This is my response to RE's post, "Sacrificial Sunday with Pope Busta: "Condom Distribution Will Fuel AIDS Epidemic" - Screw You Benedict [expletive deleted]"
Hi RE and All,
I won't go on about that. I use harsh or hard language too on a certain level.
What I will address is that Joseph Ratzinger (aka, Pope Benedict XVI) doesn't know how to say what he means. He's really trying to say that the message must be abstinence. Jesus holds with abstinence for the unmarried and for faithfulness for those who are. Benedict doesn't know how to just say that and leave it alone. Condoms to him suggest condoning anti-Christian behavior. On a certain level, that's true. He is absolutely wrong though to be inconsistent. While he bungles his call for sexual near-purity (as pure as it can be while still being married in the mundane sense), he doesn't call for all the other things for which Jesus stands.
Joseph confuses (knowingly) the temporal, fallen, worldly state that is nearly all secular now) with his church (lower case; lower case on account of his confused and confusing message).
Jesus is for harmlessness. If it is harmful and there is a less harmful or ultimately harmless way (and there is), then that's the strait gate and narrow way. What Jesus does not do is side with war makers or the greedy while he preaches the absence of sexual sin. He also does not promote coercion in any case. He does not hold with homosexuality, which is clearly sin since he spoke directly against fornication and homosexuality was, and remains, fornication in Jesus's eyes and in his Church. However, he does not fry the homosexuals. He rather says that in a softer generation or age, they would turn from what is ultimately their selfish and harmful behavior.
This is asking much. It is asking for the perfection of God to enter into every heart.
There are right now millions, even billions, who are not sexually faithful. What is the real Christian to do? He or she is not to lie or speak carelessly. Condoms, per se, do not promote HIV/AIDS in the sense in which the vast majority of people would take it. The semantical work has not been done sufficiently to bring understanding with the language. The Roman Catholic Church regularly fails in this (avoids it for worldly political reasons).
Condoms do fall far short of the New Commandment in its fullest context. Condoms are an artificial means to sin without the greater more apparently negative consequences. There remain, however, spiritually fatal consequences. The emotional mindset behind condoms is not the emotional state that leads all the way to God, who is righteousness.
I realize this is a difficult (even trying) subject for the vast majority. They just don't want to hear it. Benedict cannot rise to the occasion because to do so, he would have to risk (there is not real risk in it) offending more than he already has and does offend. He's in a popularity contest he cannot win.
The Roman Catholic Church is doomed to failure. It was dead on arrival.
Where does this leave the RLCC in terms of the label "homophobic"? Well, phobias are irrational. They have no basis in fact. What do I fear? I fear that people will suffer for experimenting that is testing whether or not the admonitions against certain (all) selfish and harmful behavior, as taught by Jesus, are true.
They are true. One finally comes to understanding that or one continues the fall into the proverbial bottomless pit.
Bless you, RE, for being brave enough to allow the likes of me to comment on your site. Many won't risk the wrath of those who hate others voicing that letting go of iniquity is the only right thing to do.
Peace, Love, and Truth Are One,
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)