More of "It's been my day to be attacked":
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. (Matthew 5:11)
A Facebook friend, Chris, posted a link:
Housing officers in west London cold-call residents in wake of Cameron announcement to warn them of coalition plan's implications
So, I read it and left a quick comment:
Then someone commented after me:
Here's a slideshow for you!
They reminded me of 'real, liberal Christians'.
Where's the slide show, and who are the "They" who remind you of real, liberal Christians?
Did you mean to post a URL?
Are there people in the slide show who remind you of real, liberal Christians?
The slideshow is about half way down the page.
Sorry, I forgot to give the link:
[It's not necessary that you view the images. You can get a clear sense of what they are from the thread below. The images are really low brow.] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/05/anti-gay-protesters-getti_n_671342.html
You can probably guess who the liberal, real Christians are.
All the labels such as homo, hetero, working-class, middle-class, help keep us divided......very handy for the war-mongers!
I didn't see any real, liberal Christians anywhere there or anyone who reminded me of the Church. I saw Baptists anti-homosexuality protesters and I saw pro-homosexuality protesters or demonstrators and likely people who were observing or just passing by or doing "law-enforcement."
If someone reminded you of a real, liberal Christian, then you don't understand what real, liberal Christianity is.
Where did you learn about the denomination and what it stands for? What do you think are its basic tenets that are reflected in the demonstration images?
Do you know what a Baptist is? What makes you think Fred Phelps is a Real Liberal Christian or does anything that reminds you of one?
Fred Phelps hates the Real Liberal Christian Church and its views concerning homosexuality and quite a few other things.
Ask me any question about the RLCC you want. I'm the world's leading expert on the subject.
It seems to me that the only reason you would do what you've done here is because you actually know that there are differences between the Westboro Baptist Church and the Real Liberal Christian Church that are so huge that associating the two was your way of attempting to offend. Am I right? Sure I am.
Well, at least Fred is anti-war! Good for him on that, right. Were you aware of that? Guess he's not all bad.
Which is worse, a war-mongering homosexual or an anti-homosexuality peacemaker?
What do you think, Mark? Which one is higher in your book?
God bless you, Mark.
Peace to you, Chris.
Tom, you are a dangerous bigot. Your views are anything but liberal. You say 'God bless you' and 'peace' even you pedal bigotry and hatred. Your dislike for being contradicted and presumption to know the mind of God reminds me of a cult leader in the making. It's really, really creepy.
Deirdre's views and opinions are good enough for me, so I won't repeat.
However, your options of a war-mongering homosexual or an anti-homosexuality peacemaker are just silliness. Excuse me while I don't answer.
There's a name or label that suits you, but Chris has asked that we hold down the names and labels. I can't avoid them entirely, but you should be able to figure out the name that applies to you.
Read the following coolly, calmly, and collectedly, just the way it was written.
I'm dangerous for whom about what?
What's the definition of liberal?
What is peace?
Are you bigoted against me? Of course you are. Just re-read your comment. It's loaded with bigotry. Who attacked whom? Of course, I'm not phased in the least.
Look at the topic of the post. Look how off topic you are. I addressed Chris's post. Okay. Then part of the immature crowd starts coming out of the woodwork asking me to go look at photos of completely immature people full of antics on both sides, being nothing but offences and on one side especially uncouth, even down right slutty. Yet you call me dangerous. Right.
If you know that I don't know the mind of God, then you're claiming to know the mind of God that I don't know it. That makes you a hypocrite.
Jesus is a cult leader, or don't you think so?
He also hated and still hates, or don't you think so? Do you hate him? It sounds like it. You sure didn't like the scripture that shows that he holds that marriage is between a man and a woman.
You hate me. That's pretty obvious, or do you want to bid me peace and blessings and tell me that you love me?
Oh well, I can't teach you. You're mind is already all made up. You know so much more than I do. That's what you thought anyway.
Are you associated with me again now that you've addressed me here in this manner? You didn't want to be associated, remember?
You can't handle it that anyone thinks homosexuality is wrong. You asked for a study, but when you're given it, you unfriend and run away but can't resist jumping back in as if you addressed all points and facts in the other threads. That's all still sitting there showing that you didn't answer to any of it but just ran away.
The last major nationwide American poll I saw recently shows 57% are opposed to same-sex marriage. Are they all dangerous? How is homosexual marriage not being sanctified a danger? Where was the danger all those thousands of years? What danger has disappeared where some places have allowed homosexual so-called marriages?
What's happened is the increase in danger due to the relaxation of moral standards for all the reasons cited and to which I linked that you ignored. You ignored them because you are opposed to wholesomeness. You are unwholesome.
Importantly, I don't even vote in secular elections either way. I don't use coercive secular democracy to force people either way, but you do. You're much pushier than I am.
Answer all the questions here if you think you can. Otherwise, don't you think you should be convicted by your conscience?
Are you sure it's not you who's the creepy one? It's creepy for someone to ask for information and then run away without answering to it, unfriend someone to not be associated, and then jump into a thread on a different topic to dog pile on that one, who isn't even coercive yet you call him all sorts of nasty things and twist things all around so that there is no truth in a single thing that comes out of you. That sounds pretty creepy, doesn't it?
Have you ever been confronted this way, or have you always just assumed you had the answers?
Deirdre Clancy, you lost before you started.
Mark, silliness means it's a blessed statement, but you didn't know that. What your comment indicates is that you were dazed by it — unable seriously and intelligently to respond. You refused to choose. That proves my point, but you aren't intelligent enough to see that. Too bad. It's not my fault.
Typical Zionist tactics
I won't be doing a back and forth with either of you, Deirdre and Mark, unless you handle it maturely and answer the direct questions and points and concede when you are mistaken. Otherwise, it would be a fruitless waste of time.
No, I didn't unfriend you because I couldn't handle your citing the study, but because you were peddling bigoted bilge against gay people, comparing them to child abusers, cannibals and those into bestiality, and because I found that beneath contempt and not worthy of connection. In fact, you didn't give much information about the study in question at all - nothing that could be checked. Your language is hate speech, Tom, to most normal, healthy people. You consistently change the goalposts of discussions, which is actually what immature people and narcissists do - calling others who contradict you immature is actually a projection of your own characteristics.
You invert the teachings of Christ. You say He's for separation, rather than unity; and now you're saying He's about hate, rather than love, and also that He's a cult leader. I find that offensive. "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves." This is what you are.
The reason I addressed you here again is because I feel a responsibility to challenge prejudice when I see it. I've a right to unfriend you, and a right to challenge you on a different thread. Nothing creepy or unwholesome about that. There's no point addressing your last posting point by point, because much of it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and bears no relationship to anything that I've expressed. Your logic is of the type that adds two and two together and makes five.
I will say a prayer for you, Tom - you're clearly a very troubled individual.
You say you won't be doing a 'back and forth' with me unless I can answer in a mature manner. Well, I won't be doing a back and forth with in under any circumstances. Your views (and Deirdre's representation of them) are enough for me not to.
I hope Deirdre's prayer for you is successful - you are indeed a troubled person.
Well this is not back and forth. This is conclusion for the sake of others.
I pointed out in the other thread that Deirdre is careless, even reckless, with the way she uses the term "compare." She didn't address that there, yet here she is making the same basic error.
I have said that homosexuality is wrong. It is an error, a mistake. She ignores the basic design of sex – why it exists. Males having orgasms in each other's anuses is messed up. It's a symptom. She though thinks it's not. Well, that's her confusion.
Now, saying that something is a mistake isn't comparing that mistake to others. She though ignores the concept of the slippery slope and just wants to continue making the same error as if my position is not based upon relativity.
Now she's complaining that I didn't reproduce all the studies' text in the body of the comments? Doesn't she ever do any of her own legwork? What prevented her from following the links and citations and doing her own Google searches, etc. The names of the studies and scientists and publications were all right there. She gives some very weak statements in her failed attempt to paint me as the unreasonable one here.
Here she goes again with the labels and terms that she doesn't define or understand. "Your language is hate speech...." No kidding? Hers is too, as I've already pointed out. I have no problem saying that I hate homosexuality. There's nothing wrong with hating such confusion. In fact, it's a great thing to know what to hate. I hate greed too. What is she, a bankster lover? I hate war. What is she, a war-monger? Oh, if she says she hates banksterism, she wants to wrap the banksters in barbed wire and drag them to death from her pickup truck. That's how ridiculous her arguments are concerning my views.
She is stuck in a bubble. "Hate speech" is weak language, powerless, when used the way she does without the full context. I already said Jesus hates. What's her problem with getting up to speed with the language?
She says, "normal, healthy people." Who? By whose definition? What's normal? Is the lowest common denominator good in her world? I am not normal. I am not average – thank God, literally.
Oh she's one of those.... Oh, I'm so sorry for her. She doesn't address points raised but then turns around and says the other person has change the subject.
Does she realize that in every back and forth we've had that it is she has ratcheted up the name calling? Sure she does. It's like Hasbara. It fails though. It fails when the Zionists do it, and it fails when the homosexuals do it. It's weak. Everyone who loves truth knows it.
She is really stuck in a rut. She echoes failed talking points and buzzwords. Where's her original thinking?
"... contradict you immature ...." All she does is mischaracterize. Re-read what I wrote instead making up garbage. She hasn't addressed any points. She's ducked and dodged all around because she can't refute or stick to the points.
"You invert the teachings of Christ. You say He's for separation, rather than unity." That comes out from the dark side. It shows that the law is not written on her heart but Satan's distortions. She should have asked! She doesn't know anything about it. Has she ever read Jesus? It sure doesn't sound like it.
Pay attention for once: The unity is of the sheep (without the goats). Who the Hell does she think the goats are, part of the unity? That's brainless. They will be separated out forever! That's salvation. Anyone who denies me here is of the goats, for sure.
Yes, and Mark, who knows probably less than does she about Jesus's words "likes" her commentary.
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)
Does she see the word "hate" there or not? Wow, is she ignorant; yet she has the unmitigated gall to call me all sorts of names even about my religion. She's a bigot against Christians.
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. (Matthew 25:32-34)
I'm tired of lazy liars. Anyone who is honest and wants to really learn the truth, I'll be glad to help.
Well, the job of a Christian is to spread the real word, which is what Jesus actually said rather than what a bunch of goats claim he believed. Therefore, she will not be able to stand before the King saying she was never told, while she accuses Tom Usher of all sorts of falsehoods. She will be judged by the standard she used against me here.
The two, Mark and Deirdre, are confused to the tip of their roots. There isn't an honest bone in their bodies. She blasphemes God. She bears false witness. She refuses to repent of obvious sin. She puts bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter. She leads people astray through the wide gate and onto the wide way that leads to damnation. Do you know who she is? Do you know whose daughter she is?
She is spiritually blind following and leading the blind into the ditch. Her prayers for or against me are meaningless. They don't signify. They aren't heard.
If she were the least bit interested in truth, she would have asked me all sorts of questions about all the things that are obvious here that she knows nothing about. She would have been eager to learn and to question to learn more. Rather than that, she's acted like the Zionists who don't feel obligated to answer about their hypocrisy. Now, that's a comparison. They kill bodies. She leads people to the death of their souls. So too do the Zionists.
Rebuked and unrepentant [not my fault]: I shake the dust.
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)