This is a follow-up to my post, "PUTIN, MOSCOW BAN HOMOSEXUAL PARADES: PETITION, NO."
I don't subscribe to Biblical Fundamentalism in the way that term is customarily understood as of the time of this writing. I am not a literalist in that sense. I am a literalist/figurativist. I'm not a disciple of John Nelson Darby or Cyrus Scofield — or Paul for that matter. I don't subscribe to the rapture of Darby (See also: ON GLENN BECK, SOCIAL JUSTICE, ECONOMIC JUSTICE, COMMUNISTS, NAZIS, AND CHURCHES) or Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye-type books.
I'm also not a King James Version Only member. The Johannine Comma is a real error in the KJV. However, the differences between the KJV and the oldest known texts are not many. Also, the KJV is the direct result of monarchical forces set against the people. King James was an extreme elitist and homosexual. He was working through religion to attempt to reinforce the notion of the divine right of kings and the temporal, worldly hierarchical structure that James wanted to see to it supported in full his claim to ultimate, sole sovereignty apart from the people. His concept was decidedly antichrist. James wanted an end to the Geneva Bible's more-populist sway in English speaking and reading circles. The KJV fell prey a bit itself to the political correctness of its time. The Geneva Bible, on the other hand, is the interpretation of Calvinists, is it not? I do not hold with Calvin or Calvinism. I am not a member of the Reformed movement. Frankly, I'm not a Protestant. Neither am I Catholic or Orthodox, in the Eastern Orthodox or Russian or Greek, etc., senses. I am not any of those for the reason that they have not brought forth (The Christian Commons Project) nor sufficiently tried.
The NIV (New International Version) though is not a good effort. It too is politically correct for this time. Deborah L. Collins, of the MidActsDispensationalist site, has a post, "TAKE THE NIV 'ACID TEST'!" It raises some interesting points about the NIV. (Also, I found the post via growandknow.blogspot.com. Mark has an interesting take on "Easter" at the end of this post citing Deborah's post.)
The NIV, published by Zondervan, was chaired by the Old Testament Committee by a homosexual, Dr. Marten Woudstra. Virginia Mollenkott is a lesbian and was the stylistic editor for the NIV. The version is a deliberate work to alter perceptions concerning, among many other things (it is secular leaning on account of its humanistic, ecumenical, and syncretistic tendencies, not that the KJV doesn't fall prey at all to such) the harmful (and therefore sinful in Jesus's New Testament teaching) behavior that is homosexuality even in thought or feeling.
The homosexuals are using the following to self-authorize [from Strong's]:
From H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, that is, (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry: - sodomite, unclean.
This refers to "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Deuteronomy 23:17 KJV)
Sodomites in the NIV is rendered "male shrine prostitutes." Is that enough to authorize homosexuality?
Now, as I've pointed out already, as Christians, we must concern ourselves with Jesus's teachings. If Jesus said be harmless as doves, which he did, and if homosexuality is harmful (regardless of any Old Testament wordings or translation or any other non-Jesus New Testament words), then Jesus taught, and still teaches, against homosexuality. I say not just the act or outward behavior (acting out) but homosexuality, per se, because he also taught that we are not to even fantasize evil that is harmfulness.
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matthew 5:28 KJV)
What the homosexuals are doing is claiming that Jesus didn't specifically mention "homosexuality." They claim based upon that that homosexuality isn't prohibited by Jesus, as if homosexuality outside of the shrine and/or not paying mammon for the act renders the behavior acceptable or at least vague enough that readers ought to be uncertain concerning the iniquity inherent in that behavior. The homosexuals do not address the harmfulness inherent in homosexuality; or if they do, they point out harmfulness in the acts of others who are not homosexuals, as if that non-homosexual harmfulness excuses homosexuality. Losing that argument, they turn to authorizing homosexuality on wholly mundane grounds of democratic, human, and/or civil rights. They then however don't address the hypocrisy in anti-sexual behavior of other types, such as pedophilia and bestiality. Some will claim the acceptability of homosexuality with disgust for pedophilia, etc. However, that just brings them to the same position of particular anti-homosexuals (who don't emphasizes harmlessness) vis-a-vis homosexuals as those homosexuals have vis-a-vis the pedophiles, etc. It's a slippery slope to Hell.
Barring that argument, they turn to genetics as an excuse and to call people to have compassion toward homosexuals. However, homosexuality is a choice. Regardless though, as Christians, we are to approach it from Jesus's words and deeds. He healed where there was faith and the absence of hypocrisy. It is generalized doubt and hypocrisy that retards the healing.
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)