Semantical Theology is my forte. The name of my tiny/huge (depending upon the context — ha) cyber "ministry" is the Real Liberal Christian Church. Wrap your mind around that semantically. The term "liberal" there comes directly from Isaiah:
"The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." — Isaiah 32:5
I visited David Pickup's website recently and found this article where David asks the question in the title: "Does this article really sound like healthy love?"
What is real love? You see, David and many others are already on the subject but just are deliberately marginalized by the Homosexual Movement, which is really an iteration of the Free Love Movement that, quite frankly, knows no bounds.
Are you familiar with Aleister Crowley? If not, I suggest you dig into that as far as you can. Knowing about him in some detail will allow you to see, if you don't already, the spider web that connects directly to the most "civil" and "gentle" and "nice" homosexuals only promoting homosexual "marriage" "rights" (for now). All of those are in quotes due to the semantics and the "liberating" connotations that have devolved into existence due to unrighteous usage.
"Real Christian" is a pejorative with many homosexuals to flip the notion of right and wrong upside down. It's exactly why Isaiah said, "The vile person shall be no more called liberal." The twisting of words started ages ago. This is no new phenomenon. The time to which Isaiah was referring is yet to come. He said, we don't end up the losers.
One of his more famous lines is, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"(Isaiah 5:20)
All of this is also why the homosexuals have focused so much on Christianity, to turn people further away from the very understanding that I'm relating to you, which understanding already is mostly lost. If they can, they think, knock down Christ ("God is Dead"), who referred to Isaiah but who knew even more about it all than did Isaiah, then those homosexuals will afford more and more room for disciples of the Aleister Crowley mold, who number in the hundreds of millions even without always fully realizing it. It is another reason the "slippery slope" concept is so repudiated by them. Many of them continually insist that what they are advocating now is the final line: that pedophilia, for instance, will not enter in after homosexual marriage. We know better: Do pedophiles deserve sympathy? Is that the right topic? Slippery slope?
Aleister Crowley was a humanist and libertarian, an anarchist (a sexual anarchist – no rules – do whatever you will). That was even his law, and it has been whole-heartedly (a misnomer there) adopted by most (not all) of the leadership of Hollywood and Rock 'n Roll, etc. There are self-labeled Christian humanists, Christian libertarians, and Christian anarchists. However, each of those only works within very specific contexts and not the contexts I've applied concerning Crowley. There are clear lines between them, but you have to go way in to see them. Trying to get anyone to sit still long enough to explain it all is quite a challenge. Jesus said, "Few there be that find it."
How does all of this relate to NARTH, CA SB-1172, etc.? Why is Christ linked directly to the issue? He's the homosexualists' biggest enemy. Most of them are atheists (which is a term they also work at making vague by splitting the hair as far as they can). SB-1172, no matter what else it is, is anti-Christ. Does one have to believe in Jesus as the Christ in order to support NARTH treating children for unwanted Same-Sex Attraction (SSA) that can occur, and in many cases has occurred, with previously non-SSA children as a direct result of homosexual and other abuses, even rape? No. However, for anyone to have the big picture, to be fully informed, it is necessary that he or she delve into heretofore untouched subject matters for him or her.
I believe that's enough for now. It's an endless subject in the "worldly" sense of "endless."
I highly recommend that you first do the digging part. It is not easy to probe it all. The mainstream keeps it hidden. The Internet made it easier for a while, but the mainstream is doing what it can to slowly close that off too, as I describe above, and in other ways of which I am fully aware but won't go into now.
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)