Original Post, March 8, 2009:
I just submitted the following over on John Farnham's "Opit's LinkFest !," "16 Feb - 'Law and Order' as satire." Go check out John's post and the back-and-forth commentary.
Better late than never, eh?
Does the preexisting mindset of people automatically cause them to reframe a debate, change the subject, mischaracterized, and misrepresent even subconsciously? I know so. Every time we've interacted on this issue, the more times you've beat around the bush. I do still believe that you are "torn," as you stated in your first comment on the RLCC website. I'm working to get at the truth here with you and not to illicit hard feelings. You know that.
My point I know was clear. The children are being taught that there is nothing harmful about homosexuality, and that's just a flat out lie. There are people who are claiming that homosexuality is not harmful who know full well that it is. They are blatant liars and below Piped Pipers. They've not even first gotten rid of the rats and been cheated before embarking on leading the children into needlessly very risky and often fatally (flesh and spirit) harmful behavior. You've read my post, "Homosexuals: What they ignore." Even the pure materialist, the ones of scientism, don't argue against the documented facts. Yet, you don't come right out saying, "Homosexuality is wrong, and people shouldn't engage in it." Although, you've made clear to me in so many other words that that is exactly how you feel. So, why do you pussyfoot around like that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but friends and family is the reason. Popularity with them is the reason.
"Can't we all just get along?" Not with an unrepentant Hitler we can't. We can with a turned, repentant, atoning Hitler. Am I equating homosexuality with Nazism? Let's not be unwise. I know you aren't, but I know many people try such sweeping ploys. I'm making an analogy without making any statement about the severity of the sin. You know that I believe in relative sin. Jesus clearly states that sin is relative. There is greater and lesser sin. At the same time, he clearly states that there is perfection against which the slightest error is pitch-black (dark side). I reconcile these, and you know it.
Are the children being taught that there is nothing wrong with greed too? The fact is that there are adults who openly preach greed. They do that for the selfish gain of those adults. They'll sell the children pure poison so they, the adults, may live in McMansions. Well, those adults have received their reward in the here and now and are not going to be in the New Heaven! Who the hell am I to be making such emphatic pronouncements? I'm just paraphrasing Jesus Christ. Besides, I don't want them around me. They have done nothing good for me, for my soul, for the souls of others, for God, for the real oneness (total harmlessness). If they repent, that will be different.
Those adults and their mixed up children advocate war. They advocate excusing the murder of innocents. To Hell with that spirit. If that spirit has its claws so firmly dug into the hearts of those souls such that those souls refuse to change so that those claws let go and those souls don't go to Hell with that spirit, so be it. It's not my fault. It's their fault if they have been told in no uncertain terms, which I'm doing. They made of themselves Satan. Go where Satan belongs, and get the hell out of my world, my level of the universe. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with it.
Selfishness and violence are fine with those adults and equally confused, misled, misguided, and misguiding children. I don't advocate coercive, violent, forceful measures against the greedy or the violent or those who ignore that homosexuality is inherently, inescapably harmful (selfish). After everything you've written on this issue, you have never told me that this position if wrong. That's because you know it isn't. You don't want to give too much credit though, because the souls you don't want to offend with the truth wouldn't like you for it.
My suggestion is that you learn how to hold with the truth and put the onus and burden of proof on them where it belongs. They are the ones with the monkeys on their backs. Why are you shouldering their monkeys? Are you going to try to carry them into Heaven with you (no such thing allowed), or do you not care to go there?
John, you either missed the point or ducked the issue by suggesting that I was making some other point about (I think you meant) physical sexual abuse in the most commonly understood sense. That was not where I was aiming. I was aiming at the likes of Opra Winfrey saying to my daughter through Opra's magazine (O, The Oprah Magazine) and Opra's closest friend, editor-at-large, Gayle King, that "there's nothing wrong with being" homosexual. Bull.
Look John, either you say too much CO2 in the atmosphere is bad (too much artificially induced climate change) or you say there is no such thing as global warming, etc. You say artificial food contaminated with pesticides and such is harmful, or you say who cares or that it isn't bad. You say the Wall Street bankers were insane to do what they did, or you say let "nature" (as if) take its course - let the laws of economics play out and to Hell with the law of righteousness. The same thing applies to sexual behavior.
I'm not bombing the oil refineries. I'm not throwing unrepentant Monsanto executives into prison. Satan will handle that. I'm not calling for people to beat up homosexuals. I'm calling for total pacifism that includes not doing the violence on others and oneself that is homosexuality. Yes, on a certain level, it is violent. It is not the peace of Christ. Admit it. I'm saying that what is wrong is wrong and that no amount of avoiding the facts about harmfulness will change that.
What are you talking about, John? Penises are not for anuses. Anuses are for defecating. Feces come out of the anus. We're grown up enough to discuss this openly for the sake of truth aren't we? That's what that orifice is for and nothing but. Why would anyone claim that putting penises there is harmless? It isn't. It doesn't matter whether a condom is used in that regard. It remains harmful. That's not what children are being taught though. They are being taught to go ahead with it because nothing bad will come of it. That's not true. Why don't you care enough about the children to take the right stand here? Where's the love?
You're appealing to predisposition being natural. So what then is a natural-born killer? What's a sociopath? Am I supposed to tell children then killing if fine? The Marines think it's fun. They have just as much right to kill Iraq four-year-olds by blowing off their faces as your homosexual friends or family members have to be doing whatever they're doing. Okay, so death-by-Marine is more final in relative terms. The kid who finally figures out that hemorrhoids and other diseases from anal intercourse aren't good and are to be avoided will still be alive in the flesh perchance to choose to be wiser and stop. One isn't unjustified in saying to children and adults to overcome all lower, predisposed forms. What's transformation otherwise? What's the message of the resurrection without the power of transformation from dead flesh to living again and better living and even best living (beingness; one with God)?
You posited, "Is it any worse than the human tendency to 'learn the wrong lesson' from our experiences?" It's worse than the human potential to learn the right lessons. You're arguing for staying down rather than rising into the light of truth. That's not Christian.
"I am perturbed by a lack of civility in society - indeed, bombast inciting division is prevalent - and wish to avoid adding to it." Hum, was Jesus bombastic? Well, if you don't see him as being genuine, as I said, I won't see you there (if I get in).
You divide away from the warmongers don't you? Sure you do. You're adamantly opposed to Barack Obama revving up the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan aren't you? Why is that division okay while dividing away from sexual harm is not? I know hypocrisy when I see it. What are you seeing? I can't tell if you're trying to suggest, without spitting it out, that hypocrisy is okay. I don't say that to tempt you to fall to doing that. In fact, I'll say right now that you should not feel that hypocrisy is okay.
"As far as the state is concerned - it still has no business in the bedroom." Jesus said we are not to force anyone concerning anything. His is the right state of being. At the same time, he said that we are to warn and certainly never to tolerate-condone harmfulness or selfishness. He said we are to be as harmless as doves. That's the standard we should promote with the children. Anything that isn't as harmless as that should not be said to be okay.
"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." Ah, Baal was the lord of the flies. Death smells sweet. Have you smelled it? It is sickeningly sweet.
We want the lost sheep back. Those who don't recognize the voice of the Good Shepherd were never of that fold. The diehard, unrepentant, unforgiving, harmful warmongers are not going to be with Jesus in paradise. They are not equal to him. They are inferior. Don't you believe that? Don't you believe that God arranges the chairs in Heaven? Finally, there is no right or left there in the New Heaven. That's too esoteric for most though to grasp.
"I am not interested in promoting compliance to my understanding of 'God's Law' by promotion.
"But if I were - wouldn't the Ten Commandments take precedence ? There's lots of behaviour to decry there !"
You mean, if I'm going to discuss overcoming sin, shouldn't I start with or confine myself to those listed in the Ten Commandments. John, the Ten Commandments came from Moses. Jesus came though; and Jesus was not irrelevant, quite the opposite. The spirit of law is the law. While sin is both relative and absolute (objectively so; "I am the truth"), the spirit informs the conscience. Jesus was so moved. He expressly included the prohibition against fornication that is not stated that way in the Ten Commandments handed down by Moses and not Jesus, per se. Of course, homosexual activity is always fornication in the sense in which Jesus speaks from the Holy Spirit. There's no getting around this, John, dodge as you might.
How can you do what Jesus asked with your mouth shut? As for the Ten Commandments, they are only as good as they are understood after the New Commandment. Jesus didn't come for nothing. Of course, they couldn't even follow Moses. Jesus didn't abide by the Laws of Moses, as those were comprehended by the Pharisees. Jesus understood better. He understood so well that they murdered him against their own Ten Commandments. Jesus though refuses to stone the adulterous. So do I. He says we aren't even to contemplate adultery. He said to her and to everyone thereby, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," which includes not fornicating (which homosexuality was and is always, as you know just as well as do I).
If you have the inward, spiritual grace (the real law written on your heart), you are going to say and do things only consistent with it. What have I said that isn't consistent with it? Am I wrong in your eyes to call for the Christian Commons? Is my position about fornication, which is completely consistent with Jesus's own statements on the matter, wrong in your eyes?
"It would a sad commentary on meeting people if all they wanted to do was 'show me the door.' I have what I consider revealing exchanges with 'all sorts' - which is how we were made." Well, John, you are right; however, there does come a time when we all must choose and be chosen or rejected. Otherwise, there is no Heaven, ever. Also, which door are you seeing (being shown by me)? I'm trying to show you the real door that doesn't lead to Hell.
When Jesus didn't find the son of peace in the house, he shook the dust from his feet. Was he wrong? That signified cutting off (unworthiness; inferiority). It was simply a statement of truth. It isn't Jesus's fault. He is warning people very openly. He is exceedingly famous for it. They murdered the messenger to kill his saving message that you are rejecting right along with them whether you have realized it about yourself or not. There are plenty of homosexuals who curse Jesus. You know that don't you?
Look at the Episcopal bishop, Vicki Gene Robinson (a male). He divorced his wife without cause so he could "marry" his homosexual partner. Now, he's an unrepentant adulterer and fornicator. He can't get into Jesus's Heaven that way. It's not possible. Yet, there's the Episcopal Church (the Anglican Church in the United States) with him as a practicing homosexual and a bishop no less. Now, just because there a plenty of Fundamentalist and Republicans decrying this doesn't mean that the Episcopal leadership is right on the issue. The Fundamentalist are right in this instance. They are wrong on other scores.
"You know by now I am no Bible literalist. My choking on the doctrine of papal infallibility and religious authority 'per se' - has not left me with a predisposition to cite Scripture to bolster my own arguments." You are letting others own the scripture. I don't assign them that position over me. I'm taking back the scriptures and setting the words straight. You may as well say that the words and deeds of Jesus aren't to be held up against the acts of the Popes as a testimony about what ought to be done instead. I'm not with you on that. I have found no one better than Jesus. His words are scripture, and quoting them as the law that they are is right. Righteousness is the real law, the only law. Everything else is crap. You make his words worthy of being suppressed solely on account of others before you twisting his words. That's weak, John. It's cowardly and misleading.
"You took the oath to uphold church doctrine : I most emphatically chose not." I took no oath to uphold twisting and obfuscating. My yea is yea and my nay is nay. That's it. I am a member of the Real Liberal Christian Church and no other. I have no other "oath." My allegiance is to God (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit; all as one; each parts of the whole) and to no deviation whatsoever. The doctrine of Jesus is the doctrine of God and not of this worldly world. You know that. It is not right, fair, or just of you to attempt to characterize my faith as being at all apostasy.
Where am I not through the strait gate and on the narrow way? If you can show me, do tell. I don't want not to be through that gate and on that way. I want to know my errors to correct them. You have not shown me though. Rather, you have put words before me to cause me to fall were I to accept them as right, which I don't and for the reasons clearly stated here.
"My father regretted what he felt a hobbling of conscience. I took his example to heart." What does that mean? Does it mean that having a working conscience is hobbling or does it mean that, that church's tradition is hobbling and that it works against a good conscience? I hold with the latter. The Roman Catholic tradition is flat out wrong. You've read some of my series posts on it, "."
"Compassion cannot be confused with condescension." A person who repents and is prepared to forgive everyone (a requirement of repentance) is not condescending in the pejorative sense you mean. Let's treat it as Jesus does and enhance understanding. The person who refuses to repent (refuses to admit his or her harmful, selfish, deeds) can't truly be compassionate.
"'They will know we are Christians by our Love' is a challenge - and Inspiration." Of course that's right. What kind of love is it to avoid speaking out against harm though? I'm not running in front of the spiritually blind screaming at them not to walk over the cliff. They hear it but aren't of the fold. That's how it is, John. That's just the way of it. Are you going over the cliff with them or not?
"So : what do I think when a website blazons loudly across the net - I am a Liberal Christian - and proud of it! Hm. That's a change." Well, I use the term "Liberal." I never intended that it be in pride. I use it to set it aright again for the first time. You know that liberal as meant in the Bible does not mean the "liberal" of the "liberal" wing of the Democratic Party in the U.S. It does not mean "free love," as in secular anarchistic or orgiastic sex, not that all liberal Democrats hold with that "free love/sex."
The message of Christ is fidelity and monogamy. Did you know that doves are monogamous? To be as harmless as they are requires monogamy. The Muslims hate this. So too do the vast majority of homosexuals. Why, Jesus is against "freedom" and "liberty" they wail. Bull! The freest anyone can be is free of iniquity. That's why God is the freest. Satan is the most enslaved and enslaving. See it! Quit avoiding it.
God can lift us out of the sewer, John, without simply redecorating the place, as with mere sheep's clothing. God isn't a trickster.
What is there to be proud of having been in the sewer of one's own making (with plenty of help and pushing on the part of others and society at-large, of course)? No, I can see that you don't know who I am. I don't know how low I went. I can't see that far down.
"Not everyone who shouts 'Lord, Lord' will enter unto the Kingdom of Heaven." That's absolutely correct. Those who know better and don't even try and even worse, just shrug their shoulders, won't enter either. They will be lower down.
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:2 KJVR)
Look John, I have a vision of the land with Christians on it, working it, raising food for everyone. I don't see them then going off to commit adultery or to fornicate or to do other things against which Jesus clearly stands. Is it a vision of Heaven? It is a step in the right direction from where we are societally. You don't hear anything in Jesus's words against it do you?
You hated that I said, "Spiritually (if you believe in Jesus) holding to your position, we won't end up in the same place." You wrote, "Wow. That's a two-edged sword, isn't it? Nothing like seeming to deny authoritarianism with subtle cautions."
Subtle, you want subtle?
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. (Genesis 3:1 KJV)
God made Satan so we could overcome. I'm not subtle about it. There's a time and place for subtle. Would you accept what I say were I subtle? Would you conclude that I am not authoritarian were I subtle? Your appeal for subtlety is fallacious and irrelevant. Jesus's yoke is lighter. Choose. You think Satan isn't authoritarian? His yoke is death. That's not subtle. It's a straight and strong statement.
If Heaven is loaded with unrepentant warmongers and greedy capitalists and the like, then Jesus is a liar. If escaping damnation is being taken up by an authoritarian God, then why did Jesus call his yoke light? The conscience is self-discipline. There is no law in Heaven other than real love. It doesn't have to be written on stone tablets or golden plates or paper.
I want to be led out of temptation. I don't want to go where the same old temptations are still being pumped out left and right, do you? We receive our standard, John. I can live with mine. I'm not punishing anyone. Satan's going to do that to all who punish.
Why do you raise Bolshevism in the same breath with me? Are you suggesting that I'm advocating a police state? Police yourself. How can I be advocating a Bolshevik (worldly) police state when I'm advocating that everyone stop harming one another, including stop harming one another via coercion? Make sense, John. The Pharisees said and did this sort of stuff to Jesus. They tested him to see where he was inconsistent. They failed.
Bolshevism is sin. Marx was an ass. So was Lenin. I say it with clear cause. They are dead in Hell with Satan. They have to be by the definitions of Jesus. I'm not twisting here.
"Then the real eyebrow raiser which started this off : proclaiming a 'Gay Old Party' 'Talking Point' as Liberal Christianity. Guess what. I know a few liberal Christians : activists for social justice too! None would condone those positions. There are 'gay' priests! - or perhaps you didn't get the memo."
I don't understand how you get back around to forgetting my position so easily. There are war-making priests too, John. There are capitalist priests too. It proves nothing. There are Marxist priests. There are pedophile priests.
You are not correctly defining "liberal." You are using the so-called modern mess. You don't know any real liberal Christians. You don't even know me. You don't get to define liberal in a way that doesn't jibe with Christ. Jesus was the perfect liberal. That's just how it is. Your definition is dead.
John, let's stop beating around the bush. Is homosexuality harmful or harmless? Answer yes or no, and then qualify it all you want. At least take a clear and plain stand one way or the other about it so we can know where we stand vis-a-vis one another.
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (Matthew 12:33 KJVR)
Bless You, John, With the Whole Truth,
This just in, March 9, 2009:
The Ex-Gay Story in the Pop Music World
By Roberto Marchesini
NARTH International Representative - NARTH Italia
It's a flat out lie that people can't change!
There's harmless confrontation isn't there? I see it anyway.
I'm glad to hear that you would not hesitate to say to anyone that homosexuality is harmful if you were to know it. How you don't know that though is telling. It's telling, because you've been fighting me in a nonviolent sense on the issue for how many months and even years now while you still admit here that you haven't even looked at the evidence. That's rightly called avoidance.
Look, John, I don't have any bitterness toward you though I read between the lines here that you are offended by me on that level. I see you as wanting to combat all reactionaries everywhere by blocking the truth that homosexuality is harmful. I'm not a reactionary as you use it.
If you don't know what "Christ" means from the New Testament other than as an "Ideal" that at the same time is not "God's Edict," how do you feel comfortable making pronouncements about Christian morality (redundant)?
John, you just called Barack Obama unworthy. Oh, you didn't say it verbatim; but you clearly denounced him as a warmonger. You are indignant toward him. Is it righteous indignation? You don't like seeing that in me, but it's okay with you when you do it. You still refuse to see your hypocrisy.
As for your application of the term "dictate" concerning me, you are using the pejorative connotation again. How does one who is not coercive "dictate" in the sense of the term you mean?
Also, the term "judge" has multiple connotations. Which one are you assigning to me? Have I judged Obama and George Bush warmongers? Yes, I have (we have). I know who gave the orders. I know whose fruit is the dead bodies of innocent children. Only a liar doesn't know and a coward won't say. Am I going to arrest them and torture them and execute them? No, I am not going to do that even if they make me their king. Are you? I don't assign that to you. You'll have to search your own heart as to what you'd do if given such power. At the same time, do I say I'm perfected? No, I don't. Do I hold out the truth of peacemaking to Barack as my lost brother? Yes, I do that. I do that concerning George and Dick too. They are human beings. They are my flesh family, as are you. We are all brothers on a certain level, although we don't live up to the spirit of it. I hold it out to every homosexual too. How many dozens have I known? How many have I known intimately but not in the sexual sense?
I've heard it all. You know? I've been begged more than once. I didn't hit anyone. I didn't encourage anyone else to either, not that I haven't done wrong things. I have and way too many times.
You wrote, "...you seem to think children are at risk of being 'indoctrinated' into homosexuality. For that - I have seen no evidence, nor do I expect to." Well, John, I have. Perhaps you haven't, because you've been too wrapped up with visiting only those places that support homosexuality and put it in a false-positive light.
I see here though that you really don't believe. You've said the following:
weak authority of scripture
flogging any scripture as God's Edict
Any representation of Jesus or any prophet or leader which can't impel people to common cause and compassion - is the work of Lucifer.
Jesus's words, as recorded in the Gospel, are weak authority to you. Are your thoughts better than the Sermon on the Mount? You said your intent is not to be arrogant. Are you the Good Samaritan? That parable doesn't move you to common cause and compassion? Whose fault is that? It shows Jesus's shortcomings because you aren't Godly?
Also, you put more stock in bloodlines than the spirit. You say God-given authority of homosexual parents over their children. Well, who is the father of Jesus then?
When you call what I've done "flogging" scripture, you're engaging in attempting to plant unfair associations in the minds of readers. Who do you think coined that concept of flogging scripture? Do you imagine it was someone who wanted to be harmless or harmful? At the same time, are there so-called Bible thumpers who turn around and do greedy, violent, and often secret sexually deprived things? Of course there are. Does that mean that everyone who appeals to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ is any of those? No, it doesn't mean that at all. Yet, you write as if it does.
As for Jesus not having impelled you to common cause with him and having his level of compassion, all I can do is shake my head in amazement that you don't get it. You're calling Jesus "Lucifer." Well, there's the fake and then the real. You mean he's the fake. I mean he was never Satan but is the real light-bringer. Have your "liberal," sodomite priest acquaintances taught you that one?
John, re-read the Gospel of John. Do you have a Bible? I should think you do, somewhere. Read it slowly. Dwell on it. Meditate on it. If after that, you still think I'm a jerk, well, as I said before, I won't see you there (if I make it).
The door isn't bolted yet, John.
Do no harm!
Real Peace and Real Love,
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)