Tweets 37-42 http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/?p=3597 resulted in a string of falsehoods from a "nice guy."
I'll leave his name out of it:
Subject: Kicked you
"Sorry I can't take your postings Do you have a problem with gay people? And you call youself a follower of Christ?There is nothing liberal about your postings on gays.I have a lot of gay friends'I do not judge them as Jesus told me not to judge as I would be judged if I did.I am sorry that I feel this way but I do.I wish you well and bless your every breath.
[Name left out],
You asked to friend me, not the other way around.
You ask me if I have a problem, but you titled your message, "Kicked you"? You don't appear to be interested in an answer, but I will reply anyway.
I am a follower of Jesus who was anti-homosexuality. Do you think he wasn't? He was very clearly opposed to all sorts of sexual misbehavior. If I say that adulterers are misbehaving, will you also kick me for that too? That's not Christian of you, is it? No, it isn't.
As for the term "liberal," I use it Biblically completely consistent with Jesus's message.
Also, as for the term "judge," you're misusing the term here.
Anyway, it's your free-will choice to condemn me as you have. It's too bad you didn't care enough to check into the details before doing that. You are completely mistaken about Jesus, Christianity, and homosexuality, which isn't gay by the way but rather darkness.
For: The REAL LIBERAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH and Christian Commons Project
You want to think Jesus judged? when he himself said not to?Again Bless you but I do disagree and you have an ego that has taken over your life in my thinking you think quite a lot of yourself and your postings pretty much support what I am writing to you.Again your right that I requsted to you to be my FB friend but I see for me that was a mistake,and so I bless you as I think Jesus would have me do and wish you well also.
[Name left out],
You're flat wrong. You don't know what you're talking about.
John 5:30 KJV I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
John 7:24 KJV Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
As I said, you are misusing the term "judge." You used it out of context against me. You just wrote, "You want to think Jesus judged? when he himself said not to?" I just showed you were he said he judges though. So, you're wrong, period. Are you big enough to admit it, or is your ego too big to admit it?
Now you accuse me of having "an ego that has taken over [my] life" and that I "think quite a lot of" myself; yet you judge me for judging. [Name left out], you are seriously confused. That helps to explain why you think what I've written about homosexuality is wrong when, in fact, it's right. It's you who are backwards from Jesus.
The appropriate thing for you to do is repent of everything you've written at me. You won't though, will you. No, you won't. You can't. You can't write back to me that you are sorry for being all wrong. You don't have it in you.
If I'm wrong about that, prove it. Pleasantly surprise me. Give me a good reason to apologize to you. I'd be glad.
If you write back with more hypocritical, serpentine, homosexual garbage, I won't reply.
Never the twain....
So you feel by attacking me and filling the page with hate helps your cause? Bless you brother by the way the book of John was writen at least 60 years after the event according to history.You are just spreading hate and calling it love reminds me of people Jesus to tells me to avoid for my own well being. And sir do you know what projection is? because what you wrote to me is a clear case of it.Do you really think Jesus is as full of hate as you?Again sir Bless you. I really do not see any need to continue this. Good Day
"Nice guy" again:
Also for the record I will admit that the book of John contains what you wrote and by that I would be wrong.But I think anywhere where they have him doing what he clearly taught agaist they put words in his mouth and I don,t believe it. I have a good Idea what you teach and how you feel I was "Saved" on March 5 1973 and for many years taught what you appear to teach,I just had a vision and It was a factor in changeing my view of God and Jesus I feel that my relationship with Jesus has become stronger as a result. I do not expect to convince you of anything or get you to change your path and I am sorry if I have angered you to respond the way you did.I Understand that it appears that I attacked you in calling you an ego out of control it is the way I veiw the way I was. And I would have done everything you did to try and convince me that my thinking was in error. Let me say you cannot convine me to a path that I now disagree with. This all came about because I thought you were something that you are not but it was because of how you said you were. I am sorry but I thought you wre a liberal you are not. I know I wrote that I saw no need to continue but felt I owe you more of a reason. Let us just go on or paths wishing each other well but disagreeing. I really wish you peace. [Name left out]
I'm not bothering to reply. It would be a waste of time. He can't hear or see truth when placed right in front of him and clearly and plainly pointed out and explained. He hates the truth. That's his problem.
By the way, he didn't anger me. Also, he thinks what I wrote constitutes "filling the page with hate." He also doesn't know what the term "hate" means in Christianity. I could have shown him that too, but he's too busy running away from the truth, as every honest person will readily see here.
There he is telling us that the Gospel of John is "they" putting words in Jesus's mouth.
He's selectively taken claims about scripture made by homosexuals desperately looking for any way to twist. This fellow is taking the Gospel of John, that has very strong historical continuity right back to John and Jesus, and is trashing it so he can justify the confusion that is homosexuality.
He didn't bother even to ask why I am a Real Liberal Christian – what that means since he thinks "liberal" is pro-homosexuality. I could have pointed him to Isaiah 32 and explained (not that he would have accepted that truth). He didn't bother though. He just did the typical knee-jerk, even fascistic, homosexual thing. Yes, his approach is aiding and abetting homosexual fascism, which is a real danger for the whole of humanity. I don't know if he's a homosexual. Regardless, he's bought into much of their utter confusion.
As for agreeing to disagree, I don't go there the way he's using it. I resign myself to what Jesus said about the blind following each other into the ditch. That's what I agree with. As for wishing him well, I will be glad for him if he comes to see through his confusion.
Wow, the homosexuals have really done a number on society. If I had known then what I know now, I would have stood up about it and stayed there. They claimed all they wanted was to be tolerated, as in not handled with violence and other coercive measures by the secularists. That isn't where they stopped though. They went on to demanding that others condone their homosexual practices. It didn't stop there though. They went further into insisting that the children begin being instructed that homosexuality is not a choice, is harmless, and in Christian circles that it is condoned and blessed by Jesus and God (a pack of lies). That's proselytizing, especially when they laud homosexuals to the children, which they do. Really, how can people not see that that whole approach has come straight out from confusion to confuse?
I'm not for violent coercion. I leave vengeance to God. If everyone were to do that, there wouldn't be any vengeance. If everyone were capable of not being vengeful, the whole of humanity would also be capable of other good and right steps such as no longer choosing greed and even any selfishness. They would also see the light that homosexuality, no matter the flesh, is a choice anyone can overcome and that it is not harmless but always harmful to some degree as seen by ultimate results.
Even for those who can't see that homosexuality is always ultimately harmful, at least they could denounce teaching the children that homosexuality is harmless, as if it's always harmless. They don't qualify with the children. They say to the children that especially where marriage is concerned, homosexuality is on a par with heterosexuality. That is false.
There is a huge body of hard evidence that all other things being equal, a heterosexual marital environment is vastly healthier for children than a homosexual one. Even where society has "accepted and affirmed" homosexuals, homosexuals still exhibit many more and serious disorders. I don't want people to suffer that, so I say to people to quit homosexuality.
People say that they can't overcome same-sex attraction. Well, it depends upon how one defines all the terms involved; but regardless, it is wrong to say that no one has done exactly that – that it isn't possible or beneficial individually or societally wide. Just because some people have a harder struggle with it doesn't mean that we should throw up are arms and claim that homosexuality is harmless, never a choice, and that Jesus condoned it. Really, let's cut through all the lies.
War is evil, greed is evil, and homosexuality is evil. That's the truth!
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)