What's homosexualist Dan Savage's problem? Truth

The news about a person named Dan Savage, a homosexual activist, giving a speech to a large group of high school journalism students has been ramping up and up. I watched the video yesterday. Today, I see more of the typical dividing lines being drawn up by the mass media. There are some under tones where fake-liberal homosexuals are encouraging Savage not to back down, so to speak. The controversy sells advertising space on news sites.

I suppose you'll need to see the video so that my comments will be better understood in context.

Here's the typical "conservative" approach, not that I completely disagree with it. I agree with more of it than I don't. For a real flavor of the "arguments," read the comment section over there.

Here's another where the homosexualists appear to gang up. They couldn't do that breitbart.com -- too many regulars.

My approach to this is atypical. What I intend to do is to show where Dan Savage has always been in error and to take away most, if not all, of his cockiness and self-assurance. I'm going to take him head on over his main points concerning theology.

Dan Savage employs what his fellow homosexualists falsely imagine to be tried and tested and fail-proof criticism of The Bible regarding homosexuality. He used the same worn-out, misguided, ignorant statements on the high school students. Let's get right to it.

His supposed point, supported by his fellow travelers, is that because "modernists" do not believe in or subscribe to certain teachings or laws in the Old Testament that therefore, the law against homosexuality is more than suspect but blatantly wrong. He referred to the prohibition concerning eating shell fish. He cited the Bible's lack of condemnation of slavery. He pointed to Paul's lack concerning that too, at least in Dan Savage's view.

Now here's the important part. What you didn't hear Dan Savage do is say that Jesus Christ was wrong regarding sexual prohibitions of Mosaic Law, none of which Jesus ever disagreed with that any of us living here and now knows of. Jesus was very strict regarding sexual libertinism. He told the adulteress to go and sin no more. Many modernists are more than toying with sexual "liberty" (it's actually quite enslaving) of all sorts, and they truly loathe the teachings of Jesus where those clearly more than suggest that what those libertines are engaged in doing is wicked -- very shortsighted and very, very self-centered, not anything remotely qualifying as real love.

Of course, Dan Savage and his cohorts will spin these things endlessly in a futile attempt to avoid confronting their own iniquity.

Look, what Dan Savage doesn't understand or doesn't want to acknowledge is that The Bible is an on-going internal debate or struggle for the knowledge of the real difference between right and wrong rather than the children's cartoon-level of debate so common within certain circles.

Jesus came to enhance our understanding of the law. The case in point about the adulterous shows him doing it. Moses said to stone her. Jesus said don't be hypocrites. Jesus was more correct than Moses, but he did not overturn the prohibition against adultery.

Now how in the world can Dan Savage or anyone else reconcile homosexuality, square it, with Jesus's continuing prohibition against adultery. Surely, if it's alright for Dan Savage to bugger his boyfriend and to be buggered by him, then the prohibition against adultery is every bit as antiquated and nonsensical as any prohibition on homosexual or other sodomy.

Savage though knows the whole song and dance routine of the homosexualists. He's trying his hardest to get the world to misbelieve that there's nothing wrong with homosex. Mental, spiritual, sexual illness enjoys company.

The fact is that homosex is not harmless at all. There is plenty of evidence to support that statement. Yes, it also applies to female homosexuals, contrary to the claims of homosexualists that female homosexuals do not have as many problems as heterosexuals. One must keep in mind that sexual confusion is not the only form confusion takes. The issue though is where all other things are equal, what is the impact of homosexuality itself. It's not good.

The truth has been, and is still being, systematically censored by those who set out to infiltrate and co-opt the various major associations of "professional" mental healthcare practitioners. One need only read my post of yesterday on the subject and cover the linked material therein (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?) to come to learn of how the APA (American Psychological Association) was taken over and turned into an organization that refuses to unbiasedly evaluate research and study findings that support SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts).

Look, just because someone eats shellfish does not negate the correctness of Moses' statement that homosexuality is confusion. If Dan Savage were correct, then Moses would have been wrong concerning everything. Murder would therefore be fine. However, murder is not fine and never will be. You see, Dan Savage points out what he believes is the inconsistency and hypocrisy in Christianity, but he doesn't understand those concepts (inconsistency and hypocrisy). He applies them in a one-sided manner, which is hypocritical.

His failure to be able to think clearly is the very reason why he gives a speech against bullying by bullying high school girls to tears. Now if I were to get up in front of a bunch of high school students who are confused about their genders and to commence to rip them apart and break them down to tears, what would the homosexualists say about my actions?

I'm not saying that it is always wrong to reduce people to tears. In fact, people cry about many things. War mongers should be reduced to tears over the evil that has consumed them. That would be the beginning of the redemptive process, the healing, the repentance, the mercy and forgiveness, etc.

Dan Savage doesn't grasp that sort of thinking though. He's too busy trying to distract from the confusion of his sexual behavior, part and parcel of his confusion about existence in general.

Well, it isn't possible for a stupid person who thinks he's smart to realize just how stupid he is unless he's willing to face his confusion and to ask, seek, and knock at the real God's door.

By the way, I don't eat shellfish, and I do understand the teaching to slaves to be good Christians -- because it teaches their "masters" who will likely become free themselves as a result. The truth shall set you free.

So, no Dan, we aren't to ignore the "bullshit" (Dan's word) in The Bible. We are to learn the lessons of Jesus. There isn't a speck of waste product in any of his teachings. If you don't like that, it's because you have evil within. Overcome, Dan. Stop buggering your friend(s), and stop letting him/them use you like a woman. Your mouth and anus are not vaginas, Dan. Stop being so confused. Stop misleading the children down the paths of iniquity. You were not born homosexual. You were turned into one by events that occurred after conception -- not from your DNA but rather environment.

You're messed up, Dan. Straighten out before you fall so far down that you will give up trying to get out of the hole you've dug for yourself.

It doesn't get better for the wicked. It gets worse and worse and worse. Evil tricks you, Dan. It let's you think you're on solid ground even for years or decades before the bottom drops out.

What else is there to say? Jesus taught to shake the dust from your feet when you don't find the son of the house peaceful toward you. Peaceful there means something very deep and profound, not just peaceful on the exterior. He taught us to treat those who reject the call to repentance as heathens. He taught us to let the blind follow the blind into the ditch. So we speak the truth that homosex is fraught with error, then let the truth do the sorting. It does and will.


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.