Tom Usher wrote or added | I saw this article referenced here first: and read the comments (interesting how it generated more comments than other topics). Then I followed the link: http://www.nonprofitquarte
I agree with those who say the Roman Catholics (RC's) should not have had a homosexual as a VP at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul in the first place. Also, the homosexual should not have taken the job working for an RC charity. Putting up such an effort against that church at the same time is doubly improper. The only proper course of action rather than write to hundreds of people about it in protest would have been to leave the board and charity.
People who are for this person emphasize the inconsistencies within the RC church, which is proper. Although, higher positions should require higher standards. Regardless of the RC's historical problems with pedophile priest, etc., the fact still remains that it is within the RC's US Constitutional right under the free-exercise clause to discriminate on account of sexual behavior and/or belief.
It is either that or you get secular everything with zero freedom of religion, punishment for having any religion whatsoever, or you get religious everything with one religion being the supreme coercive authority/sovereign.
The world will not be right until everyone has voluntarily chosen to believe in the Jesus of the four canonical gospels. It's the highest standard; and when everyone adheres, the world will become the best possible.
I'm with you on this one, Tom. Goldone's position is so much at odds with the group that it is an exercise in provocation to try to change it. Change is happening in the Church, but slowly. If I were him, I would look for someplace more compatible that could use my talents. Certainly the government has no place in the argument, unless the group is accepting government funding. Freedom of religious expression means that some religious groups are going to hold unpopular or politically incorrect positions. Deal with it.
You took the thought right out of my mind: "provocation." It's exactly what I was thinking when I was reading the article.
You know, there is a "conservative" wing of homosexuality that sees "acting out" as unseemly, unrefined, indiscreet, etc. I don't say that I admire people who are tighter than drums, no matter their sexual behaviors in private. What I do believe is that flaunting is obnoxious. Being zealous in Christianity certainly doesn't mean being tight or stressed all the time, but the Fred Phelps's of the world are the "Christian" version of the homosexual parade. I don't see it on a par with Jesus riding in on a donkey colt.
I see this Goldone as having plenty of "act out" in him even if he is typically seen as "professional." I've never seen or heard him, but the article suggests that he's been an insider for decades, and one doesn't get there or stay there without sucking up to staid Catholics. Perhaps he rose a bit due to an "affirmative action" mentality that crept into St. Vincent de Paul there. I truly do not see homosexuality on a par with ethnicity in terms of "discrimination" though.
I don't buy the "they have no choice" chorus. Sure, Black people could have all gone the Michael Jackson route with skin dying and plastic surgery, but homosexuals don't have to do anything but stop thoughts and behavior far short of Jackson's contrivances.
Some addictions take longer than others to break depending upon the person, and compassion certainly has its place; but affirming addictions of choice is quite another matter. I discourage it.
The standards in the world are too low because the expectations are too low. We set ourselves up for failure that way. Still, it doesn't have to be tight and stressed. The more people who simply expect righteousness, the easier it is for people to live it – be surrounded by it.
I see the Roman Catholic Church actually firming up against homosexuality. They've done many things over the last few years to set the stage for greater screening. If they don't, they'll lose many people even to Islam.
I don't see many people as realizing that Islam is attractive to many others because it is adamantly anti-homosexuality. Islam doesn't attract me at all regardless, but I'm not off the mark here about homosexuality. In fact, I believe that much of the Western world's anti-Islamic fervor is over the issue of homosexuality. I believe that it has a huge place in the Zionists' anti-Iranian campaign.
The Jewish homosexuals (tons of them) in Tel Aviv, New York, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, definitely want to use the American military to smash the anti-homosexuality Muslims. Those homosexuals are doubly wicked. They are what has been termed "homosexual fascists." Had you ever read this: Johann Hari: The Strange, Strange Story of the Gay [Homosexual] Fascists?
I'd seen other things on the subject long before that, but the fact that it's written by a homosexual, Johann Hari, is not insignificant to my overall point here. Some homosexuals are more honest about the sphere that encompasses homosexuality than are others. I'm not endorsing every "fact" in the article. I'm sure the vast majority of it is accurate, but there is much there that I certainly have never "fact checked." Hari is obviously well-read on the subject. He's spent a great deal more time thinking about it all than have I, no doubt because he's a homosexual. I'd be interested in a bibliography in support of some of the historical claims.
Anyway, homosexual fascism is a concern; and I do see "provocation" you've identified as in line with that trend. Let me also add that one of the methods of the "act-out" crowd is to bristle at any suggestion that one thing leads to another. The valid slippery-slope argument is their biggest enemy.
Frankly, I don't like this whole subject area. I would that homosexuality not exist. I was quiet about it for decades. What happened was that a mere call to not stone homosexuals has turned into glorifying homosexuality, just as Ernst Rohm wanted. That's part of why I become so vocal on the topic. I am absolutely certain that that glorification is eroding inhibitions against all other manner of sexual behavior. As the STLtoday.com article states, "...the Roman Catholic Church labels homosexual acts as 'acts of grave depravity' and 'intrinsically disordered'...." I agree with that assessment and believe that welcoming and affirming homosexuality is opening the door to other sexual behaviors that many pro-homosexuals claim will not be tolerated; however, people who engage in all manner of sexual behaviors are clamoring more and more for their "rights" as well. The homosexual parades are having a time of it keeping the pedophiles out. If the current trend were allowed to continue, it would be only a matter of time before pedophiles would be openly marching in the streets in celebration of their disease state, calling it a gift from God and other such utter nonsense.
Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe
It's more than thoughts & behaviour that form our sexuality, or why wd people risk the death penalty & lesser forms of persecution to express the way they are?
Well, Chris, I could have started with the terms "spirit" and "emotions" (I often do, perhaps more often than not) and then said "thoughts" and then "words" and "deeds" (behaviors). What else is there? Are you speaking of the seemingly nearly involuntary aspects of sex? People get angry and frustrated and sad and glad and all sorts of things that just happen to them before they might be aware to work to control feelings rather than feeding into them. Isn't that what we've all gone through? Isn't that how we teach our children – not to get too carried away – to know when to slowdown and stop, etc.: to think to control the behavior? So, emotional reactions to whatever stimuli are natural but controlled when healthy.
Now, why would people want sexual stimuli from the same sex when procreation is the point and sexual physical reinforcement is about that: procreation? Sure, there's bonding, but what's consistent about sexual bonding with the same sex when procreation is then impossible? What does humanity want to do, to become cyborg poly-gender sexual-stimuli addicts? That's not going to be healthy. I sure don't want that. It sounds sick on its face. Don't you think it sound false-hearted, misled, confused?
People risk the death penalty over every sin, Chris. You mean in the mundane though, so I simply say that people risk punishments and death concerning all sorts of behaviors and "rewards." Think of them all. Look at all the extremely risky things people do for emotional stimulation that isn't ordinarily associated with sex, although lust for money and for blood certainly factors in. It's about appetite, isn't it, partaking of that which one should not and especially not in excess?
Why do abused people become abusers at a higher rate than do the unabused? Why do people lose it, as they say, and go on murderous shooting rampages ending in their own preplanned suicide?
Are you of the opinion that no one is turned into a homosexual by life's events?
Why are people fighting so hard for confusion? Why aren't they fighting for being straight rather than crooked? Why is the general level of society at such a low standard? How do we get rid of greed for money and for everything else if caving into any and all sexual offers is condoned and even, as I mentioned, celebrated, which it is in many circles?
Don't you think that people are more messed up due to environment rather as opposed to born that way?
What bad things did you go through that tempted you? If those bad things had never presented, would you have ever been tempted and then stressed? I don't think I would have been.
You're a Christian, but you always talk about this topic as if there's no power to change or as if change wouldn't be better than the status quo that's going downhill, as you well know. People aren't even scandalized anymore.
Fifty years ago if a President had been caught doing what George W. Bush did, he would have been tried and possibly hanged but for sure locked up for life and never allowed to address the people again. Now though, being a selfish, lusting person is expected. They don't even try to hide it. If you don't think that that direction is directly associated with looser sexual standards, well I don't think you're thinking deeply enough about it.
Mind you, I'm not advocating being all tied up in knots over sex. In fact, being all twisted up is the problem.
Being a contrived person is not a good thing. Being real is a good thing. Look though at who constitutes the most contrived people and why. Look at Elton John for instance. Is he real or contrived? Look at the get-ups. Look at all the "drama." It's not real. It's a show. Look at the mainstream news. It's a show. We need real. We've had way too much fake. I'm tired of it.
I don't like the emphasis on fashion and die-jobs and piercings and tattoos and all the rest. They aren't good signs. You have to know that. It's disturbance. I'm not trying to make people feel helpless or to suggest that I don't understand and haven't seen how people have gotten sucked into it all.
The voice of one crying in the wilderness ....
I'm not going to come to the conclusion that homosex is right. It's obviously confused. Anuses and penises do not belong together, and that's the prime homosexual activity whether people are now trying to modify that or not due to the problems that arise with treating a man's or boy's anus as a vagina. It's not a vagina, not even close. If you can't see the utter confusion in the behavior and don't say that those engaged in it should stop and that it's unhealthy, I have to say that you're in denial on the topic, Chris.
Have you soul searched on the subject? Have you literally asked God and Jesus to tell you what the truth is on the matter?
Anyway, "It's more than thoughts & behaviour that form our sexuality, or why wd people risk the death penalty & lesser forms of persecution to express the way they are?" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The premises don't result in sanctioning homosexuality, let alone glorifying it as so many are trying so hard to do.
Tom, you probably are aware that we disagree on the acceptability of homosexual behavior. I don't really want to get into a long discussion of the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality, only to comment on the way people defend and promote their particular cause.
I don't that people should have to live a lie, and I don't believe that this is beneficial for society. It leads to things like pretend marriages and men in denial about their orientation acting out against those who don't hide who they are.
I also think that many are confrontive to a degree that is counterproductive. Promoting your cause will always engender opposition, but their are ways to minimize the problems. Martin Luther King did a good job at that, and no, I am not saying that sexual orientation is exactly the same as ethnicity or race.
Well, I'm a little tired right now because I'm on my third shift straight – working for mammon plus replying to comments and posting on the blog and so forth. So, forgive me if this isn't my best reply.
I don't ask people to live a lie. I believe that the idea that homosexuality is a fixed thing is the lie; and as I said, I'm interested in raising the standards, not settling for whatever anybody just happens to want to do no matter how associated with all corruption.
I don't buy that people are being who they are. I know they are being what they've become as a result of a screwed up world that if it weren't screwed up, if it were not tolerating in the sense of accepting whatever as being just fine, those people would not be what they been turned into even from a very young age, many before they can remember – but their parents can – often screwed up themselves but unwilling to face it and admit it and do anything concrete about it but rather just expect me to say, fine. Well, no. It's not fine.
Look, Steven, you say you're a Christian but you aren't taking Jesus's position. Why not? He didn't fit in with the war-mongers or moneychangers or homosexuals then and doesn't now. Why is he someone to follow but not really? If he said men leave their parents to marry women and become one flesh with them (for procreation), why do you agree with what homosexuals do? If he said a person is better off to cut it off than to sin with it, why do you disagree with him on that. I don't. I used to not know about it. Then when I first read it, I didn't understand it. Now I take it at face value. He meant it. He still does.
Martin Luther King was a womanizer at the height of his ministry. He would have been better off cutting it off. Doesn't that matter? I'm not a disciple of Martin Luther King, Jr. I liked it that he was anti-war. I was for the civil rights movement too. I didn't like learning that he cheated on his wife. I didn't like learning that John Kennedy had either or that Bill Clinton had either, etc.
I've made my own mistakes, but I'm glad I know they were mistakes and that I had to stop, turn, repent, and work to atone not just for myself but also and more so for righteousness' sake.
Has everyone been this way all along and I only thought that most people would have responded better four and a half decades ago? I think people are vastly more hard-hearted, selfish! "I want my sex, and I want it now with whomever and whatever I feel like; and to hell with you no matter how much damage I do!" That's what this generation sounds like to me to a large extent.
Chris 'Pyrate' McCabe
We are ALL sinners - it's only a matter of degree (for non-believers, prone to error), but that's about the only way we are all alike. For bi-sexual people, there's some degree of choice, but for many, we're stuck with hetero or homo. As for procreation, that wd be better left to those with a vocation for it. The Old Testament (& other scriptures) started being written at a time when the Hebrews needed plenty of manpower, thus non-breeders were seen as wasting the tribe's seed. In a world of war, over-population, greed, pollution, racism, cruelty, & misinformation, people's sexual orientation isn't an issue, so long as they're doing no harm. It isn't even necessarily foremost about sex; as with hetero unions, companionship & affection can outlast the 'bonking'. What counts is what a person will do for you on that Jericho road when you are hurt or in danger.
Re yr mention of tattoos & piercing, these can be therapeutic in reclaiming one's own body, especially after having been sexually abused in childhood.
"...but for many, we're stuck with hetero or homo." That's claiming God has no power over it. That's claiming Jesus can't change the flesh back from confusion. It's an anti-Christ view, Chris. It's a false claim, especially for a professing Christian. There's no doubt about it. We've already been through this point.
Why do you continue to hold forth with these same, old, anti-Christ views? Are you falling away? Have you fallen away? How can anyone conclude otherwise?
The important thing though is whether you will stop and turn back, assuming you ever believed in the power. Perhaps you never have. It's there though. It's real.
You don't address much of what I say to refute the actual points. You just make more statements as if I haven't said anything. Why do you do that? Why don't you address things by the points?
"As for procreation, that wd be better left to those with a vocation for it." What does that mean? Procreation is what it is. Anyone should be free to address the issues surrounding it. I've procreated. Regardless, I see no merit in the idea that those who have not should not discuss the subject. Do you know whether Jesus had a child or children by sexual intercourse? If he didn't, it doesn't preclude everything he said about flesh-family relations.
"In a world of war, over-population, greed, pollution, racism, cruelty, & misinformation, people's sexual orientation isn't an issue, so long as they're doing no harm." You claim there's no harm in a behavior that is inherently confused. Defend that position. Your position is illogical on its face. The opposite of confusion is the right direction, Chris. It's truth. The opposite of "war, over-population, greed, pollution, racism, cruelty, & misinformation" is not affirming homosexuality. Homosex is part of the problem. It's a problem, just like other emotions, thoughts, words, and deeds (behaviors) are problems/confusions/fracturings.
"It isn't even necessarily foremost about sex; as with hetero unions, companionship & affection can outlast the 'bonking'." What's the "It" to which you are referring? Is "It" homosexuality? Homosex is sex. If it becomes legacy, that doesn't alter the fact of its history. Neither does it alter the promotion of it in others in the present and future. The question is, what's better and best, not what's able to be obfuscated.
"What counts is what a person will do for you on that Jericho road when you are hurt or in danger." Yes, and homosexuals are falling by the wayside and falling by way of their homosexual behavior. It is wrong not to reach down to say, you need to stop. Homosex is a lie. It is misleading. It's on that broad way that leads to Hell. It is definitely not on the narrow way that leads to life eternal in the peaceful kingdom of Heaven where there is no "war, over-population, greed, pollution, racism, cruelty, [or] misinformation".
Because of iniquity, the love of many has waxed cold. Where were your thoughts when you read the article about the homosexual fascists? Was it simply working on how to avoid the facts and implications?
"Re yr mention of tattoos & piercing, these can be therapeutic in reclaiming one's own body, especially after having been sexually abused in childhood." I totally reject that view. There is nothing therapeutic in any of those activities. A proper therapy doesn't create greater contrivance to mask the symptoms of a fractured soul. Wholeness is wholesomeness, and tattoos and piercings aren't that but rather unwholesome, as is homosex. Turn to wholesomeness straight out. Don't do things to mark yourself as broken up and not coming together. Your view says, "If you've been abused, go put holes in yourself, go disfigure yourself, go mark your skin." That's self abuse. Why don't those who have never been abused cut themselves and poke holes in themselves and mark themselves all up? They don't need to for therapy to heal? The notion is preposterous.
There are places for prosthetics and cosmetics even, but tattoos and piercings are statements concerning that which is better to be completely removed, meaning healed of the mentality behind tattoos and piercings too. Surely you know these things are true when I say them, but your mind is spinning looking for loopholes and to retain your positions rather than be changed. Won't the saved be restored? Won't the hardedges come off? Won't the symbolic, cold, hard, metallic objects protruding and embedded be taken away?
The way to reclaim oneself is via moving to wholeness. Remove all the symbolic objects in piercings. Remove all the tattoos. Return the hair to its natural color. Return in the direction of real rather than not. This is the call of truth. The truth is freeing and healing. The false is slavery under wickedness and leads to the death of the soul under the spirit of itself: falsehood and death.
What good is this position of yours, this arguing against the rightness of what I'm saying, Chris? You know I'm right. I know you know it. You're clinging to the indefensible rather than heeding the higher calling and calling others to it.
Confusion is bad. Confusion is the enemy. Fracturing of the person, of the soul, within the individual, is not good for the whole of humanity. There is required separation from iniquity that is confusion, per se, but you know Jesus would rather have had them all turn rather than be separated out and burned up.
Excusing homosex is not the right path. Excusing it is apostasy. It's leading astray from righteousness into wickedness, selfishness, harmfulness. Claiming some forms of it are the lesser of evils, as if standing on the status quo is good, is an evil position. We are to go toward the light of perfection that is God, Chris. Why are you arguing for the opposite direction? Aren't you concerned about your position and what you're doing to the minds and souls of others?
All sin is not identical, but it's all related. It is all selfishness apart from God.
Tom, be careful when you criticize MLK by unproven allegations. In so doing, you side with the FBI and many people who were trying to discredit him because they wanted to maintain the white privilege status quo.
I have no need to defend the veracity of my Christian faith. As I said, we disagree. The fact that you claim your position is the right one does not make it so. You interpret the Bible more literally than I do, and you see things in it that are not there. Jesus, as far as I know, said nothing about homosexuality, but he had much to say about legalism. Perhaps you should reread what he said about the Pharisees.
As far as homosexuality and choice, there have been numerous studies that show a biological connection. As Chris said, some people have options in that regard. For others, it is no more a matter of choice than changing one's eye color. There are numerous examples of gay people who have lived in denial, often marrying or crusading against "the homosexual agenda", to bad ends. The same is true of many gays who have been "cured".
The argument connecting homosexuality with conditions such as pedophilia does not hold. Clearly, there are sexual practices that harm society, and are properly against the law. I see no evidence that homosexuality harms society.
I am not aware that allegations of Martin Luther King, Jr., having an adulterous affair panned out as unproven. If I'm wrong about that, I would have no problem correcting my statements. Do you have some information on it that supports that it was unproven? It was my understanding that his wife discussed the problem with others and that it was not even an open secret but simply open. As I've said though, if I've been misled in that regard, fill me in. You are the first person I've ever heard say the claim that he was an adulterer was unsubstantiated. I'd like to learn that he was not. That would be good news that I'd be glad to state especially anytime the subject were to come up.
I certainly don't side with the FBI but have rather said that there is plenty of evidence that they were directly involved in his assassination. The family actually won a civil suit against the government for murdering him.
Jesus didn't use the term homosexuality, but he did say to keep the law of Moses which certainly included killing homosexuals for the sin. Jesus called them hypocrites for wanting to stone people. He didn't defend homosexuality as being sinless. The same goes for adultery and a number of other sins that he did name by name. He also clearly said what constitutes marriage, which was the traditional view of male and female and precluded male and male, as was clear by the death penalty for it. When you say that I see things in the words and deeds of Jesus that aren't there, I suggest that you need to be careful.
He never used the term "legalism" either. More importantly though, he had zero problem with legalism. He had a problem with hypocrisy, which was the tradition of the Pharisees. He loved the law and had it written on his heart and still does. He was the most legally oriented person I've ever read, in fact. I don't need to re-read what he said about the Pharisees because I just read it earlier today before you submitted this comment. I'm well aware of what he said. I also know that I'm not being hypocritical here about homosexuality. It's iniquitous, not sanctioned by Jesus, and hence anti-Christian. If you choose to excuse it as not being iniquitous, not being selfish, not being harmful, not being confused, not contributing to the overall laxness in society and the world, then you go to face your maker with that position and I'll go to mine with mine and we'll see who ends up justified and vindicated about it.
There is absolutely no human behavior that doesn't have a biological connection. The act of murder is allowed by a biological condition. Adultery is biological. The fornicator has the brain matter and configuration that allows for it. Change certain emotions (brain matter) by reason of the right spirit/inputs and thought patterns will change and the behavior won't occur.
I've looked at many studies on the issue of homosexuality. I've looked at the methodological critics of those studies as well. I haven't seen one convincing study, but that's beside the point. The issue I raised in this thread, which you conveniently ignore while saying that you don't "need to defend the veracity of [your] Christian faith," concerns the power of God to change people. You've ducked that completely, which doesn't speak very highly of the strength of your beliefs. There isn't one person on the planet who couldn't choose not to engage in homosexual acts except for those who are coerced. Not one single person is forced by his flesh to commit homosexual acts. In addition, everyone can decide that it's a confused and wrong behavior and change his or her mind from a belief that it's fine, just the way the homosexuals have been propagandizing mostly the Western world for decades now, mostly with a pack of lies, a number of which are mentioned in this thread, but also includes that Jesus himself was a homosexual.
"it is no more a matter of choice than changing one's eye color." You have zero proof for that statement, and that statement runs exactly contrary to Jesus's position about the healing power of faith.
The more people run around saying faith doesn't work, the less faith there is and the less it works. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of death. I'm not buying it. I know there is God, and I know God can cure anything and everything in the blink of an eye. I also believe Jesus as to why that doesn't happen. I don't see you believing in it though. That's not my fault. If you think I'm too literal, well I certainly believe that Jesus healed thousand, literally. If you don't, then I don't see how you believe in Jesus.
"There are numerous examples of gay people who have lived in denial, often marrying or crusading against 'the homosexual agenda', to bad ends." The people concerning whom you're speaking, most of them have a whole host of issues with violence and greed and more. It goes to what I was saying about selfish lust going hand-in-hand making each other form of iniquity that much easier into which to fall.
The same is true of many gays who have been "cured". What are you saying here, that some people backslide so to Hell with the fact of those who don't?
"The argument connecting homosexuality with conditions such as pedophilia does not hold." Of course it holds. Sin is interconnected. All sin is interconnected with all other sin. It's all the same fallen kingdom, Steven. As you suggested to me, re-read Jesus. It's certainly the case that homosexual pederasty is extremely closely related to all homosexuality. Where individuals draw the line on how young they'll go and at how advanced an age doesn't negate that men who want boys are a subset of homosexuals. That's obvious on its face.
You "see no evidence that homosexuality harms society." Well, you'll get your standard. I do see great harm in it. I do see how much better the world would be without it and all of the contrived bull crap that has come down the pike with it.
You think there's nothing wrong with men buggering each other and buggering teens and younger boys too. I think it's all sick. It's a disease. It always has been, and always will be. It's extremely confused and disgusting and filthy. It's a very perverted thing. They can't engage in it for long without suffering ill-health. Disease rates are all higher. Promiscuity is higher. There just is not one thing to recommend it – nothing. There is though every reason to steer clear of it. All other things being equal, the same cannot be said of heterosex. Men and women can have sex a great deal and not suffer. That's because they were designed to fit together. Men and men were not, or do you disagree?
If you want to condone and encourage and glorify that kind of behavior and then wonder why other forms of iniquity have been increasing, then I won't be seeing you in the hereafter.
Steven, you are wrong. You don't have any studies that show what you claim – not a one. They are all overstated in their conclusions because there has been an agenda for a long time to loosen the standards, to lower the standards of humanity, to increase decadence. Even if you could produce a study, it would not negate that Jesus and God are the ones in whom you claim to believe but you don't credit either with the power to cure a hangnail let alone save the world, which they plan to do.
No, you aren't going to whittle me down. In fact, the more I'm confronted by the ridiculous statements of the homosexual crowd, the more I become convinced that they are all in denial and living a total contrived lie planted there by the liar from the beginning – and you know who that is.
I'm sorry the world has change for the worse on this and so many other issues. Some things have improved, but many haven't.
I'm going to remain anti-greed, anti-violence, and anti-sexual depravity that includes homosexuality. I'm going to remain for the voluntary giving-and-sharing-all political-economy, total pacifism, and sexual harmlessness (and homosex is harmful). There are plenty of studies showing that, Steven. I've cited a number of them on my blog. I don't need a study to tell me that homosex is confused and a choice that anyone may stop and come to see as repulsive given the right information and opportunity – without all the people lauding homosex as if it's a good thing.
You're far from Jesus on this one, Steven. Marriage is male-female. He said so.
There was no Christian council to allow homosex as there was to allow not having to be circumcised. The first Christians didn't allow homosex. That's a new invention of the liars of this generation, such as that Episcopal Bishop who divorced his wife to "marry" his fellow fallen homosexual. That's exactly against Jesus's teaching about divorce, or do you say I'm being too literal? He's sinning every moment in a number of ways but doesn't repent a bit while his church and denomination actually elevated him as if he's a good exemplar of Jesus's message. You though don't think homosex is harmful. That's crap, Steven – pure crap.
You're just echoing a bunch of "politically correct" nonsense on this issue. You've picked up the talking points that aren't substantiated by anything but certainly don't negate Christianity for the true believer.
"... two Pulitzer Prize winning books: David Garrow's Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (1986), and the first volume of Taylor Branch's trilogy on King, Parting the Waters: America in the King Years, 1954-63 (1988). Garrow painted a picture of a womanizing King, who allegedly was asked by a friend about "his compulsive sexual athleticism."6 Garrow claims that King had numerous extra-marital affairs; that he saw one of the women "almost daily"; and that, "That relationship, rather than his marriage, increasingly became the emotional centerpiece of King's life, but it did not eliminate the incidental couplings that were a commonplace of King's travels."7 Garrow also claims that because King's professed views on sexual ethics were different from his actual behavior, he was frequently overcome with deepseated guilt. This scholar would have us believe that on the question of sex, King was generally morally off-balance.8" http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4044/is_200304/ai_n9232227/
I think there has been an effort to coverup but that most people don't disbelieve this person, David Garrow. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Garrow
Ralph Abernathy, who was a very close friend of Martin, said King had affairs. http://blogs.citypages.com/pscholtes/2006/02/coretta_scott_k.php
So, one would have to think these men are lying, even though they never appeared to be FBI-leaning types.
I think it's a huge error that the court sealed the FBI files until 2027. That sure looks like a cover-up one way or the other.
My arguments are not "crap", and that is a pretty weak point, wouldn't you say? No, I do not unthinkingly repeat talking points. If I happen to repeat something said by others, it is because I have examined the facts and decided on my own. Do not underestimate me.
You challenge me to find a study that bears out what I say, and in the same paragraph you say that such a study would make no difference. That is exactly why I did not bother to find references.
I never intended to whittle you down. I understand that you know the absolute truth and will not listen to contrary arguments, except to refute them.
Please permit me inconveniently un-ignore "the power of God to change people". I am intimately aware of God's power, having experienced it in my own life. I know that God can do whatever he likes, although I have not personally seen any evidence of miraculous physical healings, outside of Biblical testimony. I don't deny that it is possible for a gay person to be miraculously changed, I just don't know of any evidence for that, that is, for a more than temporary and superficial change, which would hardly qualify as miraculous.
As for Martin Luther King, Jr., I have not seen any substantiation of his alleged adultery. I do know from the reports I followed at the time that many people were trying to discredit him. I know this from personal experience. I assume that the reason they were is that MLK was an effective civil rights leader. I don't have to prove his innocence, no one does, unless he has first been tried and found guilty.
If I thought it incorrect to call your points crap, I wouldn't have said it. It's not a matter of weakness. It's a matter of accuracy. You had been ducking and dodging nearly everything I'd written. In fact, you said that you didn't want to get into it; but here you are.
My point about the talking points of others is that I see no original thinking on the subject coming from you but rather that you've have done exactly what you said and that is to fall (and I mean it exactly in the biblical sense) for the garbage, crap, lies, distortions, false propaganda (call it what you will in the same vein) of the pro-homosexual spirit of darkness: "There is no power of God to change them."
You wrote that I challenge you "to find a study that bears out what [you] say, and in the same paragraph [I] say that such a study would make no difference." That's a complete mischaracterization. Produce a study that doesn't have serious flaws and that supports your conclusions. Every study that has been raised by the pro-homosexuals that I've seen has been subjected to scrutiny by others in the field and found wanting in real ways that have not been countered but rather further obfuscated. I've concluded that those who have conducted the "studies" have not done so objectively but rather with pro-homosexuality in mine – to interpret results and chisel in granite their interpretations to support homosexuality to those who never bother with looking at the logic or illogic of the conclusions – mass brainwashing especially on the youth but that has now flowed upward into much of the older-adult population.
Before my conversion to Christianity, I was completely prepared for anything. I simply wanted to know the truth. The result of my asking, seeking, and knocking for the truth, without being sure of anything, arrived at Jesus. I received spiritual evidence manifested in this material world that convinced me beyond the shadow of a doubt.
It is true that there is no evidence that homosexuality is immutable. You can't prove that is because to do so would be to prove God out of existence, which is impossible.
You wrote the following paragraph:
"Please permit me inconveniently un-ignore 'the power of God to change people'. I am intimately aware of God's power, having experienced it in my own life. I know that God can do whatever he likes, although I have not personally seen any evidence of miraculous physical healings, outside of Biblical testimony. I don't deny that it is possible for a gay person to be miraculously changed, I just don't know of any evidence for that, that is, for a more than temporary and superficial change, which would hardly qualify as miraculous."
I want to analyze that with you. First, let me say that I can see that you want to be honest. I mean that. It's obvious.
However, you said you know God's power (at least that God has power) but that you haven't seen firsthand evidence of miraculous physical healings. You said that you don't deny a homosexual (you said "gay," which is a euphemism design by false-propagandists) can be changed. Now, you're saying that you have no firsthand evidence that what you believe can happen, can in fact happen. You qualified your belief in God's power by diminishing God's power, saying that you have no evidence that the change could be permanent. Permanent change would qualify as miraculous to you. As a Christian, I made clear in my previous comments that you bring into question Jesus's permanently and instantly healing thousands.
What is the power of the resurrection to you, or do you disbelieve in the resurrection? What is Jesus talking about when he says the resurrection into life? Is it a fake to you? If it is not, how in the world can you be writing here that you don't know that God can change homosexuals even instantly and permanently? I say God can do it. With enough faith, it will happen.
Okay, have you heard of people changing permanently from any form of sin? Have you stopped sinning in anyway that you used to? I certainly have. I've also experienced firsthand the physical healing power of God. I would like to experience much more of the power of God, but I can see that it is not a matter alone of my level of faith but the level of faith, or lack thereof, of the whole of humanity — networked, interconnected, interdependent (to varying degrees until the Great Separation).
As for Martin Luther King, Jr., I don't disagree with you for a moment that the FBI was using whatever COINTELPRO tactics on him they could muster up. I hate that the FBI did that sort of thing. I've written in no uncertain terms about it and been attacked as an extremist/conspiracist for it – a badge of honor!
I don't know why people who knew him very well would bear such false witness against him in such numbers. Jesus said two and three witnesses gives credibility. Why should I disbelieve the people who've said they have firsthand knowledge about it? Anyway, you should at least wonder why the FBI files have been sealed for another 17 years, except that those around then and his age and older will mostly be dead and/or too old to do much about anything in either direction, for or against the accusations.
"I have not seen any substantiation of his alleged adultery." You reject the testimony of a number of people who have not proven unbelievable, that I know of anyway.
Anyway, Martin Luther King is not the issue of homosexuality, per se. I believe I gave good reason for why I had written what I did. I still remain prepared to learn that he did not do what was said of him. I remain prepared for evidence that impeaches the witnesses such that at the very least one would need say that the issue remains a question. After all these years, one would think that if the witnesses were dirty, that would have been used as reason for disbelieving them. I've never seen anyone produce any dirt. Look how long it's been.
The fact that you disbelieve them means that you believe they are lying. Which is worse, believing King had an affair or affairs or believing those who claim to know he did are liars? Someone wasn't truthful. FDR had a mistress. Thomas Jefferson did too. John Kennedy and Bill Clinton certainly did. The list is very long. Religious people fall too, as you've mentioned. I can't say that I believe King could not have. His wife says that he would have confessed it to her. God knows at this point.
In future, I'll think about how to word things on this issue.
I do appreciate your approach here more so than that of many others I've encountered on Facebook and elsewhere. You don't freak out or come across as completely unwilling to consider that you've been duped.
Do you want to know where most of the homosexual false-propaganda crap came from: "Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles"
That guy was a monster. He went all over the planet peddling his depravity. Unfortunately, leaders all over the globe just loved hearing that they could cave into their darkest urges. We now see immorality being "legalized," officially sanctioned in nation after nation. It's no mere coincidence that at the same time, anti-Christ has been on the rise. It's the same thing.
Peace to you, Steven. May God and Jesus tell you what they've told me.
"The Kinsey Coverup":
I agree with nearly everything in that video. I don't agree though that God cannot heal pedophiles (that pedophilia must be "for life"). Anyway, they can cut it off physically and should volunteer for it.
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)