My comments on the article linked to below:
"But the Michigan legislature is doing its best to make me hang my head in shame. On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled state senate passed an anti-bullying bill that manages to protect school bullies instead of those they victimize. It accomplishes this impressive feat by allowing students, teachers, and other school employees to claim that "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction" justifies their harassment." [-- Amy Sullivan, TIME]
That's a wild statement. What constitutes bullying and harassment to you, Amy, just saying homosexuality is wrong or a sin? If some kid turns around and says that Christianity or Islam or Orthodox Judaism or whatever is wrong, is that suddenly not harassment or bullying? Be consistent.
You're one of those people who thinks homosexuals' feelings are more important. I hate that. They aren't more important.
You're trying to censor free religious speech. That goes directly against the First Amendment. That makes you anti-civil liberties. Do you realize that?
You're headed in the direction of fascism: homosexual fascism. It's true. Ernst Rohm would be proud of you. You know who he was, right? He was the homosexual leader of the Nazis SA, the Brown Shirts.
What you should be ashamed of is your double-standard. You need to repent of it. It's hypocrisy and evil.
Your position, Daniel, clearly and irrefutably states that you subscribe to zero moral boundaries. You did not intend it, but you said it. You did that, because you are confused; and that confusion carries through your whole worldview.
According to the supposed logic of your statement, no one has the right to tell a Pedophile what to do with his or her life. No one has the right to tell anyone else what to do concerning murder, etc. You really don't agree with the "logic" of your own stated position. You actually believe that there are competing rights. The right not to murdered, especially if the victim is innocent, is a greater right in your mind than the right of the murderer to murder an innocent one. In fact, you don't believe that, that murderer has a right to murder; but you aren't a clear enough thinker or writer to avoid becoming tangled in your own talk.
You did exactly what you said Gloriapatri has no right to do. You told Gloriapatri that Gloriapatri can't do with Gloriapatri's life what Gloriapatri did.
You called it pushing, but what is it when you tell Gloriapatri what Gloriapatri can or can't do?
Your position is that you are special -- have special rights that Gloriapatri doesn't have. You are as a pig in Orwell's "Animal Farm." Some animals are just more equal than others. Some are just hypocritical, such as you are.
You can tell others what they can or can't tell others to do, but Gloriapatri isn't allowed to do the same thing.
That constitutes homosexual fascism. It is anti-civil-libertarian. It is anti-First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
You think it's against your rights that anyone may say that homosexuality is wrong. It isn't yelling fire in a crowded theater when the one yelling it knows there is no fire and where people are then injured scrambling to get out. Your "rights" don't trump Gloriapatri's or mine.
Your position is to continue lusting, scrambling for power in an unrestrained manner. You're doing that because of your confusion that has been caused by the very things Gloriapatri has been decent enough, caring enough, loving enough, and persevering enough to write openly here above.
Your position, Daniel, is extremely immature relative to Gloriapatri's. What you need to do is slowdown and reexamine your whole life starting from the beginning. You need to remember where and when and why you went wrong. Who did or said what to you that caused you to fall? Something happened. What was it?
There can be breaks in the continuity of confusion. People do overcome. Do it. Then tell other people what to do to also do it. It's right to tell others what to do when you're telling them the right thing to do.
I don't read in Gloriapatri's comment an advocacy for using violent coercion to force all homosexuals to shut up, all though having them all shut up and change from homosexuality would be the right thing for them to do especially vis-a-vis all the children who are being led by evil Pied Pipers into the harm of homosex.
You really don't think penises belong in anuses, do you? Don't tell us that "some" homosexuals don't do that. Don't say that some heterosexuals do it. The issue isn't what some do or don't do. The issue is about truth.
The truth is that penises don't belong in anuses, period. You know that too. What are you going to do, duck it like a coward?
We all know that anal sex it the male-homosexual "attraction," that and oral and also most often, group. It's anal though that's the draw. It's easy. Once men agree, they don't have women saying, "Not tonight." Although I'm sure some male-homosexual "wives" get beaten for saying it. The "husbands" though can just go out since the concept of monogamy is conveniently distorted in the "homosexual community" to allow for multiple partners just so long as the main partner agrees that being exclusive isn't part of the arrangement.
Of course we know the push is on for polygamy. What comes after that on the slippery slope so many homosexuals pretend they don't know exists?
Don't you think that if the children are taught that Harvey Milk was a "good person" (debatable at the very least; I say he was not) that those children also be taught that homosexual men often have lots of anal problems as a direct result of their aberrant behavior? I do. Shouldn't the children be taught about the prevalence of hemorrhoids and cancer, etc., just as they are taught about the high risks associated with smoking tobacco, etc.?
The homosexual act of anal intercourse is far from without risks and negative consequences and outcomes. Let's be honest with the children. The homosexual act is harmful, always, to one degree or another and in one way or another.
Let's not say, "Theres the fan. Go stick your fingers in it." They may do it anyway, but let's have them remember that they were told not to so they may trust their teachers rather then remembering that their teachers misled them severely.
BTW, everything I've written here applies to you, Daniel, whether or not you are a homosexual.
This is the article where I left the comments: Michigans Anti-Bullying Bill: Protecting Religious Tormenters? | Swampland | TIME.com.
The article is by Amy Sullivan. She is very ignorant about and/or unconcerned about the First Amendment in terms of the free exercise of religion: The who, what, where, when, and why, etc., of it.
I couldn't disagree with her more on this issue. Her article ignores all of the perfectly valid points of those with whom she disagrees. She is a brainwashed product of the homosexual agenda, and yes, it is brainwashing. It won't work though.
J.K.Rowling came out with that her Dumbledore character in her Harry Potter series was a homosexual. That was aimed directly at young children. Her series is a lure. It draws children in who don't know what's going on, what the plan is for them.
The plan of course, is for homosexuals to have anal and other sex with them. There's no doubt about it. It's the disease spreading itself. Yes, homosexuality is a contagious disease against which people must develop immunity. It's that simple. If one has succumbed, one must break the habit, the addiction, just as with any other addiction. It's that's simple. Not giving up no matter how many relapses is the key. Some people quit and re-quit smoking many, many times before they finally break free. That's just how it is.
No amount of whining about how "same-sex attraction" doesn't instantly disappear for some is going to alter it either. The fact that is doesn't instantly disappear and that not just disappearing instantly leaves those going through withdrawal symptoms uncomfortable or even suicidal, doesn't alter it either.
Here's the legislation Amy Sullivan thinks is shameful for not being unequal (Additional comments are interspersed in the bill's text and identified as such. There are a few comment below the bill as well.):
SB-0137, As Passed Senate, November 2, 2011
SENATE BILL NO. 137
A bill to amend 1976 PA 451, entitled
"The revised school code,"
(MCL 380.1 to 380.1852) by adding section 1310b.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
SEC. 1310B. (1) NOT LATER THAN 6 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS SECTION, THE BOARD OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF A PUBLIC
SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY PROHIBITING
BULLYING BY PUPILS AT SCHOOL, AS DEFINED IN THIS SECTION.
(2) BEFORE ADOPTING THE POLICY REQUIRED UNDER SUBSECTION (1),
THE BOARD OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL HOLD AT LEAST 1 PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE PROPOSED POLICY. THIS PUBLIC HEARING MAY BE HELD AS
PART OF A REGULAR BOARD MEETING. NOT LATER THAN 30 DAYS AFTER
ADOPTING THE POLICY, THE BOARD OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHALL SUBMIT A
COPY OF ITS POLICY TO THE DEPARTMENT.
(3) NOT LATER THAN 1 YEAR AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
SECTION, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT TO THE SENATE AND
HOUSE STANDING COMMITTEES ON EDUCATION SUMMARIZING THE STATUS OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES UNDER THIS SECTION.
(4) A POLICY ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION (1) SHALL INCLUDE
AT LEAST ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
(A) A STATEMENT PROHIBITING BULLYING OF A PUPIL.
(B) A STATEMENT PROHIBITING A FALSE ACCUSATION OF BULLYING.
(C) A STATEMENT PROHIBITING RETALIATION OR FALSE ACCUSATION
AGAINST A TARGET OF BULLYING, A WITNESS, OR ANOTHER PERSON WITH
RELIABLE INFORMATION ABOUT AN ACT OF BULLYING.
(D) A PROVISION INDICATING THAT ALL PUPILS ARE PROTECTED UNDER
THE POLICY AND THAT BULLYING IS EQUALLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT REGARD
TO ITS SUBJECT MATTER OR MOTIVATING ANIMUS [emphasis added].
(E) THE IDENTIFICATION BY JOB TITLE OF SCHOOL OFFICIALS
RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT THE POLICY IS IMPLEMENTED.
(F) A STATEMENT DESCRIBING HOW THE POLICY IS TO BE PUBLICIZED.
THE POLICY SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST A REQUIREMENT THAT NOTICE OF THE
POLICY BE PROVIDED TO PARENTS, GUARDIANS, STAFF, VOLUNTEERS, AND
PUPILS ANNUALLY, WITH AGE-APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE FOR PUPILS, AND A
REQUIREMENT THAT THE POLICY BE INCLUDED IN ALL PUPIL AND EMPLOYEE
HANDBOOKS AND POSTED ON THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR PUBLIC SCHOOL'S
(G) A PROCEDURE FOR PROVIDING NOTIFICATION TO THE PARENT OR
LEGAL GUARDIAN OF A REPORTED VICTIM OF BULLYING AND THE PARENT OR
LEGAL GUARDIAN OF AN ALLEGED PERPETRATOR OF THE BULLYING ON THE
SAME DAY AS SCHOOL OFFICIALS BECOME AWARE OF THE BULLYING. THE
POLICY MAY PROVIDE THAT IF THE BULLYING OCCURS OUTSIDE SCHOOL
HOURS, THIS NOTIFICATION WILL BE MADE ON THE NEXT SCHOOL DAY.
(H) A STATEMENT THAT THE POLICY APPLIES ON SCHOOL PREMISES, ON
A SCHOOL BUS OR OTHER SCHOOL-RELATED VEHICLE, OR AT A SCHOOL-
SPONSORED ACTIVITY OR EVENT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HELD ON SCHOOL
(I) A STATEMENT THAT THE POLICY APPLIES TO CONDUCT USING A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCESS DEVICE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
PROVIDER, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CONDUCT OCCURS ON OR OFF SCHOOL
PREMISES, IF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCESS DEVICE OR THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER IS OWNED BY OR UNDER THE
CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY.
(J) A PROCEDURE FOR REPORTING AN ACT OF BULLYING OR A FALSE
ACCUSATION OF BULLYING.
(K) A REQUIREMENT THAT ANY SCHOOL EMPLOYEE WHO HAS RELIABLE
INFORMATION THAT WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE PERSON TO SUSPECT THAT A
PUPIL IS A TARGET OF BULLYING OR TO SUSPECT A FALSE ACCUSATION OF
BULLYING SHALL IMMEDIATELY REPORT IT TO THE PRINCIPAL OR THE
(L) A PROCEDURE FOR PROMPT INVESTIGATION OF A REPORT OF
VIOLATION OF THE POLICY OR A RELATED COMPLAINT, IDENTIFYING EITHER
THE PRINCIPAL OR THE PRINCIPAL'S DESIGNEE AS THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE
FOR THE INVESTIGATION.
(M) A PROCEDURE FOR EACH PUBLIC SCHOOL TO DOCUMENT ANY
PROHIBITED INCIDENT THAT IS REPORTED AND A PROCEDURE TO REPORT ALL
VERIFIED INCIDENTS OF BULLYING AND THE RESULTING CONSEQUENCES,
INCLUDING DISCIPLINE AND REFERRALS, TO THE BOARD OF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
(N) A DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES AND APPROPRIATE
REMEDIAL ACTION FOR A PUPIL WHO COMMITS AN ACT OF BULLYING. THIS
PORTION OF THE POLICY SHALL INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT FORMAL
DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL NOT BE TAKEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AN
(O) A DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES AND APPROPRIATE
REMEDIAL ACTION FOR A PUPIL WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY
MADE A FALSE ACCUSATION OF BULLYING AGAINST 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS.
THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES AND REMEDIAL ACTION FOR A FALSE
ACCUSATION OF BULLYING SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR AN ACT OF BULLYING.
THIS PORTION OF THE POLICY SHALL INCLUDE A PROVISION THAT FORMAL
DISCIPLINARY ACTION SHALL NOT BE TAKEN SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF AN
(P) A DESCRIPTION OF POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES AND APPROPRIATE
REMEDIAL ACTION FOR A PUPIL WHO IS DETERMINED TO HAVE KNOWINGLY
FALSELY ACCUSED ANOTHER AS A MEANS OF RETALIATION OR REPRISAL OR AS
A MEANS OF BULLYING.
(Q) A STRATEGY FOR PROVIDING, AS NECESSARY, COUNSELING OR
REFERRAL TO APPROPRIATE SERVICES, INCLUDING GUIDANCE, ACADEMIC
INTERVENTION, AND PROTECTION, FOR TARGETS OF BULLYING, PERPETRATORS
OF BULLYING, OTHER PUPILS, AND APPROPRIATE FAMILY MEMBERS INVOLVED
IN OR AFFECTED BY BULLYING OR A FALSE ACCUSATION OF BULLYING.
(5) THE LEGISLATURE ENCOURAGES A BOARD OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS
TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IN THE POLICY REQUIRED UNDER THIS
(A) PROVISIONS TO FORM BULLYING PREVENTION TASK FORCES,
PROGRAMS, TEEN COURTS, AND OTHER INITIATIVES INVOLVING SCHOOL
STAFF, PUPILS, SCHOOL CLUBS OR OTHER STUDENT GROUPS,
ADMINISTRATORS, VOLUNTEERS, PARENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, COMMUNITY
MEMBERS, AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS.
(B) A REQUIREMENT FOR PERIODIC TRAINING FOR ADMINISTRATORS,
SCHOOL EMPLOYEES, AND VOLUNTEERS WHO HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONTACT WITH
PUPILS ON PREVENTING, IDENTIFYING, RESPONDING TO, AND REPORTING
INCIDENTS OF BULLYING.
(C) A REQUIREMENT FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR PUPILS AND
PARENTS ON PREVENTING, IDENTIFYING, RESPONDING TO, AND REPORTING
INCIDENTS OF BULLYING.
(6) A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR PARENT OR
GUARDIAN WHO PROMPTLY REPORTS IN GOOD FAITH AN ACT OF BULLYING OR A
FALSE ACCUSATION OF BULLYING TO THE APPROPRIATE SCHOOL OFFICIAL
DESIGNATED IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY'S
POLICY AND WHO MAKES THIS REPORT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES
SET FORTH IN THE POLICY IS IMMUNE FROM A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE REPORTING ITSELF OR ANY FAILURE TO
REMEDY THE REPORTED INCIDENT.
(7) THIS SECTION DOES NOT PREVENT A PERSON FROM SEEKING ANY
OTHER CIVIL OR CRIMINAL REDRESS AVAILABLE UNDER LAW.
(8) THIS SECTION DOES NOT ABRIDGE THE RIGHTS UNDER THE FIRST
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OR UNDER ARTICLE
I OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION OF 1963 OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL
VOLUNTEER, PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. THIS SECTION
DOES NOT PROHIBIT A STATEMENT OF A SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEF
OR MORAL CONVICTION OF A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, SCHOOL VOLUNTEER, PUPIL,
OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN. [emphasis added]
(9) THIS SECTION APPLIES ONLY TO CONDUCT BY A PUPIL DIRECTED
AT 1 OR MORE OTHER PUPILS AND, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THIS
SECTION, DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDUCT BY ANY OTHER PERSON, INCLUDING,
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, A SCHOOL EMPLOYEE, A SCHOOL VOLUNTEER WHO IS
NOT A PUPIL, OR A PUPIL'S PARENT OR GUARDIAN.
(10) AS USED IN THIS SECTION:
(A) "AT SCHOOL" MEANS IN A CLASSROOM, ELSEWHERE ON SCHOOL
PREMISES, ON A SCHOOL BUS OR OTHER SCHOOL-RELATED VEHICLE, OR AT A
SCHOOL-SPONSORED ACTIVITY OR EVENT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS HELD ON
SCHOOL PREMISES. "AT SCHOOL" INCLUDES CONDUCT USING A
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCESS DEVICE OR TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
PROVIDER THAT OCCURS OFF SCHOOL PREMISES IF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
ACCESS DEVICE OR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE PROVIDER IS OWNED
BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR PUBLIC SCHOOL
(B) "BULLYING" MEANS ANY WRITTEN, VERBAL, OR PHYSICAL ACT, OR
ANY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION, BY A PUPIL DIRECTED AT 1 OR MORE
OTHER PUPILS THAT IS INTENDED OR THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD
KNOW IS LIKELY TO HARM [emphasis added; That's too vague; "harm" is not defined. "Harm" there needs to be objectively defined, as much as that's possible.] 1 OR MORE PUPILS EITHER DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY BY DOING ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
(I) SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERING WITH EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES,
BENEFITS, OR PROGRAMS OF 1 OR MORE PUPILS.
(II) SUBSTANTIALLY AND ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ABILITY OF A
PUPIL TO PARTICIPATE IN OR BENEFIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S OR
PUBLIC SCHOOL'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES BY PLACING THE
PUPIL IN REASONABLE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM.
(III) HAVING AN ACTUAL AND SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A
PUPIL'S PHYSICAL OR MENTAL HEALTH OR CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS. [emphasis added; A pupil's irrational reaction should not be cause for considering the words or deeds, or lack thereof, on the part of other pupils as constituting "bullying."]
(IV) CAUSING SUBSTANTIAL DISRUPTION IN, OR SUBSTANTIAL
INTERFERENCE WITH, THE ORDERLY OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL.
(C) "TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACCESS DEVICE" AND "TELECOMMUNICATIONS
SERVICE PROVIDER" MEAN THOSE TERMS AS DEFINED IN SECTION 219A OF
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.219A.
(11) THIS SECTION SHALL BE KNOWN AS "MATT'S SAFE SCHOOL LAW".
That's a good effort that needs work to remove as much vagueness as possible. I say these things as a Christian for the sake of Christianity in society.
I am not lobbying. I am commenting from a religious perspective on a matter that directly impacts upon freedom of religion.
I do not seek coercion or punishment but rather all souls turning to righteousness without having been coerced or punished.
I've posted lots of comments now over on that thread. Here's my most recent:
It's interesting to see the differences when you sort this Disqus thread in different ways. The "Sort by best rating" shows the pro-homosexual/atheist clique in all of its unglory.
To read this thread, with very few exceptions, you'd think by the anti-Christ comments that all people who profess Christ are Republicans and that all Christians follow the Old Testament and not the New.
Jesus didn't follow the Mosaic Law. Read the Sermon on the Mount. The law Jesus taught and still does is the prophetic law to which he referred but in parables the meaning of which was lost upon the very same types of people who are railing here in this thread against him now/still and couldn't read and comprehend the Gospels to save their very souls.
You people talk nonsense about Christianity just because there are some Republicans who speak nonsense for Christianity.
I've seen it said here, just as I've seen it many other places, that Jesus didn't say anything against homosexuality or same-sex marriage or the like. He said marriage is between a man and a woman. He was against adultery. He was against fornication, the Greek term for which stands in for a multitude of sex errors that were clearly referred to as sin and evil and not to be done under any circumstances and which included homosexuality and still does. He was stricter about those things than was Moses, although unlike Moses, he didn't punish anyone. He avoided the hypocrisy of the Mosaic Law, which he said was for those with harder hearts.
He was not engaged in homosexuality right before they came to get him to haul him away to try him in a phony court on trumped up charges as a pretext to murder him for speaking the truth about real righteousness, something most of you spurn because you want to be unrighteous in his eyes. He was praying. He prayed nearly all night. Read it, idiots. Yes, idiots. You're an idiot if you think he was a homosexual. Elton John has claimed he was, and Elton John is an absolute moron when it comes to theology.
"Swampland," yes, that's a very appropriate name for this TIME.com cite and this article designed to allow the iniquitous to vent ever so much more fascistically against Christ with every passing day.
Do any of you have any idea which side you would have been on concerning the call to crucify him for telling people to go and to sin no more, including fornication that included homosex without exception?
You repeat and repeat and repeat that animals have homosex. How many male animals have anal intercourse only and exclusively with males and to the point of ejaculation anyway? Suddenly your analogy doesn't work very well, not that human beings are supposed to be following animals anyway. Which animal are you: pig, dog, lion, snake? Do you know why the evil spirit is associated with the snake or serpent? No, I'm not going to tell you; but I know the answer.
Don't cast your pearls before swine. Don't feed the children's food to the dogs. Woe to you, serpents. Is that all meaningless? It's loaded with meaning.
So you think you have it all figured out about that there's no spirit. There's just the material universe. You know that because you haven't seen the spirit, heard the spirit, felt the spirit, been saved by the spirit, or anything else to do with the spirit. That's proof that it doesn't exist for you. Oh, that's brilliant. You're all so bright. Your logic is infallible.
I know I am not speaking to all of you, but the ones to whom I am speaking know who they are. The shoe fits -- you know, the ones who say God doesn't exist because the tooth fairy doesn't exist -- such reasoning. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
Prove it to us Jesus. Prove you are the son of God. Show us signs. If you're the son of God, come down off that cross. I can hear you there now. Crucify him! Crucify him! Yep, that's you alright. Just give you enough rope, and you'll crucify him again and then hang yourselves but not escape damnation.
Here's the caliber of replies. I seen this "Bob" ploy before. It's beyond weak:
Have you met Bob? He's my buddy! We do everything together. He talks to me and I'm the only one who can hear him, but he's totally real. You can't tell me he ain't real because you have no way to prove it; therefore he IS real. You have the audacity to even QUESTION his existence, just because YOU haven't seen Bob, heard Bob, felt Bob, been saved by Bob, or anything else to do with Bob. That's proof that it doesn't exist for you. You people think you're so infallibly brilliant, but guess what you'll pay when you die and Bob eats your soul- eternally damned inside of Bob's combustive intestines.
Prove it to them Bob. Prove you are my buddy. Show them signs. If you're my buddy show yourself. I can hear you. Crucify them! Crucify them! Yep, that's you alright. I'll give Bob enough rope, and he'll crucify y'all again and y'all will not escape Digestion.
I refuse to listen to them non-Bobievers, I do NOT have Schizophrenia.
Bob is real.
Let's see. Let's take this joke reply apart. We'll dissect the mind behind it.
The small, cold, and hard-hearted mind that wrote it says Tom Usher is the only one who believes in Jesus or hears the words of Jesus that are written right in the Gospels. Does that work? No.
Ema, your sarcasm doesn't render your pig's ear into a silk purse. Ema wants you to believe that my position is that "You can't tell me he ain't real because you have no way to prove it." Ema, grow up. You can't prove God isn't real, but that's not why I believe in God. So far, you're batting zero.
Ema continues: "You have the audacity to even QUESTION his existence...." In this very comment thread, I said to another atheist that "I have much more respect for people who honestly say they don't know there is God but also say they don't know there is not God." There was a time I didn't know. I've never said to anyone anything remotely such as what Ema falsely attributes to me ("You have the audacity to even QUESTION his existence...."), even if sarcastically. What you won't see though, unless Ema begins to repent, is Ema saying, "I'm sorry for misrepresenting your beliefs, Tom. I won't do it again or concerning any other Christian."
Ema attributed the following belief/position to me: "...you'll pay when you die and Bob eats your soul- eternally damned inside of Bob's combustive intestines." I'm still looking beyond Ema's juvenile approach and language.
God doesn't eat souls. Your real father does that, Ema, not God. As for "combustive intestines," Ema needs to read more poetry. There's also the bottomless pit, Ema, and outer darkness. How literal do you want to be about the consequence after your flesh dies and your soul goes on having been "formed" by your iniquity, which includes your wholly selfish homosexual choice in the face of the truth of its unhealthiness?
"Crucify them! Crucify them! Yep, that's you alright. I'll give Bob enough rope, and he'll crucify y'all again and y'all will not escape Digestion," writes Ema. Again, Ema conflates God and Satan. You're still batting zero, Ema.
Finally, Ema writes of me, "I do NOT have Schizophrenia. Bob is real."
Ema thinks that all happenings called spiritual are due to Schizophrenia. Ema wants you to believe that Ema is supreme, has the supreme knowledge, knows there is nothing in existence over Ema, that therefore, Ema is Ema's god, albeit powerless to live on after her flesh gives up, but that Ema is also not schizophrenic but rather an egoist.
To Ema, Ema is the top. She owes her existence to no other entity. She knows this for sure, well, just because "Bob" (Bob?) hasn't shown up yet to Ema. Ema has never seen anything new in her life. Everyone and every type of being was already completely known to Ema because, well, Ema knows God doesn't exist. Ema is sure Ema is not delusional though. Just ask her. She'll tell you it's only the religious who are delusional.
When you pray and those prayers are answered over and over and over when before you were sliding down, down, down closer to Ema, don't believe God, says Ema. Believe in Ema. Just ignore Jesus's words on the matter, says Ema.
Ema wants to be your leader away from Jesus because Jesus wants to save you from Ema. Ema doesn't know anything beyond the "material." Ema is positive that there is nothing after she dies. She'll just go into a complete and eternal state of unconsciousness just as if she's knocked out cold here. She knows this even though she's never been there.
Christianity can't know anything though because, well, because Ema says so. That's all. All hail the all-knowing, all-seeing Ema, but Ema doesn't really want to start a Cult of Ema, not much. We all know who Ema's real father is.
Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended. He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful. But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. (Matthew 13:18-23)
Who's "the wicked one" there? Is it Ema? Am I bullying Ema? No. Let Ema hear the word and understand if Ema can. If not, so be it.
Now, if Ema doesn't exactly believe everything I said sarcastically here about her, it proves my point all the more concerning her "Bob" words toward and about me, doesn't it. Turnabout is fair play?
I actually doubt Ema believes exactly as I've stated. What I have done here though is address atheists and especially homosexual-atheists in general (concerning their general statements against Jesus and as addressed at me about him). I'm saying this openly here so readers will understand that I don't hold with Ema's approach of painting all Christians with the same strokes and only differentiating after it's too late, after the homosexual fascists have murdered them for being followers of Jesus in Jesus's pacifism and everything else Jesus taught and lived and still does for those who can hear him and, yes, read his words in the Gospels. That's hearing him too.
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)