You know, I've received a great deal of negative feedback concerning my statement that homosexuality is not harmless. It doesn't matter that I've made clear that I'm not a secularist or involved in secular government. It doesn't matter that I don't vote and that I'm not registered with any party. It doesn't matter that I don't campaign for anyone seeking secular office. It doesn't matter that I'm completely against coercion and violence. I'm still called a "homophobe," lectured about how I should love the homosexuals, and such things.
Well, I want to explain some things here. I consider the homosexual agenda to be primarily the attempt to get people and especially youth to misbelieve that homosexuality, per se, is harmless at its worst. Yes, I know they want the secular, mundane laws to authorize them as being every bit as married as are heterosexual couples. I know there are many other aspects that one might attach to the "agenda." They wouldn't be wrong in doing that. I'm just focusing in on the heart of the issue: Harmful or harmless?
If the secularists authorized homosexual marriage, it won't be any different from Caesar having his image on the coins of his realm. It isn't God's currency. That's contextual, so don't fly off at me about it. If you don't understand, ask.
As for the phobia thing, I just added to a comment, based upon the results of my meditations last night, that I have lived with homosexuals. I'm not sure why the Holy Spirit is moving me in this direction right now, but here I am being moved to say to all those who have attacked here with terms such as "homophobe" and such that I have had many friends who were homosexuals and bisexuals. I've lived with homosexuals, eaten with them, stayed over at their houses, roomed with them, gone to school with them, worked with them and had them for bosses, defended them from physical assault, palled around with a whole group of them generally, had them for next door neighbors, and much more. I even slept in a double bed with a homosexual. The only thing I haven't done is engage in sexual behavior with any of them. I was asked many, many times in one form or another. I was always just attracted to females that way. That's all. I liked girls. What can I say? It never caused a problem except when someone wouldn't take no for an answer. I had a temper: Bad temper — really bad temper.
Now, just because I've seen how the Gospel words and deeds of Jesus show that homosexuality is not consistent with Jesus's message and I say so, I'm attacked with being "sickening" and on and on.
Well, harmfulness is just that.
I wasn't always a Christian, far from it. When I finally wanted to know why the Hell the world is going to Hell (and wow is it ever! Yes, to the homosexuals, the sky has been falling), I discovered that Jesus had realized and taught that selfishness and harmfulness are what's wrong. It goes further than that, but the belief in God is exactly tied in with the depth of realization as to what all the terms (the Word) mean and their power.
I don't know how this post will help, but I have discovered that I wouldn't have been moved to post it unless something good would come out from it.
Lastly, do I "fear" souls being lost? Yes and no. It depends upon the context for each term. Am I resigned to people who refuse the truth and to repent, etc.? Yes. I can't force them.
Is this the so-called "End Times"? No.
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)