The Christian versus the Psychiatrist on Homosexuality

I, Tom Usher, a Christian, wrote to the psychiatrist, Rick Staggenborg, as follows:

So, Rick, you're a psychiatrist. Where do you come down on the decisions of a group of psychiatrists to claim that homosexuality is not a mental problem? It's my understanding that when they did that, that some 65% of then practicing psychiatrists were opposed to the change. If that's true (is it close?), how did the ones claiming homosex is okay (men sticking their penises up other men's rectums and moving back and forth until they ejaculate inside there) get away with it? Any real light you can shed on this will be a benefit. Peace!

I also supplied a link to my recent post: On homosexuality: Not a fight with Chris Hedges but a direct challenge for him on his father and mine.

I received a comment from one Tom Baxter:

Sodomy sounds a lot more reasonable and less insane to me than Christians thinking they have Christ's blessing when they murder in the name of freedom and democracy. In fact my one excuse for helping murder millions is that I was insane.

I replied:

I know of no "Christians thinking they have Christ's blessing when they murder in the name of freedom and democracy."

In fact, I know of no Christians who murder in the name of freedom and democracy or in the name of anything else.

Will you give me the name of a Christian who murders or kills fellow human beings? No, you won't do that because there's no such thing.

What you are doing is calling people Christians who are not Christians. Christians don't kill people.

Back to the subject though, you said "less insane." So, you think homosex as I described it is insane and should not have been re-designated as sane by various associations of psychiatrists and psychologists, etc. Fine.

Do you find that you are subjected to any degree of homosexual fascism on account of that openly stated position of yours?

Rick Staggenborg:

Tom, you say that people who condone state-sanctioned murders aren't Christians and neither are those who reject your highly personalized justification for your bigotry toward homosexuals. Who put you in charge of defining the term? That is why so many good Christians have left Church altogether, thinking all Christian churches are fundamentalist when many are not.

Just because you think your opinion is backed up by the Bible doesn't make it any less bigoted. The Christians I tend to associate with are much more puzzled as to how self-labeled Christians manage to twist the reported words of Christ into condemnation of homosexuality.

People who know the Bible a Hell of a lot better than me cannot find anywhere the place where he spoke against homosexuality. Since I couldn't make it through your treatise, perhaps you can just provide that quite that others seem unable to locate.

I have no idea when the 65% figure you quote came out or whether it came from a valid study. Psychiatry is an inexact science now and it was little more than guesswork then. Psychiatrists were held in low esteem and for good reason, this example being only one of them.

This is still true to a large degree if not more so, since it is still the case that most psychiatrists consider themselves expert at diagnosing and treating mental abnormalities when most have little to no training understanding the range of "normal." At any rate, unlike some I do not make the logical error of appealing to authority when I cannot make my case from facts and logic.

The science is incontrovertible; homosexuality is seen in many mammalian species and anyone who has interviewed a person who recognized their sexual attraction to the same sex by puberty finds the same phenomenon of sexual attraction apply to both homosexual and heterosexual children.

For as long as I have been in the field (since 1980) I have not heard of one credible psychiatrist make a claim that homosexuality is anything but a normal variant of human nature.

There are still a lot of quacks from the field who know little to nothing about human behavior, like Charles Krauthammer. Some of them are no doubt as dogmatic in their sick religious beliefs as he is in his sick political beliefs, but that too is within the normal range of human behavior, whether it disgusts compassionate people like us or not.

Tom Usher:

So, as a psychiatrist, you are saying, Rick, that men sticking their penises up other men's rectums and moving back and forth until they ejaculate inside there is not insane. You're taking that position because it happens so it's normal (within the range of "normal"). You're saying that because pubescent boys are already attracted sexually to other males that it's normal so not insane.

I don't see any accounting from you for possible prior mental trauma on the part of those pubescent boys. Is it your professional position that boys aren't ever traumatized into same-sex attraction or that they are but that there are those who are not and are still attracted? If it isn't entirely trauma-based, how many other environmental reasons might there be? Does the relationship of son to mother and son to father, biological and/or foster or adoptive, never factor in?

As for bigotry, obviously you are intending the solely negative connotation of the term, as in that I should not believe that homosexuality is an error and that therefore I'm invidiously discriminating against them, even though I have never cast a secular vote for or against so-called "equal rights" for homosexuality (note that I said homosexuality and not homosexuals). Even with that though, you are stretching it into more -- abusing the term. As you know, there are many mental-states that you consider diseased. Are you necessarily then bigoted against every person suffering the given condition in the sense you mean to say that I'm being bigoted against homosexuals? If not, then you're being unjustifiably selective in your application of the term and, in fact, hypocritical.

As for Jesus and homosex and the people with whom you normally associate who call themselves professing Christians, I'm only too familiar with their distorted views of Jesus's position.

Do you really believe that Jesus believed or believes that men sticking their penises up other men's rectums and moving back and forth until they ejaculate inside there was, or is, right? I can give you plenty of scripture about it; however, your pro-homosexuality friends will do nothing but reply with "but." Eventually they run out of them. I have seen mankind admit it, give up all notions of homosex being right, get married to the opposite sex, and thank me for it.

Let's just look at Jesus as Jesus asked us to. What was Jesus's focus? It's not incorrect that he had many, but one would be right in saying that God was and is his focus. It's also not incorrect to say that consistency was his focus, as in the opposite of hypocrisy. Now exactly how do you explain that Jesus would say that any sexual behavior was an error, such as adultery, which is expressly stated in the Gospels, and then turn around and say, but there's an exception in sexual behavior for homosex?

If you read the Beatitudes, you will see that Jesus enhanced Mosaic Law. Jesus was and is stricter than was Moses. Jesus eliminated the hypocrisy by enhancing the law. Now, when it came time for the Gentiles to join the Church, a huge deal was made over circumcision, which was a requirement under Mosaic Law. They held the first major council on the subject. Tell me, Rick, and feel free to ask your friends who hold themselves out to be experts on Christianity, just when was the major council held to even entertain the notion of overturning the prohibition on homosex? There never was one. The idea of allowing homosex into Christianity is something that has happened in a major way only within my lifetime. That's a fact.

Surely you're not going to suggest that there was no such prohibition.

You want chapter and verse though. Okay, homosexuals want to be married. Many of them want Christian churches to perform their wedding ceremonies. What is Christian marriage?

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:4-9)

Do you see the enhancement there? Do you see that he did not relax the standard but rather made it even stricter? Do you also see that he said what marriage is? Do you really believe that had he agreed with homosexuality that he would not have spoken to include them anywhere? He never included them except that they are sinners in engaging in homosex. He came to call sinners to repent, not to relax the meaning of righteousness.

Jesus didn't say verbatim not to have sex with your pig, but do you really then say that therefore Jesus was not opposed to men doing to pigs what they do to each other, including if the pig "likes" it? That's what your friends use for logic, Rick. Moses said not to engage in bestiality. Jesus didn't come to lower the standard but to raise it and to include more people in adherence to the new, higher standard.

Look, you don't get a laundry list with Jesus. You get the real law written on your heart. You get consistency. Your friends are appealing for inconsistency – gross inconsistency.

I'm also using here the exact same method of dealing with inconsistency that Jesus used in dealing with the Pharisees. You really should read the Gospels (again, if you already have).

No, you need to be informed that your friends do not know the truth of the matter.

I've been all through it many times before. I haven't seen a new so called point from the pro-homosexuality crowd in ages now. There isn't one I've seen that I haven't more than sufficiently refuted.

Even the vaunted identical-twin study shows that genetics only predisposes some to falling more easily to the particular temptation and not that anyone is "born that way." I'm not saying that it is outside the scope of genetics that by some rare accident a human being couldn't be born homosexual. The one or two percent who were engaging in it and willing to admit it to pollsters when I was a boy though were not the result of such a rare accident. I say they were made into homosexuals after birth by fellow human beings not acting in anyone's best interest in doing so.

I must say, that you, Rick, are quite bigoted against people who hold my position; but I'm bigoted against banksterism and Zionism. I hope you see that point. I think you do. As for how willing you are to consider that you've circulated too narrowly with "liberals" (I say false-liberals), that remains to be seen.

I'm anti-war. I'm anti-greed. I'm anti-sexual depravity, and I consider homosex to be that and for very good reasons.

Are you bigoted against pedophiles? They are in the same position homosexuals were in not too long ago.

Many homosexuals do not want their cognitive dissonance disturbed.

Do penises belong in anuses? It's a simple question. What's your answer? Is it yes, or is it no? After answering yes or no, then ask questions; but do answer yes or no first please. I say the answer is no.

Tom Usher:

Rick Staggenborg,

"...homosexuality is seen in many mammalian species...."

Name one mammalian species where the males have anal sex with each other, ejaculate in each other's anuses, and have such sex (all sex) exclusively with other males.

Tom Usher:

Rick, I see you "liked" René Upshaw's comment: "What was the name of the Christian that killed all those children in the park in the Netherlands?"

So, René and you say a Christian killed children in the park in the Netherlands. Therefore, a Christian isn't one who follows Jesus and does what he taught, which precludes killing children in the park in the Netherlands, but is rather anyone who just says he or she is a Christian no matter what he or she does.

By your definition, Christianity itself is inherently evil. It doesn't matter what Jesus did or said. It only matters what people do who claim to be Christians.

This is the typical ploy of those out to destroy Jesus. This is what is meant by anti-Christ.

How are you going to be ecumenical while saying that the murderers of children are Christian? This is why I don't join your "ecumenical movement."

Are you starting to really see now?

You are in denial, Rick. You really need to look at your whole worldview.

Enters the typical pro-homosexual who thinks dumbing things down will save the day:
Bob Conway

Why the fascination with other people's twigs, berries, and bums there Tom U.?

Bob Conway

Tom U: Surely you didn't intend to suggest that in order to be a "true" Christian one must be a homophobic bigot. Right?

Tom Usher

Bob Conway,

You are having difficulty. Answer the question: "Do penises belong in anuses?"

Bob Conway

Answer: It depends upon whether the people whose penis and whose anus they are have consented to that arrangement and are both adults.

Tom Usher

Bob Conway

A penis belongs in the anus of a consenting adult. Is that your position?

How about two penises at the same time, do they both belong there?

How about a horse's penis if the horse is consenting?

How about the kitchen sink? Whatever floats your boat, right? Hedonism. Forget pathology.

I think you and I don't have much to discuss. I'm too kitchen-sink phobic for you.

Rick Staggenborg:

Tom Usher, I respect your views on everything else but you are absolutely whacked on this one.

Why would a loving God create people with these urges at a young age and no desire to be with the opposite sex? You seem to be denying they exist just because some people seem to be influenced in their sexual orientation by homosexual abuse at a young age.

For what it is worth, I believe that this does happen with a small minority of boys and probably more girls, since sexual abuse of girls is more common. The idea that this is the only cause of homosexuality flies in the face of research and my personal experience dealing with many homosexuals in therapy in part because they live in a society where basically decent people like you consider them "mentally ill."

I don't want to hear your distorted interpretation of Scripture. It is completely out of line with the basic message Jesus was trying to get across: We could solve every problem if enough people would let love be their guide to how to conduct their lives.

It is not your business or mine to judge other people or their behavior if it harms no one. Let them take their chances with your vindictive God and may he have mercy on your soul for being so obsessed with the mechanics of homosexual sex, for whatever reason.

Rick Staggenborg

Then why Tom Usher do you continue to wax poetic about penises and anuses? I am sure there are a lot of gay-bashing pages where there are lots of people who would find your comments fascinating. I am bored with them. If you value our friendship, do not respond to this. Otherwise, take your parting shot and begone!

Tom Usher

Hey Rick Staggenborg,

You do what you want. I've approached this with logic and answered all of your questions. This is the first time I've seen you unable to be intellectually honest.

I gave you zero false interpretations of Jesus's position.

I'm disappointed in your replies. I really expected you'd confront the points intellectually and not in this rather immature, even nasty, anti-Christianity manner.

If you disappear from my Facebook friends list as a result, so be it.

The point of this discussion was so you could show why you believe homosexuality is in-born. However, you didn't even attempt it but have rather offered me an ultimatum about it: Shut up about it, or I (Rick) will unfriend you. Really, Rick, is that your idea of proper debate to set public policy?

"I don't want to hear your distorted interpretation of Scripture." You admit that you are no expert, I've quoted Jesus, yet you claim my statements distort Jesus. That's dishonest.

"It is completely out of line with the basic message Jesus was trying to get across...." Rather than come back with the actual words of Jesus that would support your claim, you warn me not to reply. Well, I've replied.

"It is not your business or mine to judge other people or their behavior if it harms no one." Who says it's harmless? I don't. You do.

"Let them take their chances with your vindictive God" I said nothing indicating my God is vindictive. You arbitrarily assign that to my God. You're not talking about my God. You're talking about what's in your head.

"may he have mercy on your soul for being so obsessed with the mechanics of homosexual sex" I not obsessed with mechanics of homosexual sex. Even children as young as Kindergärtners are being misled that homosexuality is harmless and not confused, etc. The mechanics of homosexual sex is confused. You seek to cut off the discussion rather than confront that fact. You didn't ever answer the question as to whether or not penises belong in anuses. That's cognitive dissonance, isn't it? I say so.

You go ahead and do what you want. You've put plenty of posts on my Wall with which I've disagreed, but I didn't pull this crap with you. I answered you straight up. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen. If you make it to the US Senate, what's your plan, cover your ears when you hear things you don't like?

What are friends for it they can't tell you the truth (rhetorical).

May God bless you with the real truth,

Tom

Rick Staggenborg deleted the post on his group and unfriended me over it. I hate intellectual dishonesty and cowardice, don't you?

I hope you can see what happened there. The doctor wrote the following:

You seem to be denying they exist just because some people seem to be influenced in their sexual orientation by homosexual abuse at a young age.

For what it is worth, I believe that this does happen with a small minority of boys and probably more girls, since sexual abuse of girls is more common. The idea that this is the only cause of homosexuality flies in the face of research and my personal experience dealing with many homosexuals in therapy in part because they live in a society where basically decent people like you consider them "mentally ill."

He clearly admitted "that this ['homosexual abuse at a young age'] does happen with a small minority [he doesn't know that its a small minority of those who end up engaging in homosex as adults] of boys and probably more girls" and that "some people [how many, 90%?] seem to be influenced in their sexual orientation by homosexual abuse at a young age." However, he concludes that there is no mental illness to be concerned with there, not some, but none.

First he shows that he really believes, actually knows, that children are abused homosexually [abused!]. Then, he pooh-poohs it in favor of saying everything is really okay, and I'm the monster (because I'm interested in protecting the little kids).

As I said, it's cognitive dissonance in spades. We're talking a middle-aged man with a medical license to mess with people's heads as a psychiatrist. He actually came up after the switch. He was still in what, grade school, when the switch was made by the minority of psychiatrists.

I was wrong about the 65% figure at the beginning of the article. That's why I asked if it was close. It was actually higher according to the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality."

In the early 1970s, homosexual activists unleashed a "violent and extortionary political campaign." Homosexual activists reasoned that if the influential American Psychiatric Association (APA) were to redefine homosexuality, other professional guilds (like the several times larger American Psychological Association) and then the rest would follow. When the APA leadership finally capitulated and agreed to allow the membership to consider the removal of homosexuality as a disorder, a mass mailing to 30,000 members by the pro-homosexual faction encouraged all members to agree to the change. With only one-third responding, the resolution was passed. "The acceptance of homosexuality by the American Psychological Association in 1973 was preceded by an unquestioning acceptance of [Dr. Alfred] Kinsey's work and under heavy political pressure by the nascent gay lobby, which recognized that to normalize homosexuality, they had to get it taken off the list of psychological disorders." Charles Socarides, a psychiatrist and reparative therapist who is an anathema to homosexual activists, recounted his perspective in The Journal of Human Sexuality on how the classification of homosexuality was changed in the early seventies: [Homosexual activists] targeted members of the worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. . . . [T]hey co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, . . . [t]hey got the APA to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"–as neutral as left-handedness. The much larger American Psychological Association followed suit two years later. As homosexuals predicted, over time other professional guilds from counseling to education to pediatrics accepted the lead of both APAs and de-diagnosed homosexuality as a disorder. What was not known at the time was that the National Gay Task Force (NGTF) played a central, though secretive, role both financially and strategically. The mailing by the pro-homosexual faction to the 30,000 APA members encouraging members to vote yes was apparently paid for by funds raised from a letter sent to NGTF's membership. Later it was also found that the Council on Research and Development of the APA did not actually investigate the issue thoroughly before it gave formal approval for deletion of homosexuality from the DSM and the Committee on Nomenclature had never formally approved the change. The de-classification was accomplished without the general membership ever knowing the machinations behind the scenes. This might explain why four years after the APA vote, the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality reported that a survey it conducted showed 69% [of] psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a pathological adaptation.

(Source: "SELLING HOMOSEXUALITY TO AMERICA")

You see the infamous Dr. Alfred Kinsey mentioned there.

Secret History: Kinsey's Paedophiles:

The Kinsey Syndrome:

At 23:56 of that video, you will note that (based upon later, more methodologically sound methods) it's put forth that Kinsey wildly distorted the statistics to 10% of American males being homosexual when the reality was likely much lower, possibly as low as 1 to 2%. He also reportedly grossly exaggerated the number of males who had ever engaged in homosex. He was diabolical in my view, and those are far from the only examples.

Also in my view, he's probably the most wicked American male in history in terms of intent, action, and especially impact. His actions have even facilitated the increase in indifference to violence and greed, as all lusting facilitates more of itself and in all varieties. He facilitated Ayn Rand for instance.

Was Kinsey monstrously abused by an Aleister Crowley type? If not, it would surprise me because his life was so extreme. I've been given to understand though that physical accidents and seemingly unassociated diseases can produce extreme changes in character. As a Christian, I count that as spiritual, even though "science" can superimpose explanations of its type.

With the severely limited good research in this field, it is difficult to know the range of possibilities. We see the process can be gradual. In such cases, I would deem it the drip-method of degradation. The abuse is relatively stealthy because to the common person, it's not set in stark relief. The contrast doesn't get their attention. They don't take or have time to analyze. Also, they very often are already diseased and aren't overcoming but facilitating the disease.

What is actually abuse by society at-large where that society doesn't define the causes as abuse but rather harmless or even fun. There's a disconnect between cause and effect. Much of it is rightly deemed cognitive dissonance.

Kinsey lied to the whole world that children being raped and screaming and crying and fighting and fainting and showing all the signs of being deeply sickened was not that but the children having orgasms. It takes a really bent mind to want to corrupt humanity so much that sexually torturing little children is chalked up to the children enjoying it because writhing in pain is defined as an orgasm.

Judith Reisman wrote concerning Kinsey's book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, "In Table 34, one of the more shocking "findings" is 26 "orgasms" observed in a 4-year-old boy within a 24-hour period. This meant the child was molested around the clock, in the name of "science." – Kinsey, Male, p. 180" (Source: Kinsey, Unsanitized.)

Look, I haven't conducted studies into orgasms, but I know that a boy is not orgasmic until he reaches puberty and is capable of ejaculating. That's just how it is. What adult not suffering from huge cognitive dissonance doesn't know it? A normal baby boy is not going to have an orgasm, and anyone trying to give him one, let alone 26 in one 24-hour period, is mentally ill, dangerous, and in a world of human coercion, should not be allowed to be around children and small animals (perhaps any, depending).

Furthermore, the sexual genitalia of children certainly are loaded with nerve endings, but children are not developed. They are not physically able to be engaged sexually the way Kinsey would have everyone believe. They are not emotionally equipped for being the objects of predation in the guise of "love" and affection, when what it really is, is the sexual insanity of those who are spreading the disease.

If you know much about Aleister Crowley and when you find out that Alfred Kinsey was one of his admirers, you really get a sense of just how demented Kinsey was and just why the US has gotten itself in such an absolute sexual mess.

The video says Kinsey sexually abused himself so severely that he actually died from it and that the Kinseyians claim he died from heart problems instead. That should be investigated.

Learning all of this and then looking around at how hypnotized people are and how addicted they are to pornography of all sorts and how defensive and concealing they are about it all, at least as they wish to be presented in the most mainstream so as to not illicit a backlash from those who are not yet perverted and converted enough, one is just left shaking his head at how insane everything is. One just realizes how self-deluded so many are and that it will still get worse before it gets better, even though the exposure that heals has already begun.

Do you think Dr. Rick Staggenborg, the psychiatrist, knows about Kinsey and Crowley, et al.? He didn't want to hear me. You saw that for yourself above. Don't confuse me with the facts is the gist of what he said: cognitive dissonance!

What does all of this have to do with homosex? If you can't see that by now after reading what I've written and after watching the videos, I question the sincerity of your question.

Note how the deceased dean of the IASHS (The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality) and an open advocate of bestiality, Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of Sexual Behavior in the Human Male with Alfred Kinsey, actually deliberately infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church to plant (via a screening process) homosexuals who would molest boys there. It was, according to Judith Reisman, a direct part of the Vatican II "liberalization" process. Don't we need to know more about that? Shouldn't it be put front and center considering all of the pedophile priests that have been identified?

Judith Reisman says that priest candidates who would be more inclined to stand up against pedophilia were deliberately rejected. If that's true, and I don't have any reason to disbelieve Judith Reisman as of the time of this writing, the American people and the world have been, and are still being, had.

Judith Reisman is the one who should be being taught in the schools. She's a heroine, where Kinsey was not only not a hero but a monster in need of deep, deep help. She has clearly exposed that the so-called science of Kinsey is crap. It was all total junk in the worst sense. Every bit of it was completely phony. Everything built upon it should be thoroughly investigated, torn down, and burned. The complete history should be preserved so humanity doesn't repeat the same errors.

We have false-liberals who are wittingly aiding and abetting sexual liars who lust after children. This includes the vast majority of homosexuals, who simply are loving the constantly degrading standards and are just waiting for the day when they can all come out of the closets where they been abused and prey openly on anyone because the "age of consent" won't exist anymore. Satan will reign in all his anti-glory for a blazing short time.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm surprised the Kinsey Institute wasn't raided by surprise, all of it's files taken as evidence, the institute shut down permanently, and all of it's crimes completely exposed.

This is a secular, coercive government here in the US. Where's the consistency? The government isn't run by real Christians warning but then letting the blind follow the blind into the ditch. Regardless, all human beings aren't being raised as real Christians where they will turn the other cheek and no Crowleyian-Kinseyian poison will kill their souls.

The video shows the linkages between open pedophilia advocates in high academic places working with the pornography industry and fellow travelers in government to lower and lower and lower the standards against Jesus's calling for us to raise and raise and raise them.

I know that there is going to end up being a huge backlash to all of this. All of the children who are being violated are going to end up bringing the wrath down on all of these unrepentant perverts, these people who can't see that their own abuse is causing them to be the abusers and who have been unwilling to have the abuse stop with them.

Now, for those who don't understand God, it wasn't God who inflicted Job. It was Satan. Jesus said that God judges no man. This is difficult for people to comprehend since so much of the Old Testament and, in ways, the New Testament seems convoluted about the nature of God versus Satan. I won't go into the twists and turns regarding Gnosticism versus the Christianity of Jesus, but the God of Jesus is neither the Demiurge of Plato nor the Satan of the Garden of Eden parable, as Helena Blavatsky (the founder of Theosophy -- a type of Satan worship, per Blavatsky) would have the world misbelieve. Plato and Blavatsky are sometimes at odds with each other.

Satan is the god of what Jesus terms sin, which includes all the various sexual errors including, most famously in the scriptures, adultery. This is not because Satan is unaware of the problems but because Satan hates humanity and wants to see it in Hell, his. God wants to see humans rise without them putting coercion upon each other but rather being harmless. Adultery isn't harmless. Yet, look at the direction society is headed, and look at how much Alfred Kinsey and Aleister Crowley and others (Friedrich Nietzsche, Machiavelli, etc.) have had to do with the fall.

Lastly, let me discuss sexual repression. The opposite of sexual repression is not "anything goes." There is what is called purity, and it can exist in sexuality. There is truly harmless sex. It exists within a very narrow range of feelings, thoughts, words, and behaviors. Nakedness and a man and woman knowing each other (having faithful, sexual intercourse for procreation and out of real love -- not mere physical "gratification") was not shameful until selfishness entered in. Sin is selfishness. Sin is what is less than the perfection of God. Males bugger each other out of the selfish spirit. The minds of Kinsey and Crowley types before him, twist that into good.

The cure for that twisting is the proper defining of harmlessness. Getting back to the Garden means returning to where nakedness is not shameful but at the same time, no one will selfishly use another, which is harmful.

Humanity has a long way to go to full repentance. The prophecy is that only a remnant will make it, at least for an age or two. Nevertheless, the seeds have been planted for that success. I'm glad.

So, let us not tighten up as Victorians. Let us get back to the real Garden. Let us cast off Kinsey and Crowley while also not returning to Torquemada (Spanish Inquisition).

Do you see? If so, join.

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.