Title: "Lot's Cave (entrance)."

There is a homosexual movement within the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. calling for removing the words "homosexual perversion" from the 1963 version of the Heidelberg Catechism.

"General Assembly Votes to Restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its Authentic Text!," by Jack Rogers. June 2008.

The original doesn't contain the exact literal words "homosexual perversion." Those words come from the same interpretive spirit that went into those particular words as rendered in the NEB (New English Bible) I Corinthians 6:9-10.

The homosexuals hope to have a psychological, thoughtless, impact by restoring the words. They hope that by pointing to this, it will help convince people on the fence that "homosexual perversion" is not implied.

What does I Corinthians 6:9-10 say?

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

I Corinthians 6:9-10

Who are the fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and abusers of themselves with mankind? Are homosexuals fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, and abusers of themselves with mankind? Homosexuality was never accepted marriage. Jesus said that those of Sodom would have repented had he done there the signs he did in Capernaum. What is the sin of Sodom? Well, we have the whole story of the Sodomites demanding to "know" the angels. It means have anal intercourse with them. Sodom of course suffered from other sinful behavior and attitudes as well, but homosexuality was clearly one of them and central enough that the story was handed down as a warning to future generations concerning one of the possible results of such practice.

Homosexuality is inherently fornication. If a homosexual is married or has been to a female whom he did not divorce for the cause of unfaithfulness on her part in an otherwise unbroken marriage, then that homosexual is also an adulterer. Also, in the act of homosexuality, one of the parties must take the role of female. That's effeminate. Lastly, the act of homosexuality is harmful. "Homosexuals: What they ignore." It is abusive. Homosexuals engaging in that behavior do in fact abuse themselves (each other) with each other.

Therefore, the use of the terms "homosexual perversion" is a proper reading of the verses. One may conclude that homosexuality is perversion based also on other than the writings of Paul. The very words of Jesus Christ bear this out.

Homosexuals are losing the argument and debate even as they often insist otherwise. The fact is that the truth is pouring out in all areas. It is pouring out concerning greed, violence, war, and all manner of evil that is depraved.

There is not homosexuality in the highest. There never has been nor will there ever be. There is not homosexuality in any level of Heaven. There never has been nor will there ever be. Homosexuality is reserved to levels of Hell only.


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.
    • What drew you away from a direct statement of sins ?

      To focus solely on homosexuals seems to me an opportunity for distraction from the other social evils. Frankly I find that reeks of obsession - to the detriment of chastisement of other sexual/immoral behaviours.

      Not that I don't find the original passage more of the same.

      There are times I do wonder if you appreciate the message of knowing we are all God's children and not our brother's judges.

      You notice I am not nearly so reticent about evil in assault and greed.

    • Hello opit, John,

      If homosexuality becomes a normative behavior, the slide down into those other social evils to which you refer will be that much the easier. Don't you agree? Why draw the line where homosexuality is included within what is acceptable? If homosexuality isn't acceptable, which of those other evils will be?

      I've written about pedophiles just waiting for homosexuality to become completely accepted. If it were to be, the pedophiles would demand equal rights. Pedophilia today is no more looked upon as abhorrent behavior than was homosexuality when you and I were young boys. What makes you think that a few generations from now that pedophilia wouldn't be making the same mundanely legal inroads?

      I'm not obsessed in the sense you suggest. Mine is a highly unusual position is all. The rabid capitalists think I'm obsessing about them. The militarists think I'm obsessing about them.

      What I'm obsessed with is bringing forth the Christian Commons Project and conflating the New Earth with the New Heaven. I'm obsessed with saving lives. I spent much of my life on the wrong pursuits. Now I'm focused on what matters. I'm atoning — trying anyway.

      Look at what homosexuality is doing to the Anglican Communion. Episcopal bishop Vicky Imogene Robinson, who goes by V. Gene Robinson, is insisting that he's a fine role model. Do you think so? I don't.

      What's a judge? Did Jesus judge them? He called the Pharisees serpents. He also said he judges no man. I can reconcile those. Can you? Do you?

      We are all God's children who accept God and strive with our all to love God. Those who reject doing that are not God's children. They are the children of the other. Jesus makes that clear. I understand it. I don't have a problem with it. I rather love it. I don't mean that I love that there are those who choose evil as their spirit. What I love is knowing that those who do strive mightily will not forever be subjected to living surrounded by those who constantly call for less than what is right in everything and at all times.

      I do see that you have no problem about what you see as assault and greed. What I see is that you don't see that homosexuality and other forms of harmful sex, such as pedophilia, bestiality, sadomasochism, pederasty, and on and on, happen to be forms of assault and frankly forms of greed. They are uncontrolled or excessive desires or appetites. It's all greed. It all also does bodily injury to others and to the self. That's an assault. Frankly also, on some level, they all know it's done with a degree of malicious intent. They're just in denial or wish they didn't know.

      Would you have it that Jesus never opened his big, fat mouth, or would you have it that he had just confined himself to those areas that are today politically correct per the typical I-can't-make-up-my-mind-between-Barack-Obama-and-John-Edwards so-called liberals?

      It's okay to be against big greed and instigating personal domestic violence, but it's unpatriotic to be anti-capitalistic and anti-militaristic. Paying back the Taliban for 9/11 (even though they had nothing to do with it) is a good thing, and all those pacifists can go to Hell. It sure is always wrong to be anti-homosexual too. Those pacifists will go to Hell, but they won't find any f_cking "queers" there. (You have to have the obligatory f_cking in there just to show you're a "real" modern leftist.) Well I don't buy any of it. I'm for giving and sharing all, total pacifism, and completely harmless sex at worst. There are those who believe that sex, period, is sin. I have yet to meet anyone who holds to that who wants to be coercive about it though.

      I was in denial about many things. I do my best not to be any longer. I'm glad I received the huge rebuking I got from God. It was big, and I had it coming. Why don't others feel the same about themselves? Being corrected by God is a good thing, a great thing, the greatest thing that can happen to an individual soul who's gone astray. It's love. If God didn't love you, God wouldn't bother to work your conscience. Why don't people see that?

      The person I am hates the person I was. That's good. I was greedy, violent, and sexually depraved, even while I considered myself none of those things at the time.

      Why are you being a fence sitter about homosexuality? If you come out against it, will it ruin your liberal reputation? Would you lose fair-weather friends? Would family members frown on you for going back to the way you thought and were raised? Aren't those selfish reasons if they are your reasons? I don't know. You'd have to say.

      The fact of the matter is, I was afraid to face the truth and to speak it for fear of what I falsely imagined I'd be losing. Look, I don't regret that I face things and said things. I would only that I would have been better at it.

      No, I'm right about homosexuality. Not nearly enough people are saying what's really wrong with it if they are saying anything's wrong with it at all.

      I've known (not in the biblical sense) dozens of homosexuals or at least bi-sexuals. I've had a number of them come on to me. I didn't refuse violently. I just said no. Even after such episodes, I still hung out with them, not exclusively but just indifferently. All of that being said, I still would tell them, and am saying it openly, that their lifestyle, if they still have it, is wrong on all levels. They should never have engaged in it. If they are still engaging in it, they should stop now and forevermore.

      The only thing that prevents that is confusion and a self-abusing selfishness.

      I see nothing wrong with what I'm saying; otherwise, I'd change.