"Child Molestation is epidemic everywhere...even in the church" That's the title of a discussion on LinkedIn in which I've engaged as follows:
There's a "Flag as inappropriate" link that pops up upon mousing over each comment. I want to discuss this problem very openly, intellectually, honestly, and directly and don't want to be flagged for it.
The comments here seem to be from people who can handle direct talk.
The children in our public schools in areas that typically are referred to as "liberal" are being taught at a very early age that homosexuality is not only to be tolerated but more so celebrated. What is not being discussed with them, because it can be hidden from them as age-inappropriate, is that penises do not belong in anuses.
I completely agree that kindergartners should not be taught this even though it is the truth.
We, as adults who care, must force the issue of logic upon those who are being slippery on this issue.
If males should not be using each others rectums as sexual organs, if they do not belong there (and they don't), then it follows that the celebration of that confusion should not exist in the schools.
I'm certain that this avoidance falls into the category of cognitive dissonance.
Let me add that I've put the question of whether they belong there to homosexuals over a period of months. Only one answered and said the following:
"It depends upon whether the people whose penis and whose anus they are have consented to that arrangement and are both adults."
I'm sure it won't be lost upon you all that, that was no answer regarding "belong." You will also note the careful arbitrariness demonstrated by the notion of consenting adults.
At any rate, because this fellow was so typical of homosexual trolls, I replied with the following (which wasn't lofty, I grant you):
"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."
He had referred to me as homophobic, a nonsense term within this debate.
I did have him pegged correctly, as he completely ignored the logic and came back with the wear-him-down strategy, to which I refuse to succumb.
You can see the logic there though. A male and female, a husband and wife, engaging in correct sexual intercourse (designed by God for procreation) is not on the same level as "anything goes."
So, now that I have that troll mentality out of the way, I'd be interested in hearing whether braving the direct issue of anal sex to defeat homosexual education in public schools is something the Christian community (as diverse as it is) would be willing to take on in an orchestrated manner.
By the way, when I've done this, those who always seek to destroy the discussion, to avoid the subject, to change the subject, have asked me why I'm obsessed with the anatomy. Of course, we all know that this issue has been thrust upon us; but in addition to mentioning that, I've taken to bringing up their sexologists. It seems to have worked. Who was Alfred Kinsey? Wasn't he pro-pedophilia? Yes. Wasn't he obsessed, etc.? Yes.
For my latest effort on Facebook, my post and comment-replies were deleted and I was unfriended, all by a psychiatrist. I wear it as a badge of honor. I blogged it. If you're interested, here's the link: http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2011/11/26/the-christian-versus-the-psychiatrist-on-homosexuality.html ["The Christian versus the Psychiatrist on Homosexuality"] (I'm not plugging the site; I want to win on this issue, globally!)
Don't let the term "liberal" in my Church's name confuse you. I'm an Isaiah liberal: against vileness (a term the homosexuals have attempted to co-opt along with "gay" and images, such as the rainbow).
Let me say first that I view pedophilia as symptomatic of lust and depravity in general.
Also, it appears to me that everyone here is opposed to pedophilia, pederasty, adultery, and likely homosexuality and more. I don't think I need to put a laundry list of sexual errors here. I like the honesty about "conservatives" versus "liberals." I like it that you've included statistics and links too, which I will study.
Let me clarify that I do not advocate overt "sex education" for kindergartners. I don't believe in telling children that the stork brought them, but a pregnant woman is not a monster. Mary gave birth to Jesus. Children can be told that they were carried by their mothers who gave birth to them. This information does not need to be shoved at them though. The homosexuals are shoving to plant the evil seed first in the false hope that it will then be too late for Christians and others who are opposed to homosex. However, their evil plants can be uprooted – removed from the ground that is the children.
However, we should all know that children as young as six and seven are today being shown condoms in classrooms and told all about where they go and why, etc., including anuses. At the same time, they are being told to glorify certain homosexuals in sanitized versions of history for effect.
I am not saying that we should get to the children's minds with graphic stories of death and disease before the homosexuals dupe them with "nice" stories of family "love" while deliberately omitting what would turn the children's faces to frowns. My suggestion was and is rather that we all approach the cognitive dissonance (of what is quickly becoming the majority of American adults) as concerns the prime "attraction" of the homosexuals: anal intercourse, with or without condoms.
My reason for that is that if the momentum can be broken anywhere, then the whole push for sexual hedonism can be slowed and even reversed. If logic can be brought to bear anywhere in general, then the logic-camel's nose will be under the tent. This is the exact same method used by the homosexuals and others (adulterers, etc.) but by talking about everything other than what promotes confronting the dissonance, by appealing only to those things that actually avoid it.
Let me explain that of the many homosexuals to whom I have put the question concerning whether or not penises belong in anuses, only one dared even answer. All the others literally made fools of themselves, avoiding it, or ran away. Most have run away rather than stay and try to defeat me on it (by changing the subject), which means it scares them. It scares them because they can envision heterosexuals waking up to the dissonance and saying:
"Wait a minute. That's right. Penises don't belong in anuses. So why are we allowing politicians and judges and quack psychiatrists and unscientific psychologists, etc., to teach the children in the public schools that homosex is harmless, natural, correct, etc.?"
If the male sexual organ does not belong in the orifice that exists for one purpose only, to defecate, then it is impossible to teach the children that it's okay to engage in male homosex while also claiming to be honest with the children. It's a logical trap from which the homosexuals and their advocates cannot escape. That's why they fear the question and hate me and ban me. It's simple.
Anyway, I can't imagine why anyone would avoid employing the tactic. I do realize that we all want to win souls to Jesus Christ, but that's what this tactic is about. It's about turning heads. It's about giving pause. It's about heading the soon to be lost sheep off at the pass. It's about bringing lost sheep out of the sexual-depravity trance. It's about forcing the issue to a new level with the politicians.
It's worked with males I know. It's kept men from going over to the dark side.
Look, logic wins debates at the highest level if enough Americans insist upon it. Either homosex and its extremely close cousin pedophilia are okay or they aren't. Either anal intercourse is proper or it isn't. It doesn't matter whether or not heterosexuals are engaging in it. If the organ and the orifice aren't supposed to be put together, then that's that; and it will help to curb the whole huge swing to utter and open depravity that I've seen just within my lifetime.
It's not my intention to insult anyone's intelligence here, so bear with me. Envision hundreds of thousands of anti-sexual-depravity people in the US all posing the same question of logic to all the rest of the adult population. Right now, the homosexuals and pro-homosexuals can simply runaway and/or censor. They wouldn't be able to continue doing that. Imagine the mainstream media being literally forced to confront the subject. Imagine the various mental-health associations being faced with having to answer or lose the debate without even putting up a fight.
This is about child sexual abuse. Stop the homosexuals, and the pedophiles will be severely weakened. Don't stop the homosexuals, and the pedophiles will continue making inroads. It's a fact. We've all seen that the slippery slope is real.
The homosexuals do not want to be put in the position of having to admit that they know what they are doing is evil. They do know it. They don't want that because so many duped Americans want to be good but don't know that homosex is evil, is illogical, is an error, is a disease state. They are tricked by the spirit we know as Satan.
As for the children, all of a sudden, homosex won't be taught as being harmless but will have returned to being an acknowledged state of confusion. There would be a group caught in the middle, but they'd grow up soon enough to have it all made clear to them as to what happened – answering, why the shift?
If we here start this meme, as it were (I don't like the term myself, but so many people know the concept), then how long would it be before FOX News would have it on in one form or another? That would force the "liberals" to confront it. They'd get up in an uproar condemning it as vigorously as they've ever condemned anything because it would scare them to death that the anti-homosexuality crowd finally focused in, in pure logic (divine in my view).
You might be tempted to say that the homosexuals have runaway because they've been offended in the common usage. You'd be wrong. They are far from squeamish. All you have to do is visit one of their chat rooms or whatever to see the shocking way in which they converse with each other about the acts in which they engage with each other. No, they definitely run away in an attempt to keep the question from becoming repeated and repeated and repeated until it's a mantra of sorts. They dread the prospect because it would work if it were to happen. We can get it started right here as a group decision.
If we don't take over the subject, we'll lose millions of souls who would otherwise be saved. The momentum is still with the homosexuals. We must swing it to anti-homosexuality for the first time since Stonewall. That's a long run they've had. It's time to break it.
We must confront the cognitive dissonance of the American population on this issue. We must not be what the homosexuals have used as a tool, even a weapon, squeamish. They have counted on the decency of Christians to avoid the hardcore facts. I don't believe for a moment that Jesus wants us to not stand up and tell the truth on this.
He spoke in ways that fit the times. He spoke in parables so those who wouldn't merit Heaven wouldn't ruin it for those who would and will and do. He also said that the time for parables ended. The time for clear, plain, direct, honest talk must come. Let's do it.
Just try it with people. Just put the question to them. Get it circulating. It will have a beneficial impact. The more it circulates, the better it will be.
Have you ever heard of Frank Luntz? He changed "estate taxes" into "death taxes" in much of the American mind nearly overnight. He did the same with "global warming," changing it to "climate change" to distance it from human activity. There are hundreds of such cases.
You though are saying that raising the question of whether penises belong in anuses is futile even though I told you that it works. I've seen it myself. Do you doubt the truth of it?
Furthermore, the fact that homosexuals are fewer than 4% of the population but have managed since 1970 to get almost half the population to change from being adamantly opposed to not only tolerant but down right celebratory, should tell you something.
Now you're turning around to tell me that if tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of anti-homosexuality Christians press the question into the public arena, it won't have any impact and the anti-homosexuality FOX News (much of it) won't jump on it.
As for all the other sins, it's true they are there. It's true that they were there, but adultery wasn't being taught in the schools as a good thing. Homosex is though. Who among us is unaware of the polyamory movement now?
Do you think the heterosexual adulterers have been as responsible for the breakdown as the homosexuals relative to their percentage of the population? No, the homosexuals have done more starting with Alfred Kinsey than any other group has and by a wide margin. The acceptance of homosexuality had to come before the pedophiles would get a hearing, and they are getting a big, growing hearing.
I'm sorry if this offends you; but before you pooh-pooh my suggestion, you need to pose the question to people without prejudicing it by saying something such as "I don't agree with asking this question, but...." Just ask it, and don't be taken off topic. Perhaps like me, you'll be thanked by those who think it over and don't experiment with homosex on account of it. Each such man is one soul, Debbie. I don't know why you wrote back as if a movement isn't built that way.
Magnify the light. Don't cover it up. That penises do not belong in anuses is truth. The homosexuals hate it when the question is asked. If you don't think that turning the tide is possible and that, that would change some of those very homosexuals, I think you don't have much faith in the truth and are being rather lukewarm or even cool.
You appreciate my passion, but I don't sense much coming from you. Jesus was a firebrand. You do realize that, don't you? They nailed him to the cross for being more like me rather than more like you're suggesting I should be.
Your reply is offensive: "...you've got an obsession that is unhealthy...." It's interesting that you're the first person in this thread who pointed such a finger. What is the obsession? How is it unhealthy? It's interesting that you've done exactly what the homosexual activists do and even after I had already anticipated the false charge and showed how it's wrong and a trick by homosexuals.
My view is that you are actually having an attack of cognitive dissonance yourself. You appear to have a personal problem with the basic implications of the fact that penises don't belong in anuses. You have spent all your time replying to me by saying that it won't help if people are lead to confront a basic truth that will deny them the authority to teach the opposite to little children. They are teaching a lie to them, and your methods of dealing with it have proved weak and ineffective -- salt with no flavor.
The homosexuals have been winning because of your approach.
"And your logic is glaringly faulty." That's an easy charge to make, but you can't state one thing I've said that is illogical. Do you understand syllogisms? I do. Show everyone my logical error(s), or stop bearing false witness and apologize.
As for Murdoch, etc., these things you've mentioned are common knowledge. The point I made concerns exactly that ratings matter to them. Their audience is more anti-homosexuality than any of the other main networks. Not all of the "hosts" and/or "hostesses" on FOX are chummy with those in the Homosexual Movement.
My view of your whole train of thought is that you are an obstructionist. You stubbornly refuse to put a simple question to people: "Do penises belong in anuses?"
Look, Debbie, if you have some hidden agenda to smooth the way for those who don't overcome homosexuality, then don't ask anyone the question. If you think I'm going to not point out to others here what I think you're doing, whether you're doing it consciously or subconsciously, obviously you're wrong.
I prefaced my first comment carefully.
Jesus went into the center of the world and preached what they told him to shut up about. You sound like the ones who told him to shut up.
I said that truth is that penises don't belong in anuses. Jesus said the truth sets people free -- all of it. If you don't like that, if you don't want to help, if you want to steer clear of taking it out there where the most people will hear it, where some will fall and others be saved by the word (truth), then don't. We'll see who Jesus agrees with on it: you or me.
You do not appear to be objective concerning my suggestions.
As for whether I intend on leading, what's it take for people to simply ask the question? It's enough to do it and persevere. I've cast pearls here. Who are you?
Are you still a lesbian (still suffering from same-sex attraction)? Given your attitude and approach here, that's a fair question. If you're going to attempt to lead them on the issues of homosexuality and pedophilia, etc., the folks here have a right to know.
"...Christian zealot, who was much like you." I trust the other Christian "Zealots" here will not appreciate your quip and will see right through it. The only people who have ever referred to me as a Christian Zealot have been those who are pro-homosexuality. They use the term because Jesus was opposed to the Zealots. I do have zeal though for the truth, something you do not appear to like about me; but I trust Jesus does.
Is it that Christians aren't supposed to make homosexuals feel uncomfortable because you remember feeling uncomfortable when Christians spoke against your condition? If that's the case, you need to do more soul searching and repenting. It wasn't their fault if they were simply being honest, as I am here. You fell. You were abused and fell. Have you gotten all the way back up? That's what matters.
"To accuse me of being a lesbian...." I asked a question. I'm sure you intended that others read your words and fall to the mistake that I accused you. Be honest. You're rather careless. Also, you didn't answer the question. Are we to assume that you do not suffer from same-sex attraction? If you still do, it would possibly help to explain some of your approach here.
"...if you stand in the public square and drone on about where penises are supposed to go, how many prodigals do you think you will win to Christ?" The object is to confront the cognitive dissonance, something you clearly appear to either not want to happen or is beyond your comprehension. The object is to get thousands of people to put the basic fundamentals in the spotlight. That will lead to millions and tens of millions waking up that they've been avoiding dealing with what is plain as day. Do you even understand the concept of cognitive dissonance? Even the Wikipedia has a fairly good and thorough article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
As for winning prodigals, your attitude is consistent with telling Jesus that he was too harsh to call the Pharisee serpents. I don't go along with your milquetoast style when it comes to the urgent situation of rampant homosexuality and pedophilia sweeping the nation and being taught and condoned in the public schools and elsewhere. I doubt I'm alone. In fact, I know I'm not.
"By the way, you have not said how you plan to address those of female persuasion who have a different anatomy. Do women get a pass?" Nothing gets a pass, but what does that have to do with asking adults in society whether penises belong in anuses – a question everyone is comfortable to ignore but the answer to which precludes the lie being foisted onto the children? Why do you not want the adult American population to line up on either side of this question and for the homosexuals to have to defend the idea that penises belong in anuses? Do you engage in sodomy? If you do, you need to stop. By the way, that's not an accusation. I shouldn't have to point that out, but I'm dealing here with someone who may not recognize that.
"I have just shown you one fallacy in your phallic-driven logic." You have shown no such thing. Your premises are wrong. Your conclusion was based upon an incorrect assumption that I give lesbians a pass. Look, you're digging a hole for yourself here. It appears to me that you have some sort of pride of authorship issue concerning your book, which pride is interfering with the basic concept of getting at the heart of the matter.
Here's logic: If penises do not belong in anuses and if the educational system is going to be held to its own standard that it teach truth, then the children ought not to be taught that homosexuality is proper.
You want to take exception to that because you don't like the outcome, period.
"I also showed you the futility in attempting to lasso the media establishment...." You haven't shown that at all. In fact, I've shown you how that idea of yours is wrong. Everyday, the media gets forced to deal with what it didn't want to. How long was it before the mainstream media dealt with the Occupy Movement? It ignored it as long as it could. Finally, it wasn't able to ignore it. That fact flies in the face of your claim.
FOX has what I said. It has the most anti-homosexuality viewership. If the Christians start insisting upon the logical statement I've made above, then FOX will eventually cover it and some in FOX will endorse it and many on the borderline now, even FOX haters, will be spared the error. You though, preach against that for what true reasons? You are clearly desirous of avoiding having others confront the fact that the main homosexual act is wrong.
The "liberal" media has been pushing that there is nothing inherent in homosexuality that is wrong. You know that that's a lie, but here you are doing your best to sabotage putting the truth front and center. Shame! You're being anti-Christ.
"You also associated most pedophilia with homosexuals, ...." I did not. You are being reckless in your misreading or twisting. I associated the slippery slope of going from tolerating to condoning to celebrating homosexuality with that same thing happening concerning pedophilia.
"And your ad hominem attack on me was shameful and ungrounded." This is coming from someone who first said I have an unhealthy obsession? You're being extremely hypocritical. You're dissembling. You're getting twisted up in your own talk. You pointed the finger. I responded with questions. It's plain for everyone to see here.
I don't need your forgiveness here on anything I've written here because I haven't written anything wrong. I have not sinned here. Keep your forgiveness, Debbie. Have more mercy on the little children than on the "hurt" feelings of unrepentant homosexuals proselytizing to them. Stop protecting the wrong people first.
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)