House Rules and the Question of Homosexuality

It is a real shame that people don't understand how to behave in other people's houses. The house rules are laid out for them. They are clearly asked to answer very reasonable questions or stop asking their own questions. However, they don't care about such fair rules. They just ask their questions without answering yours. Such people are trouble and, quite frankly, up to no good but evil. There is a reason they don't want to answer. That is that they don't want to be further pinned down and made to look the illogical fool. Avoiding the questions, ducking and dodging, and changing and narrowing the subject to less than the full context is their pathetic and failed method.

I quickly tire of such people and call them out on it and cut them off if they don't see the evil of their ways and turn and repent of it. If they are offended by that or surprised, let them consider their own failings and turn and repent later. Meanwhile, I will not leave the door open to them to defile the house. If they truly turn and repent, there are ways of letting this house know.

As for people permanently turning from homosexuality, anyone on the Internet who knows how to use search engines can easily find such people. It's not difficult at all. As for what homosexuality is, among other things, it is a habit of mind. The evidence for change is there. I've documented it on this site. Again, the evidence is readily available via simple searches.

Furthermore, mental conditioning and reconditioning are not some unknown things. They are well understood and certainly applicable to homosexuality. It is all a matter of degree for the particular individual and how ingrained the habit and how amenable to change. If the person doesn't want to change but resists, whose fault is that?

Also, that God has both created and can uncreate and recreate existence is a question of theology, not secular, human testing. When the subject is theology, as it has been concerning Alan Chambers, to than have atheists chime in outside the theological framework is simply moronic on their part.

We had this latest commentator, who not surprisingly failed the simple rules, narrow in on amputees and prayer and where the evidence is that through prayer, amputated limbs have grown back. Setting aside that the context shifted around while the commentator avoided answering my questions, it is quite obvious that the commentator has refused to assign any power to praying. However, neuroscientists have clearly identified the mind-over-matter fact concerning prayer. The religious will say spirit rather than just the human mind.

Now, quitting bad habits is not on the same plane as regenerating a limb via thought or will. However, the context remains theological for the purposes of my critique of Alan Chambers above and even while I am certain that "scientifically," there is a place where via faith, limbs will regrow. That faith and the consequences are dependent upon variables, one of which is merit and another of which is collectivity. Explaining in great deal concerning those aspects is beyond the scope of this comment. I have other things to do today. I will say that the theology explaining all of these things, in conjunction with the direct tie-ins with human, non-divine science, is fully explain on this site. Anyone worth his or her salt can spend the time and find it here. This site has search features and is fully indexed by Google and Bing, etc.

Smoking, drinking, stealing, lying, etc., can be deeply ingrained habits yet can be broken. The longer the time since acting out the habit, the longer the time since dwelling on the habit, the longer the time that one behaves in opposite ways, the more and more the old habit will fade away and be replaced by the new pattern of behaving, feeling, thinking, speaking. To doubt that is an indication of profound ignorance at best. Homosexual behavior and desire is not some special case comparable to regenerating limbs via faith, far from it.

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
  • Ads are not endorsed.



  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Mini-Biography: Vision for the Organization: (We must bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. The giving and sharing economy is the right system for running the whole household of Heaven and Earth.) Articles: (Thousands of online articles.) Employment: (2007 - Present: President: RLCC.) (1995 - Present: Independent contracting; Website developing; Writing.) (1993 - 1995: Factors International/Bradbury Hill International Finance.) Education: (City University, Olympia: Bellevue. Graduate Studies: Public Administration. Organizational Theory/Design.) (Arizona State University. BS, Political Science.) (Northern Arizona University.)
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.