    • It wasn't a 'slippery' slope, though.

      Decriminalizing a sexual activity meant having the same civil rights as everyone else. It just took a while for the logical consequences of that to work its way through to wanting the same rights of raising kids as partnerships, sharing medical plans as designated beneficiaries andthe like to work through the system - over religious objections I might add.

      That's not a 'protected subgroup' : rather a demand for an end to oppression.

    • Hello opit,

      If you agree that it's harmful, why do you say, "It wasn't a 'slippery' slope"?

      I agree with decriminalizing sexual activity in the sense that I agree that others in the mundane (the secular false-state) don't have the God-given right to force others into doing or not doing sexual things. That said, it does not mean that I agree that anyone has the God-given right to lure others into harmful sexual behavior. People should overcome the urges to tempt others to fall into harmfulness. It isn't lovingkindness when people do that to each other. It's unenlightened. They are in the dark to varying degrees, but it's all still darkness and how dark it is!

      In many cases, the religious objections were moral objections. However, those using the state of Caesar in the name of Jesus were and are still in the dark right along with the homosexuals. I have religious objections, but I'm not doing anything about it through the system of Caesar. I'm working on it through God's system. I'm appealing with the facts of the harmfulness and self-centeredness of homosexuality.

      As for homosexuals not becoming/being a protected group, Blacks are a minority in the U.S. They are a protected minority. If they are violated simply on account of their being Black, they may sue in court and win a judgment against those who discriminate against them on account of their blackness. The same is what the homosexuals have been pushing for, for decades. They have managed to get society to trend in that direction. However, the reason Blacks are protected is, for one because they don't have a choice about being Black and we (the majority) have agreed that there isn't anything inherently wrong with being Black over being White or Yellow or Red or Brown or pink with purple polka dots. Homosexuality, however, is a choice and it is harmful. It's a chosen disease state. Now why would you want children to be adopted by "parents" who have made the terrible freewill choice of a harmful sexual activity? It's the state sanctioning sexual depravity at its roots. It's evil. The state of God does not sanction it. God is right, and Satan does the punishing and soul killing.

      The thing the homosexuals are pushing for parallels what the Zionists have been pushing for and have largely achieved in Europe, namely that one may not voice doubts no matter what. If someone says for instance that the official numbers of those killed at Auschwitz via gas chambers or bullets, etc., ought to be open for investigation, that one is branded a criminal for being a holocaust denier even though he or she may not be denying but just wanting the best estimate on numbers that proper research can provide. Anyone who questions is branded an anti-Semite, but that's ridiculous. It's a disingenuous, grotesque distortion of the term "anti-Semite."

      The holocaust denial laws are police-state laws.

      So just what constitutes "Holocaust denial"? Surely a claim that most Auschwitz inmates died from disease and not systematic extermination in gas chambers would be "denial." But perhaps not. Jewish historian Arno J. Mayer, a Princeton University professor, wrote in his 1988 study Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The 'Final Solution" in History': ... From 1942 to 1945, certainly at Auschwitz, but probably overall, more Jews were killed by so-called 'natural' causes than by 'unnatural' ones." [9]

      Even estimates of the number of people who died at Auschwitz -- allegedly the main extermination center -- are no longer clear cut. At the postwar Nuremberg Tribunal, the Allies charged that the Germans exterminated four million people at Auschwitz. [10] Until 1990, a memorial plaque at Auschwitz read: "Four Million People Suffered and Died Here at the Hands of the Nazi Murderers Between the Years 1940 and 1945." [11] During a 1979 visit to the camp, Pope John Paul II stood before this memorial and blessed the four million victims.

      Is it "Holocaust denial" to dispute these four million deaths? Not today. In July 1990, the Polish government's Auschwitz State Museum, along with Israel's Yad Vashem Holocaust center, conceded that the four million figure was a gross exaggeration, and references to it were accordingly removed from the Auschwitz monument. Israeli and Polish officials announced a tentative revised toll of 1.1 million Auschwitz dead. [12] In 1993, French Holocaust researcher Jean-Claude Pressac, in a much-discussed book about Auschwitz, estimated that altogether about 775,000 died there during the war years. [13]
      Source

      So, what is to prevent the same thing happening regarding people saying that 9/11 ought to be properly investigated or that homosexuality is a disease and promotes or spreads itself via carriers? Nothing is to prevent it if the lying totalitarians continue gaining power.

      Hate speech laws are police-state laws. It takes Big Brother to enforce them. Big Brother is watching you. I hate Orwell's Big Brother. Don't you hate him too? He's evil incarnate.

      The homosexuals want to take over the state to the extent that they will then turn around to say to all those who speak out against the harmfulness of homosexuality that they may no longer do that because it hurts the feelings of the homosexuals and they are sensitive and deserve greater protection than the children the anti-homosexuals seek to protect.

      Of course, the sensitivity thing turns into aggression in many cases. Just look at all the homosexuals who join, and seek to join, the military.

      So, when do the pedophiles get to start openly adopting?

      Are you aware that in Britain, the Roman Catholics were forced to make a choice: Either you place children up for adoption with homosexuals or your right to be adoption agencies will be taken away? They chose to close their adoption agencies. Now many of those adoption agencies were for Roman Catholic orphans whose parents wanted their children placed by those RC agencies and not in homosexual households. Therefore, I put it to you, which is more important, freedom of religion or freedom to choose whatever sexual orientation one feels like?

      I say the homosexuals used and continue using the coercive power of the secular state to crush the Roman Catholics. I'm not Roman Catholic and I'm anti-coercion. Therefore, I'm against what the homosexuals did to the Roman Catholics, just as I'd be against the Roman Catholics if they were to start hunting down homosexuals and attempting to force them on pain of whatever to stop doing what they are doing.

      You know who stops souls from finally doing what they are doing, the punisher and killer. That's not Jesus. Jesus judges no man and neither does God. They aren't the condemners. They aren't the ones who put curses on others. They are the ones who bless others, all others. It isn't their fault that people turn away from blessings (righteousness). It's the fault of the tempter, the liar from the beginning who roams the Earth looking for souls to devour. They are the wolves in sheep's clothing to those who cannot judge a tree by its wicked results (harmful results; evil consequences). To those who can so judge, the wolf is easily seen through his cloaking device.

      God bless,

      Tom Usher

    • Hello opit,

      Look at what low standards brings:

      June 22, 2008, 9:34AM
      3rd trial in East Texas child sex case to begin

      By PAUL J. WEBER Associated Press Writer
      © 2008 The Associated Press

      MINEOLA, Texas —
      ...
      elementary school-age children had sex [drugged and forced] for crowds in the windowless front rooms of a former daycare.

      It's all connected to what society tolerates and condones.