Homosexualists, what are they and what do they have to do with the San Francisco Chapter of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists?

I received a Facebook comment from a Facebook friend of mine. Since he said that I should post CAMFT's cite/URL, I am reproducing his statements/question here and am responding here as well. The post he commented about is this one: Revealing the lies of the Homosexualists: IIRTH Ethical Complaint Against San Francisco Psychotherapists - YouTube.

Here's Steven's comment on my wide-open Facebook Wall:

Steven Baudoin
I am compelled to comment.
1. It would be good for you to include a link to the SF CAMFT site: http://www.sfcamft.org/.
2. The CAMFT statement does not seem offensive to me. It does not appear to be denying the possibility of reparative therapy. "Affirmative multiculturally competent and client-centered approaches" does not equal "gay-affirmative therapy."
3. NARTH and IIRTH certainly have a right to express their opinions, and you have the right to report on that. I believe that you did not fairly present SF CAMFT's position.
4. Exactly what is the meaning of "homosexualist"? You seem to use it as a pejorative.

My response:

Steven,

The California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (CAMFT) reaffirms its respect of human diversity, including gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. CAMFT affirms that same-sex sexual attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality regardless of sexual orientation identity.

That's not "gay-affirming" to you? Come on. That is affirming. How can you read it any other way?

CAMFT acknowledges that current cultural prejudice about same-sex sexual orientation compels some clients to seek out sexual orientation change due to personal, family, or religious conflicts, or to better fit into some cultural and religious norms. CAMFT is concerned about children and youth, who are especially vulnerable to harm and who lack adequate legal protection from involuntary or coercive treatment and whose parents and guardians may not have accurate information to make informed decisions regarding the child's development and well-being.

Wow, is that ever loaded. It assumes that people don't instinctively know that there is something decidedly wrong with homosex. It also completely ignores the harm done by leaving vulnerable children on their own when those children have been neglected and/or sexually abused into homosexual behavior.

National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) and others cite peer-reviewed research on their sites that runs contrary to the view that homosexuality is a positive variation of human sexuality. It is that scientific research and reporting that homosexualists seek to censor and in some cases, make illegal.

CAMFT advises mental health professionals that do provide assistance to those who seek sexual orientation change, to do so by utilizing affirmative multiculturally competent and client-centered approaches that recognize the negative impact of social stigma on sexual minorities and balance ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence (sic), justice, and respect for people's rights and dignity.

So, one may assist someone who wants to be rid or of, or to diminish. same-sex attraction; but at the same time, he or she is supposed to affirm multiculturalism (in terms of, among other things, affirming homosexuality as not only normal but positive) and, at the same time, "recognize the negative impact of social stigma on sexual minorities." So, the therapist is to help someone be rid of same-sex attraction while saying to that one that there's no good reason for doing so, even when the therapist fully believes and knows that homosexuality is not a positive thing at all and has the science to back that up.

According to the evidence (when viewed without biased, homosexual filtering and false propaganda), homosexuality inherently is not on a par with heterosexuality. This is where all other things are equal. The negativity is with homosexuality itself. It is not unethical to know that and to state it openly.

So, exactly how was I not fair? NARTH and the International Institute of Reorientation Therapies (IIRTH) know what they are up against: homosexual and pro-homosex fascists. Read the rest of this post and the material linked to below. NARTH and IIRTH know what CAMFT has said and published. CAMFT has not taken a principled stand vis-a-vis the research/evidence NARTH has supplied. The fact is that NARTH has been blatantly and severely misrepresented and vilified by the homosexualists.

As for the term ("homosexualist", what is an Islamist? One might call me a Christianist but for my anti-coercive position. A homosexualist is one who seeks to make illegal the voicing in public of the idea that homosex is fundamentally an error. They seek to use the government to suppress the truth. Their position is ideological and not based upon the scientific method they claim. As for it being a pejorative, pejoration is the process of taking something good and demeaning it. I have never thought of homosex as anything but a gross error. What I take offense to is your use of the term "gay" when referring to them. "Gay" is a euphemism. It is exactly backwards. It is twisting even further than "collateral damage."

The fact is that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) work. Change is possible concerning sex, just as it is concerning other behaviors.

I suggest you look into all of this and then start spreading the real truth rather than going with the homo false-propaganda:

"Homosexual / Gay Rights" v. Science at the APA (American Psychological Association)

The truth about homosexuality is coming back

My comments on homosexuality

Fascistic CA Senator, Ted Lieu, claims crackdown on "deceptive sexual-orientation conversion 'therapies'"

Spanish bishop publishes ex-gay testimonies on diocesan website after attacks from homosexual groups | LifeSiteNews.com

Peace and truth are one and the same.

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.
    • Thanks, Tom, for posting that link as I suggested, and for defining "homosexualist" for me. I would not have guessed that its meaning is so narrow. "A homosexualist is one who seeks to make illegal the voicing in public of the idea that homosex is fundamentally an error. ..." I suppose there is someone somewhere who espouses that, but no one I know. I am confident that most of the people I know would simply want the LGBT community to be treated with respect and fairness, and would not advocate limiting free speech. In fact, the only people I know of who want to limit free speech on this issue are those on the anti-gay side.If "gay" is a euphemism, then so is "straight". It's handier than saying "homosexual" and "heterosexual", and more usable in ordinary conversation. On the other hand, "homosexualist", "homo", and "homosex" are pejorative terms that you seem to be using in an attempt to stir antagonism against a group of people.
      The idea that "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" actually work is an opinion that is not supported by any sound research that I know of. If you have references to evidence of their efficacy and safety, you should provide links to those references.
      Finally, I would not call you a "Christianist", but I might call you a "religionist", that is, one who does not believe in deriving knowledge from experience and experimentation, but from pre-existing authority. Let me know if you think that is an unfair characterization.

      Steven

    • First of all, you're welcome that I posted the link and info. I don't avoid doing so. I'm simply under time-constraints. I have projects – many balls in the air at the same time.

      As for the term homosexualist, the vast majority of homosexuals probably don't fit the term. Unfortunately, unlike you, I've come into contact too many times to recall with militant homosexuals – people with a very prominent fascistic streak. Also unfortunately, because people in general have sympathy for those told about in various stories (the bullied), the fascistic homosexuals get a pass. That needs to end every bit as much as the Zionists getting a pass because of Nazism.

      "A homosexualist is one who seeks to make illegal the voicing in public of the idea that homosex is fundamentally an error." It's true. Apparently, you don't get around much in the comment sections on the Internet where various sides battle it out. You've lived a rather sheltered life, not that, that's bad. You should see the vitriol on both side; but I must say, it is much greater on the part of homosexuals and their supporters. At least it had been. I've seen a tendency to tone it down a bit probably because they were giving homosex a bad reputation in the eyes of fence sitters. 

      "...most of the people I know would simply want the LGBT community to be treated with respect and fairness, and would not advocate limiting free speech." Well, have you seen and heard them when confronted by or confronting someone who disagrees with homosexuality?

      "In fact, the only people I know of who want to limit free speech on this issue are those on the anti-gay side." Well, of course there are those people. I'm not one of them. I would rather the homosexuals convert out of conscience. I'm not about to gag them or beat them or kill them, etc.; but I won't do as so many of them have requested of me, and that's to shut up, among other things that are too crude to mention.

      Are you of the view that Vicki Knox should not have been fired for her Facebook posts? Are you unaware of the numbers of homosexuals who insisted that she had no right to disagree with the idea that there is nothing wrong with homosex? Have you not read the homosexuals who have been gleeful and even giddy because they want to believe that their way of life will never be rolled back? I'm sure you don't know their plan. I'm positive you don't know it. The plan of the homosexualists is not to stop at allowing homosex but rather to allow mass homosexual orgies in the streets. If you don't know that, it's because you've never been around to hear them when they think they are speaking where it won't get out. Anyway, enough said on that.

      "If "gay" is a euphemism, then so is "straight". " In a sense, on a certain level, I agree. However, I don't use the term straight in that sense. Straight for me is as Jesus used it. Of course, that kind of straight also means non-homosexual. The different connotations are there though. The "straight" of Jesus does not necessarily apply to the heterosexual.

      No, the term "gay" was deliberately chosen for its original meaning, which homosexuality is not – if you're aware of the problems associated with it. There is zero gayness in homosexuality regardless of the drama.

      "It's handier than saying "homosexual"...." It's caving in. It's acceding to what was clearly a falsehood: false propaganda. It was designed to be used so that succeeding generations would lose continuity with the certain knowledge that homosex is a fundamental mistake. It was and remains a highly dishonest term. I refuse to use it for that reason. I never used it the way homosexuals wanted. I never will.

      "..."homosexualist", "homo", and "homosex" are pejorative terms that you seem to be using in an attempt to stir antagonism against a group of people." They are not pejoratives. Homo means same. Hetero means different. It's that simple. The reason you believe as you do is because you drank the Kool-Aid, as it were. The homosexuals want to be called "gay" for the reasons I've stated. I won't go along with the charade. Neither should you. You're being used and abuse (confused) in real senses. I would like to disabuse you of the misguided influence of the homosexuals.

      "The idea that "Sexual Orientation Change Efforts" actually work is an opinion that is not supported by any sound research that I know of." Have you looked? Have you ever read NARTH's materials and the opposing studies to gauge for yourself? I have. Did you watch the interview with Dr. Nicholas Cummings? I posted those so you would. As for references, you can obtain NARTH's compendium. I've stayed with the free stuff because there's tons of it, and I'm far from rich. Anyway, I don't dismiss Cummings and Nicolosi and others. They say that they've witnessed profound changes. Why should I doubt it when I've undergone profound changes myself, not about homosex but about sex nevertheless. I also know people who have changed from homosex. To me, it's no more difficult than conversions in other matters. Sexuality is highly mutable. The homosexualists hate it that I say that openly. They call it a lie. They say that those who change were never really homosexuals.

      Look, there are people one would think cannot give up tobacco because they try and fail and go through "hell" in the process. That doesn't make smoking or chewing acceptable or laudable. And yes, I'm drawing a clear analogy. I'm not though saying smoking is equal to homosex. I'd rather smoke and die of lung cancer than be homosexual. It is that huge an error to me.

      "If you have references to evidence of their efficacy and safety, you should provide links to those references." Why is it up to me to provide such links with every post? I post on the subject often and don't have time to provide links every time. Why are there people who attack NARTH before they've even bothered to go look and read and listen and compare, etc.?

      "Finally, I would not call you a "Christianist", but I might call you a "religionist", that is, one who does not believe in deriving knowledge from experience and experimentation, but from pre-existing authority. Let me know if you think that is an unfair characterization."

      I know that it is wildly off the mark. First of all, those aren't mutually exclusive. Yes, I take huge knowledge from Jesus; but I came to most of that rather late in life: my very late forties. Let me point out that I "experienced" Jesus's teachings. As for experimentation, now you're on the threshold of the issue that is scientism. I do not subscribe to it. I know full well about the method. I understand fully how it is a closed loop. Testing God, for instance, precludes the experience until God decides otherwise. Read the Gospels looking for the answers to the questions pertaining to testing. Lazarus was raised from the dead because of Jesus's certainty – complete lack of doubt – complete lack of testing. Why we don't see those levels of miracles (commonplace for God elsewhere) has to do with testing and doubt and naysaying, etc. Dead spirits try to kill living ones. I'm going in the opposite direction. I'm more interested in the spiritual than in the atheists' "universe." Knowledge of a type will continue to expand, but no one will come to God save by the son. I not only believe that, I know it! You don't find that in a test tube, unless you're a repentant chemist or something. Then your errors in your use of test tubes over faith will scream at you from your old test tubes.

      Are the Gospels not authoritative enough as references for you, Steven?

      Peace,

      Tom

    • Thanks for responding, Tom. I will let most of your statements stand, they speak for themselves, but I do have a few comments. I take issue with your saying that I have lived "a sheltered life" – I don't know who you think was sheltering me. Seriously, it seems that what you are implying is that you know more about the subject than I do. I would suggest that your knowledge of this issue is colored by your preconceptions and your religious beliefs, and that I am able to be more objective. I have, of course, seen examples of absurdly radical opinions and behavior on both sides. In my (sheltered) experience, when I communicate face to face with advocates of gay rights, most of them are quite rational. I have encountered less rationality among the opponents, that is, those who believe that homosexuality is a sin or a crime.As to Vicki Knox, if the school fired her merely on the basis of her Facebook posts, that would be wrong, and I believe that the ACLU would be able to show that. It appears to me that the school board may have reason to investigate Knox on the basis of her behavior on the job, which would be quite another matter. As far as I know, this issue has not yet been resolved.When I have occasion to refer to groups of people, African-Americans or Christians or gays, I try to use the terminology they prefer, regardless of whether I think it is the most accurate. If I think a Christian group is being legalistic, I will talk about examples of their legalism, but I won't refer to the whole group as legalists. The Roman Catholic Church refers to itself as "the Church", meaning that the hierarchy considers it the only real church. I don't agree with their opinion on that, but when I am conversing with Catholics, I use their terminology and we both know what we are talking about. Likewise, when I talk to or about gay people, we all know that they are not happy 100% of the time. I use their terminology as a gesture of respect. When you use degrading terminology like "homo", it comes across as indicating disrespect. If you can't bring yourself to use the term "gay", I suggest you use neutral terminology.You said that referring to you as a "religionist" is "wildly off the mark", then you go on to validate my use of that term. You said, "...you're on the threshold of the issue that is scientism. I do not subscribe to it. I know full well about the method." That is correct. I do subscribe to "scientism", if by that you mean that I have confidence in the scientific method. You apparently do not, preferring to get all your knowledge directly from the word of God. That accords with my definition of "religionist"."Are the Gospels not authoritative enough as references for you, Steven?"This is not as simple a question as it appears to be. I love the Gospels, and I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I do not believe that they contain the answers to all questions. I will be happy to provide more of my opinion on this, but it would get off topic. You can go to Chiefy.cafenexo.com if you want to persue it.

    • "I take issue with your saying that I have lived "a sheltered life" – I don't know who you think was "I take issue with your saying that I have lived "a sheltered life" – I don't know who you think was sheltering me. Seriously, it seems that what you are implying is that you know more about the subject than I do."

      I am not implying it. I am flat out stating that I know more about what it's like to be on the receiving end of fascist homosexuality. Why you don't simply accept that makes no sense to me. Homosexuals aren't going to tell you how happy they will be when you are crucified for being opposed to homosex because you aren't opposed to it, at least not that I can tell so far anyway. Perhaps you are but avoid saying it.

      "I would suggest that your knowledge of this issue is colored by your preconceptions and your religious beliefs,..." That's completely ignoring what I said to you – that I came to my beliefs in my late forties. How is that "preconceived"? I used to be undecided about a number of things regarding homosex. Before that, I was quite positive that it was disgusting. My belief at that time was not formed by religion at all but rather instinct or intuitive knowledge concerning such matters. So, you've not grasped where I am or where I've come from.

      "... and that I am able to be more objective." Your "objectivity" appears to be highly subjective to me. You don't appear to be willing to say that the main homosexual attraction is male-on-male anal intercourse and that, that act of theirs is fundamentally an error from which nothing good has ever come or ever will, rather the contrary.

      "I have, of course, seen examples of absurdly radical opinions and behavior on both sides." I'm sure you have, but my point was that you have not heard the kind of stuff I have because you have not been targeted, whereas, I have.

      "...when I communicate face to face with advocates of gay rights, most of them are quite rational." Of course you do, but you find sodomy or buggery rational behavior. I find it extremely twisted and confused: decidedly unhealthy in every sense of the word.

      "I have encountered less rationality among the opponents, that is, those who believe that homosexuality is a sin or a crime." I deem it a sin and a crime. However, I'm not handing down sentences.

      "As to Vicki Knox, if the school fired her merely on the basis of her Facebook posts, that would be wrong, ...." Your position about Vicki appears to be unacceptable to the vast majority of homosexualists if not all of them. I would say nearly all of them, by definition.

      "When I have occasion to refer to groups of people, African-Americans or Christians or gays, I try to use the terminology they prefer, regardless of whether I think it is the most accurate." Yes, you do, and I use the most accurate language so as not to facilitate the less accurate – meaning so as not to facilitate the deception. Frankly, your "reasoning" on this is irrational to me. Do you say "collateral damage" when speaking of the innocent who are murdered by Hellfire missiles fired from US CIA Predator Drones? I don't. I don't for the exact same reason I won't call homosexuals "gay." They aren't gay. It's a lie to call them that. When you talk to rabid militarists, do you "respect" how they want to be addressed and dealt with, etc.? How about rabid capitalists, such as the Koch brothers, would you be careful not to "hurt" their feelings while they pollute and rape the planet for their insatiable greed? My point is that I don't think you're consistent in the way you handle people. Oh, I know you're not a "rough" customer. I'm not suggesting that you need to be, but you could be a bit more direct rather than "sweet" to the homosexuals (if you disagree with their acts, which remains to be said).

      "...when I am conversing with Catholics, I use their terminology and we both know what we are talking about." When I converse with Roman Catholics, I agree with what I agree with and disagree with what I disagree with, and if any of them don't like it, that's their problem. I'm not completely averse to taking it easy concerning some people's sensibilities, but I have my limits in terms of patience with those who don't have the patience to hear me out in earnest rather than simply trying to run me down with completely irrelevant banter and accusations (the typical homosexualist ploy) . Did you know that I must be hiring male homosexual prostitutes because I'm opposed to sodomy? When such ludicrous statements are made on major websites where hundreds of people are commenting and reading the comments, I have yet to see even one of your "rational" homosexuals tell another homosexual that he or she is being just plain stupid. Why is that, Steven? Why don't they do that? There are a few "Log Cabin" Republicans who will draw more "acceptable" lines, but they are few and far between relative to the others and don't really "bash" the loudmouths for whatever reason. They don't really stand up to them, but that makes sense to me. I get it. Nevertheless, Jesus came to divide.

      "I use their terminology as a gesture of respect. When you use degrading terminology like "homo", it comes across as indicating disrespect." It is not degrading if they believe in same-sex sex. It means same. As for "respect," I don't respect what they are doing at all. I believe that one knows a tree by its fruit. I see nothing good coming of this "acceptance" of homosex. I'm sure that in the long run, it won't stand. Truth will win out. You're on the wrong side of this issue, Steven.

      " If you can't bring yourself to use the term "gay", I suggest you use neutral terminology." Why? I'm not neutral. I'm diametrically opposed. I don't want to come off as neutral. I want people to know the truth. Being neutral on this is an error. I'm not interested in being dishonest. You shouldn't be asking me to.

      "You said that referring to you as a "religionist" is "wildly off the mark",..." No, I said that how you characterized me in terms of not learning from experience was wildly off the mark. You define religionist as you did. I didn't say I agreed with your definition. I am a religionist, but I'm my kind of religionist. I'm not coercive. Jesus founded his Church. He founded his religion, even though he was and is from the beginning. You should understand that considering that you have said that you profess Christianity.

      "... then you go on to validate my use of that term. You said, "...you're on the threshold of the issue that is scientism. I do not subscribe to it. I know full well about the method." That is correct. I do subscribe to "scientism", if by that you mean that I have confidence in the scientific method. You apparently do not, preferring to get all your knowledge directly from the word of God. That accords with my definition of "religionist". Do you or don't you believe Jesus performed what would still constitute miracles today? Did he raise the clinically dead, a man that today's science could not raise? Was Jesus himself resurrected or not? I say he was. I didn't say that I am unaware of science or disbelieve in its results in its closed loop. Am I speaking over your head on this? Are you a materialist? Is there no spirit beyond matter? Exactly where are those subatomic particles that the physicists tease out for tiny fractions of a second before they completely go out of existence in the "scientific" sense?

      "Are the Gospels not authoritative enough as references for you, Steven?" This is not as simple a question as it appears to be. I love the Gospels, and I try to follow the teachings of Jesus, but I do not believe that they contain the answers to all questions." The Gospels do and don't contain all the answers depending upon what you're looking for. God is the ultimate answer. That God is in the Gospel message of Jesus. However, the question is whether the Gospel of Jesus contains prohibitions against homosex even without using the term directly? Look, in the Old Testament, we are told that Noah's son, Canaan, "knew" Noah while Noah was sleeping off over drinking. We are also informed as to what "knew" there meant and means. The Bible didn't say it, but it still said it and says it. You seem to be stuck with semantical blockage.

      "I will be happy to provide more of my opinion on this, but it would get off topic." No, actually, it is the topic. The issue is consistency of belief and knowledge. Are your views about homosex consistent with your professed love of the Gospel of Jesus? It's critically important to truth in terms of it being widespread and loved that all Christians openly state the fact that buggery is wrong and should not be done, homosexually or heterosexually. The homosexualists will hate you though for speaking and writing that fact. Then perhaps your faith will be tried. Then perhaps you'll get a taste of what it's like to be on the receiving end of insanely fascistic homosexuals hell bent to open the gates of Hell wide open even against the Church of Jesus Christ who died for you so you wouldn't cave into what you've been caving into: homosex (pro-homosexuality or at least neutrality), among other things.

      You need to do some very deep soul searching, Steven. You need to ask God directly in Jesus's name whether or not you're being completely truthful with yourself.

      God bless you, Steven,

      Tom

      • I don't like to complain, but you messed up my formatting. I don't want people to get the impression that my writing is that sloppy.There was a time when I thought homosexual behavior is sinful. Because of that, I was on the receiving end of some unfair attacks. I don't suppose I would be likely to experience the kind of vicious attack you report, since I don't try to provoke people the way you do. Although I have not been attacked so by homosexuals, I have been attacked, including physically, so I am not completely lacking in experience."I used to be undecided about a number of things regarding homosex. Before that, I was quite positive that it was disgusting. My belief at that time was not formed by religion at all but rather instinct or intuitive knowledge concerning such matters." That sounds like a preconception to me. The fact that you came to Jesus later doesn't change your preconceptions. I assume your prior opinions influenced the shape of your religious inclinations, and your conservative style of faith reinforced those opinions. "You don't appear to be willing to say that the main homosexual attraction is male-on-male anal intercourse and that, that act of theirs is fundamentally an error from which nothing good has ever come or ever will..." Right, I am unwilling to say that, because I am sure that it is wrong. That is equivalent to saying that the main heterosexual attraction is male-on-female vaginal intercourse. I'll admit, sex is nice, but what do you do the other 99.8% of the time? More importantly, it is not an error. Good has come from it. I know gay couples who are loving and committed to each other, and productive members of society.You know, in the long run, truth will win out. The truth appears to be, to me and many others who have investigated this issue exhaustively, that a certain number of people are born to be homosexual.As an aside, in Genesis 9:22, it says that Noah's son Ham, Canaan's father, saw Noah naked. It does not say they had intercourse. I know, "The Bible didn't say it, but it still said it and says it." It doesn't matter, I guess what the Bible said and didn't say, simultaneously. But if you are going to use Bible passages, at least try to find ones that say what they say.Since you seem to want to talk about my religious faith, I need to explain where I stand. I consider myself an agnostic Christian. I am Christian in the sense that I follow Jesus of Nazareth. I am agnostic in the sense that I do not affirm or deny the existence of God, miracles, or anything else that cannot be observed in some way. I imagine that, in your eyes, that makes me an unbeliever or a heretic of some sort. That's fine. I wrote an article addressing my position at my blog, if you want more insight. I am sure that you think you are enlightened and I am not, I am equally sure that you are incorrect. I am also sure that we are not going to convert each other, but I will be happy to exchange ideas, if they are grounded in observable reality. And, Tom, God bless you too. Whatever that means.

        • I wrote this before seeing your comment under "Pending" in DISQUS:

          Steven, you believe in Jesus and the Gospels but don't believe they hold all the answers. Well, Jesus himself said that there was, and is, more to come. I don't have a problem with that, but the way you place your faith in science precludes the miracles of Christ. Your kind of scientific experimentation to prove or disprove Jesus would turn up negative results unless God were to specifically override it, which God can do and has done but doesn't want to in all cases for God's reasons and which appear to be beyond your belief in God.

          If you believe that Jesus performed any miracles whatsoever, if you believe that faith healed anyone (and the Gospels say that there were times and places where literally everyone who came out to be healed was healed and regardless of the degree or type of affliction), then how can you be of the opinion that SOCE must be "proven" via the very limited type of knowledge (your type of science) in which you place your faith over your faith in God? Does your faith in God and Jesus heal you of nothing? Have they shown you nothing that you will believe in God's power to change "sexual orientation"? Do you really believe that people with extremely ingrained conditioning cannot reach out to God and be healed of their behaviors and problems? Are you of the crowd that says that it is harmful for people to seek sexuality change if those people fail and are depressed as a result? Are we to avoid all disappointment and rather just go with whatever temptations have gotten hold of us that we can't just snap our fingers to be rid of in our tiny faith or no real faith at all? Am I to side with the homosexual activists going about pushing that? If at first you don't succeed, give up instantly and just bugger each other and pretend all is "normal." Is that it? Jesus said, "According to your faith be it unto you."

          And the fame hereof went abroad into all that land. And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us. And when he was come into the house, the blind men came to him: and Jesus saith unto them, Believe ye that I am able to do this? They said unto him, Yea, Lord. Then touched he their eyes, saying, According to your faith be it unto you. And their eyes were opened; and Jesus straitly charged them, saying, See that no man know it. (Mat 9:26-30)

          You "love" the Gospels but don't believe?

          Then Jesus said unto them, Yet a little while is the light with you. Walk while ye have the light, lest darkness come upon you: for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth. While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of light. These things spake Jesus, and departed, and did hide himself from them. But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. (Joh 12:35-40)

          Yet, you as a professing Christian side with those who encourage and even insist that it is dangerous and harmful for souls to overcome the addiction to homosexuality. I find your position to be shameful.

          Why should I buy into the notion that if something can't be "tested" by your level of understanding that, therefore, the God of Jesus doesn't exist and further, as so many claim, Jesus was and is a myth, that the Gospels are fiction? You believe in what you call "God." I don't know how much power you believe that one has or how involved or uninvolved that one is, but my God is able to do everything attributed to him by Jesus. There are no "laws of physics" that bind him. He is over all of that.

        • "I don't like to complain, but you messed up my formatting." Which? I didn't touch your formatting. I will look at my comment to see where DISQUS altered it from what is in your comment; and if I find any such, I will attempt to fix the differences.

          Formatting difficulties is what I don't like most about DISQUS.

        • I see nothing in my comment where I "messed up" your formatting. What specifically is the problem?

        • Steven properly pointed out that I should have said Ham, not Canaan. I was thinking about the curse. Perfection awaits. "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without." It doesn't mean "saw" the way the term is commonly used today. In my view/reading, It meant sex. A son seeing his father without his regular clothes on was not a sin. Of course, speaking shamefully about it was. So, there are those who believe the sin was only seeing him naked in the "modern" sense and then speaking of that to his brothers. If I'm wrong about it, I don't believe existence rises or falls on that. I'm not punishing Ham, and will gladly retract it if I've been misled or jumped to false conclusions. I'm simply expecting that the Bible was being consistent in the concept of "seeing nakedness." The concept changed over time even within the Old Testament.

        • "That sounds like a preconception to me. The fact that you came to Jesus later doesn't change your preconceptions. I assume your prior opinions influenced the shape of your religious inclinations, and your conservative style of faith reinforced those opinions." Were you speaking of religious preconceptions? I thought so.

          How can a child hearing of homosex for the first time have preconceived anything on the subject? We're getting into deep semantics if you're able and willing. Was I born knowing God? That's what is said of Jesus. However, the first time I heard of God, I didn't know what to think. That's being honest about it. I questioned how anyone can know what can't be seen as a child understands "seeing," etc.

          No, my prior views did not influence  the shape of my religious inclinations. I searched and was open. I investigated. I discovered that I had been lacking in knowledge about Jesus's teachings is all. Prior to that, I never considered him what I now consider him. I liked him, what I knew of him, but I didn't understand.

          As for "conservative," the only conservation that's going on with me is the conservation of truth. I had to return to roots to start doing that. I returned to God. It's called repenting. Yes, it's a paradox that I didn't understand the concepts but still am returning to where I came from. I reconcile.

        • ""You don't appear to be willing to say that the main homosexual attraction is male-on-male anal intercourse and that, that act of theirs is fundamentally an error from which nothing good has ever come or ever will..." Right, I am unwilling to say that, because I am sure that it is wrong. That is equivalent to saying that the main heterosexual attraction is male-on-female vaginal intercourse. I'll admit, sex is nice, but what do you do the other 99.8% of the time?" Strange. Okay, so you don't think vaginal intercourse is what makes two people one flesh.

          "More importantly, it is not an error." Homosexual anal intercourse is not an error in your view? You are approaching being as confused as they. Steven, the penis was not and is not for sticking up a rectum. For you to claim otherwise is cognitive dissonance on your part. Do you actually teach children that they should just go ahead and bugger each other if they are tempted to do so? Your formatting is messed up.

          "Good has come from it. I know gay couples who are loving and committed to each other, and productive members of society." Love is not confusion. Being committed to a state of confusion is not a positive. Being a productive member of society is your subjectivity. Children are being severely misled and deeply harmed by all of this "liberalism" (false liberalism). Mark my words. I will be vindicated.

          "The truth appears to be, to me and many others who have investigated this issue exhaustively, that a certain number of people are born to be homosexual." Are people born to be what they are, what they do, what they have done? "He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them." That's what it says in John.

          "...if you are going to use Bible passages, at least try to find ones that say what they say." Ah, that's spoken as one who is unwilling to work out the literal from the figurative and where they overlap. Therein lies what will keep us from "walking" together to God and the real Heaven.

          "I don't suppose I would be likely to experience the kind of vicious attack you report, since I don't try to provoke people the way you do." What does that provocation entail? I provoke them by saying that anal intercourse is an error, which it clearly is. How people react is their problem. Obviously, there are many people who correctly agree with my assertion. I would rather that everyone face the truth rather than approach it as you have here: not squarely but rather combining things that are disconnected, such as your idea of productive membership of society versus whether or not anal sex is just plain wrong and the negative influences of the homosexualists supporting/promoting children being proselytized into homosex. Regardless, your comment doesn't address the problem of homosexuals and pro-homosexuals (you) not taking others in their camp to task for spreading huge lies, such as that I use male homosexual prostitutes and such. Were you on such a comment thread, would you stand up to them? You called the person vicious. Would you like the thread where he said it? Would you like to go there to denounce his attacks? There are so many such places that I would have a difficult time listing them. Some don't exist anymore because others have taken them down.

          "I consider myself an agnostic Christian. I am Christian in the sense that I follow Jesus of Nazareth. I am agnostic in the sense that I do not affirm or deny the existence of God, miracles, or anything else that cannot be observed in some way. I imagine that, in your eyes, that makes me an unbeliever or a heretic of some sort. That's fine. I wrote an article addressing my position at my blog, if you want more insight. I am sure that you think you are enlightened and I am not, I am equally sure that you are incorrect. I am also sure that we are not going to convert each other, but I will be happy to exchange ideas, if they are grounded in observable reality. And, Tom, God bless you too. Whatever that means." Yes, there is no such thing as an agnostic Christian. I know you don't follow Jesus. Jesus leads to God. Do you think he didn't say that? How can you be following him? You disagree with him, profoundly. "...observable reality...." Yep, you are a materialist; but Jesus is spirit. He said so. You follow him. Then follow that. Observe it as reality. Otherwise, stop claiming Jesus because it's dishonest of you (perhaps that hasn't occurred to you before).

          Well, I've come to know a great deal about you now. I hope for the sake of your soul that you reconsider and change.

          Tom

        • Yes, I've come to know you a lot better, too, and it's not all bad. ;-) I had no expectation that you would embrace my point of view, or consider me a Christian. I have changed greatly throughout my life, in spiritual ways. Bear in mind that we no doubt define "spiritual" in different ways. I'm sure that I will continue to change. I am sure that I will never come close to your way of thinking, that is to say, your kind of religious faith. I don't expect or want you to think like me or believe like me. I do hope that, for the sake of your soul, you will learn how to relate to Godless sinners in a way that they can see Christ's love in you instead of the church's condemnation.

        • "I do hope that, for the sake of your soul, you will learn how to relate to Godless sinners in a way that they can see Christ's love in you instead of the church's condemnation." They see what they want to. They would not see Christ's love in Christ were he to come back and be exactly as he was. The only Jesus the homosexualists are willing to accept is the one that truly did never exist.

          As for condemnation, there are connotations. If speaking and writing the truth, as I have here in this thread with you, is condemnation, it is in the eye of the beholder. If they feel condemned, they should consider. They condemn me, but I'm not condemned by virtue of their distortions and obfuscations and failures to address the issues without resorting to the ridiculous tactics they employ – most especially changing and avoiding the subject via false and irrelevant accusations.

          Jesus accepted the repentant. He rejected, and still does, those whom he told but still did not, and do not, repent. I'm with him if he'll have me.

          They will knock, but he will not open to them unchanged. That's just the way of it, and I'm fine with that. They make their own Hell.

          True love is telling the truth. Those who hate the truth, don't have true love. They hate Jesus (and me also).

        • I know they see what they want to. I am not excusing them, I am talking about you, about how you relate to people.  Far be it from me to tell you how to behave, and if it works for you, fine. I would merely suggest that your message might be more effective if it carried a tone of respect and, yes, love for those you are trying to address.

        • I said, "They would not see Christ's love in Christ were he to come back and be exactly as he was" and that "True love is telling the truth. Those who hate the truth, don't have true love. They hate Jesus (and me also)." That's a filtering message. In its face, again, you still tell me to carry "a tone of respect and, yes, love for those you are trying to address."

          Jesus came to divide the wheat from the chaff, not to coddle those who are told but reject. Without it, there can be no salvation or Heaven come to Earth. I seek the New Earth and New Heaven as one. If the Earth as we know it disappears but there is a new one that is Jesus's heaven for me, with me there and free of evil, I will have arrived. To be free of evil, homosexuality will not exist there. That will be good. If you disagree, so be it.

          There is a large gap between us, between our different understandings of what "respect" and "love" constitute and how they should be manifested. I don't, and will not, respect them for what they are doing, which is not love in my book but rather a continuation of the anti-love that was shown them by those who, often maliciously (whether considered somewhat subconsciously or not), brought the temptation to err into their lives.

          The abused become abusers is most often the case, and they seek to avoid the work of healing and rather spread the errors onto others.

          I hear people who are "conservatives," Tea Party members, and such, watering down and watering down, doing what you suggest to me to do. They are losing ground, and parts of their souls, in the whole process. In the meantime, I am not with them on more austerity for the already poor and making violent war and such. I'm against coercion. It is a last resort and if never chosen, even better and very brave and faithful to God's ultimate message.

          Also meanwhile, greedy capitalists and/or war-mongers come out as homosexuals and demand their "rights." Also, anti-capitalists and anti-war members fail to see the inconsistency when it comes to the absolute and objective harm done by homosexuality in the world.

          If I am the only person on this planet who understands my philosophy and theology or sticks with them, again, so be it. What I won't do is conform myself to the false idea that homosex is acceptable. I reject it and regardless of whether, in his or her confusion, any homosexual doesn't like it.

          Frankly, mass hypnosis (literally) has occurred regarding homosexuality. It has been deliberately aimed at children because they are more gullible and naive. Exactly when and where the spell will be broken, I can not say, only that there will be a remnant and that, that remnant will contain no homosexuals but be finally free of evil, God bless them.

        • You will see "(Edited by a moderator)" now at the end of several of your comments. The text is unchanged. All I did was fix where it appeared that you intended to paragraph.

          For future reference, don't copy and paste from a word processor into Disqus. Take your word processing text (double spaced between paragraphs) and paste that into a plain text editor with word wrapping off. Then copy that into Disqus. It's either that or save in your word processor as plain text also without word wrapping.

          If you answered via email reply, then the lack of double spacing in the message body may have done it. Although, there were many places where spaces were not rendered after periods. It rendered word.Word....

          This is Disqus's worst aspect.

          They need to add a toolbar too.

        • Noted. Thanks for patching up the formatting, it now looks the way I intended it. In future I will try running through a plain text editor.

        • "...if you are going to use Bible passages, at least try to find ones that say what they say." Here is why I said it says what I've claimed of it: Ham sodomized his father, Noah? The most likely correct interpretation of Genesis 9:20-25 KJV?