All you homosexual-fascist "liberals" out there, who was it who sang, "Baby, you're a rich, fag Jew," and did you and/or do you censor him for it?
Do you want every reference to him banned from the public domain?
His name is not in the Book of Life of Jesus Christ, is it?
Is your name there?
Are the names of the hypocrites written in the Book of Life?
How many books of life are there?
How many chapters are there in each?
How many mansions are there where souls reside, where they "live" and "die"?
What is being born again?
Is it reserved to the righteous only, or are people born again into more horrifying realms?
Which door is the real door of perception?
Who keeps that door?
Who shows people in and leads them?
Semantical understanding with wisdom are the keys.
If I were to say to a rich, homosexual Jew that he is a "rich, fag Jew," would you be offended, call for my banning everywhere in public, and tell me to leave you and him alone?
Now, there are those who pretend that John Lennon never sang the phrase into The Beatles song, "Baby, You're a Rich Man." Well, many people have no idea about John. They want to sugarcoat him. To know the real John Lennon, just listen to some of his uncensored work. He was an intentionally irreverent man. It also helps to be old enough to remember. What John wasn't was a "nice" boy. He was a libertarian, anarcho, capitalist, humanist, antichrist right along with Frank Zappa, Mick Jagger, and many, many others. They all knew full well who Aleister Crowley was. John even gave the devil's hand sign on the cover of Yellow Submarine, and I'm not talking about the BS hand sign. I'm also not talking about the unintentional position that is caught in a snapshot. I'm not talking about a Texas university's longhorn bull's hand sign. I'm talking about where and when the hand sign is used to say exactly what Aleister Crowley was forwarding that definitely sucked in huge portions of my generation. I was there. I saw it.
The youth of my day were attracted by peace. That was the bait. Some people wanted to keep it that way. Others used it as an inroad to then subvert people into "free love," as in sexual libertinism. Then came bi-sexuality, then homosexuality, and all manner of plastic, synthetic ideas from the contrivers. Unrealness came in to youth who were unprepared for the deceptions. Greed and violence soon followed, and the rest is still unfolding.
The initial purity though is still there in the hearts and souls of some.
As for John's vaunted song, "Imagine," I liked it at first when I thought he was only speaking about hyper-literalness where God is nothing more than as a cartoon character literally sitting in a material, golden throne on an actual cloud of the type you see everyday and that John was speaking about an equally limited notion of Hell below us.
Don't misunderstand me here. God can project whatever God wants, but God is not limited therefore to what was John's limited conceptualization. John was actually more than suggesting that there is no life superior to what was John's life here in the flesh.
Here's an example of a confused mixture where the page author doesn't differentiate the hand signs and the necessary intentions of those captured at the time. http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/signs_of_satan.htm
Can people later claim to have meant one thing while really meaning the other? Of course they can. People lie to get ahead in their fleeting reality.
Have I assigned John Lennon to Hell here? No, I haven't.
Do I want to coerce him out of the secular world? I want every heart to have the real law written on it. Then the issue will be moot.
Also, if you don't believe me about John, ask Paul McCartney. Maybe he'll tell the truth. Paul and John didn't see eye-to-eye on God and Christ. Ask him.
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)