[NOTE: I was experiencing technical problems concerning the WordPress 2.6 upgrade and its new "revisions" feature while drafting and posting this article. I have disabled that feature, which has solved the issue with series. This post is part of a series and had errors as a result. Those have been corrected. Thank you for understanding. This is the correct version of the post.]
The kids today often write "OMG," short for "Oh my God!" Some mean it disrespectfully. Others mean it in earnest. In earnest, it's a plea to God. I would say that here in a state of surprise, but the following was all predictable. The pattern of selfishness set itself up and exposed itself as it has no choice but to do.
The following is a short must-read.
Here's something for everyone to consider about commentators who come to sites to level attacks from the dark side. The commentator who has called himself "Larry Fletcher" actually said he would not post again. Then he posted again. When he posted again, it was to say (claim) "I will be back when I have the time to destruct your ridiculous, ignorant rant, using God's word to do it."
Then here's what he actually did instead of substantiating with the words of Jesus Christ anything he had said in earlier comments. He came back and posed as "Pete" or had someone else do this. As Pete, he said that he "Pete" had read the whole thread and that "Mr. Fletcher" had nailed me [yes, they also nailed Jesus]. He also said that he sees that I've block Fletcher from responding. You may think where's this "Pete's" comment. Well, here's the deal. I set cookies on people's computers for their convenience. It allows them not to have to re-enter their information when posting again. Pete's cookie set the same dead link that I've been telling Larry Fletcher to stop posting or I wouldn't approve anymore of his comments. (I also told Larry to use both his first and last names so that all of his comments would be identifiable as coming from the same commentator.)
There's more. Larry Fletcher obviously doesn't know that I also have in the database every IP address he's used for every comment. It's always been in the same narrow range. He has what is known as a virtual IP with his Internet Service Provider. His ISP is small. Well, guess what. Pete just so happened to have been using the same IP address Larry used when he [Pete/Larry?] left Pete's comment.
Then this utterly dishonest person returned the next day (today) to say that this Pete person had emailed him saying that I hadn't posted his (Pete's) comment. Where did Pete get Larry's email address? It doesn't show up on this site for the public to see. What a game this is that Larry is playing in his head.
If Larry and Pete were genuine, Larry would either have supplied Gospel to support his positions about so-called conservative Republican Party politics being compatible with Christianity, which it is not as any child can see when offered the whole Gospel, or he would have openly, honestly, and directly admitted here on this site that his eyes and ears have opened along with his heart and mind and that his actions would now follow in consistency.
So Larry cannot "destruct ...[my; what he terms] ridiculous, ignorant rant, using God's word to do it," of course; so he comes up with this scheme imagining that it will leave him feeling somehow satisfied and me somehow dejected. I feel pity.
He claims in his head that I wouldn't post his comment anyway, meaning that if he were to destruct my revelation using God's word to do it, I wouldn't post it. Well, Larry's heard Aesop's fable, "The Fox and the Grapes." He should re-read it. The moral of the story is summed up in the expression "sour grapes." The fox couldn't reach the grapes, so he said to himself that they were probably sour anyway. The fox (Larry) couldn't destruct my revelation using the word of God (how could he?), so he's decided to tell himself that I wouldn't have posted it anyway. Wow!
If he can do it (cite the verses and Jesus's words to "destruct" what I've said), let him get a WordPress account or some other free blog and write his refutation. He can name this site and create links to it to do it. Let him do so in a way that everyone will know who he is, identify him apart from all the other people named Larry Fletcher. Otherwise, he's no Christian. He's just Satan's willing minion.
Well, wasn't it all to be expected considering the people and actions this Larry person defends via his political ideology? Of course it was to be expected. Look at George W. Bush and his endless stream of lies that took nations to war and murdered hundreds of thousands and negatively disrupted millions and even billions of lives, even the whole of human history.
So what has been Larry's method? He goes around accusing people of doing exactly the evil he is doing (conjures up in his head). That's the pattern of the neocons. If they can imagine the evil, then others must be doing so too. Where they (the others) aren't imagining such evil, they (the neocons) will nevertheless accuse them of it. Remember all the things Saddam Hussein was positively doing that the whole world then came to find out he wasn't doing. Then remember the sour-grapes rationalization afterwards by the neocons: Well, he would have done them if we hadn't bombed and invaded (murdering many innocents) and occupied Iraq and seized control of Iraq's oil industry. However, he wasn't doing the things alleged and couldn't. He had been stopped already without the evil U.S. ethnically bigoted (racist) neocons having to murder more children (Arabs).
Aesop wrote his fables (truths) for the sake of teaching people, especially children. Bush and his neocons, including Larry, haven't been enlightened yet to the level of four-year-olds sitting and listening to someone with a compassionate heart reading Aesop's lesson about the Fox and the Grapes. Remember, Jesus said to them about Herod Antipas (one of the murderers of John the Baptist and Jesus and God knows how many others; same neocon spirit), Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected. Luke 13:32 He called Herod Antipas a "fox" for a reason.
Well, this is just terrible. Pray for this person's soul. He is so in the dark. Such deception ought to send him into the deepest soul searching as to why he has turned out this way.
Of course, there are those who would publish this person's email address and IP address so unsuspecting souls would not be attacked in this way by Larry Fletcher. It isn't right or necessary for me to do that. Larry ends up being banned from sites and serves to expose the utter dishonesty in the hearts of the neocons and their minions and dupes.
Larry, do you really think God is unaware of every move you've made, every dirty trick you've pulled, every lie you've told, every time you've worked on behalf of Satan rather then God? You're always caught. You never get away with anything. Do you really think you aren't going to have to pay right down to the last farthing? The wages of sin, Larry, are repaid to Satan who will extract them from you no matter what you do unless you repent all the way.
Larry, shame, shame, shame, and a severely guilty conscience are your medicine right now. And Larry, don't take it out on anyone else. If you do, it will only go worse for you.
May God have mercy on your soul. You haven't really known what you've been doing. You've been out of self-control. You'll have to break the selfishness within, Larry. It's killing your soul. It will also kill your flesh. It's all about to catch up with you. It's going to make you sick. Overcome.
Now, in the thread with Larry Fletcher, I said that I know who he is. I do. No one else but God, Tom, and this Larry, though can be absolutely sure of which Larry Fletcher this one is, that is unless they dig perhaps where they would be trespassing.
Well, obviously I'm done with Larry Fletcher unless he repents. If he never does, he was never lost from the light. He was always of the dark.
ARTICLE ON: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A CONSERVATIVE-REPUBLICAN CHRISTIAN: JESUS IS A SMALL-C COMMUNIST
ANSWERING LARRY FLETCHER: A PHONY, SELF-STYLED CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LEADING THE GULLIBLE ASTRAY
PART 2: ANSWERING LARRY FLETCHER: A PHONY, SELF-STYLED CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LEADING THE GULLIBLE ASTRAY
PART 3: LARRY FLETCHER: A PHONY, SELF-STYLED CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN LEADING THE GULLIBLE ASTRAY
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)