wxr_rlcc_1312484054

I received form submissions that I now, uncharacteristically, post here in the open (for your edification).

Damien [not his real first and last name],

I will post this as a comment, as you've made clear that you were not intending to conceal your identity. I don't risk violating any intended confidences on your part. Anyway, I am not identifying your location or email or IP, etc.

I have never done this before and am not setting a precedent upon which anyone else may depend. I reserve the right to exercise my sole discretion as personally directed by the Holy Spirit on a case-by-case basis.

Here is Damien's first submission:

I find your theology fascinating, and in many respects similar to my own. I consider myself a Democratic Socialist Christian. I admire your goals, and agree with most of your positions. One I cannot agree with, and was curious to hear more about, is your position on homosexuality. Christ does not address this issue in FOUR Gospels, and in fact directly goes AGAINST the Levitical Code from which this prohibition comes (Christ stops the prostitute from being stoned to death, does not require his disciples to observe the strict washing rituals before meals, hangs out and even touches lepers, heals on the sabbath, etc.). Additionally, in Ezekial we are told EXACTLY what the "sin of Sodom was— Ezekial 16:49— apathy toward the poor. The only other references to homosexuality come from St. Paul, who was a great Man of God, but was HUMAN—he also believed women should be silent in church and that EVERYONE should remain celibate. Could you clarify your position on this issue?

My reply that likely will shock some who can't see who Damien is by his submission:

Why do this as a form submission rather than as a comment submission? Is it so you didn't have to give your identity? That's hardly Christlike. [Notice that it is a question and not a statement.]

"...homosexuality. Christ does not address this issue in FOUR Gospels...."

He certainly does. http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2008/12... [Please note that, that link links to the comment above, which sits on this post that is part of a series. All the linking is there for really sincere seekers.]

Besides, as I've pointed out in my comment linked above, it isn't necessary, regardless [isn't required for Christ to have addressed the issue in the canonical Gospels in the direct, verbatim way demanded of Damien]. Truth is truth.

Ezekiel 16:49 is not exhaustive.

"...St. Paul, who was a great Man of God, but was HUMAN—he also believed women should be silent in church and that EVERYONE should remain celibate."

I am not Pauline and never have been.

Please refrain from using all caps the way you have here.

I would prefer that you ask any further questions as open comments on the site. Your questions don't appear to require stealth for any reason other than your fear publicly to be shown to be in error on the matter. Have the courage of your convictions and be prepared to change. [Again, I have not made a statement but only worded things in a way that says "if." If the shoe doesn't fit.... What spirit led Damien not to use the comment submission form? Nothing happens that doesn't say something about spiritual movement and guidance &mdash which spirit is which.]

His reply follows. Please note that he did not submit a comment using the open and direct commenting system. It further says who he is rather than who he is attempting to suggest that he is:

Your website is confusing. I used the "contact us" icon, as I thought that was the most general way of reaching you. You do not make it clear that you prefer comments to be made in another forum. For being a communist, which many people revile and are prejudiced against, you show a surprising lack of willingness to consider that prohibitions against homosexuality were part of the OLD Covenant and not the New, and show some measure of respect towards others who are rejected by society. In case you've forgotten, that was something Christ was famous for. I was simply interested in your position on this. Obviously you have some serious issues in hypocricy to deal with, not to mention manners. I would be interested to see how many Liberal/Progressive Leftists you are able to win over to your cause, since the vast majority of them do not accept the prohibitions against homosexuality as being part of Christ's message, and are very supportive of gay rights. The link you sent had NOTHING to do with Christ addressing the issue of homosexuality, but was merely your opinion given over and over again to someone who had disagreed with you. The passage in Ezekial IS very clear on what "the sin of sodom" was, by the way, and you never addressed the issue of Christ rejecting Levitical Law repeatedly throughout The Gospels, and those are the laws from which the prohibition against homosexuality come from. I would wish you good luck, but I don't feel someone like you needs to be supported in any way. By the way, I don't know what your credentials are, but I am a vowed Religious Brother (that IS my identity, dufus), so I do know a thing or two about scripture, and how people (conservatives, as well as people like yourself) have twisted and misused it, and in the process have driven countless numbers away from Our Lord and Saviour and in search of alternative religions where they feel they can belong. I assume, as a communist, you believe very strongly in the "judge not least ye be judged" doctrine. Pity you can't abide by it. Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, monastic

And now, my reply to that:

Damien,

You used the form submission to send an email to me where you intermittently shouted IN ALL CAPS at me in support of homosexuality.

The open comment submission form is there on every post and page. It isn't on the blog index page where, right now, 10 posts are showing, but then that's how all the blogs are of which I know (comment forms are on individual posts and pages). You knew that. So, when I've received form submissions, they have all been for reasons of legitimate stealth, retardation, spam, or because the subject matter was not on any immediate post topic. I've never received a form submission from anyone who otherwise didn't understand that the comment section is right there for open comments and questions concerning posts and pages.

The comment section requires first and last name. You submitted (twice) only one name, as it is.

I'm explaining this so you can see things from the other direction to consider whether or not you should cut me some slack, so to speak.

Now, if you didn't know that the comment section was right there and if you weren't avoiding identifying yourself with your first and last name (because I would have deleted any comment from simply "Damien" and still would) and if you were not shouting in your head when you used ALL CAPS for certain words (which application does have it's place but certainly not in an introductory set of questions to someone from someone with good manners, which "manners" you claim to value), then I apologize to you for reading to much into things. You may quote me on that too. I have no problem with standing corrected by the facts.

In my book, one properly emphasizes what others miss that is of value. Your ALL CAPS came across as condemnation wrapped in your whole style. What is good?

Jesus said to be as harmless as doves; and homosexuality is not harmless, as I've shown on the site, concerning which post/page I provided a link in the comment thread where I directed you. You could have looked deeper. You could have done a site search. The answers to all of your questions are already there. They are actually already in your Bible, even your revised one. Rather though, you decided to challenge (and that is the spirit you employed).

"Homosexuals: What they ignore."

Damien, do your monastic brothers bugger each other in the next room or right in yours with you? Does that question offend you? If so, why? Are you fine with hearing their "pleasure"? Do you not consider it hedonism in the worst sense? I do. It is an affront to my God, who is not yours, in your mind.

I am well aware of the "movement" of the homosexuals who are revising scripture. I've studied Protestant Higher Criticism. I started doing that about 40 years ago and continued until I was satisfied I'd evaluated it enough. I understand textural criticism.

As for your vision concerning Leviticus, Jesus did not overturn the law. He enhanced understanding. There are plenty of the laws of Moses that Jesus quoted verbatim. Jesus did not give an exhaustive list as those of the letter and not also the spirit demand, you being a case in point. He gave the spirit of the law that he summated in a way that covers the whole of the law from the greatest to the least.

You are not in a position to use the letter as a justification for the act of sodomy or the spirit from which it came and is still coming.

...and those are the laws from which the prohibition against homosexuality come from.

Wrong. The prohibition predates Moses. You don't understand and apply what is meant by "the beginning." The law has always been and always will be. To unrepentant sodomites, they aren't given the law. They can't receive it.

You presumed to teach concerning that which you do not understand. You staked out a false and failed rebuke via your ALL CAPS, etc.

I explained that if the words had never been written in the manner in which they were written and which words have survived in that manner largely un-amended for purposes of justifying sin until recently, we would still be faced by the fact, the truth, that homosexuality is always harmful. As for whether or not you have a sufficiently softened heart to come to discerned that remains to be seen. So far, you are ignoring the fact, which means to me that you are too hardhearted.

I'm aware of the revisionism of what is intended by the term "fornication" and also whether or not it was even the best translation/interpretation of the original word as meant by Jesus. I know that "movement" is not for the sake of righteousness but rather self-licensing to iniquity. The whole thrust of the admonitions of Moses as enhanced by Jesus lead in the exact opposite direction from such self-licensing.

To be a whole being (wholesome) requires an absence of homosexual persuasion. A desire to put one's penis up another male's anus is not a sign of a healed soul but rather a fractured soul. It is a sign of confusion. Moses was not wrong about that, and Jesus did not ever say in either letter or spirit that Moses was wrong about it. What Jesus did do is say that it was wrong to stone people regardless. I agree with him completely regarding these matters. Jesus did not say to the adulteress to go and keep sinning. Your view of the incident as pertains to homosexuality is an abuse of Jesus's actions and what they say.

The homosexuals are attempting to limit the prohibition to temple prostitution. Jesus cleans the temple of commerce. The real temple though is within. Therefore, clean your heart of commerce. Did he say that? I just did. What is such commerce? It is a lack of faith in God. It is fractured. Now, if you can receive that from me from God, why am I wrong in other matters that have been hidden from you? Why is it selfish to hold out your hand for mammon for self apart from God but it isn't selfish to hold sexual organs for twisted gratification? Can you not see the parallels? That road leads to Hell. Why do you think otherwise?

You read my comment about that penises and anuses don't belong together and you came back complaining that I hadn't addressed your questions. I had, but you couldn't see. Hence, here I am trying yet again but not under the commandment to continue with you indefinitely. Either you catch on or you fall into the ditch.

Now, Damien, did God create penises for anuses or mouths or ears or anything other than urinating and for vaginas? We already know that Jesus said (directly to me but indirectly to you so far at best) sex only in monogamous marriage. Please answer that direct question with a yes or no. Qualify to your hearts content, but answer. Understand that I am warning you that if you answer incorrectly either here or in your mind and also continue spreading the error rather then standing firmly against it, you will be held to account. I won't judge you and condemn you and sentence you and punish you. I am warning you against all of that.

To continue, Jesus removed the hypocrisy from the law of Moses. He did not throw the whole of Moses's law away. Your reading, as I take it based upon your comments, is clearly selective to make homosexuality acceptable where it is not. In other words, whether you have realized it or not, you have a twisted, incorrect view of Jesus's message.

The sin of Sodom was all the sins of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was definitely not limited to "apathy toward the poor." The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It was also rape. It was also homosexuality. It was unrighteousness where the angels of the LORD could find no one but Lot who was even trying not to be utterly depraved (beyond what can be tolerated for existence in fallen Earth).

Apathy for the poor comes out from the general and specific spirit of error. It is the selfish spirit that allows for war, greed, and any form or degree of sexual harm. The different aspects are a matter of degree one individual from the next, but it all remains error. Heaven contains none of it. That's were I want to be. That's where I'm headed. If you want to stay back with the homosexuals, that's your error to make. As for which level of Heaven/Hell you'll be on next is not for me to say. You won't be on the same one I'll be on though if you hold true to form and I hold true to form.

As for Paul, he was much as Moses. He had partial-truths in his head that he thought added up to the whole message of Jesus. At least he is projected in a way that he wanted everyone to believe that he had the whole message. He was not wrong about everything. He was right that homosexuality is confusion to be avoided. He was right that the lust of the flesh is not what is in the Highest. He was right that Jesus didn't say that sex, per se, was a sin fatal to the soul. Jesus did not say that sex was a good thing though. He didn't hold it out as perfect. God is spirit and can and has manifested in the flesh. This presents as an irreconcilable paradox for many but not for me.

For being a communist, which many people revile and are prejudiced against, you show a surprising lack of willingness to consider that prohibitions against homosexuality were part of the OLD Covenant and not the New, and show some measure of respect towards others who are rejected by society. In case you've forgotten, that was something Christ was famous for.

The fact that people don't know that Christianity is communism (not Marxism) is telling that people also don't understand that homosexuality is sin. Your attempted logic says you hold that if things are reviled, they must walk together. That's unsound. It has come out from you toward me. You are asking me to respect that which is against God's perfection, yet you call yourself a follower of Jesus. Why haven't you considered these things before? You have a beam in your eye, Damien.

Jesus was not correctly famous for respecting sinners. You don't understand his mind. Nowhere did he show respect to sinners in their sin. He showed no partiality for sinners for their remaining in any sinful condition. He rather rebuked all backsliders though he was prepared to forgive and did in different ways and degrees, depending.

Obviously you have some serious issues in hypocricy to deal with, not to mention manners.

What laws do you lay out? Where do you draw lines? Does the Bible allow for necrophilia simply because Jesus didn't say don't have sex with flesh that has given up the ghost? Are you really that literal, or are you able to have the spirit written on your heart?

If a homosexual can continue being such without sinning in your book, can a man penetrate the anus of a child? Jesus didn't say not to in the way you are requiring that he should have said regarding homosexuality if he thought and still thinks homosexuality is sinful.

Your arguments are on a par with John Yoo's arguments for a President ordering the crushing of a child's testicles. The U.S. constitution isn't clear on it to John Yoo. Jesus's message isn't clear on homosexuality to you. John's President might legally order the crushing of a child's testicles before the parent's very eyes. We aren't talking about saving the child's life because physical circumstances require that the child lose his testis here. Your Jesus, likewise, might say to you that homosexuality isn't against God's design for Heaven on Earth.

Is penetrating a child's anus for sexual gratification good manners in your book? I hope not for your sake and for the children's. It isn't in mine, and I don't mind coming off as offending the homosexuals to the homosexuals and to you, in your view. I am not though the offense.

He said not to offend a little one who believes in him. What is offensive? After he had risen, he wouldn't even be touched before returning to God. What do you make of that with your authorizing homosexuality? What is being risen from the dead? He came again and had Thomas physically touch his wounds. How do you reconcile all of this since you believe you are familiar with the correct reading of scripture?

I would be interested to see how many Liberal/Progressive Leftists you are able to win over to your cause, since the vast majority of them do not accept the prohibitions against homosexuality as being part of Christ's message, and are very supportive of gay rights.

Jesus came to save the lost. How many "conservative rightist" will change from greed and war? I am not out to win "Liberal/Progressive Leftists" by simply giving them what they've already taken. You don't understand.

There are no homosexual "rights" other than to apostates. You are talking about those dead of the Holy Spirit who can't receive the Holy Spirit.

The link you sent had NOTHING to do with Christ addressing the issue of homosexuality, but was merely your opinion given over and over again to someone who had disagreed with you.

As I said, you don't understand. You are reading as a fractured soul not looking to be completely healed. I'm looking to be completely healed. I'm looking to be free from evil forevermore. That means to be free of wrong acts where I am, which means my Heaven that is free of homosexuality, which is even beyond the pale in this here and now. You though, haven't been given that before. What about now? You've been told.

I would wish you good luck, but I don't feel someone like you needs to be supported in any way.

This shows a deep lack of understanding and also carelessness. Luck has nothing to do with God. Furthermore, if you meant it as a prayer and were it to be granted, it would mean that the world would come to my view and not yours. All of humanity would, and will, reject homosexuality. That is something you do not support.

By the way, I don't know what your credentials are, but I am a vowed Religious Brother (that IS my identity, dufus),

They asked Jesus for credentials. You're showing your carelessness again here — ironic for one who claims good manners. My words are my credentials.

As for manners, you've said here in a snotty way, "In case you've forgotten," "not to mention manners," and "dufus." Read those within your context above. I call them serpents who are serpents.

...so I do know a thing or two about scripture

Calling yourself a "Religious Brother" doesn't mean you know. You've shown here a great lack of knowledge. I see no humility in you, thus far.

Everything revealed by your reply was in your first comment via the form submission. I read you correctly. The Holy Spirit said who you were and are. I wasn't misled. I didn't react incorrectly. You are not moved by the Holy Spirit of truth. You are being moved by the spirit of Satan, which was your view, and may still be, of me, as evidenced by your comments.

...twisted and misused it [scripture]

Do you countenance necrophilia? I don't. I don't countenance pedophilia or pederasty. Where did Jesus say verbatim not to sleep with your sister? Yet, I don't countenance incest. My law comes from God. Yours does not. With regards to necrophilia, pedophilia, pederasty, incest, and bestiality, what can we expect in the future as a result of the inroads homosexuality is making not just in your version of Christianity but in society as a whole? Have you thought it out? No, you haven't. I have. Who's twisting? I am not. You judge incorrectly, and I rebuke you. Will you be a real brother or continue distorting Jesus's message to license iniquity?

...and in the process have driven countless numbers away from Our Lord and Saviour and in search of alternative religions where they feel they can belong.

Those who want to continue in homosexuality and not be healed, those who want to accept and affirm them in their fractured and unwilling condition are the blind following the blind. Also, few there be that find it.

I'm not in a popularity contest by means of the lowest common denominator. Jesus is not popular.

You hate him you know. You hate his anti-homosexuality. You can't love him and hate his anti-homosexuality.

I love him because he clarified for me when I was lost and "accepting" and "tolerating" and even condoning, as you are now, which opened the gates of Hell that he closed. He's my brother in flesh and spirit. I agree with him completely.

You, Damien, do not. You argue against him. You are misled and misleading. If you love the truth, who is God and Jesus, you'll love what I written here to you.

I assume, as a communist, you believe very strongly in the "judge not least ye be judged" doctrine. Pity you can't abide by it.

I adhere to it completely. I will be judge by my own standard that I share from Jesus. You too will be judged by the standard you've shown here, unless you turn from homosexual acceptance and repent. I've already given you much of what the prosecutor will hold out against you. I've done it now while you have time. I've shown you the real love. What will you do in turn?

Peace and Blessings.

First, define peace. Your homosexual world isn't it.

Brother Damien, monastic

My real brother does the will of my father.

monastic

The Christian Commons isn't for you the way you present here and neither is the New Heaven. You hate both.

<span class="redletter">Make the tree good, and his fruit good.</span>

<span class="redletter">He that is not with me is against me.</span>

It's all or nothing in the end. Choose, Damien.

You make your bed. You'll sleep in it.

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.