Mario Sasso I am going to start posting again and put up videos. I will put about half the old library back and label them "Library" since they need to be there. I will not be deterred by anyone, NOR fight. If you don't like my lead-ins, ignore them...any fighting posts will be deleted. This is NOT for you, but for Palestine!
16 hours ago Â· Comment Â· Like
Misster Karen, Laura Abraham and 14 others like this.
Good for you Mario, God bless you and the work you do for justice and peace. x
16 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Misster Karen Bright
Blessings to you Mario!
16 hours ago Â· Like Â·
good to have you back again Mario :D ? ? ?
15 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Hi Mario, i am pleased to be connected with you, saludos ;)
14 hours ago Â· Like
Someone named Mick Monroe added a comment or comments that he subsequently blocked and to which Adedeji Peter replied as follows:
so what are you insunirating? that we have ground for such act? If the Father condemned it, the son cant do other wise.In all the epistles which are the revelation of christ mind on those things yee can not accept now but when the Holy ghost shall come He shall take of me and reveal unto you. This was highly condenmed by Paul and others throught out the scriptures. If the church remain quiet as you suggested then we are not showing love to those who are bound by it.Our emphasis should be love and repentance and if we failed then the people caught in this we have to face eternity without the option of the blessing of repentance. Open rebuke is better than secret love but you never have the right to rebuke someone you never love secretly. God loves gays. Jesus loves them to, so must the church love them too. The motivating factor is therefore love not just talking about it or condemning it.Sincerely every sin is an affront to the cross.
5 hours ago Â· Like
At this point, someone named Mick Monroe laid into Adedeji Peter. You can't see it here because Mick, in a cowardly fashion, blocked me. Mick had made some comment that precipitated Adedeji's comment. Mick replied to Adedeji that he would block Adedeji if Adedeji continued along the same theological line. I replied to Mick's attack on Adedeji.
The law prescribed circumcision. The first Church had a council on it. Homosexuality was also illegal. Neither King James (himself a homosexual) nor the Roman Catholics altered Leviticus concerning this. Extant physical text predates both. There was no council held concerning allowing homosexuality. Do you know why? The answer is that such a thing was not even within the realm of contemplation for the original disciples. It remained banned.
Now, if you don't like that, that's one thing; but to suggest that Jesus and his closest disciples stood with homosexuality is something else again.
Your attitude here toward Adedeji Peter is rather fascistic in my view. You don't debate him on the merits but rather threaten him with censorship without so much as one back and forth on the subject. That's not the real Christian approach.
Peace and truth are the same thing.
3 hours ago Â· Like Â·
Here, Mick issued four comments that I have because of email notifications from Facebook.
Mick Monroe commented on Mario Sasso's status:
"tom. screw you. when the rich man asked jesus what commandments must he obey to have salvation. Jesus replied the 10 commandments. Jesus was then asked what about the other 800 laws of judiasm at the time and Jesus answered NONE of them were from God except the 10 (notice no mention of gay's in the 10). Jesus said only the 10 were from God there other laws were from made by man for man because their hearts were hard against God - now go learn your so called bible - and take your freak'n hate elsewhere - seriously."
Mick Monroe commented on Mario Sasso's status:
"..i'm not going to debate people who go to such outrageous lengths to drive the children away from God based on hate and saying leviticus and dueteronomy this or that - it enraged Jesus and it enrages me. How dare you study the religion of those who practice the same judiasm talmudic hatred toward Jesus then as they do today - when Jesus clearly identified any who practice Judism in John 8:44 as 'the children of the devil' as they reject God in favor of killing for money based on a right they feel they have due to genetic superiority otherwise known as the idea they are chosen - they lost that - rememember NOT ONE OF THEM got to the promised land.
Demons like you are the ones that enabled the american church to create Revelations 3:9 the fake jews who will inhabit jeruselum before the melinieum. you are possessed."
Mick Monroe commented on Mario Sasso's status:
"homosexuality not even conceived Tom? give me a freak'n break when moses came off mount sianai the children of the devil had constructed a gold calf and the priests dressed as women and performed ritual whoring or something pretty close to that quote - and you say the isrealites didn't know what homo-sexuality are- you are truly demented. i see no reason to consider anything you say. you don't know jack about the torah, or the new testiment."
Mick Monroe commented on Mario Sasso's status:
"it is people like you, tom, and what ever your name is that use the bible to rationize hatred that make me understand why mario feels the way he does.. it is clear the demons, that would be you, attack Him relentlessly - this can only mean He is chosen - and the demons want to continue to harden His heart toward God - based on demons like yourself mis-use of the scriptures to divide and drive the children of God away. I curse you with the power of God for attacking Mario, God's instrument in this way. "
So, I happened to see this post because I'm a friend of a friend. I had seen Mario Sasso's name before because I had join a group that Mario created or administered or still does. I had had no dealings with Mario other than receiving the occasional group announcement. Then, something or someone or group upset Mario, and Mario sent out an announcement that he would no longer be doing the group or was going to take it down or something. The exact wording escapes me, but I'm assuming most of you know about it. I messaged Mario about what was going on since I'm interested in the plight of the Palestinians. I never received a reply but didn't pursue the matter.
I came here and read the thread and put two and two together. Of course, as anyone may see, I know Mick Monroe completely mishandled Adedeji Peter's comment.
Now, Mick has posted a bunch of comments here but has also blocked me. The only reason I know about the comments is because I have them via email notifications.
Mick seems to think he's some sort of expert on scripture and that I'm woefully ignorant. Well without consulting text before writing this statement: let me tell you that Mick is wrong about what Jesus said. Contrary to Mick's twisting, Jesus definitely did not reply "the 10 commandments." Read it for yourselves:
"Thou knowest the commandments,  Do not commit adultery,  Do not kill,  Do not steal,  Do not bear false witness,  Defraud not,  Honour thy father and mother." (Mark 10:19) [numbering added]
How many are there?
However, Jesus was talking about "life," but what did he mean? He then added more after being pressed by the rich man:
"One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me." (Mark 10:21)
How could the six be enough for life but the rich man still be lacking? Can you figure it out? Is Jesus stupid, or are you ignorant about what he was saying in the first place with the six? Mick's in the dark and trying to lead others there too. He's scared to death of my words.
So, how many commandments are there that Jesus gave to the rich man? How many of them are not part of the typical 10 commandments given by Moses? There's more than one set of 10 by the way. Would you like me to tell you about all the rest of the commandments Jesus gave that are not the 10 commandments, per se?
As for Mick's assertion that "Jesus was then asked what about the other 800 laws of judiasm at the time and Jesus answered NONE of them were from God except the 10," there is no truth in that whatsoever. He was not asked about the "other 800 laws of judiasm at the time." There was no number mentioned. In addition most Biblical scholars will tell you right off the bat that there were 613 (365 + 248). If Mick knows so much, why didn't he know that?
As for Jesus not mentioning homosexuality, he didn't list off even the 10 commandments, as you have seen. He mentioned other of the 10 commandments but elsewhere. Why he only gave the ones he did is a mystery to Mick but not to me. Nevertheless, he gave many, many commandments - many more than 10 verbatim.
What he did say, among other things, about homosexuality is this:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Mark 10:6-9)
There is no homosexuality allowed there. Keep that commandment, that law of God from Jesus, and you can't have same-sex marriage. That's a fact. Anyone who denies it is a blatant liar, hates the truth and everything sacred.
As I said, if you don't like that, that's one thing; but to suggest that Jesus and his closest disciples stood with homosexuality is something else again.
Mick said I "hate," and Jesus said, "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)
There is hate and then there is hate. Which is which. I know, but Mick doesn't.
Mick also presumes to speak for Jesus claiming Jesus was enraged when people spoke about Leviticus. This is utter nonsense, as Jesus told of Moses prophesying of Jesus's coming. Where in scripture are the commandments Jesus did mention? They are in Leviticus.
What Jesus still hates is hypocrisy and liars - people who twists his words and misrepresent the clear and plain truth of what he said and did.
What you will also see in Jesus or any Christian is not one who makes boldface statements and then rushes to shut down any reply. Jesus spoke that the others who had working consciences went silent. Mick though lashes out and then slams the door in a temper tantrum. That's the dark side, not what I am doing. I'm right here out in the open refuting every point he attempted to make to trick others. He ran away because he knew he would not be able to stand on scripture.
I also see that I was speaking over Mick's head when I said that there was no council held on the issue of homosexuality because overturning the prohibition against it would not have even been entertained, but regardless, it never even came up. It wouldn't have occurred to them to even discuss such a motion. Anyone suggesting sanctioning homosexuality would have been shunned had he not repented.
As for Mario, his decision is his. I am not coercive. I don't vote to stone people or otherwise for their sexual choices. There are other homosexuals on Facebook who know what I believe who know I'm not throwing stones.
Unfortunately though and more so, there have been a number of homosexuals who have refused to backup their sweeping statements and outright falsehoods, such as Mick refused here. In some cases, I've had to break it off. In others, I wasn't allowed to get a word in edgewise. Anyway you look at it, it's bad.
There are plenty of atheist homosexuals who don't give a damn about what Jesus said or did. Some of them mock Jesus. You've read about it and perhaps seen the degrading "art" and so forth. Well, they are messed up in their heads, but they are less dishonest than those who claim Jesus sanctioned homosexuality or was even a homosexual himself.
It is not my intention to continue posting here. I hope Mario has the stuff to let this comment stand. If I'm wrong, what is there to fear? Make your case. Convince whomever. You won't do it by saying wild things from the shadows that you can't back up with anything though, dark-side Mick.
2 minutes ago Â· Like Â·
mick, hate? for who? never. you sure have no respect for peoples opions. Opions are like noses, everyone has one but very different. You seems not to have gracious word for people. Your comments are abusive. You will end up not allowing anyone to learn from you, if you continue this way. You cant mute my voice.
about an hour ago Â·
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)