PUTIN, MOSCOW BAN HOMOSEXUAL PARADES: PETITION, NO

I posted, "YOU CAN CHANGE, AND THERE IS PLENTY WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALITY: LIES FROM THE DARK SIDE EXPOSED," Monday, May 18, 2009. Matthew Wettlaufer on Facebook, left the following comment on Facebook stating, "Shame some people have a problem dealing with their prejudices towards gays." I asked him to explain. He hasn't.
Now there's this:

Concerning http://www.facebook.com/inbox/readmessage.php?t=1028197360403 and
"End Russia's Ban on the Moscow Gay Pride Parade Petition":

I've been getting notifications from Matthew Wettlaufer on Facebook to sign the petition. I "friended" him some time ago as a "Christian communist."

Here's my reply:

I approach this as a disciple of Jesus. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts ... fornications ...." (Mark 7:21 KJV) Homosexuality wasn't right then in Jesus's eyes. It was fornication when he said it. Truth. Nothing has changed. He also though holds against coercion. Neither the state nor the people should force. Let the truth convict consciences. Also, he said, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16) Homosexuality is not as harmless as a dove, contrary to certain false assertions of many homosexuals and others. Therefore, I won't sign your petition because I hold it as wrong. I rather ask you to repent for your good and the good of all. Peace, Tom Usher

Now, is he flaming or trolling or am I or are we both or is neither of us? To me, it's irrelevant.

Matthew claims to be a Christian. In my Book, he is not. He wants what he wants. I want what I want.

Truth,

Tom Usher

UPDATE: The following is the whole thread as of May 20, 2009 @ 2.43PM Pacific Standard Time:

Petition to end the ban against the gay rights march in Moscow
Between Steve Cooke, Steve Lowery, Stu Smith, Stuart Dummit, Terence Bowles, Thierry Mazzella, Thomas Gibson, Thomas Oswald French, Tim Archer, Tim Stephenson, Todd Ted Blythe, Tom Connolly, You, Tomás Ó Cárthaigh, Tone Grey, Toni Smith, Tony Martin and Matthew Wettlaufer

Matthew Wettlaufer
May 19 at 1:18am
Reply
Please sign the petition to end the yearly ban against the gay rights march in Moscow. Please pass on the petition to your friends, thanks!
Matt

http://www.petitiononline.com/adorno66/petition.html
End Russia's Ban on the Moscow Gay Pride Parade Petition
Source: www.petitiononline.com
End Russia's Ban on the Moscow Gay Pride Parade Petition, hosted at PetitionOnline.com
Share

Tony Martin
Add as Friend
May 19 at 1:59am
Reply
Signed Matthew. Good luck with it.

Matthew Wettlaufer
May 19 at 3:16am
Reply
Thanks Tony!

Tom Usher
May 19 at 6:36pm
I approach this as a disciple of Jesus. "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts ... fornications ...." (Mark 7:21 KJV) Homosexuality wasn't right then in Jesus's eyes. It was fornication when he said it. Truth. Nothing has changed. He also though holds against coercion. Neither the state nor the people should force. Let the truth convict consciences. Also, he said, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16) Homosexuality is not as harmless as a dove, contrary to certain false assertions of many homosexuals and others. Therefore, I won't sign your petition because I hold it as wrong. I rather ask you to repent for your good and the good of all. Peace, Tom Usher

Matthew Wettlaufer
May 19 at 9:56pm
Reply
It's a shame you feel that way. Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality. But you have a right to your views.
Best wishes
Matt

Tomás Ó Cárthaigh
May 19 at 10:10pm
Reply
Its in the bible, in the old testament. in the Noahide laws (from the times of Noah)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noahide_Laws

The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are[3]

Prohibition of Idolatry: You shall not have any idols before God.
Prohibition of Murder: You shall not murder. (Genesis 9:6)
Prohibition of Theft: You shall not steal.

******************************
Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit any of a series of sexual prohibitions, which include adultery, incest, bestiality and male homosexual intercourse.
******************************

Prohibition of Blasphemy: You shall not blaspheme God's name.
Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive. (Genesis 9:4)
Requirement to have just Laws: You shall set up an effective judiciary to enforce the preceding six laws fairly.

NOTE: Lesbianism is not banned!!!! :-)
Seven Laws of Noah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Source: en.wikipedia.org
The Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: ??? ????? ??? ?? Sheva mitzvot B'nei Noach), often referred to as the Noahide Laws, are a set of seven moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God ...
Share

Matthew Wettlaufer
May 19 at 11:15pm
Reply
Tomas, it sounds like the texts you cite have a lot in common with the views of the Mullahs of Iran and the Taleban, the problem with religious fundamentalism, of whatever kind, is that it leaves out the right to question and the right to reason. Societies that lack reason succumb to barbarity.

The other problem is the dogmatic practice of basing secular moral codes upon ancient texts—the problem of interpretation and translation, the question of meaning. Much of what you cite had to do with temple prostitution practices in the Middle East by religious cults and the wish of the Hebrew law makers to avoid duplicating these institutions. There were also dietary restrictions and rather bizarre suggestions that would seem amusing today—for example in the Old Testament it also says no touching of pig skin—so that means no more Sunday afternoon football games! And it says that Lot slept with his own daughters, so is that an endorsement of incest?

But of course ambiguity is brushed aside by religious fundamentalists who use these texts to justify their prejudices against minority groups. We still live in a democracy, not a theocracy, so our laws are based upon reason, not religious dogma. I uphold your right to believe as you wish, but I deny the right of anyone to impose discrimination upon me or those who are like me in the name of their religious views.

Tone Grey
Add as Friend
May 19 at 11:19pm
Reply
"...so that means no more Sunday afternoon football games!"

See, it's good to be a fundamentalist ! I'm all for this law to live by !!!

Matthew Wettlaufer
May 19 at 11:29pm
Reply
Actually you have a point there :)

Tom Usher
Today at 1:13am
@ Matthew Wettlaufer May 19 at 9:56pm

Matthew,

You're claiming Mark 7:21 doesn't apply to homosexuality. However, that's illogical. It's not well reasoned. All homosexual acts were acts of fornication. That's inescapable. You ought not to deny it. To deny it is to hold with falsehood. To claim Jesus said nothing about homosexuality is to mislead. Either you believe in Jesus or you don't. If you believe in him, you agree with him. Apparently, you don't agree with him. You think he's wrong. You think you know better. You should rethink your position.

Peace,

Tom Usher

Tom Usher
Today at 1:37am
@ Matthew Wettlaufer May 19 at 11:15pm

Matthew,

I don't come at this from an Old Testament approach. I never have. I will say though that the Bible says of Lot's issue that no good came from it. If you know how to read that, it means that incest is bad. I suggest you not cite that again in support of homosexuality.

As for ambiguity, how do you justify banning pedophilia? Why is homosexuality all right but pedophilia is not or incest or bestiality or any other sexual behavior for that matter? Where's the reasoning? I don't see it.

Jesus draws the line at being harmless as doves. That works for me. I see no ambiguity in it at all. If you see it, where do you see it?

I thought you claimed "Christianity." Am I mistaken in that?

Do you "deny the right of anyone to impose discrimination upon" those who practice bestiality? As you know from having read my post http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3117 upon which you commented on Facebook (you did read it didn't you?), I don't hold with coercion. Therefore, I'm not imposing upon you in the sense you mean the term. I'm not imposing upon anyone concerning anything. Are you able to say the same, or are you actually caught in hypocrisy even though you appeal with the term "ambiguity" against Biblical Fundamentalists (of which I am not one, again, in the sense you mean)?

Peace to All,

Tom Usher

Matthew Wettlaufer
Today at 1:41am
Reply
No, not all homosexual relationships were simply acts of fornication in the early Christian Church—there were many early examples of erastai, men who married men, who were also Christian, some of whom were martyred (like Saints Bacchus and Sergius of Syria).

In the passage you cited I have a translation:
Mark 7:21-23 (New International Version)
21For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' "

The noun you are using is from the Greek—por-ni-ah, it literally means sexual idolatry. This again goes back to what I said about the Hebraic censure against temple prostitution. But you are reading it from a 21st century perspective, inserting your worldview and experience on a term that was written thousands of years ago. The arrogance is in assuming that the two worldviews are an absolute match, and in not acknowledging the role your subjective experience has in interpreting this text. We all come to a text with our value systems, expectations and pre-judgments. We can't help not doing that. As long as we acknowledge that we are encountering something from a necessarily flawed angle, we salvage our humble humanness and acknowledge our fallibility in terms of what we think is true.

But to insist on a dogmatic, black and white approach to anything is impossible—it ignores the distance you and I have from these texts, and it ignores our how conditional our understanding of the truth is (determined by our culture, our upbringing, history). That is the kind of mistake which leads people to harm one another because they have insisted that their view and only their view is right.
Matt

Tony Martin
Add as Friend
Today at 2:06am
Reply
God is love. End of story.

Matthew Wettlaufer
Today at 2:07am
Reply
Well put :)

Tom Usher
Today at 2:15am
Matthew,

What men did in the early church has nothing to do with what Jesus said when he said it.

The New International Version is politically slanted in the "modern" sense. It was deliberately written with a view to "authorize" that which was not authorized by Jesus.

Do you really believe that Jesus spoke against all those acts you've listed but held that the act of homosexuality was not sin?

Strong's says:
G4202
πορνεία
porneia
por-ni'-ah
From G4203; harlotry (including adultery and incest); figuratively idolatry: - fornication.

There is no doubt that "fornications" meant sex out of wedlock, for harlotry, adultery, and incest were (and remain) such. Surely you don't deny it. Porneia had more than one connotation at the time. It is contextual. You are very selectively using one connotation to obfuscate and self-authorize.

You have also evaded the issue of homosexuality being harmful and Jesus's prohibition concerning harm. http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2007/03/19/homosexuals-what-they-ignore.html That's a central tenet to real Christianity.

To read you is to read that there is no right versus wrong. You are mistaken. Jesus did not go to the cross for some vague indeterminable cause. He went for the sake of righteousness, and homosexuality is not righteous, by his definition (his life example and the full context of his words).

You're skirting the issues.

Peace,
For: The REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH and Christian Commons Project
Tom Usher

P.S. God is love, and God is truth.

Donate


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.