This is my reply to Quaker Dave regarding homosexuality:
I knew this was your view. Yours is the so-called modern Christian view. However, you are not reading Jesus properly. You say my view makes you sad. Well, it is sad that so many people who really apparently have convinced themselves that they follow Jesus believe as you about this.
Homophobia means an irrational fear of homosexuality. Well, there is fear and then there is fear. I fear for the many that they are buying into the flat out lie that homosexuality is benign. I hope you read my post, "Homosexuals: What they ignore." Do you dispute the facts? Some of the stats may be off now. The post is dated and such stats are always estimates, but the general information is correct regardless. Homosexuality is harmful. There is no such thing as non-harmful homosexual behavior. How so am I being irrational here?
As for being intolerant, I stated that I'm not for coercing anyone. I'm not for forcing homosexuals to stop. If I were to agree with using violence against them, where would I draw the line on the use of violence and why wouldn't it be okay for others to include me in with those needing to be exterminated or whatever? No, I'm not hypocritical about homosexuals. I'm practicing the Golden Rule of Jesus Christ toward them and everyone else to the best of my ability to grasp that rule. I'm all for others informing me of facts about harmful behavior. I read about environmental damage and try to do what I can within this crazy capitalistic worldly world to have as little of a polluting footprint as I can while still working to get out the message. I've actually considered total asceticism in my days but was moved by the Holy Spirit not to do that. Jesus didn't do it. I'm not a hermit in a cave seeing the light I refuse to share.
So, how am I being intolerant in the sense you mean? Explain it if you are able. I don't condone homosexuality.
As for liberal, I don't use the term liberal in accordance with the usage dictates of the false ideological spectrum that changes on a whim. Man, the Libertarians are conservatives, but they are "classical liberals" .... Come on. Let's pay attention to Isaiah on this matter. Let's understand what liberal means and doesn't mean. Liberal means beneficial, generous, bountiful, etc. It does not mean condoning of what is harmful. There is nothing inconsistent about that and Jesus's teaching that we aren't to go around stoning people. I'm not stoning anyone anymore than Jesus was stoning the Pharisees when he informed them that they were serpents (serpentine). You don't think Jesus was stoning them do you? I know homosexuality is extremely illiberal, just as are greed and violence.
As for Paul, I only quote him to the Pauline. I am not Pauline. I state that numerous times on this blog, but I don't expect you to have necessarily have searched that out. You might though spend more time looking for the overarching themes of the RLCC before giving knee-jerk comments. I'm not trying to be off-putting here. I leave comments on blogs after reading only a post or two, depending. I'm not holding you to some unreasonable standard. I don't have a problem with that you've left comments before trying to learn more about my theology, although you do now need to do that. I suggest you read the page "ABOUT OUR NAME: REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH." That should help for starters.
As for Jesus, he says, For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: (Matthew 15:19 KJVR) There is no way that you will ever be right in claiming that homosexuals engaging in the homosexual acts of various kinds at the very time Jesus was walking the Earth and saying what I just quoted him as saying were not engaging in fornication and often adultery if they were married, which was exclusively to women. They were sinning then, as Jesus said. Their evil acts followed from the evil in their hearts. They are still sinning now. Their evil acts still follow from the evil in their hearts. They refuse to be remade. They refuse to give up their selfish way, the wide path that leads to damnation (pain and suffering as a consequence of selfishness).
Dave, read it in truth. Don't gloss over it hoping to go on in your life with a lie, with unGodly lies.
"And where is your equally vitriolic condemnation of straights, many of whom call themselves Christians, who use web sites like eHarmony to "hook up"?" Dave, be fair. Do I have to mention every sin to discuss any sin? It was a comment on a post on another blog. Hundreds of thoughts cross my mind as I write. You're implying that I've been hypocritical. The "married man seeking an adulterous match" was completely wrong. Using anyone to connect with anyone for other than relationships sanctioned by Jesus is un-Christian. You aren't going to find anything on this blog that runs contrary to that. You should go to the blog to read the comments that preceded mine. Let me tell you that the first thought that crossed my mind and that really moved me to comment was the lack of any focus there on eHarmony allowing its greed to dictate its practices. eHarmony compromised its standards lowering them, not that I'm saying they were high enough to begin with. I'm not saying that. Also, no one who had left a comment would hold that the man was wrong in trying to use eHarmony for adultery. Consider the audience, Dave. Don't take me out of my full context. You could rip Jesus apart in your mind doing that. How many sins can you name other than the ones Jesus specified in the one verse: Murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies? Where's just beating up someone? Where's coveting someone else's possessions even if one intends to pay money for them? You could go on and on that way implying that Jesus is not holding that non-stated acts are sins. When he stopped them by their consciences from stoning the adulteress, where was his laundry list of sins? It's intellectually dishonest to diminish the truth by saying to a truth teller that he or she must be sure to be exhaustive in listing off every sin. Doing that doesn't alter the fact that homosexuality is sin.
In addition, your point is that homosexuality is less a threat to traditional marriage so therefore let the sinners get away with teaching children that the sin is not a sin. That's twisted, Dave. Sin is sin even though it is relative. You don't keep the Great Commandments without keeping the least. That comes right from Jesus, and you know that. Christians are never, never to call sin okay. How can you teach otherwise?
I don't write about homosexuals being a threat to traditional marriage, although I don't dispute it. I write about homosexuals proselytizing to impressionable children with the okay of ignorant adults who by and large have been conned from moving from not stoning people, which is right, to claiming that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, which is absolutely untrue and an antichrist position.
Dave, you're on the wrong side on this.
As for your "gay or lesbian friends" being in "their committed, loving relationships," "Friend" in the sense-meaning Jesus used it is exclusive of unrepentant homosexuals, male or female. His friends are those who ended up giving over their entire beings to adhere to his commandments. They didn't pick and choose which rules of his they'd follow and not follow. When he makes clear no fornication and no adultery, that's that, no ifs, ands, or buts. You're blowing him off about it, my friend (I hope, my friend if you'll hear his voice on this and on everything). You've been duped, Dave. Surely you can see that. Also, Dave, a loving relationship is exclusive of knowingly doing harm. The homosexuals know they are doing harm. They know how selfish they're being.
Oh, man, what would I do if I were to accept this truth? The thoughts race through the mind. I'd be turning to Jesus's clear, plain, irrefutable words and away from all the people I've been saying aren't sinning but who really are and have been all along. That's where you are, Dave, to some degree.
As for "Straight but not narrow," I understand that you mean that as a clever play on words, but it's wrong. It is strait and narrow, and few there be that find it. You aren't on it right now. You're on the wide path, and you know where that leads.
I fully expect you to change your position vis-a-vis homosexuality. If you don't, it will be a disappointment to me.
Do the required soul-searching, Dave. Come on. It's as plain as plain gets. Read it and ask God and Jesus by name directly. If you have a real relationship with them, if they are dwelling alive within you, there is no way they will tell you that the words of Jesus regarding fornication and adultery have changed to now allow the evil of homosexuality.
Be a real liberal.
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)