DEREK WEBB LYRICS, STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, WHAT MATTERS MORE, CLEAN VERSUS EXPLICIT, HOMOSEXUAL OR STRAIT AND STRAIGHT

The following contains what can be used as a swear word and also clear and plain talk about the homosexual act. If you do not believe that you can handle such, don't read on. My view though is that all Christian adults are capable.

I never heard of this Derek Webb person before today.

He's done a video that has created an apparent stir between fundamental and evangelical "Conservatives" and Emergent Movement/Postmodernist (a fracturing concept).

Here are the lyrics to his most controversial song:

You say you always treat people like you like to be
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality
You love when people put words in your mouth
'Bout what you believe, make you sound like a freak
'Cause if you really believe what you say you believe
You wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak
Wouldn't silently consent when the liars speak
Denyin' all the dyin' of the remedy
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?
If I can tell what's in your heart by what comes out of your mouth
Then it sure looks to me like being straight is all it's about
It looks like being hated for all the wrong things
Like chasin' the wind while the pendulum swings
'Cause we can talk and debate until we're blue in the face
About the language and tradition that he's comin' to save
Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a shit
About 50,000 people who are dyin' today
Tell me, brother, what matters more to you?
Tell me, sister, what matters more to you?

Now, I also read the suggested-reading links provided by Mike Morrell on his Post: "Derek Webb: What Matters More?" zoecarnate. July 16, 2009.

Those links are:

Brian McLaren,
Gospel Soundcheck

Michael Spencer

Post-Restoration Perspectives

Denny Burk

Dustin Segers's blog

I thought, oh, Holy Spirit, do you want me to comment everywhere. The spirit did not move me to comment everywhere, as you can see.

Here's how the Holy Spirit has informed and moved me:

I found myself in agreement with Denny Burk (linked to above) on this matter, but I have additional observations.

It strikes me as mammon-profiteering to have two versions to be released: a clean and an explicit. If it is acceptable to the LORD, that's that.

As for the obscenity portion of the debate, I was surprised that it has taken center stage with many. Then I was given to understand that there are those who accept the homosexual act that is one male putting his penis into the anus of another male but who do not accept referring to the feces directly associated with that act as "shit." This strikes me as utter hypocrisy and immature for adults. Ordinarily, I render it as "sh_t" to spare those who might stumble on it.

I don't use the term for effect. We should note that the Bible does refer to feces. I won't cite the places here. Look it up for yourself if you don't know where. It will do you good. If you don't know how, seek. It can't all just be handed to you all the time.

Referring to the "material" has its place; however, it can be used for other than honest reasons.

And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught [toilet]? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. (Matthew 15:16-18 KJV)

When Jesus called people serpents, he was using what is often called today "hate speech." However, the shoe fit those serpents when the full understanding of the context is honestly taken into consideration. Jesus was saying that hating them as "hate" is used by Jesus in his enlightening sayings is proper. It is instructive. It does lead us out of temptation to fall to the deceptive ways of the Pharisees and others. In that context, "hate" is good. We ought to hate doing the wrong things, the things that go against what God wants. By definition, God is "good" and hates that which is not good, which is evil.

When I heard the song, I couldn't understand much of what was being sung. I also didn't like the music or the visual aspect of the audio/video.

I was glad though to have the lyrics in text so I could consider the issues. The subject of homosexuality is the focus of the video even though the attempt is to point out hypocrisy in those Christians who don't hold with homosexuality. This is why I agree with Denny Burk here. He sees through it. I won't repeat Denny's observations here. Go to his site.

The song begins with "You say you always treat people like you like to be.
I guess you love being hated for your sexuality."

That is completely wrong if he singing at me about me, which he is in his mind because I'm anti-homosexuality: hate homosexuality and do agree with Jesus that we are our results.

Where Derek goes wrong is, for one, he apparently hasn't considered or has considered and rejected or just ignores or didn't understand that the Christian is always to be desirous of being corrected. Jesus was being made strait leading up to his crucifixion and resurrection. He was not falling to any temptations that deviate. He was not being a homosexual, contrary to the ridiculous claim by many homosexuals and their apologists that Jesus and John were homosexuals toward each other. To Derek and his fellow travelers I say, I want to be treated as I am treating them. I want to be warned to stop if and when I stray. In being anti-homosexual, I am not hated by God and Jesus. I am warning others who might otherwise become lost. I am warning the apostates to come home.

Homosexuality is error. It is always harmful. Some people manifest worse symptoms than do others, but none escapes completely unscathed. Since we are to be about following after Jesus Christ who shows the way of becoming perfected, then we are not to be saying untruths such as that homosexuality is harmless or an immutable condition. Those are lies that Christians are forbidden by Jesus and God from spreading or exemplifying.

In addition, my answer is the Christian Commons Project. You will see that I am a total pacifist (finally anti-coercion; completely anti-military) who wants Christians to come together by the Holy Spirit to feed the world (completely anti-capitalist but also anti-Marxist) and to do all the other things Jesus promoted. I don't say this here to toot my own horn, as I can do nothing without God and Jesus directly. I can do nothing if God and Jesus do not move others to help. Who will be moved?

"Homosexuals: What they ignore." I've had many people come here leaving comments asking in essence, "What's harmful about homosexuality." It amazes me how after reading what's harmful about it, so many just focus on what is wrong in heterosexuals as if that's some sort of excuse. Informed heterosexuals aren't excused from having to repent of their errors either.

So, while I don't curse Derek Webb, I do say openly that I don't want the children and others to continue being misled by Derek Webb's twisted and defiling message.

Derek, you are spiritually ill and need to repent to be healed.

Peace, love, truth, one,

Tom Usher

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.
    • Alexander Griffith

      It is hard not to be slightly offended by your words. Derek Webb has been a helpful light to the Christian community for over a decade through his music and lyrics. He is not speaking to you in the song unless you hate homosexuals. He didn't say anything about hating homosexuality (in fact, he may agree). He is referring to hating the people, which is absolutely wrong. That is the problem he is speaking out against, which you would be silly to deny is an error in the modern church.

      His song is appropriately entitled "What matters more." He is right: we focus so much more on condemning the homosexuals than loving them with all we have. Jesus called us to love, and how can they see the love if all we do is condemn? I am not saying condemnation or judgment is inappropriate, but it must be completely saturated by love and guided by the Holy Spirit. What do you do when your child is in error? Do you smite them and kick them out of the house? No, you try to fully understand their error, correc them if needed, and continue to love them regardless of whether or not they understand. All we as humans do is plant seeds, the Holy Spirit continues the work.

      Your misinterpretation of Derek's words leads me to believe your brief diagnosis of his spiritual illness is not out of love. Come on.

      • Tom Usher

        Alexander Griffith,

        You were sent here in spirit to either learn and change or fall. You were sent here so that all others who read this will also be thusly confronted.

        Look, what you've written here is terrible theology. Satan does get thrown into the proverbial Lake of Fire, and the whole host of the real Heaven does rejoice about it. Your theology is that people are not what they choose to do, which is simply not correct in the final analysis. The tree is its fruit. The person is his acts.

        I do leave room for people to have a change of heart from the selfishness that is inherent in the manifestation of homosexuality and the homosexual if that individual soul stops, turns, repents, and atones upon being told the truth.

        The place where real love continues to exist is where there is the possibility for redemption. You are incorrect if you believe that Jesus Christ is not allowed to wash his hands of the irredeemable. You are incorrect if you believe that Jesus doesn't hate the essence of evil that manifests itself as the irredeemable children of Satan.

        Your challenge is to know how to reconcile with this. You don't do it in your comment.

        As for the "modern" church. I have no part in it. I reject it.

        Your way is not real love. If after Jesus told the adulteress to go and sin no more, he discovered that she had refused and cursed the Holy Spirit, he would not have loved her in the manner your comment clearly implies. He would consider her dead of the Holy Spirit and unreachable and having never been a member of the whole that is God. He would not block the angels who gather her out to be burned up with the others who willfully work iniquity.

        Real love was when he told her to stop. She loved him back and didn't hate God and him when she followed nothing but his sound advice. Real love is telling homosexuals to stop and to change and that if they don't, they are heathens not of the whole body of Christians: doomed. To deny this is to love falsehood, to deceive, to mislead, and to truly hate homosexuals who may well be redeemable. By failing to see this, you are showing a break in your thinking that is keeping you farther from God.

        Tell the truth and only the truth to homosexuals that they can change and that what they are doing is absolutely selfish and wrong. If you refuse, you go with them and not to where Jesus is with God.

        What does one do with a child who engages in homosexuality in the house where it is forbidden by God and that child does not repent after everything is spoken in absolute truth? One recognizes that that child is a heathen by witting choice. The child is killing the child's soul. The child is embracing the death that is Satan's way.

        Love is leaving the door open to repentance. The door though is bolted against the unrepentant. Jesus never knew them. They were not his spiritline relatives. They were, and are, dead of that spirit. Let the dead bury the dead.

        One is to forgive one's brother when one's brother repents. Jesus made that clear. One is to forgive the truly ignorant on a different level. Jesus doesn't though forgive Satan who knows full well what he is doing even if Jesus knows that Satan is still being ignorant on the highest level. Satan is self-prevented from perfection.

        If you cannot understand these things that are clear and plain, I cannot force them into you. Neither will God force then into you.

        If you stop telling the homosexuals that they are sinning so that they can see your love, then you have the wrong idea about true love.

        Did Jesus not drive the moneychangers out of the house? Did he "try to fully understand their error, correc[t] them if needed, and continue to love them regardless of whether or not they" understood? He did understand their error, just as I understand the error of the homosexuals. He did attempt to correct them, but he never accepted them back into his house unchanged and unrepentant. They refused. Those who might yet be salvaged, he did not lose. Those who hated him for it even though they did understand that he had shown them the error of their ways and still made themselves a part of the evil conspiracy to murder him, which did end up murder by proxy, and who were joyous at his crucifixion, those souls are not forgiven without first suffering the consequences of their own choosing. Forgiveness comes after paying the last penny, which includes finally fully repenting. The Satanic wrath was kindled by their wickedness. They did pay and are paying and will pay forever so long as they are not turned to righteous behavior only.

        I have not misrepresented Derek's words. I don't agree with him or you. I'm right not to. I encourage all others not to also. Both of you are wrong and misleading. Your direction does not lead to Heaven.

        In the final analysis, Satan hates God and God hates Satan. Satan is not redeemable. Satan forever seeks God's righteous throne to then issue wicked decrees to sanction selfishness. See the real light. You are being misled by your "modern" church views.

        No, I will not "come on" with you. I reject your words. I rebuke you for holding forth with them here or anywhere. If you love the truth, you will not be offended but be glad and get on the narrow way that includes no homosexuals. If you walk with them, you are not on the narrow way.

        Stop promoting false love. You aren't helping them or yourself. It's your choice to make, and you cannot ever again claim that you were not informed.

        Peace,

        Tom Usher

    • Alexander Griffith

      By the way, I like that you stand firmly for what you believe. A lot of these ideas are considered radical and I am looking into them.

      I agree with your stance on the story of the adulteress. Jesus clearly says that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. We have the Holy Spirit inside of us but until we leave this earth we are not perfect and holy beings. You say Jesus has the power to wash his hands of the irredeemable - I agree. However, I don't believe it is our position to say who does or does not accept the Holy Spirit. We can try hard, but we won't be perfect, so we must be cautious.

      Lets look a little further into the story of the adulteress. Does Jesus just show up and condemn the woman saying "sin no more"? He first establishes his credibility as a prophet from God by telling her "all that she has done." Perhaps only then was the woman's heart receptive enough to receive the truth he began to pour out.

      Similarly, we shouldn't simply condemn all homosexuals because it is opposing God. They will listen to us when they believe we have the capability of speaking truth beyond this world. We must be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger (Ja 1:19).

      I also disagree with your stance in saying "the door is bolted against the unrepentant." You're right if you mean the unrepentant will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but instead of having the mentality that they are unrepentant now, shouldn't we do our best through the power of the Holy Spirit to lead them to repentance? Telling them to repent oftentimes won't suffice. We must be creative in our sharing.

      Could you cite a reference for your claim "He did attempt to correct them, but he never accepted them back into his house unchanged and unrepentant"? Jesus attempted to correct them, but I must be missing a part in my bible that supports the second half of your sentence.

      Saying phrases like "If you can't understand these things that are clear and plain..." comes off as extremely arrogant. I will assume you have proper intention, but if you don't know it is arrogant, you have lost the perspective of the world you are trying to reach.

      Please stop accusing me and Derek. You know one of Derek's songs, and you know a few paragraphs I have typed. You don't know us. Similarly, I know a webpage you have created but I don't know much about you. Nevertheless, I am thinking in my mind that you're a bit of a spiritual snob that has lost the ability to effectively reach people due to a self-created barrier. I wouldn't normally say that, but if you're going to use strong words against me they will be reciprocated.

      I will not post further here because this is a thread about Derek Webb's new song and we have been taken way off track. If I feel led, I will post elsewhere. Based on your tone and completely ignorant claims, those chances are quite low.

      Do you not know that you cannot be full of God if you are full of yourself?

      Peace,

      Alex

      • Adultery as a form of blasphemy requires qualification. Perhaps that's not what you were intending to imply. If you do consider adultery to be blaspheming the Holy Spirit, you're judging everyone who has ever committed adultery as being unforgiven in Jesus's age and the one after it. I don't know that Jesus told the adulteress all that she had done. It appears you are conflating her with the woman at Jacob's Well. Was she not married to each of her husbands? Please check into it, and clarify it for us all.

        Can any of us be sure that she didn't divorce for cause? Can any of us be sure that she was having sex with the man with whom she was living? It has been assumed.

        The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, "Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly." (John 4:17-18)

        I'm not saying that what has been assumed is necessarily wrong. I'm just advocating for caution. We could say, "The woman at Jacob's Well, in John 4, whom many have construed as having been an adulteress...." That would help I should think.

        Is your thinking scrambled on this? Was it revealed to you here to be as a sign to you that you have built up your views about homosexuality also on scrambled thinking?

        The Holy Spirit is truth. Jesus's message is that truth. Anyone who denies Jesus denies that truth. Jesus said to be as harmless as doves. Anyone who professes to be a Christian, is told that homosexuality is never harmless in that sense, and continues the act (especially under the guise that it is harmless), that person is not a Christian and does not love the truth. That person does not have that Holy Spirit.

        There are levels and types of having the Holy Spirit. The scripture appears in the mundane to be ambiguous about it, as some hold that if one has it, one has the whole. However, Jesus allowed that Peter could be Satan at moments while also receiving the Holy Spirit at others. However, Jesus accepted Peter; but as to how perfect Peter has become, we (you and I) aren't informed.

        You are incorrect. It is our position to say who does or does not accept the Holy Spirit up to the point we are each given truth.

        When George W. Bush lied through his teeth to the American public by saying in his State of the Union Address something that he knew full well was made up (that Saddam Hussein had sought large quantities of yellowcake from Niger), he, a professing Christian, was completely without the Holy Spirit. The CIA had told him that it wasn't credible. Condoleezza Rice put it back in anyway. Then she lied that she had forgotten that the CIA had said it was a phony. That State of the Union Address was the tipping point in the national debate concerning invading Iraq. It was a forgery crafted by neocons, such as those of the American Enterprise Institute with its Michael Ladeen, an admitted lover of Machiavelli, the huge liar, a serpent.

        The truth is that I have never known George W. Bush to have the Holy Spirit. I don't say he has never caught even a glimmer of the real truth. I know God will not hold it against me that I have said that George worked a great evil in the world by his lying words. Your caution though about the homosexuals facilitates the falling of souls.

        I am not condemning George to eternal damnation. I do though accept God's system such that whatever happens to George's soul will be just in the end.

        When taking the whole homosexual way, all the souls engaged in it, all the misdirection coming out from that, all the associated falsehood conditioned into the people by the way of it, when taking all that together, I see the very evil that fails to do the thing Derek complained about, which is allowing 50,000 to die a day who ought to be attended to in the manner prescribed by Jesus — something The Christian Commons is designed to do — a real liberal device by which I will stand until this flesh gives up my ghost even if I am the only one on the face of this earth who does.

        As for not being perfected until we leave the Earth, I don't say it. You ought not to preclude it. What is the New Earth? Who will be there, the unperfected or perfected?

        As for Jesus's having to establish his credibility as a prophet, Jesus also spoke about righteous men, who were not all constantly receiving all the thoughts of all the souls in existence. He didn't count them among the lost.

        When Jesus saved the adulteress from Moses's law, he did not first work a miracle before her or the crowd. They were simply convicted in their hearts by Jesus exposing their hypocrisy (miraculous on a certain level, just as it will be miraculous if you get this — not said sarcastically). It is a wicked generation that requires signs, wonders, and portents before loving the truth. We don't know how much she knew about Jesus before that. We don't know that she did, in fact, sin no more. We do know what we are supposed to do and what we are to tell the homosexuals, who either get it or remain dead of the Holy Spirit.

        I see that, in general, you use terms with more restricted ranges of connotations than do I and also appear to assign words as being applicable where I do not. I do not "condemn" the homosexuals. I condemn no one. I don't attempt to usurp God. I seek to join God. There is a huge difference. "Condemn" here is used in context. In another context, it is intended to impart the concept befitting that situation. We are to remain mindful of the whole range of emotion that is the basis of our communications.

        You wrote, "They will listen to us when they believe we have the capability of speaking truth beyond this world." Do you tell them to stop and that if they don't, you will take witnesses the next time, and if they still don't, you will take it to the whole congregation, and if they still don't, then they are heathens to be treated as such until they repent? If you don't do that, how are you being as Christ towards them? I don't see it.

        You believe you are before me in Heaven. If you are, then enlighten me. If you are not able to do that, then get behind me, and stop being egotistical. You are showing your pride here with your pushing for the acceptance of unchanged homosexuals within the Churches, which homosexuals you refuse to rebuke in accordance with Jesus's clear and plain instruction to you. You reject Jesus's teaching to you. How can you love him? How can you be a Christian?

        You disagree that "the door is bolted against the unrepentant."

        It is bolted against the unrepentant. It will be unbolted and opened to the repentant. One is what one is at the moment but more. An unrepentant homosexual is just that. If and when that homosexual asks, seeks, and knocks in earnest, ready to receive the truth that his hedonism is abominable to God and is ready to act accordingly, meaning stopping and being healed of homosexuality, the inner door will open. As to whether he will remain or rather proves unfertile soil, it remains to be seen. If he backslides and sincerely repents upon rebuke, he will be forgiven 7 times 70 times. He will not though immediately sit next to God. That place is held by the most enduringly faithful and deeply committed. Even Jesus doesn't assume to arrange fixed thrones on that level. I certainly don't.

        ...shouldn't we do our best through the power of the Holy Spirit to lead them to repentance? Telling them to repent oftentimes won't suffice. We must be creative in our sharing.

        Is there some new truth about homosexuality of which I am unaware? Tell me what that is. What new thing have you created that I need to know? I learn everyday, so....

        Could you cite a reference for your claim "He did attempt to correct them, but he never accepted them back into his house unchanged and unrepentant"? Jesus attempted to correct them, but I must be missing a part in my bible that supports the second half of your sentence.

        Yes, your reading of the scripture misses it. If you don't understand that the real Heaven is a place where the unchanged and unrepentant will be barred forevermore, you are marking yourself as unfit to be there. Surely you are aware that Jesus said one must be born again of the spirit and not just amniotic fluid. Surely you equate that spirit with the Holy Spirit of truth and with all of Jesus's commandments, including to be harmless as doves. Surely you have read the parables and his explanations to the disciples. You have read that he asked them rhetorically how will they escape damnation. If all of the gospel message doesn't add up to that the Heaven in the highest is a place that is finally devoid of the unchanged and unrepentant and that the unchanged spirit and the unrepentant spirit is elsewhere, what more are you asking me to tell you?

        There are many mansions and many doors in God's house. The Earth is one of them. We are on it. The homosexuals are here. The Earth right now though is not the real Heaven. You know that. That God is still speaking towards the homosexuals in this, his rightful house despite Satan's usurpation, is not to be taken as indicative of where he wants us to be in our emotions and spirit. We are to renounce homosexuality to the point where they are no longer among us but changed or literally dead in the flesh, albeit not by our hands.

        Saying phrases like "If you can't understand these things that are clear and plain..." comes off as extremely arrogant. I will assume you have proper intention, but if you don't know it is arrogant, you have lost the perspective of the world you are trying to reach.

        It comes off as arrogant to you not because I am arrogant but rather because you are not seeing what is clear and plain. That's not my fault. You aren't loving the truth enough to tell it as it is to the homosexuals. You are wanting your cake and to eat it too. You want to kneel down next to the homosexuals and to have it both ways: they are sinners but we must hug them rather then correct them. There is no healing in that. There is only facilitating and condoning and going with the homosexuals where they end up. If you think God smiles down on you for it, you need to have a direct conversation with God about that. You will be told by the real God that you are wrong and need to start speaking the truth.

        Jesus did not coddle them when he cleaned the temple. I am not here in the name of God to lower the standard but to call others to see the higher standard. You are rejecting it while bearing false witness. You are not here witnessing to Jesus. If you want to run away from that truth, that's your freewill mistake to make. If you think you're going to show me up as wrong about Jesus's view of homosexuality and how to speak and to write about it, you will fail.

        The real God will tell you that you should have done more listening and learning than attempting to teach here. Which of us has been arrogant? If I have more of the word of God written on my heart than you have on yours, why do you call me arrogant?

        Please stop accusing me and Derek. You know one of Derek's songs, and you know a few paragraphs I have typed. You don't know us.

        Derek is singing a lie about Christianity. He has a wide audience he is misleading. You are here attempting to do more of the same. You are asking me to be silent when I am saying the same to you. Derek and you are to stop spreading harmful, sinful, antichrist ideas.

        I am against your current position. I'm for you becoming more truthful until you are nothing but truthful. If you can come to me and tell me more truth than I already know, I will be glad to receive it. What you have imparted here is not more truth but an attempt to cause falling into greater darkness and spiritual damage. I reject it. That's not arrogant. That's following God, not you. Your way leads away from God. I hate it. I'm right to hate it. God hates it. Everyone ought to hate it.

        I am thinking in my mind that you're a bit of a spiritual snob that has lost the ability to effectively reach people due to a self-created barrier. I wouldn't normally say that, but if you're going to use strong words against me they will be reciprocated.

        Jesus came to save the lost. He didn't come to save those who were never of the fold. By your standard, you call him a spiritual snob who lost the ability to effectively reach people due to his self-created barrier.

        All you are doing is opening the gates of Hell to the Earth with its sin of homosexuality. That won't stand though. You know the prophecy, but you are attempting to ignore it. I prophesy here that your way will utterly fail. It is right that it should fail. The homosexuals have your ear. You are listening to them as they finagle their way in, bringing more and more decadence to Earth.

        Well, he had and has barriers. I want the exact same ones. He is safe from homosexuality and all its attendant evils, which are legion. What he said and did is sufficient for the homosexual to be sorted as those who turn, repent, and atone who were lost from those who do not and never were of the fold. That's how it is.

        I will not post further here because this is a thread about Derek Webb's new song and we have been taken way off track. If I feel led, I will post elsewhere. Based on your tone and completely ignorant claims, those chances are quite low.

        "...ignorant claims"? You ask me questions; and before hearing the answers, you call me ignorant. You call me a snob. You are being antichrist here. That's the truth.

        Do you not know that you cannot be full of God if you are full of yourself?

        Do you not know that the child of God is one with what fills him? The self of Jesus is the self of God. He calls us to join in that self. I am to be full of myself that is to be God's self. When I am, there will be no homosexuals around and I won't be alone but rather with the host of Heaven. If you maintain your course, you won't be there else there is no truth, no justice, and no real love that separates out those who work iniquity that definitely includes homosexuals and those who facilitate them.

        Truth

    • Derek Webb isn't saying homosexuality is okay. I have spoken to him personally and know that he does believe it is sin and he does not think Jesus and John were gay together. But to hate ANYONE goes against what Christ taught. The point of the song is that we shouldn't see a person only as their sexuality. A married person is not defined by the fact that they are straight. A homosexual person is not defined by that either. Someone who struggles with an alcohol addiction is not defined by that. If we are defined by our sin, we are all worthless, even you who wrote this article, and you know that.

      The song doesn't say "It's okay to be gay so stop talking about it," but rather "Stop hating a person because they have sin in their life." Jesus was ridiculed by the religious people for hanging out with "sinners" (tax collectors, prostitutes, ect.). Maybe tax collectors aren't the "sinners" of our day, maybe it's the homosexuals that you say you hate.

      I work with a girl who is a homosexual. She knows where I stand in my relationship with God and my view of homosexuality as a sin, yet she knows that I love her regardless of her actions. If I am going to hate someone because they're gay, I need to hate anyone who has premarital sex, anyone who tells a lie, anyone who doesn't give at least 10% of their money to the poor, ect.

      The point of the song is that homosexuals are people and we are called to love them and not hate them. Try listening to it again.

    • And don't forget that YOU sir, are not the judge of anyone. You will not judge me, you will not judge any homosexual, God will. Jesus NEVER ONCE told us to stop loving someone because they choose not to live a godly lifestyle.

      Say a woman marries a man who loves the Lord, leads a Bible study, does evangelism, has a heart for the lost, and lives his life for God. Should she stop loving her husband because he decides he no longer believes in God? Should she stop loving him because he rejects God, and just say "You are heathen doomed for hell" and wash her hands of him? Absolutely not. If I were to that I would be failing as the wife God called me to be. If I stopped loving him because he doesn't live for God, then I might as well leave him and be damned to hell myself as an adulterer. But no, I am going to stay in my relationship with him because God has called me to love him regardless of his beliefs. This is not hypothetical, this is my life.

      When you truly love someone, you don't base it on what sin they have in their life. When you truly love someone, you don't base your love on whether they choose or neglect God. God's love is bigger than that.

      • Hello Ashley Alcock,

        Derek Webb doesn't need to say homosexuality is okay in order to be facilitating the sin of homosexuality by virtue of the wording of his song. How is it that you don't see that?

        You wrote, "to hate ANYONE goes against what Christ taught." That's false. You are mistaken. Why don't you know that? I just shake my head at people such as you who so emphatically state what Jesus did or didn't teach when your statements are exactly contrary to what is recorded as Jesus's statements.

        Now, if I straighten you out on this, will you convert or will you continue on as if I haven't told you? Will you make of yourself a complete waste of time? For if you read what I'm about to give to you and you ignore it, you will definitely not go to Heaven with Jesus. There may be other things that would also keep one from doing that, but those other things will not negate what I'm about to impart to you.

        "If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
        (Luke 14:26 KJVR)

        Now, hate is a relative term while it is also absolute. Are you able to reconcile?

        My comments above are very detailed and clear about that we are what we do and that it is right to see when Satan is entering in and to hate it. We are our results. We are the tree. We are the fruit. Don't you know that?

        If we are defined by our sin, we are all worthless, even you who wrote this article, and you know that.

        Worthless until what?

        Are you one who disbelieves in overcoming — in becoming perfected as a part of the process right here and right now?

        Many people come here saying that I'm a sinner. Well, tell me my sins if you know that I am sinning. Otherwise, don't you think you should refrain from assuming? Perhaps you mean that I am falling short of perfection because the flesh on this plane is inherently unable. Then how do you explain Jesus? How do you explain his calling you to rise to that perfection right now?

        Don't ask me where I am in that process. It remains to be seen. Don't though come here to tare down what I am holding up, which is what Jesus said.

        You have shown that you do not know where hate applies. Now what are you going to do?

        You are rationalizing so that you don't have to make a choice. It doesn't work that way. Let the dead bury the dead. Don't you know what that means? Do you want to live the real life? You can't bring homosexuals with you into that life. You have to leave them behind. That's not your fault. However, if you cling to them and don't have standards that preclude, your heaven will have them there along with all the attendant problems where sin is accepted, tolerated, even condoned.

        Jesus came for the lost. There were lost souls amongst people of all walks. Then there were those who were never of the fold. They were the children of Satan — the enemy whom Jesus rightly hates. That doesn't diminish his love.

        Can you grasp that?

        It is not real love when you don't rebuke, is it? Do you rebuke for cause? Please answer directly — no dodging. Be honest. Do you welcome and affirm heathens or not? I don't. I welcome the lost and affirm those who turn, repent, and strive to atone. I don't seek to starve them either. I will do toward them how I ought to want them to do toward me, and I ought to want to be straightened when I fly wrong.

        It's right. It's consistent with the Golden Rule and New Commandment. I forgive the woefully ignorant who crucified Jesus and who crucify me too, but they won't be with Jesus. They get burned up. If I fall in with them agreeing with their "modern" ways, I too will be burned up.

        The truth judges the homosexuals and judges you and me.

        As for your personal situation with your husband, there is love and then there is love. A married person does what the Holy Spirit or Satan moves that one to do.

        Jesus's Apostles were not all bachelors. They left their wives and children while they went out into the world to find and to save. Now, how do you handle that?

        As for becoming an adulteress, well I don't see that that necessarily should follow. I am not standing between the Holy Spirit and you.

        Is your husband a heathen or not? That's up to him. God doesn't save everyone. Souls get turned over to Satan. God's love is not flat. It is not identical concerning all beings in existence. Jesus never said anything to the contrary.

        Don't transfer your anger onto me. Get rid of it.

        Peace,
        Tom

    • Kelley Smith

      Tom,

      I'll admit I'm a bit confused by your treatment of the word "shit" in this song. Unless I am mistaken, and please clarify if I am, you seem to believe that Derek Webb's inclusion of the word "shit" is a reference on his part to an explicit homosexual act. If this is the case, I feel compelled to draw your attention to the following Tony Campolo quotation:

      "I have three things I’d like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don’t give a shit. [And third] What’s worse is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said shit than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

      According to Derek Webb himself, this quotation was the inspiration for the verse which includes the word "shit." You will notice of course, how understanding Derek's inspiration clarifies the context: "Meanwhile we sit just like we don't give a shit

      About 50,000 people who are dyin' today."

      On a broader level, I must say it seems to me that you missed, rather badly, the point of the song which is an indictment of both the way Christians often treat homosexuals (and others they perceive to be committing the "big sins") and the myopic nature of showcasing one or two sins on Christianity's main agenda and thereby putting the message of Christ's redemption for all sin (including the sin of spiritual pride) in the back seat.

      Of course, song lyrics are notoriously open to interpretation and it is unlikely my views here expressed will have any effect on your chosen viewpoint, but I thought I'd comment anyway.

      • Hello Kelley Smith,

        First, it never occurred to me that Derek used the word "shit" as a "reference on his part to an explicit homosexual act." I can't see where you possibly thought I might have. I can't remember the last time I couldn't see how someone misconstrued or whatever.

        Second, if you will overview this site, you will find that I emphasize a number of things all as consistently as possible. I say what I stand for and hence also against. I say I am for total pacifism and hence against militarism, among other forms of, and sources of, violence. I am for the giving-and-sharing-all political economy described in the New Testament. I flesh out what I mean. I state quite clearly that I am a communist (small-c; in this case, completely voluntary and anti-Marxist). I am for sexual harmlessness: harmlessness as in "harmless as doves." While I say that I am opposed to coercion (as coming out from evil), I also say that homosexuality is harmful to some degree in all cases. I also say it is always a choice. I have not emphasized the issue of homosexuality over and above greed or militarism or a number of other issues, far from it.

        You will also find on this site references concerning how many people die each day and night from a number of different wholly preventable causes. You will also find that I have put forth the Christian Commons, which is a real liberal device addressing those causes.

        Let me be quite clear. The quotation from Tony Campolo was not directed toward me. If you aren't sure, ask him. Also, I was aware of the connection between that quotation and Derek's lyrics before I posted about his song and video. I didn't need to be told about Campolo's quote to arrive at that. I knew about the people dying without a Campolo quote. I had never heard of the Campolo quote before being directed to Webb's song. That said, I don't disagree with Campolo's statement. It is in fact something I could have said myself and have said in so many other words.

        I will tell you though that nowhere have Campolo or Webb devised the Christian Commons. That is not to say that they wouldn't be in agreement with much of it. As to whether or not they will put their whole lives into such, that remains to be seen, despite all the books and songs between them.

        No, I didn't miss the points Derek attempts to make. I didn't miss them at all. The point is the points Derek and you miss. Don't you see that now?

        Greed, violence, and sexual harm are all wrong. The current state (which is coercive and wrong) sanctions all three now. Of course, you should know that Satan is the god of this worldly world still. You do know that, don't you?

        It is an error to say that Jesus doesn't look upon homosexuality as a sinful act of choice. Of course, Jesus worked with people possessed of demons. How people come by unclean spirits varies. He makes clear that unclean spirits invade people not always on account of the sinful deeds of those people or of their parents, etc. He also makes clear that given enough of the right kind of faith, God can and will remove all unclean spirits. Lastly, Jesus makes clear that the general belief or disbelief of a given group or community matters in terms of either offsetting or enhancing belief and hence God's willingness (what is deserved afterall over and above the rain God gives to the wicked too). In that sense, we are in this together. That's not to say that there won't be separation. There will be separation, something I want from the depths of my being.

        So, you incorrectly thought I had missed many obvious things.

        Kelley, you've never run into anyone like me. Even though this site has been up for years, very few people have even come close. "Few there be."

        Is my "chosen viewpoint" closer to Jesus's than is your own? Right now, it is.

        The life is unselfishness.

        Tom

    • Kelley Smith

      Tom,

      Thank you for taking the time to reply. I find it hard to believe you could not guess as to the source of my confusion concerning your treatment the word "shit" in this article, given you discuss the word at length. However, in order to hopefully understand your meaning better, what is the point of the following excerpt from your article, if it is not an attempt to draw similarities between the word "shit," a particular homosexual act and this Derek Webb song, given the topic of your article:

      QUOTE:

      As for the obscenity portion of the debate, I was surprised that it has taken center stage with many. Then I was given to understand that there are those who accept the homosexual act that is one male putting his penis into the anus of another male but who do not accept referring to the feces directly associated with that act as "shit." This strikes me as utter hypocrisy and immature for adults. Ordinarily, I render it as "sh_t" to spare those who might stumble on it.

      I don't use the term for effect. We should note that the Bible does refer to feces. I won't cite the places here. Look it up for yourself if you don't know where. It will do you good. If you don't know how, seek. It can't all just be handed to you all the time.

      Referring to the "material" has its place; however, it can be used for other than honest reasons.

      END QUOTE

      • Hello again to you, Kelley.

        I still don't see how you went from what I wrote to thinking that I "seem to believe that Derek Webb's inclusion of the word "shit" is a reference on his part to an explicit homosexual act." I can't even stretch it to get there. It just doesn't follow.

        What signifies most to me about your reply though is the absence of anything other than concerning that one aspect: not a word on the Christian Commons for instance.

        It signifies but doesn't amaze me or even surprise me in the least. It's rather par for the course these days. I find people generally disinterested in what matters. I find very few seekers of ultimate truth.

        Where are the people who don't beat around the bush?

        May God bless you,

        Tom

    • Kelley Smith

      This is a solitary blog post about a single song by a specific artist. Why should I veer off-topic by addressing the "Christian Commons" when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

      However if you really want my opinion on the "Christian Commons," having perused several sections of your behemoth, poorly designed cognitively frenetic site I must say that while I find Socialism not to be the boogey-man many in this country seek to portray it as, I must still say that - given your writings on this site, your manner of addressing people who comment and your apparent general obsession with yourself - I am concerned that you are mentally unstable and I find your ideas to be, in general, poorly formed, badly articulated and un-useful in general.

      I will reiterate, though, that since your bigger theological/political/social ideas are not at all the focus of this particle article, it seems bizarre to insist that they be addressed. But I suppose bizarre and erratic are both right up your alley, aren't they?

      • Kelley Smith,

        Kelley, are you an Internet troll? You sound and act like one here. The shoe fits. It is interesting that your last comment was in with the spammers. That happens when blog administrators have sent your comment(s) to spam (ID's you as a spammer or troll).

        First, as for the Christian Commons being off-topic, try re-reading the post. The Christian Commons is mentioned and linked to right in the post (so much for that "idea" of yours). Your point was completely wrong, Kelley.

        Do you believe that other readers here are totally unable to see that the Christian Commons is in the post? What does that say to you about you? You try to characterize me as being things you've demonstrated about yourself here.

        Second, you would call Jesus "mentally unstable" for calling serpents "serpents" and for cleaning the temple with whip in hand, overturning the tables, throwing all the money to the floor, literally scaring everyone, chasing all out of the building, and finally bringing the animal sacrifices to an end among many, many other things for which they called him a demon in his day. You would also call his very salty flavor, as in zeal for the truth, "frenetic."

        Third, you charge me with being obsessed with myself. What's bothering you is that you support homosexuality by "tolerating" it in the false-liberal sense at the very least (which you might attempt to fudge but will be missing the bigger picture concerning your position at best if you try), which is a sin.

        Whether you may like it or not, Derek's song is designed to reduce people's natural aversion (pre abuse aversion) to homosexuality. It is not solely about how important it is to care for the 30-50 thousand or to stop putting anti-swear words above doing the deeds of caring for those 30-50 thousand.

        You also charge me with poorly formed ideas; however, if you will re-read the comments between us, you will see that you are upset that you lost the argument and have resorted to the typical attacks of losers.

        As for your thought process as follows:

        ...since your bigger theological/political/social ideas are not at all the focus of this particle article, it seems bizarre to insist that they be addressed. But I suppose bizarre and erratic are both right up your alley, aren't they?

        That is the typical thinking of the disjointed who believe that they can write one thing one place and not have to have it be consistent with what they claim elsewhere.

        You came here as an ostensible Christian, yet your last comment in particular clearly shows no Christianity in it at all; while my comments to you are consistent with telling the truth that homosexuality is a choice, always harmful, and has no business in the lives or churches of real Christians. You don't like that. How will you escape damnation?

        I don't advocate or condone violence against homosexuals. I don't seek secular legislation concerning the issue. I do though not stand idly by will homosexuals and others lie to the children that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.

        You've done a terrible thing here for your soul, Kelley. You have not stood for truth.

        Nevertheless, may God bless you, Kelley.

        Tom

        • Kelley Smith,

          I'm moved to add some more reply commentary.

          You wrote:

          This is a solitary blog post about a single song by a specific artist. Why should I veer off-topic by addressing the "Christian Commons" when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

          It is strange that you wrote that for the reason I mentioned in my previous reply but also for the very reason that Derek's song, other commentators here, and you mentioned the number of people dying each day. The Christian Commons is specifically designed (a real liberal device) to address that, among other things, and is specifically Christian, which is Derek's ostensible thrust. My post was designed to refine the direction and to dispense with others attempting to drag sin (the spirit that is homosexuality) with them into Heaven where it never was, isn't, and will never be.

          I want to thank the spirits that managed to bring you, Kelley, to calling this site "behemoth," as others have termed it a "little blog." I had explained that it is not a "little" blog, but it's helpful that another detractor will point out that earlier detractors can be flat out wrong. The site was quite large when that other spirit called it "little."

          As for the site being "poorly designed," it is interesting that others have complimented on how well organized it is. I've visited many thousands of blogs and haven't found any such that thinking wasn't required to navigate.

          Perhaps the difference between realliberalchristianchurch.org/blog and realliberalchristianchurch.org throws you. I admit that using realliberalchristianchurch.org as a landing page is more advanced and unusual, but I really don't know why that would throw you off since the term "Blog" is clearly used in the breadcrumb and right column menu.

          By the way, /blog is a standard WordPress feature. I happened to see value in having the Christian Commons be the landing page for the domain (realliberalchristianchurch.org) and having the blog posts be at /blog. Apparently others agree with that sort of layout or else WordPress would never have included the option as a standard feature.

          Perhaps something else about the layout confuses you though. My whole worldview seems to be an enigma to you in which you can't see any value though. Of course, how can one value Heaven if one can't see it in his or her heart and has never been there but came from somewhere else?

          Kelley, you did nothing here to help the cause of promoting the real message of Jesus Christ. You were highly conveniently selective in what you were willing to discuss. You also, in an offhanded way, attempted to rebuke me for how I treat commentators (you didn't look to see who has been treated how and wondered why the difference); yet you went from what most would consider a "reasonably" un-rude back and forth to a rather caustic reply lacking cause or merit (can't be demonstrated).

          I'm not thinned skinned, but others are. All the politeness with knowingly unrepentant sinners really is obfuscating, but as I mentioned before on this site numerous times, the Holy Spirit moves one in terms of when, where, and concerning whom to dispense with the "politeness" craved by those who will then be impolite enough to stab, shoot, bomb, poison, etc., others. Satan is polite as he lures in the prey. Time to tell him to "get thee behind me" even if gullible, naive dupes and minions are offended for Satan's sake.

          My commentary and posts do not substantiate your allegations against me. The fact is that if one looks at the quality of your comments versus my comments and posts and pages, one would be wrong not to arrive at the conclusion that of the two of us, you are certainly the more insane.

          If my theology, etc., is "bizarre" to you, right now I take that as a compliment.

          As for your labeling my writing as "erratic," you can't write anything to show that. Show the world and me my inconsistencies greater than your own.

          Of course, unlike you, I have a URL where people can see my worldview and the writings to back it up. I don't say everyone who comes here has to have an Internet site, but anyone leveling charges without even an attempt to point to any examples to substantiate claims, will remain on the sidelines and be seen for what he or she is.

          A URL where we could see your full worldview explained isn't necessary to determine that you lack insight or depth (your choice). It's plain to see from your brief writing and interaction here.

          I should hope that Derek Webb would rather do without "help" from people such as you have shown yourself to be here.

          You came here to run me down, Kelley. You really ran yourself down. You are teamed up with the wrong side. The side you are on loses and, in fact, has already lost. It was born dead of the Holy Spirit. I suggest you do some deeper soul searching as to why you attacked the Real Liberal Christian Church theology. It was no loving act. It was not designed to help to get anyone threw the strait gate and onto the narrow way.

          You've attempted to increase darkness here, Kelley. It's been rejected.

          If you stop avoiding being apologetic enough for whatever utter selfishness you've done in your life, perhaps you'll become more fertile soil (consistently softhearted enough) for the root of the seed of Heaven to actually grow rather than never bringing forth even words that matter in the end for real life.

          I don't like Derek's song. I've said why. It masks toleration that is turning into condoning and promoting the opposite of wholesomeness. I love wholesomeness. I stand by both my real-liberal post and comments.

          Tom

    • Mr. Usher, I came here after doing a search to find the lyrics of Derek Webb's latest album. You said you have never heard of him. He was a member of the Christian band Caedmon's Call. He has also produced several solo albums. He is a sincere, Christ-following artist. I encourage you to seek out his first solo effort, "She Must and Shall Go Free." It is excellent all around, musically AND spiritually. He has changed his style with each album, and I think his first is his best. Thank you for your time. God bless you.

      • Hello Teddy,

        "Christ-following" is in the eye of the beholder. I did not hear Jesus's message in the song or see him in the video. If you heard Jesus and saw Jesus, then you heard and saw someone I don't accept as Jesus. It's that simple.

        The proper thing to have done is to have sung how we all should feed each other in both flesh and spirit and that if homosexuality is raised at all in such a "Christian" song, it be clear that homosexuals are required to turn and overcome to be members of the Church. That's how it is. Derek's approach, however, fudges (obfuscates and facilitates).

        Truth,

        Tom Usher

    • Clint Lister

      I don't have time right now to read all of the previous comments, so I apologize if I'm rehashing something that's already been discussed. If so, just ignore my post.

      I can't speak for Derek Webb's intentions. But in listening to his previous records, I think I've got a reasonable grasp of his stances. He's not saying that homosexuality is ok. He's not even saying we should ignore it. I think he's addressing those people that have made this issue the prime issue. The title says it all, what matters MORE? Is the fight against homosexuality worth ignoring the millions of poverty stricken and starving people of the world. Jesus didn't spend most of his time fighting sins, he spent most of his time meeting people's needs. he saved the adulteress from stoning, he fed the 5000, he healed the lame and blind, he brought lazarus up from the dead. sure, turning from sin needs to be addressed within Christian community. But to do this in the public realm is meaningless to those who aren't Christians. Trying to convict people of their sin who aren't in relationship with Jesus is meaningless. They won't understand why it's sin and why they should turn from it until they have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." We reach the world by meeting their needs. When they come into relationship with Christ, then we can address sin issues. One need not clean up first, then come to Jesus. One comes to Jesus to then be cleaned.

      Within the Church, yes, we need to address sin issues. But in our treatment of the world, these sin issues need not be our major battle. In fact, they should not be because the world is not yet ready to understand why it is sin. We draw them to Jesus through love and care. Then we will have the window to convict them of their sin and draw them to repentance and transformation.

      • Hello Clint,

        I often don't read all the commentary on a site before commenting. Sometimes there are many hundreds of comments on people's posts, so I allowed your comment to go through.

        It's wise of you to say that you can't speak to Derek Webb's complete intentions. Sometimes, we even say things with which we later find ourselves in disagreement. If we are former thieves or adulterers or murderers or liars or addicts or homosexuals, etc., one would certainly hope we would disagree with those things with which we once held.

        Let me be clear (again) that I fully understand that the vast majority of Webb fans believe that he wasn't saying via his song "that homosexuality is ok" and that "he's addressing those people that have made this issue the prime issue."

        I knew that from listening to the song myself the first time, so I've learned nothing there from any of the commentary on this post. No offense intended by that statement.

        My point is and has been that it is an error to take the approach Derek and so many others are taking. The proper way to handle it is to say that at the exact same time war, greed, violence, and sexual harm (and homosexuality is harmful always and is always a choice) are completely unacceptable in Christianity and in the world, universe, and Heaven.

        Now, as to coming to Jesus dirty, one comes dirty but is not allowed to remain so and also to remain within the body. Look, Christianity is not about wallowing in the mire to save the pigs. Yes, coming down to this plane of existence with the greatest of intentions is never the less lowering. There is only so far one can go before no longer being a light. Jesus became flesh, but he didn't engage in temple orgies so he could speak truth to other sweaty bodies in a pile with him. That should be clear to all. He did not go into the bath houses in San Francisco before the AIDS wave so he could speak truth as he engaged in group homosex.

        I'm not suggesting here that Derek is saying otherwise. I'm saying that the self-styled "liberal" churches (that aren't being truly liberal since liberal means beneficial and therefore harmless) are downplaying all of this at the behest of people such as Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Bishop who is actively engaged in an adulterous homosexual relationship while that church (my former church) glorifies it.

        Now, if you allow the camel's nose under the tent, you're asking for trouble; and America and the rest of the world is experiencing that right now with much more to come what with Barack Obama insanely giving speeches that homosex is as honorable as heterosex.

        As for setting priorities in Christianity, well of course we do; however, the least violation of the law ruins the consistency of the First Great Commandment to love God. It also ruins the New Commandment. It's not keeping the Golden Rule.

        Is the fight against homosexuality worth ignoring the millions of poverty stricken and starving people of the world.

        It is definitely not an either/or. The question is wrong. Homosexuality and greed and neglect are all from the dark side. The truth of Jesus illuminates against all of it at once. You don't fix greed by letting down concerning homosexuality.

        I'm afraid that if you continue with your approach, you will find yourself in league with what you never thought you were planning to join.

        You're falling for false propaganda and spending your time defending exactly the path that the homosexuals want you dwelling upon. They want their sin downplayed (relativity) finally into nothing so that they can do what they want in the open, which eventually will be any kind of sex anywhere in front of anyone whether those others want it in front of them or not.

        Do not listen to those who will say that this is not truth. They will say that it is offensive. They will be speaking as souls who want their sin and claim that society will fall no further. It's not true. So called faithful and monogamous homosexuals will not be the end of it. Once they have their "rights," the next group down will demand theirs too. The pattern is clear.

        I am not for violence against them. I am for telling the truth about the damage that all of this is doing and that the way out is for each person to reject it and not partake but rather to be separate from it all. That will require Christians coming together (conflating by the Holy Spirit) to have their own communities where homosex is absolutely not allowed, where greed and selfishness are not allowed, where violence is not allowed, and where they say all these things to the whole world, even from the very centers of it. If they are martyred by the homosexuals on account of it, so be it — better than going to Hell.

        I have put forth the Christian Commons as the answer for the world — as consistent with the strait and narrow of Jesus.

        Jesus didn't spend most of his time fighting sins

        Jesus spent all of his time fighting sins. Why don't you know that as a Christian? Meeting needs is fighting sin. Sin is not meeting needs. All the people with more food then they could possibly need are sinning when they don't see to it that it is shared with those in need. Don't you see that? His very existence is against sin.

        ...turning from sin needs to be addressed within Christian community. But to do this in the public realm is meaningless to those who aren't Christians.

        That's like saying to Jesus to shut up in public. You're making a big mistake with your approach. They murdered Jesus for doing it "in the public realm" around those who weren't Christians. Jesus preached against exactly what you're advocating here.

        Trying to convict people of their sin who aren't in relationship with Jesus is meaningless. They won't understand why it's sin and why they should turn from it until they have "eyes to see" and "ears to hear." We reach the world by meeting their needs. When they come into relationship with Christ, then we can address sin issues. One need not clean up first, then come to Jesus. One comes to Jesus to then be cleaned.

        No, no, no, I've heard this line of reasoning before. Jesus did not do what you're saying. He spoke out while doing at the same time.

        You don't have to get into a relationship with Jesus without first realizing you've sinned.

        The homosexuals need to be stopped (by open truth-telling) from having a field day and being supported in it while they run around spreading the total lies that homosexuality is not a choice and that it is completely harmless.

        You are preaching here the "shut up" desires of those homosexuals. You're falling right into it.

        Within the Church, yes, we need to address sin issues. But in our treatment of the world, these sin issues need not be our major battle. In fact, they should not be because the world is not yet ready to understand why it is sin. We draw them to Jesus through love and care. Then we will have the window to convict them of their sin and draw them to repentance and transformation.

        That's totally wrong. You don't understand or you're in denial that the homosexuals are claiming that you will never show anyone that they don't measure up.

        Also, if you don't speak out in public that homosexuality is absolutely sin in every instance, you are leaving the homosexuals to proselytize without anyone rebutting their garbage, just as the Pharisees proselytized and against whom Jesus spoke openly and very intentionally to save you. You are thereby aiding the homosexuals in their homosexuality in indoctrinating the youngest of the young to falsely believe that no one out there is against homosexuality. You are putting a bushel over the light. You're doing exactly what Jesus said not to do.

        What is their sin? I want you to write it here, now. State the sin and why it is so, whether they will understand it or not. If you refuse, then who are you?

        Ask Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit directly whether or not you are supposed to shut up in public about that homosexuality is a sin. If you hear back that you aren't to tell the truth right out in the open, you better start wondering which spirit you're hearing from because I can tell you in no uncertain terms that it isn't the God of Jesus Christ. It's the other one.

        Real peace and love,

        Tom

    • *ane *llman

      What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it.

      Wow. So what you have essentially said here is that every comment that disagrees with something you've written is going to cause our damnation until we fall in line. I'm not sure what the real intent of this website is, but it seems like a forum for you to theologically masturbate and get the last word.

      • What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it.

        Wow. So what you have essentially said here is that every comment that disagrees with something you've written is going to cause our damnation until we fall in line. I'm not sure what the real intent of this website is, but it seems like a forum for you to theologically masturbate and get the last word.

        No, I haven't essentially said what you claim. You are jumping to conclude too much for effect. You are taking it out of context. In addition, the same thing you just said could be leveled against Jesus Christ. Do you realize that?

        People attack the basic positions of giving and sharing all, total non-violence, and sexual harmlessness. People who write against the Real Liberal Christian Church, which stands for those things, are marked by doing that. People who come here and play word games to miss the points mark themselves.

        If you don't think so, that's your problem. If I write something contrary to the direction in which Jesus Christ asks souls to turn, then call me out for it. That won't mean that the Church itself is wrong. You're not viewing it from anything consistent with what Jesus teaches.

        You go on to say that you are "not sure what the real intent of this website is, but it seems like a forum for you to theologically masturbate and get the last word." You "aren't sure, but" you'll leave such a damning comment and leave feeling rather smug. If you aren't sure, should you have in this case said what it seems to you to be; or should you have held your peace? It's the latter, in case you don't yet know.

        Also, there is no such thing as to theologically masturbate. You show your perversion openly stringing that together. What you've managed to do here is embarrass yourself. You certainly haven't done what you had hoped to do.

        So, tell me, what specifically on this page is anti-Christ that has come out from me? If you can't say it, apologize. If you can't apologize, then what you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it.

        You did write here to tear down this Church, not to inquire and help or rebuke just me for cause and to then accept my apology, which would be the Christian way, per Jesus. You didn't ask. You speculated to cast a bad light. You could have asked. "What do you mean?" "Do you mean...?" You didn't do that though.

        The more "Derek Webb" fans or others who come here leaving comments, the surer I am that there is an underlying problem associated with the mindset. Not one has seen the point. The point sticks out, yet none has acknowledged. The song is wrong. It makes more than one point. It makes more than the one point everyone dwells upon to the exclusion of the error. The song wants anti-homosexuality to be lessened as sin and is hiding behind calls to emphasize something else.

        It starts with:
        "You say you always treat people like you like to be
        I guess you love being hated for your sexuality"

        Can you not read? That's using the Golden Rule against whom? Don't hate People for their homosexuality because you don't want to be hated for your heterosexuality. That's wrong on Derek's part.

        A tree is known by its fruit. You are what you do and produce. If you don't hate, you can't be Jesus's disciple. What part of this don't you understand? What part of it can't you reconcile?

        I hate myself for my history of sin. That's good. I'm supposed to have awakened to that. If I stayed asleep to my own huge errors, I'd never even try to do what's right.

        Now, every homosexual is supposed to wake up to loathe his or her sin (selfishness) so much so that he or she transforms. However, there's a lessening of that in Derek's approach. He's planting a seed that says to the homosexuals and others that the homosexuals' sexuality isn't to be hated and that they are not known by and aren't their behavior and its results.

        If you don't like this truth, too bad for you. Your not liking it, your disagreeing with it, doesn't make it untrue. It's true, and it's going to stay that way forever.

        Rather than backing me on that, you attack without justification. So, who and what are you, *ane?

        As for the "last word" in the sense you've used it, various people have left dozens of comments on this site where I have not agreed with their complete positions. I have not cut them off from making further comments. I have only prevented those who even after being repeatedly apprised of the standards (rules), repeatedly refused in the extreme to address my points. This is not, among other things, a forum for blatant, constant obfuscation. For the sincere edification of all, I won't abide that approach in my house. That's a standard I have no problem being applied to me by God. It's a good standard. It does not lead anyone to Hell.

        • This raises the issue of relativity in conjunction with absolutism. It raises the issue of infallibility in conjunction with the process of being perfected. It raises duality, spectra, and many other issues.

          Can I misspeak, have someone point out the error, and that person not be tearing down the Church? Yes. Does the religion of Jesus Christ rise or fall on the misplaced comma of a desirous follower? Not if the judge will help it doesn't have to.

          Also, damnation must be seen within the light of what is meant by many mansions in the house of God. What also is the highest if there isn't a higher and lower and lowest?

          Jesus said that God and he judge no man (read human). It is the truth who judges. At the same time, Jesus said that he is the truth. This is paradoxical. Because of that and other misunderstandings and misinterpretations (shortsightedness; selfish, too hard-hearted readings), many down through history, such as the Deist, Thomas Jefferson, have condemned Christianity as irrational, illogical, against reason, and things along those lines.

          Of course, I disagree with Thomas Jefferson's worldview, as I see the truth in the paradox and the truth in the other sayings of Jesus. They are not irreconcilable to me. There are connotations for all the words where they fit, where the contexts render Jesus's statements mentioned above in this paragraph as both true. It is semantical theology.

          Studying this is not about achieving selfish sexual pleasure, which is what Paul referred to as the pleasure of sin. To put it in such terms, as *ane *llman did above, is a gross mischaracterization and the opposite of a favor to anyone. It is misleading: falsehood.

          Jesus asks souls to fall into line with his mind. I don't have a problem with that while I know that he's asking others and me to be with him in holding certain clear tenets that include but are not limited to (they are actually synonymous concepts) that 1) competition for self apart from God's wholeness that includes the one soul of his people is wrong and that its opposite where all those souls in one share all as their one possession is right 2) violence and threats of violence to coerce or intimidate are wrong and that always returning non-violence is right even at the cost of the mortal flesh of each and all and 3) human sexuality is not to verge over into the selfish that is always a choice and always harmful to one degree or another but rather, humans are to be as sexually harmless toward each other as natural doves are harmless to humans. That last aspect includes homosexuality that is always a choice and always harmful: not wholesome but unhealthy.

          If anyone claims that Jesus stands for other than those principles, he or she is mistaken. If after those principles have been fleshed out, that person still insists upon taking his or her stand against this Church, then by definition, as established by Jesus's words and deeds that are the guide for his Church, that person is headed in the wrong direction that is toward what is more hellish than not. As for where that soul will end up specifically beyond the general allusions that Jesus provided such as "outer darkness" or the "everlasting habitations" of the "friends of the mammon of unrighteousness", etc., I can't say that until God reveals it. John referred to the "bottomless pit" and the "lake of fire." If and when God wants you to know or me to know and to reveal where and when each soul is and will be, God will make it known. I have no problem with that, but that doesn't mean that I want to stop learning or that I don't wish to be perfected.

          So, do people need to line up with me? If I'm lined up with Jesus they do. Can I be lined up on some points and be out of line to any degree on any other? I'm not yet perfected. That said, I ask any others to see and to say where they are lined up better or perfectly where I am not. I ask God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit to show me. They do. How good am I at getting there? There is only one who is perfect. I'm intending to join, not usurp. What's your intention?

    • *ane *llman
      What you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it.

      Wow. So what you have essentially said here is that every comment that disagrees with something you've written is going to cause our damnation until we fall in line. I'm not sure what the real intent of this website is, but it seems like a forum for you to theologically masturbate and get the last word.

      No, I haven't essentially said what you claim. You are jumping to conclude too much for effect. You are taking it out of context. In addition, the same thing you just said could be leveled against Jesus Christ. Do you realize that?

      Let me rephrase. It's not essentially what you said. It is exactly what you said. That phrase is included on every page and is ALSO the final paragraph. If you are a normal or reasonably normal persuasive writer, you should be hitting with a good final note and summation of what you were trying to get across. You have in plain black and white stated that any disagreement with your "organization" is wrong. It is not out of context, and your reference to Jesus is actually out of context. You are not infallible nor are you God.

      People attack the basic positions of giving and sharing all, total non-violence, and sexual harmlessness. People who write against the Real Liberal Christian Church, which stands for those things, are marked by doing that. People who come here and play word games to miss the points mark themselves.

      If you don't think so, that's your problem. If I write something contrary to the direction in which Jesus Christ asks souls to turn, then call me out for it. That won't mean that the Church itself is wrong. You're not viewing it from anything consistent with what Jesus teaches.

      Here again you attempt to paint your viewpoint as simply altruistic. Sure, to a novice reader or someone not interested in actually paying attention, your site may seem to be about those tenets. But my problem is bubbling under your surface. You play the loudest man in the town hall role; calling people out for their logical fallacies, while all along making the same ones and getting away with it.

      You go on to say that you are "not sure what the real intent of this website is, but it seems like a forum for you to theologically masturbate and get the last word." You "aren't sure, but" you'll leave such a damning comment and leave feeling rather smug. If you aren't sure, should you have in this case said what it seems to you to be; or should you have held your peace? It's the latter, in case you don't yet know.

      I was waiting on a response. Believe it or not I don't look at your site often. Let's rephrase with the above and say "I am sure", just to be safe. Yes, holding my peace would have been the easiest thing to do. However, much like you I don't like seeing people misled. Since I want to feel like part of the team, I'm going to so a self-referencial Jesus comparison (as you are wont to do) and chastize your pharisaic ways.

      Also, there is no such thing as to theologically masturbate. You show your perversion openly stringing that together. What you've managed to do here is embarrass yourself. You certainly haven't done what you had hoped to do.

      Nice try. Masturbation is simply self pleasure. Such a wordsmith as you knew exactly what it meant as did every educated person that probably hasn't read it.

      So, tell me, what specifically on this page is anti-Christ that has come out from me? If you can't say it, apologize. If you can't apologize, then what you write here against the Real Liberal Christian Church founded by Jesus Christ will mark you in the Biblical sense unless you show that you have turned and are repenting in time to escape the damnation of your own choosing. That's the way of it.

      For one, you use the word anti-Christ because of it's association with Antichrist. It's for shock value alone and I'm calling you out on it for using it too often. Specifically on this page that is disagreeable is that you have falsely presented your site as an open forum for discussion, but instead immediately tear down (most of the time without evidence) anyone that questions something that you've said.

      You did write here to tear down this Church, not to inquire and help or rebuke just me for cause and to then accept my apology, which would be the Christian way, per Jesus. You didn't ask. You speculated to cast a bad light. You could have asked. "What do you mean?" "Do you mean...?" You didn't do that though.

      I don't want to inquire or help whatever movement this is. I want people to turn away from it. This is pure propaganda and should be outted for exactly what it is.

      The more "Derek Webb" fans or others who come here leaving comments, the surer I am that there is an underlying problem associated with the mindset. Not one has seen the point. The point sticks out, yet none has acknowledged. The song is wrong. It makes more than one point. It makes more than the one point everyone dwells upon to the exclusion of the error. The song wants anti-homosexuality to be lessened as sin and is hiding behind calls to emphasize something else.

      The song is not wrong. YOU are wrong. YOUR INTERPRETATION of the song is wrong. You can have your view of homosexuality the institution/the act/the whatever as sin. But that does not mean we need to verbally and openly hate PEOPLE. Look at yourself for what you are condoning for one second.

      It starts with:

      "You say you always treat people like you like to be

      I guess you love being hated for your sexuality"

      Can you not read? That's using the Golden Rule against whom? Don't hate People for their homosexuality because you don't want to be hated for your heterosexuality. That's wrong on Derek's part.

      It's not wrong on his part. It's saying think about what it might be like to have to deal with it. If the shoe were on the other foot, how would you feel being called names or ridiculed? Ridicule is NOT Christlike. That's the way of it.

      A tree is known by its fruit. You are what you do and produce. If you don't hate, you can't be Jesus's disciple. What part of this don't you understand? What part of it can't you reconcile?

      Because this is a different slant on hate. Hate to you is a vile aversion to the sin or acts. Hate in this song is a vitriolic and disgusting abuse against fellow human beings.

      I hate myself for my history of sin. That's good. I'm supposed to have awakened to that. If I stayed asleep to my own huge errors, I'd never even try to do what's right.

      Now, every homosexual is supposed to wake up to loathe his or her sin (selfishness) so much so that he or she transforms. However, there's a lessening of that in Derek's approach. He's planting a seed that says to the homosexuals and others that the homosexuals' sexuality isn't to be hated and that they are not known by and aren't their behavior and its results.

      If you don't like this truth, too bad for you. Your not liking it, your disagreeing with it, doesn't make it untrue. It's true, and it's going to stay that way forever.

      Your stating that it's true and stays that way forever is no more compelling than my disagreeing with it. I'm glad to hear that you hate yourself, sounds healthy. I may try it some time.

      Rather than backing me on that, you attack without justification. So, who and what are you, *ane?

      I attacked with justification. I am a person reading your website.

      As for the "last word" in the sense you've used it, various people have left dozens of comments on this site where I have not agreed with their complete positions. I have not cut them off from making further comments. I have only prevented those who even after being repeatedly apprised of the standards (rules), repeatedly refused in the extreme to address my points. This is not, among other things, a forum for blatant, constant obfuscation. For the sincere edification of all, I won't abide that approach in my house. That's a standard I have no problem being applied to me by God. It's a good standard. It does not lead anyone to Hell.

      This was a fine statement until you threw in the divine mandate for your moderation style.

    • Lou Piper

      Hi,

      I am a Christian, first of all. I have considered myself a Christian all my life but committed myself when I was 10.

      I am also gay, I think I was gay all my life, but came to realise it over several years in my teens.

      As I came to realise my sexuality I looked to scripture to see what God's word said. What I came to find was not what I had been told. In Leviticus (18.22) we are told that for a man to lay with a man as he would with a woman is an abomination, and in Lev 20.13 that those who do should be put to death. How frightening. However, we are also told "...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19) then we are told: "But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

      Another Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

      So I suggest that Leviticus was written as a set of rules for a certain time, otherwise we are all guilty.

      Now lets look to Sodom and Gomorrah, oh yes, that old chestnut! Two angels visit the city. Travelers approaching a city in biblical times would need (and expect) a welcome, food, shelter and hospitality. It was a vital part of the culture. On arrival at S&G, the angels were welcomed by Lot and his family. The locals weren't so welcoming, instead they wanted to abuse, to rape them. Disgusting. But let's not forget that this is not a story about consensual sex between two committed adults, no it's about power and humiliation (like all rape). Lot offers his own daughters but the crowd refuses. God rescues the angels and Lot's family. On leaving the city Lot's wife looks back and becomes a pillar of salt. (Genesis 19)

      The story of S&G is often quoted as the reason Christians oppose homosexuality. It is often forgotten the story of S&G is consistent with Deuteronomy 22:25-29 which condemns heterosexual rape.

      Jesus tells his disciples: "And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor'rah than for that town." Matthew 10:1-15

      The reality of this and other parts of the bible is that it is totally questionable! I see in the bible a handful of verses that seem to say that homosexuality is 'wrong' but many of them can be explained, what is more frequent is the overwhelming graciousness of God. Colossians 3:13

      "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."

      Our God is all powerful, He died for us, for all of us. It is for Him to judge "(Mat 7:1 Judge not lest ye be judged.)" and us to live our lives to the fullest and in the best possible way. There are more horrific things in life than my life and whether or not I share my life with a woman or a man. We are clearly told:

      "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also." ( John 14:6-7)

      Tom, your page is filled with emotive language, with phrases like "Look, what you've written here is terrible theology" however you back up this comment with your own thoughts and assumptions about God's word. You suggest we find our own verses about faeces. Why not back it up with verses. There are not many gay Christians who believe that John and Jesus were lovers, I don't get this! I am part of many Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans (LGBT) groups for Christians, yes there are few who have looked at it in that way, there are also plenty of Christians who think the same of Jesus and Mary Magdalene! We are surrounded by Christians who believe such bizarre things but there are those of us, gay and straight who root ourselves in God's words and live our lives glorifying His name.

      • Okay Lou Piper,

        Look, first of all, I don't buy this use of the word "gay" for homosexual. I remember the first time I saw it and what was written about it. I remember instantly knowing that it was a ploy, as in a reverse pejorative. Of course, no such usage lasts. "Gay" became a pejorative. The youth have used it as slang, as in "That's so gay," to mean a multitude of things with none of them being good.

        Gay is a good word meaning "1. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry. 2. Bright or lively, especially in color: a gay, sunny room." That's according to the American Heritage Dictionary. Homosexuals co-opted the term for devious reasons – consciously and subconsciously to connect homosexuality with all those good things, which it is not. Therefore, when you use that term in that way, basically you are being dishonest, which is true to form for homosexuality. Homosexuality itself at its very root is dishonesty.

        Secondly, you may consider yourself Christian, but that does not make you a follower of Jesus Christ's commandments. It doesn't even necessarily mean that you are trying to follow Jesus or even think you are trying. You may have somewhat managed to compartmentalize your thinking such that you have achieved a state of false comfort; but in being an unrepentant homosexual, you are not being Christian and should not feel comfortable. To be Christian means to be repentant concerning every last bit of wrongdoing no matter how slight. To be Christian is to be constantly striving for perfection that is Godliness. Achieving it is a different matter but certainly directly connected. It is no easy thing to remove all hypocrisy from one's being. First it takes even being able to identify it all. Then it takes the rest of the world even allowing one to move in that direction, let alone getting there while remaining on this plane. Certain Jews murdered Jesus by proxy for trying and doing it.

        As for your supposedly realizing that you were a homosexual, what you "realized" was caving into temptation and nothing more. Regardless of your predisposition from conception or birth, you still caved in. Christianity is about overcoming. It's also about not caving in. It's also finally about rising above temptation.

        Now, you looked at scripture and say you came to find it was not as you had been told. I don't know every thought in your mind. God hasn't given me to know. God could do that, but will only if and when it's required for God's plan and when I have arrived at such a trustworthy state – when I wouldn't call down the entirety of wrath rather than remain patient and merciful.

        You looked at Leviticus. You found things that don't jibe with modernity. You found what you consider hypocrisy. So did Jesus, but that didn't remove the truth that there remained sin or wrong-doing or error or falsehood – use the term you want or all of the synonyms. I do. Jesus didn't even lessen the commandments but enhanced them. People felt that under Jesus, it had become more difficult to attain righteousness, not easier. They were right. It wasn't until Paul and the antinomians that the "law" was incorrectly pigeonholed so that liberalism or "liberality" started to mean license to iniquity. It was a type of Gnosticism creeping in, in fact. "Just say the magic words that you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior and all your current and future deviance is magically washed away; so go right on sinning without a care in the world because you're only human afterall and can do nothing to effectuate your salvation or justification, etc." However, "For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark 8:35)

        So, will you kill me for my position or will you stand against those who will judge me and condemn me?

        You're missing the entire point: "And he saith unto them, "Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill?" But they held their peace." (Mark 3:4)

        You are not holding your peace. He didn't come to give a new list, as with Moses' 365 and 248. Jesus rather gave the law of unselfishness to the nth degree. You are rather preaching allowing in selfishness. I reject it. All Christians must.

        Before you completely dismiss Leviticus, as so many are want to do, consider that farmers today still do not plant huge fields alternating every other plant with two types of seed. There may be a way of doing that with a net-gain outcome, but I would still remain cautious. Mixing is a dangerous thing for the ignorant to be doing. Look at the Hell Monsanto has brought forth in its rush to mammon. The examples of selfishness justifying all manner of things that turn out bad are legion. What do today's humans know about the effect of weaving linen and wool together? More importantly, what is the underlying admonition? What is the point? What is it trying to tell us in the fullest sense? What is it trying to remind us about? Is it all just from a schizophrenic mind? I don't think so. Regardless, I'm not Old Testament and don't use the Old Testament alone as justification for anything. No Christian can and be a Christian.

        As for not eating sea food or fish, I don't. I'm a vegan.

        Slavery is a complex issue. Starving families sold sons and daughters into servitude. Many times, those families and sons and daughters were grateful and then vastly better off. The Old Testament law also provided for the "proper" treatment of slaves. In addition, who isn't enslaved under the system of mammon even now? Are you free of it? Furthermore, Jesus said to us to serve. What Christian isn't to be the lowest servant belonging to the whole of the brethren that also includes all the sisters as well of course?

        I don't know what you mean by "otherwise we are all guilty." Those who violate the laws of Leviticus are guilty of only that, but Jesus didn't come to undo the whole of Leviticus but rather to remove hypocrisy. He did not remove prohibitions against doing harm and being selfish and twisting and self-excusing, etc., far from it.

        As for Sodom, you are speaking to Fundamentalists and not to me. I'm not a Fundamentalist in the current parlance. I'm a real fundamentalist, which is quite a different thing. I believe many of the other type are either moving in my direction or falling completely away from Christianity for lack of aptitude and desire.

        Jesus nowhere lists everything that is wrong to do. He summates. To list everything would be to write the whole of history. It is written, but in the book of God. Who can read it? We shall see.

        How many things are there that you know intuitively are wrong behaviors that are not written verbatim in the New or Old Testaments? Let me tell you. There are more wrongs not written that way than written. However, when we look at the summation of Jesus Christ and run back and forth from the least commandment of his to the greatest and back again, we find that the whole thing points to those things that are self-evidently wrong regardless of whether or not they were enumerated or the like.

        The Bible attempts to cover a great deal in specifics. It manages to cover everything to one degree or another by way of summation and the consistency I've mentioned (going back and forth from least to greatest such that they become one, as Jesus intends those how can grasp it and rise).

        If Sodom is about rape and not also homosexuality, so what? Moses still prohibited homosexuality verbatim. Why do homosexuals feel comforted that they imagine that Sodom was not sinning also by virtue of homosex?

        Jesus specifically said that marriage is between male and female. He didn't include your behavior with another male. You know that. You might attempt to appeal to omission, but I've covered that already by full context -- his entire message, not bits and pieces being twisted to become inconsistent with wholesomeness.

        There is also not comfort in saying "that this is not a story about consensual sex between two committed adults, no it's about power and humiliation (like all rape)." It is about homosexuality and rape, both. Each is wrong. Together, they are compounding. They are two evil spirits working iniquity together. That's self-evident.

        Look, it is self-evident that homosex is a mistake. You are engaging in error, and Jesus tells you to change. You are to turn from it. You are to repent of it. You are even to atone for it. If you refuse, you remain in falsehood that is the known domain of evil. There are no mitigating aspects to it. You are not being forced other than by your own, personal failure.

        As for Deuteronomy, it is not about homosexual rape. So what? That doesn't render homosexuality sanctioned by God. To suggest that it does is pure folly. There's no logic in it, either mundane or divine.

        The reality of this and other parts of the bible is that it is totally questionable! I see in the bible a handful of verses that seem to say that homosexuality is 'wrong' but many of them can be explained, what is more frequent is the overwhelming graciousness of God. Colossians 3:13
        "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you."

        Now, there you are quoting Paul but ignoring that Paul spoke verbatim against homosex. What kind of logic is that? It isn't. It is illogical on its face.

        Now, you say that Jesus died for all of us. He died for his friends. He did not die for Satan. He died that others might be free of Satan.

        ...to live our lives to the fullest and in the best possible way. There are more horrific things in life than my life and whether or not I share my life with a woman or a man.

        There you are speaking at cross-purposes in the same breath. You admit "best possible way" while also admitting that there is a measure of freely chosen, non-coerced horror ("horrific") in your behavior.

        Now, an honest person would drop everything and fall to his knees weeping for having sinned against God and all that is holy and never engage in homosex again no matter what. A dishonest person though will become any number of things all designed to attempt comfort in remaining in an obvious sinful situation where there is a clear, plain, and simple way out that is to just stop the behavior immediately and forevermore. There is absolutely nothing preventing you but you.

        Lastly, I don't back up my position with mere assumptions about God's word. I speak the truth. Do you require that I pepper this reply with chapter and verse? I can do it to exhaustion. If you had bothered to do a site search on the various topics, you would have discovered that it's all been handled before. Currently, I provide three different search methods. The "WordPress" search is still the most thorough.

        You are not the first to attempt to rebuke me here and elsewhere for being anti-homosexual. I've linked from this site to other sites where I've dealt directly with many if not all of the standard, misguided, so-called Christian homosexual excuses. All of your positions have been rolled out over and over all over the Web. You've said zero that is new to me. You've regurgitated the failed mantra of the homosexual "community."

        There are not many gay Christians who believe that John and Jesus were lovers,

        There are no gay Christians who believe that John and Jesus were lovers. All Christians know that Jesus did not engage in sex with John or with any other of his disciples. Furthermore, all Christians are gay about Jesus. I am often gay about many things, but I am never homosexual.

        I am not Gnostic and don't believe that Jesus and Mary were married or engaged in sex with each other.

        ...but there are those of us, gay and straight who root ourselves in God's words and live our lives glorifying His name.

        It's not possible to be rooted in God's words and live your life glorifying his name while being homosexual. You are in denial and obviously know you are twisting, which is inherently evil.

        Am I judging and condemning you? That's not my department. I am telling the truth so others (and you if you will accept it) will not be lead astray into falsehood that is the death of the soul. As for where you'll end up and the circumstances there if you refuse to turn, that's not up to me. You won't be with me though. I can tell you that.

        If speaking truth in this way is judging and condemning in a way that Jesus said not to do, then Jesus himself is a hypocrite. I know better than that though. Judging and condemning are terms with multiple connotations. You are using them in a selective and deceptive manner to excuse your wicked, misled, and misleading behavior. I'm pointing it out for the sake of the many. They need to beware your serpentine ways and not partake of your twisted words.

        Come clean. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Matthew 12:33)

        You say that not all of your fruit is corrupt and that there is more corrupt fruit with which to be concerned. Your tree, the way you advocate and live, brings forth corruption. No Christian abides it willingly. Push come to shove and a Christian will follow Jesus to the cross over it. You don't, so far.

        Now, will you report back to me that you've cast off homosexuality or not? This page is a record. The record is with God forever, regardless. You can't hide, not even in Hell.