Other BlogCatalog users may leave what BlogCatalog calls a "shout," which is a message limited to 300 maximum characters. They can make them public or private. As you can see from the blockquote below, someone visited my profile and left a perverted, public message. I'm sure many men simply ignore him, but I rebuked him and am recreating it here for the edification of those who do not know how loose, which is lacking moral restraint in sexual behavior, are many (most) homosexuals.
As expected, he immediately replied (which I also added here for your edification). He blocked me and deleted my reply. He wants to dish it out, but he can't take it.
You will also see that he has zero knowledge of Christianity.
As I've written several times lately, exactly to counteract the idiotic statements such as the rhetorical question posed by this homosexual prowler looking to tempt every man he can, if Christians planned to license homosexuality, the first Christians would have treated the subject as they treated the questions of circumcision and dietary laws, with a council meeting to decide the matter one way or the other. The subject is recorded no where because they would never have even entertained such a ridiculous notion as that homosexuality is not a grievous sin against perfect righteousness: God. They never convened on the issue, as they did concerning circumcision (a change in the law).
After he showed the inherent hypocrisy in Moses' law, Jesus still told the adulteress to go and sin no more. (John 8:11)
He did not license anyone to violate the laws of Moses. He taught people how to live up to the highest spirit, which had been too high for the hardhearted (self-centered, such as the homosexual predator shown here in this post) to grasp.
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (Matthew 19:8)
No real Christian even slightly countenances homosexuality. Homosexuality is an evil behavior. It is always harmful to one degree or another, but one can be healed of it. It is always a choice the spiritually strong (regardless of the weakness of the flesh) are free not to make. Jesus does not condone it. He didn't coerce those outside his voluntary temple, but he did shake the dust from his feet as a sign that those who choose iniquity will be separated away by the transcending spirit. People believe in Darwinism, but they don't believe in spiritual evolution. They're wrong.
TomUsher's Shout-to-Shout With PascalH
TomUsher's Shout-to-Shout With PascalH
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)