More of "It's been my day to be attacked":
As I said in the lead-in to my immediately previous post: "It's getting to the point where people can't even discuss issues anymore. Everything has to be so fake liberal. Liberal doesn't even mean liberal anymore. Liberal meant bountiful and beneficial and the exact opposite of vile and disgusting, as in anal sex and things of that nature."
This was a Twitter post:
If homosexuals have marriage rights based on current arguments, then so do practitioners of pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, & bestiality.
Yesterday at 5:55am via FriendFeed Â· Comment Â· Like Â· View on FriendFeed
Dessie Harris likes this.
Ridiculous. There is nothing in the law that says anything except that two consenting adults have the right to make a family. Figures that someone from the Christian lunacy would go a step further in order to scare people. It doesn't work any more Tom
Yesterday at 6:38am Â· Like Â· 1 person Â·
I agree with on all this, thanks for sharing xx
19 hours ago Â· Like Â·
I credit you with being able to think. You've arrived at many correct positions, especially where the plight of the Palestinians is concerned. However, you are not being objectively logical concerning my statement.
When you say that "there is nothing in the law" that allows for arguments in favor of those who wish to practice pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, and bestiality, you are completely and incorrectly dismissing that at one point, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights were not seen by anyone I can find historically who at the time or even until very recently argued openly that it granted homosexuals the right to marry. What changed? When the Bill of Rights were ratified, who was saying "there is nothing in the law" that would allow homosexuals the "right" to marry?
Well, the question wasn't even entertained, as it hadn't even come up because the idea that the Bill of Rights would ever extend to homosexual marriage would not even have been allowed in any debate — it was that farfetched — ridiculous. However, here we are.
Foresight matters. I'm looking at the long-term trends. What are you looking at?
Eventually, homosexuals managed to get "homosexual rights" into the debate and on specious constitutional grounds. Now you're telling me/us that pedophiles and others will not ask why they are different (don't have the same rights) but that I'm being a lunatic and just fear-mongering.
Well, your position shows that you believe people have reason to fear pedophilia, incest, necrophilia, and bestiality. Why do you hold that position? You hold it on purely moral grounds, and the judge said morality has nothing to do with it.
Look, Barack Obama lauded a recently deceased homosexual advocate who said that there is nothing wrong with bestiality if the animal likes it. What do you say to that? Should Obama have lauded him or not? If not, why not? What does it matter that the President of the US lauded a known at least tolerator of bestiality?
Also, perhaps you are not up on these matters; but homosexuals are having a time of it keeping pedophiles out of the "Pride" parades for exactly the reasons I've given you. Yet, you call my position ridiculous.
In addition, there is an international movement at work. There's even a political party for pedophilia in Europe.
The German people were recently polled showing that the vast majority believe incest is not immoral but even beneficial to children's sexual development. Is that shocking to you? It's censored in the US by whom and for what reason? It's censored because the American people "aren't ready for it" — haven't been properly acclimated to sexual libertinism, properly conditioned — brainwashed in very fact.
Greta, as I've said, you are right on certain issues; but you are completely mistaken on this one.
I have directly addressed the US District Court judge's (Vaughn Walker) legal "reasoning" in overturning the decision of the electorate in this matter. Extending that so-called reasoning to adult incestuous marriage is no stretch. It is not a stretch concerning polygamy or polyamorous cohabitation, etc., which can and does include the "under aged," which under-aged concept is strictly morally arbitrary in the mundane. I'm speaking to you out from the spiritual law though, which is higher. All of these positions have hardcore advocates who are going to pounce on every crack every mistaken judge renders.
If you have some solid logic and historical reasoning to share with me/us on this, such as you do when you speak authoritatively concerning the Free Gaza Movement and Gaza Freedom Flotilla(s), by all means, chime in with the evidence that shows I'm wrong. You won't be able to do that — show I'm wrong on this — because I not anymore wrong on this than you are on the issue of Gaza.
If you think that Christianity is lunacy, I inform you that you don't know much about it, if anything. Christianity is the sanest thing that has ever come down the pike. Don't blame Christianity for people who do mistaken, un-Christian things in its name, such as support the false, Herzl version of Zionism.
I'm prepared for logical debate where questions are asked and answer, not ducked or dodged or dismissed out of hand and where the subject is not changed. If you are up to it, it's your move. If not, that will speak volumes.
How do you handle Zionists who challenge your statements? Do you go silent and admit defeat? When you have been shown to be wrong, do you admit it openly?
Peace and real truth,
12 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Dessie, you wrote "I agree with [whom?] on all this...." Since you "liked" my post, I'm assuming you're in agreement with me, but perhaps you'll want to clarify.
11 hours ago Â· Like Â·
I agree with your comments, of course.!
9 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Ugh, you are disgusting Tom, and I am unfriending you. You are like most close minded Christians and it is revolting. I am a Christian, but my form of Christianity is inclusive not exclusive like you are. The vast majority of pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL men. You don't believe me? Go check it out, since you seem so bent on throwing statistics at me. Otherwise, I really don't have time for this kind of ignorance. Since 10% of the population has always been homosexual, I suppose you, in your Christian righteousness, would exclude 600,000 million people. No... you do not merit an argument about this. I know too many wonderful men and women who are gay, productive, and happy to get into some kind of pissing contest.
9 hours ago Â· Like Â· 1 person Â·
I asked Greta above, "How do you handle Zionists who challenge your statements? Do you go silent and admit defeat?" She does not. She argues with them point-by-point but couldn't do that here because she has no answers. She only has brainwashed animus. What Greta did here is exactly what the Zionists do. They cannot debate on the merits with facts, so they resort to hitting out and then running for cover.
Greta, is no Christian, far, far from it.
Greta is for the Gazans having the right to choose. They mostly choose Islam. The vast majority of Muslims in the world abhor homosexuality. I don't even hear homosexuals contending that Mohammed sanctioned their marriage or was himself a homosexual. Islamic law calls for executing homosexuals. So too does Mosaic law. She calls me disgusting, yet I call for no coercion. She is quite confused and headed for a fall.
How is Greta going to free the Gazans? Will she free them into her unsupported political correctness?
Greta's censoring manner is exactly why there are fascist homosexual-pedophiles in "high" places who won't hesitate to throw Christians to the lions in order to have nothing between those fascists and whatever they want to do to attempt to satiate their endless greedy appetites for sexual self-gratification at the direct, negative expense of the innocent.
Anyone who doesn't know that there are many extremely sexually perverted people in high places in government is a complete moron.
There is no difference between it and the greed of the rabid capitalist and the blood lust of the most militaristic out there. It all comes by entering through the wide gate onto the broad way that leads to Hell.
You may also be interested in this: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=557363740&v=wall&story_fbid=414821958740
9 hours ago Â· Like Â·
I'm following Greta's lead here - I can't countenance being associated with someone who would offend my gay friends in this way.
7 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to Hell.
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)