Some self-styled Christians preaching anti-Christ messages: "Kenneth Cole's Ridiculous Pro-Choice Campaign Compares Abortion to Shopping"

I had occasion to read the linked article (lead-in below with comments following) and noticed a typo. I left a comment that I thought would be received as helpful. I make typos and like it when others let me know so I may fix them.

Anyway, I also commented that I'm non-coercive. That, along with the name "Real Liberal Christian Church," engendered a string of far-fetched reply-comments. I replied to them but have decided to move further replies here and simply supply links.

Whether you think of yourself as a conservative or liberal or both (depending upon the subject matter) and whether or not you think yourself a Christian, I have posted this here so you may read the real Christian position. The most typical American "conservative"/"Republican" position is not Christian but rather very far from it. Let me hasten to add that the same thing applies to the typical American "liberal"/"Democratic" position.


Article lead-in:

"Kenneth Cole's Ridiculous Pro-Choice Campaign Compares Abortion to Shopping," by Thomas Peters — August 11th, 2011, 6:28 pm

I don't mind designer clothes, but Kenneth Cole's campaign comparing the "right" of women to chose [sic] to have an abortion with the "right" of women to choose which handbag they buy is just ridiculous.
via Kenneth Cole's Ridiculous Pro-Choice Campaign Compares Abortion to Shopping.


Comment thread:

Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

Regarding, "...'right' of women to chose....", add an "o" in chose [choose]. It happens. As for the ad, it's diabolically clever: stupid. As for coercion, I try to avoid forcing others.

08/15/2011 08:34 PM


dntmkmecomoverther

"You try to avoid forcing others..."

So, if your child wanted to waltz in the middle of the highway traffic that would be 'their choice? You wouldn't 'force' them to stay on the sidewalk?

Or since laws against murder 'force us' to abstain from that activity, do you denounce that law?

And you must really hate the IRS....

Forcing people to 'do the right thing' is the purpose of the laws we propose and pass. Abortion 'forces' us to accept the procedure as legitimate; it is NOT legitimate and yet we are 'forced' to accept that truth until the law is repealed. I guess I don't like being 'forced' either.

08/17/2011 05:37 AM

in reply to Tom Usher


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

I will not make war on all the women in the world who make bad choices. I've made bad choices and am glad God worked on my heart rather than turning me over to war-mongers.

As for my child, there comes a time when the child leaves the nest.

I turn the other cheek and don't seek punishment but rather repentance, mercy, and forgiveness.

The abortions in this world are due to hardheartedness, including on the part of rapists, pedophiles, the incestuous, and those who rob the poor blind, etc. Coercion has a hardening effect. The more it can be avoided, the better.

I stand against the death penalty and abortion and war and all violence. I want to remain as true to all of that as possible. I don't seek to be tempted by the likes of you.

Murder is against the law of God, but I am not the judge and executioner. If I were to apply your standard to you, you'd be dead. You are not perfect. You have committed terrible sins.

As for the IRS, of course I hate it. Taxes are evil. They have never been necessary. They only exist because of hardened hearts.

08/17/2011 06:27 AM

in reply to dntmkmecomoverther


DrDisaster

Your argument appears to be that laws against abortion will have a "hardening" effect.

Society exists because human beings have an honest desire to protect each other. Laws are oaths to protect each other—-if they are legitimate.

The only hearts a law against abortion would harden are already very hard. If anything should soften such hearts, it won't be giving them the right to murder.

Laws against abortion do not punish the woman, they punish the doctor who presides over it.

Sure, our standards will destroy us; that is why we accept God's standards, and his are merciful, but at the same time, just. If you observe what Jewish society was when it was under God's rule, you will see that He made proficient use of laws. You can call them "coercion," but an oath is an oath, and being born is itself an oath to give life, and damned be the man who dies unrepentant of betraying it.Additionally, you imply, (though I do not think you actually think so,) that rape, incest, other crimes of lust somehow justify abortion. Not so. Will you punish the child for the parent's crime? God himself does not have the gall. (One of many... show more

08/18/2011 04:19 PM

in reply to Tom Usher


Jobin Thomas

And also I am not declaring war on the women who choose abortion, I am declaring war on their actions. Condemn the sin, not the sinner. Work with them to change their minds so they grasp the gravity of what they think they are doing.

08/17/2011 06:57 AM

in reply to Tom Usher


Jobin Thomas

You're delusional man! You say you stand against abortions but are ready to condone those actions. Rape, incest or pedophilia are not among the leading reasons for abortion.

"The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to otherindividuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."

Taken from .

Abortion is never justified. I have never lost a child of my own and I do not have children of my own. But a lot of my friends have lost children, and we all suffer through the pain while countless people choose to 'terminate' these babies. Please, give them to us, give them up for adoption, but do not take a life. No one but God decides who gets to live and not.

08/17/2011 06:55 AM

in reply to Tom Usher


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

I didn't condone abortion. I also didn't say or suggest or imply that "Rape, incest or pedophilia are" "among the leading reasons for abortion."

You conveniently ignored the issue of those who rob the poor blind.

Are you advocating arresting the women and punishing them or not? If not, if you are solely interested in reaching them and helping them, then fine.

08/17/2011 11:35 PM

in reply to Jobin Thomas


dntmkmecomoverther

Tom said: "I stand against the death penalty and abortion and war and all violence . I don't seek to be tempted by the likes of you."

Well, Tom...it's not me who is tempting you. I am simply the messenger. Satan is your tempter. As long as you are pro abortion, you are listening to an evil voice. And as for being against abortion, you sure sound like a proponent of it; the most violent of acts we can commit against humanity. Am I hearing you incorrectly?

I am not advocating 'war on people who make bad choices' any more than I would advocate killing a child conceived in a 'bad choice'. Two wrongs do not make a 'right'. Making people accountable and to face the consequences of their decisions is not 'war'. All choices have consequences and if that consequence is a life, we have NO RIGHT whatsoever to subject that life to the 'death penalty'...particularly when that life has no voice in the matter (other than God's voice...)

08/17/2011 06:44 AM

in reply to Tom Usher


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

I stand by what I wrote.

In order to make "people accountable and to face the consequences of their decisions" in this case would ultimately result in making war on those who refuse. Your final recourse with them right now is violent coercion. That's war. War doesn't have to be on a large scale. War can be between just two people.

08/17/2011 11:33 PM

in reply to dntmkmecomoverther


dntmkmecomoverther

So holding people accountable in your mind...is war. Incredible. No wonder we have such delinquency in this country. Grow up Tom.

08/18/2011 06:16 AM

in reply to Tom Usher


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

You don't read carefully yet you're nervy enough to tell me to grow up. You should grow up enough to know what "in this case" means. It's specific to the abortion issue. It does not apply to all cases or situations.

Are you unaware of bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists? What do you call it? There are people in this country who want abortion to be a capital crime. I'm not writing just to you.

Also, certainly a child wanting to dance in a busy street is not analogous to all women seeking or obtaining abortions.

Don't be a bull in a china cabinet. Be more careful.

Know wonder we have such delinquency (including violence) in this country. Grow up, dntmkmecomoverther.

Try using your real name too, although your handle speaks volumes about your disposition, which comes across as decidedly antichrist. Your real photo would help too.

08/18/2011 07:17 AM

in reply to dntmkmecomoverther


dntmkmecomoverther

I read fine; if you want to claim a Christian label, you have a lot of explaining to do when you condone abortion carte blanche. Don't hide behind your faith when you are to weak to take a stand for the unborn; God is listening and wathcing Christians who have no backbone to take the proper stance for the innocent. Where in my response did I call for bombing or killing anyone? I confronted your acceptance of a procedure which is abhorent to God. In all my posts I never once advocate for violence; yet that is where you take your discusion. Anti Christ my rear end...I am so sick of dealing with weak kneed people of faith I could puke.

So I will add to my last rebuke of growing up, to also grow a backbone and stand up for those who have no voice. You and others who think like you about abortion are the true brutes in this debate.

You want real names and real photos ?... that can only mean one thing: you really do want to resort to violence by hunting down folks like me who take sincere offense at folks with beliefs like yours. That is precisely why blogs don't use real names and photos.

Yesterday 01:35 PM

in reply to Tom Usher


DrDisaster

No one here is proposing to bomb abortion clinics or shoot anyone. It is a tad bit naive to compare holding people accountable for their actions, something that most moral people do to each other, if only they existed, to terrorism.

Abortion should be a capital crime for the doctors who commit it, certainly. Murder is murder, after all.

A child wanting to play in a busy street is not only an applicable to a woman seeking an abortion, it is easily applicable to just about all of humanity.

Does not God condemn "men of lawlessness?" Certainly that does not mean we have a right to, as well, but it means we should, if we do not want to be condemned, be men of lawfulness, and urge each other to be the same.

It would be preferable to war on those who turn their back on humanity by murdering than to take the sides of those who in the modern era are warring on their own children.

A note on my own username, it is a name a sibling came up with, and it sounded catchy.

I am not going to go through the effort of "personalizing" this post because honestly, I have better things to do with my time, considering this is the second post I have ever submitted to this board, and I don't intend to post much more, just enough to resolve this dispute. And I certainly don't want to reveal my name, as the internet is a dangerous place, and there is no telling who will want to hunt me down (as unlikely as it is.)
(Just saying before you rebuke me, too.)

Also, I have to know, what does "Real Liberal Christian" mean? Are you saying you are a Real Liberal? (The term should be "Classical Liberal.") Does it mean you are a Real Christian, and Liberal? (Quite a difference, considering how unliberal Liberalism is.) I think in part why you have gotten so much antagonism is because of the confusing rhetoric inherint in that name.

God bless,
08/18/2011 05:24 PM

in reply to Tom Usher


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

This is mostly a reply to "DrDisaster." Nesting/narrowing of comments moved me to start a new thread. I will attempt to cross-reference at the bottom of that other/earlier thread.

Jesus said take no oath. Here you are promoting oaths.

Jesus said to them to let the one without sin cast the first stone. None did. Here you are promoting punishing the providers.

In addition, anti-abortion laws certainly could be written to punish the women. You don't speak for all who are anti-abortion. Why would you limit punishment to the one who performs the abortion on women who seek out that one? In your eyes, both are sinners in a great sin. What do you do with the woman who gives herself an abortion?

When Peter attempted to "protect" Jesus, Jesus rebuked him. Jesus also told his disciples that they would be murdered. He did not tell them to "protect" each other from it but to rather embrace it. Here you are preaching the opposite.

Are you still under Mosaic law? I'm not. I don't stone the adulterous. I don't kill my children for disobeying me by playing in the busy street after I've told them not to.

Why did Jesus tell them Moses gave them the divorce law? Jesus instructed them that they were given that law because of the hardness of their hearts. Why do you need an abortion law? It is because you still aren't listening. Don't tell me what you all have been writing here to me is consistent with Jesus's message. It is not. It's not even close.

You, DrDisaster, wrote the following of me: "...you imply, (though I do not think you actually think so,) that rape, incest, other crimes of lust somehow justify abortion." You jumped to a false conclusion there. If you were correct, then I would tell women that if they are raped, etc., they are justified in obtaining an abortion. I have never said that and don't plan to. My overall point concerns overall hardening. I'm talking about the big picture (the whole law, the Great Commandments) and how all the lesser ones must be consistent with those and vice versa. You (I'm speaking generally here about the vast majority of commenters on this post) appear to want to pick and choose and to self-license to hypocrisy while professing Christianity (again to clarify: not everyone here may be professing Christianity).

I realize it is not easy to be consistent. When we know we are being inconsistent though, we are supposed to change from it.

God over Moses punished to the third and fourth generations. Here you are appealing to "Jewish society...when it was under God's rule." You are also saying that we aren't to "punish the child for the parent's crime" and that God "does not have the gall" to do it. I don't look to Moses. I look to Jesus. Moses is fine to the point where his teachings diverge from Jesus's.

It's a strange turn of mind that takes what I've written here and comes up with the idea that I haven't differentiated between and among people so that I haven't lumped all together with those who feel justified in bombing clinics and shooting providers. How could I ask, even rhetorically, "Are you unaware of bombing abortion clinics and shooting abortionists?" of one here if I have already lumped in that one and the other commenters here with bombers?

Why should one crime be a capital crime when another shouldn't? Is adultery still a capital crime in your book? Is being a disobedient child? Why not punish the children for the sins of their fathers? Answer as Jesus would answer, not as you ordinarily respond.

When Jesus convinced them not to stone the adulteress, was he advocating lawlessness in your view? Is it lawlessness that you think I'm advocating here or rather looking for us to be truly lawful? For the true Christian (and this is a point of logic), it is unlawful to stone an adulteress regardless of what any other law says. Do you disagree?

When Jesus did not take up the sword, was he therefore siding with the iniquitous? Am I siding with abortionists because I won't take up the sword (gun, handcuffs, jail, etc.) against them?

As for the idea of not revealing your true identity while you are preaching here, in what way is that taking up your cross? So they hunt me down to hurt me for what I'm writing here, in whose company will that place me? Am I worthy to suffer in the name of Jesus Christ? I'm not a masochist. Jesus prayed in the garden that if it be God's will, to take the cup from him. Do you understand what I mean?

You asked about "Real Liberal Christian" but gave emphatic statements as to its meaning before even receiving a reply. http://www.realliberalchristia...

Look, not only would I rather every female turn in faith from abortion (even a poor, weak, single mother with young children, which children would be deprived of their mother were she to die trying to give birth – a rationale used but not a justification in my mind but certainly a reason for compassion and understanding), I'm also opposed to homosexuality (a capital offense under Mosaic law). I wouldn't even raise the issue except that your comments brought it to mind for the various self-styled liberals who have shown great hostility toward me, censoring me, banning me, calling me harsh names, complaining at my use of the term "Liberal" in the name, etc. The term is intentional. It has a direction in scripture. That's a conversation that needs to be had.

Yesterday 01:58 AM

in reply to DrDisaster


Tom Usher, Real Liberal Christian Church & Christian Commons Projectâ„¢

@dntmkmecomoverther

By your twisted logic (and it is twisted), I necessarily condone every sin concerning which I don't seek to use coercion {in this case, (the physical force threat of violence or use of violence) by the non-Christian/secular state} against every sinner. By your illogical, irrational reasoning, Jesus condoned adultery when he didn't follow Moses's law to stone the adulteress.

We also read that he did not substitute any lesser punishment either. He simply (and eloquently) told her to go and to sin no more. After that, we aren't told in any authoritative, credible way, what she actually did: how she lived out the remainder of her life in the flesh.

You claim I am hiding behind my faith. You are mislabeling yours.

You say you haven't advocated violence. What is your position where the secular law says "no abortions under any circumstances" and someone, or some group, will rather physically fight and kill than be taken under arrest and punished by the secular state? There are people who are of such a "libertarian" bent. Neither did you answer my open question as to what you would do with the woman who gives herself an abortion. What is the "morning-after pill"? Is it abortion or not? Is it less punishable because it is early in the pregnancy or an "easy" procedure?

Regardless, Jesus said not to punish, not to fight, but rather to wait on what most term the "Second Coming."

If you are telling us all here that to follow Jesus's commandments is to have no backbone, then you are saying the Christian martyrs who, in the face of being told to shut up or die if they continued preaching Jesus's message of anti-violence, continued preaching while not resisting violence with countervailing evil, that they had no backbones, even though many of them suffered horrendous torture and death. If you feel they were all cowards, then you go to your god. I will go to theirs and mine.

By your twisted statement, which is clearly opposed to Jesus's words and deeds, Jesus's teaching "can only mean one thing": Jesus really sided with evil "to resort to violence by hunting down" those who followed Jesus's teaching and did not hide their identities but rather spoke openly (amazing). By your illogic, I'm a coward for not standing up for punishment while you're brave hiding your identity for fear of those you're told might seek to what, persecute Christians? Therefore, those who publish this cite are foolishly exposing themselves to me. I suspect they aren't going to lose any sleep falsely imagining that Tom Usher is going to hunt them down and do violence against them. What a weak faith it would be.

Has it not occurred to you that evil wants you cowering in anonymity and obscurity, especially obscurity? Does it serve the abortionists more or less that we should all use fake names and obscuring-avatars?

What do you think the fascistic homosexuals (there are such people) want to do to me for not going along with condoning their behavior? I have been told directly by them that they will be glad when they have the power to take me and endlessly torture me because I have refused to accept their positions but have rather continued stating openly that homosex is an error and should not be practiced under any circumstances. Therefore, you say to others to take up their crosses anonymously while Jesus said to have no such fear but rather faith that whether they kill your flesh or not, you will have the real life.

I don't know specifically who taught you Christianity, but whoever it was, he, she, or they, were really bad at it or you weren't (still aren't) receptive, retaining, and executing.

I completely reject your rebuke of me. You have acted to put the light under the bushel basket. Your views lead to apostasy.

Donate


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)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • My reply comment/link pointing to this blog post, which reply comment/link I had posted on http://liveaction.org/blog/kenneth-coles-ridiculous-pro-choice-campaign-compares-abortion-to-shopping/#comment-291304931 was deleted by someone. They use the same commenting system I do, so I know how it works. It was either an accident or censorship. You guess which. Does it have to do with being right and an embarrassment for those who call themselves Christians but are not?

      I posted the following where the deleted reply was:

      I replied to you, but I did it with a link. That reply was deleted. I didn't delete it. My reply is long, and I didn't want to continue nesting endlessly with ever-narrower replies. I cross-referenced for one reply to a new comment thread, but that was not very elegant. I wanted to avoid doing it again.

      I wasn't aware that posting links in comments wasn't allowed on this blog or post (if that's why it was deleted). If that is the reason, it seems strange because there are links in other comments on the blog and this post.

      Anyway, in my reply, I took your points completely apart.

      You may find the reply on my blog. The reply post is dated August 20, 2011. There's a calendar in the left column of every page. Just click on my name above this reply to go to the blog, scroll down to the calendar, and go to August 20, 2011. You'll find the post.