I'd rather be right than popular. It took me decades to really get that solidified in my brain. I always knew it but just didn't think about it clearly enough. I don't have that problem anymore. I suggest you stand up for what is the truth too regardless of whether or not you will lose phony friends over it.
Someone ("") started following me on Twitter.
This is what ifollowHATE's profile says, "I like to follow people that follow hate groups. Jesus taught us to love, why do some people insist on using his name to justify hate?"
I went to take a look. It took about two seconds to conclude that this ifollowHATE is pro-homosexual claiming that anyone who doesn't think homosex is fine is therefore a "hater" where this person ("ifollowHATE") wants others to think he or she is not a hater.
His or her tweets are loaded with disinformation about Jesus, suggesting that Jesus didn't or doesn't think there's anything sinful about homosexuality, so I decided to speak truth to darkness (not that it necessarily always works with such levels of darkness, but it certainly can reach people who are vacillating).
Before I quote my tweets to this person, here's one from him/her from September 15, 2011:
@ChrisAllmey @theTRUTHSPIRIT Jesus was gay? I didn't know. . #JesusChristSuperstar
This is a person who presumes to instruct me about Jesus? He/she thinks Jesus committed fornication with Mary Magdalene.
@ifollowHATE There's hate, and then there's hate. Jesus hated. You are aware of that, right? Love forgives. It doesn't make wrong right.
22 hours ago
@TomUsher Jesus didn't #hate PEOPLE. Jesus didn't
DISCRIMINATE. Jesus didn't have PREJUDICE. Jesus taught love and acceptance. #no4m
@ifollowHATE You're so typically ignorant. You don't know what you are talking about. Jesus hated people. He said so. Read his words.
@ifollowHATE "Jesus didn't DISCRIMINATE." Categorizing people as serpents is discriminating. Stop twisting.
@ifollowHATE "Jesus didn't have PREJUDICE." Jesus is still prejudice in favor of those who do the will of his father. Again, stop twisting.
@ifollowHATE "Jesus taught love and acceptance." Jesus has not accepted the "serpents" or Satan. They are rejected, not chosen, twister.
@ifollowHATE Rather than spend your time spreading lies about Jesus, why don't you repent and atone?
according to @TomUsher Jesus was a vile and hateful man. I guess that's why Tom likes him.
@ifollowHATE First you twist Jesus's words. Then you twist mine. I never said Jesus was a vile man. You have though.
@TomUsher why don't you repent and atone? I'm sure you have sins other than bigotry to atone for.
@ifollowHATE "why don't you repent and atone? I'm sure you have sins other than bigotry to atone for." I repent & atone. Bigotry re: what?
@ifollowHATE I'm bigoted against what I should be bigoted against. You are bigoted against what you should not be bigoted against: Jesus.
@ifollowHATE Have you ever read Jesus's words? If you have, why did you decide to ignore them or forget them? Are you better than Jesus?
@ifollowHATE Tell me I am not that for which I stand which is against that for which you stand. I am, and you hate that and me, hypocrite.
@ifollowHATE I love Jesus because he's truthful including about that men's penises don't belong in men's anuses. You, though, spread lies.
@TomUsher I don't think JESUS ever said that. show proof.
@ifollowHATE You've said plenty of untruths about Jesus without supplying any proof or apologizing, but you're asking for proof. Hypocrite!
@ifollowHATE He didn't tell me verbatim not to smash your head either, but he doesn't want me to. How do I know, and do you need proof?
Look, I'm not coercive; but I get really tired of seeing pro-homosexuals falsely claiming that Jesus was not anti-homosexuality. Of course he was. It's as obvious as can be.
He was opposed to both fornication (sex out of wedlock) and adultery. He was opposed to unfaithfulness. He said that a man and woman become one flesh when they have sexual intercourse. Jesus also stated that marriage is between a man and a woman. He did not say it was between a man and a man, neither would he, ever! It would be completely inconsistent with the rest of what he said, and he was adamantly against hypocrisy. No homosexuals were married. All homosexual sex was, and remains, sin, per Jesus's position on sex and marriage.
It's as plain as can be, and anyone who claims otherwise is a lying serpent. That goes for the Episcopal Church and all other self-styled churches that condone and even bless homosexual, sinful "unions."
If you don't like this, take it up with Jesus. I agree with Jesus 100%.
Fake liberals don't get this. Most have never heard it; but most when they do hear it, still continue down the sinful path of condoning homosexuality. That's really bad.
Look, love is not, I repeat, is not lying. Real love is truth. It is a lie that Jesus was fine with homosexuality. That's a fact. It is hate to spread the lie that Jesus condoned or condones homosexuality.
Now, if after coming to learn that the real Jesus was anti-homosexuality, you want to turn your back on him, well, that will be your huge mistake. He was against sin (including homosexuality) for all the right reasons, which have not changed even slightly.
Homosexuality is never harmless. It always results in negative consequences no matter how much sugar coating people put on it to mask the disease. Homosexuality is also never real love. Real love self-sacrifices rather than does harm to the object of its affection. Homosexuality is always confusion.
As time goes by, more and more of the truth will come out that will vindicate everything I'm saying here. There's already plenty of proof. The main problem right now is that people have been brainwashed at earlier and earlier ages by homosexuals. That too will become clear. More real liberals will stand up for the truth over apostasy: selfish lust and confusion.
Unlike the people who were going to stone the sinner but were silenced by Jesus's wisdom, this ifollowHATE did't stop. That's typical of this day and age.
@TomUsher so your verbally bashing and passing laws to harm people because that's YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he said? Wow. #Jesus
@ifollowHATE So, according to you, Jesus verbally bashed people when he rightly called them "serpents." You hate Jesus for truth-telling.
@ifollowHATE You claim I'm "passing laws to harm people." I have passed no such laws. Your position is the harmful one, and you bash Christ.
@ifollowHATE You call it my interpretation, but you didn't answer my questions nor did you then ask for the readily available proof.
@TomUsher did Jesus tell you to Judge others? (I already know the answer) #no4m
@ifollowHATE "did Jesus tell you to Judge others? (I already know the answer)" How then did he tell the adulteress to go and sin no more?
@ifollowHATE Do you even understand that last reply? If so, what does it mean?
@ifollowHATE "did Jesus tell you to Judge others?" First, you need to know what "judge" means within the full context of Jesus's message.
@ifollowHATE Not to "judge" does not mean not to know & speak the truth that homosexuality is sin in Jesus's eyes, for which there's proof.
@TomUsher truth is you are doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of ANYTHING Jesus would have done. You are NOT a Christian. #no4m #haterismorelikeit
@ifollowHATE Jesus called people serpents, swine, dogs, etc. He identified them as sinners, but Satan burns them. Do you understand?
@ifollowHATE Jesus would tell you to your face that homosexuality is wrong. There is nothing I've said to you that Jesus disowns.
@ifollowHATE You claim that I am "NOT a Christian." Christians follow Jesus. You don't know him. You twist his words & use them selectively.
ugly, ugly, person and follower of @nomtweets ——> @TomUsher (vile)
@ifollowHATE "ugly, ugly, person and follower of @nomtweets ——> @TomUsher (vile)" Ah, yes, vile, as you say Jesus/God is vile.
@ifollowHATE You point to someone I "follow" on Twitter to condemn me, but such following is not an endorsement & you follow those you hate.
@ifollowHATE "ugly, ugly, person and follower of @nomtweets ——> @TomUsher (vile)" Marriage, per Christ/God, is only between male & female.
@ifollowHATE Again, Jesus "didn't tell me verbatim not to smash your head either, but he doesn't want me to. ...do you need proof?" Answer.
@ifollowHATE Penises don't belong in anuses. Do you doubt it? Do you doubt Jesus believes it? Answer, truth-dodger!
@ifollowHATE Penises don't belong in anuses. Do you doubt there's New Covenant proof it's Jesus's position? Do you think I can't state it?
@ifollowHATE You can't co-opt "vile." You claim men putting their penises up other men's anuses isn't vile. You're the vile one. @nomtweets
hey, @TomUsher, keep talking and prove how much people like you and @nomtweets just hate gay people.
@ifollowHATE You, liar, Christ-hater/basher, didn't answer the question: Do penises belong in anuses? Answer! @nomtweets
@ifollowHATE You mean homosexual, not gay. You, disgusting hypocrite, don't own that word any more than you can rightly say Jesus is vile.
@TomUsher you and @nomtweets are just disgusting TROLLS with nothing better to do than to try to hurt other people. #Jesus is
@TomUsher @nomtweets plenty of straight men put their penises in women's anuses. Is that what you are asking about? #BanThemFromMarriage
@ifollowHATE You are so pathetically dishonest! Do penises belong in anuses, period? Answer! @nomtweets
@ifollowHATE As for trolling, you're the one doing the @ mentions to hundreds of those who are anti-homosexuality. @nomtweets
@ifollowHATE So, do you give it up the anus or take it up the anus or both? How are the hemorrhoids? Any other problems, liar? @nomtweets
Twitter is messing up @Mentions. Twitter has been accused of unjustifiable censorship. Twitter has an ideological agenda. What is it?
This isn't the first time Twitter has made @Mentions disappear. This time it's over homosexuality. Before, it was Zionism. Mere coincidence?
ifollowHATE said he follows haters. He doesn't follow me anymore because I asked pointed questions too tough & revealing for him. Coward!
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)