So, I have clearly said that Jesus called homosexual behavior a sin and that we know a tree by its fruit, meaning a person by what he does and brings forth. "Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." (Matthew 12:33) Jesus also said, "...whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28)
Such evil in the heart is already sinful in nature. Therefore, when a man sexually lusts after another man in his heart, he has already sinned, already committed homosexual behavior with that other man in his heart, the homosexual lustful one's heart.
That is not to say that acting out the evil that is in one's heart is not the greater sin, for it is. Despite what you may have been told, there is definitely a hierarchy of sin and love, not that any sin is good. It is not. "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." (John 19:11)
Interspersing the quoted versus that way in their full contexts is what's called proof-texting. There is no so-called "cherry picking" to make the point where any other verses of Jesus Christ may be quoted within Jesus's full context that will render my points invalid, un-Christian. Proof-text references may also be listed out (with or without the text, meaning can be simply chapter-and-verse citations):
And he [Jesus] saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him; Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats? And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man. (Mark 7:18-23)
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 7:17-19)
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. (Matthew 12:33)
Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28)
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. (Matthew 23:23)
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. (John 19:11)
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)
That is all good. Jesus spoke no unrighteousness there!
Now, when I posted that Jesus said homosexuality is a sin and I did so because the homosexual activists constantly falsely claim that Jesus never said homosexuality is a sin, I did so by plain and clear proof that Jesus held adultery and fornication to be sins. It is no stretch to comprehend that since no homosexuals were rightfully married to each other in Jesus's single eye, which can be demonstrated by the fact that Jesus clearly defined marriage as being between male and female, and regardless of whether or not any of those homosexuals were married to a member of the opposite sex, that every homosexual was engaging in the sin of adultery or fornication, at the very least in his or her heart; and of course, many were engaging in it physically, which is to say not confined to his or her thoughts.
The light of the body is the eye: therefore when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. (Luke 11:34)
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:2-9)
Let not homosexuals corrupt human kind with lies and distortions coming out from their hardened, abused, neglected, defiled hearts and minds. Let them overcome, repent.
When I made this clear, my longtime Canadian, Internet acquaintance, John Farnham, alias "Opit," once again chimed in on the side of the homosexuals and against Jesus. He did so by appealing to the fact, albeit without stating it, that Jesus didn't use the term "homosexual" (transliterated or elsewise). He also did so by appealing to the fact that Paul is not Jesus, proper, even though I had not used Paul as proof that Jesus held forth as I've stated, as anti-homosexuality, which he plainly was and must remain or have been wrong or hypocritical and not the Son of God, John's and mine, whether John cares to admit that or not. The sons of darkness are at once the lost sons of God.
John Farnham insisted that I quote Jesus, in red letters no less. I did quote Jesus the whole time, repeatedly, though the comment system didn't accept html red – no matter. Was John unaware that I had been and still was quoting Jesus? Had he been thinking I had been quoting Paul but that John hasn't wanted to openly admit to having thought that in error? I have long accused John of ducking out when he is stuck rather than standing up as an honest man and openly admitting his gross errors concerning Jesus and therefore God.
Here is the truth for John Farnham and all those in the entire universe, all existence, who advocate homosexuality for human beings. Listen too and heed all you angels and demons or suffer the consequences of your rebellion against the Holy Spirit of truth.
When the lawyer said to Jesus "and who is my neighbor," Jesus related the story of the Good Samaritan. Pay close attention to the ending, which I will be discussing further for the sakes of those who don't instantly or haven't already gotten the point (for those who get it and it sticks with them: "blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear") for the point will hopefully stick out such that none but the most hard-hearted, utterly foolish, misguided adults will miss it.
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke 10:25-37)
For those of you who've missed the point, if we are to insist that Jesus had to have used the very term "homosexuality" before we will agree to know that he included homosexuality as sin and for all practical purposes directly said it was so by way of the fact that homosexuality always came (still does in divine law) under the categories of adultery and/or fornication whether in the heart or by acts beyond feelings and thoughts, then how may we rightly allow Jesus to enhance the law of God with an enhanced, enlightened understanding of the term "neighbor"?
Did Jesus say leaving that man by the side of the road half dead was a sin? Yes. Did he say verbatim, "Thou shalt not leave a man half dead by the side of the road"? No. However, the foolish, misled, and misleading homosexual activists would have us deny Jesus and rather believe that Jesus did not say leaving a that man by the side of the road half dead was a sin. Jesus made clear that the Priest and Levite sinned for disobeying the spirit of the law, the non-hypocritical law, divine logic, the enhanced understanding that Jesus showed the lawyer. The homosexuals though seek to justify themselves by constantly hypocritically ignoring the spirit of the law. They focus in on only the meaning of the term "love" that suits their evil but totally ignore the full meaning of love under Jesus Christ and God that precludes their same-sex lusts and behavior.
For those who are tempted to twist this back around upon itself to thereby ask, then why can't we enhance "homosex" right out of being sin, let me quickly remind you that Jesus did not come to relax any standard as to what constitutes sin but just the opposite. To revert sin back to where it had been, to allow homosex, which some societies and cultures did from time to time and to greater and lesser degrees, would not be an enhancement but backsliding to a lower condition than that which Jesus confronted in the Mosaic understanding. It would be to reintroduce an even more twisted hypocrisy while hypocrisy itself is what Jesus came to eliminate from the world to save it.
In no case is anyone able to point to one thing that was considered sin under Moses where Jesus actually relaxed the requirement. In every case, Jesus made entering Heaven more difficult. The path of Jesus is more difficult for sinners than was the path of Moses. Those who stoned others under Moses entered the Heaven of Moses. Those who have heard the word of Jesus Christ and yet still stone others if they don't repent of it and not stop it, shall not enter the Heaven of Jesus; and I will even say, shall not enter the heaven of Moses, for Moses loves Jesus right now and wished he had known what Jesus brought into this world for us and our salvation!
Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. (Isaiah 6:10)
Lest you turn and attempt to justify yourself saying that Isaiah, as Paul, is not Christ:
For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matthew 13:15)
Isaiah doesn't have to be Jesus proper to also be right.
To those of you who still do not get it or who choose to ignore it (such as this anti-Christ Piers Morgan person, who I'm informed, has called for the Gospel message I just showed you to be amended to allow homosexuality, as if he, Piers Morgan, is the superior of Jesus Christ in matters Christian or anything else), Serpents, generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? (Matthew 23:33)
That's red letter enough, but will it be read enough and understood and followed? If it falls on deaf ears and hard hearts, is the sower the problem or soil itself? Has the time for such work run out? Will anti-Christs finally repent or remain lost forever, eternally suffering the consequences of evil, of sin, death of the spirit, the soul? Perhaps some will pay the last farthing.
And these are they which are sown on good ground; such as hear the word, and receive it, and bring forth fruit, some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred. (Mark 4:20)
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.Â (John 9:4)
Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)
And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Â (Matthew 25:46)
Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. (Matthew 5:26 KJV)
There are different ways of interpreting, but then came Titus.
And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.Â And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? (Matthew 24:1-3 KJV)
World there is = Î±Î¹Ì“Ï‰ÌÎ½ = aion = age = period of time.
What you may also take away from all of this is that because the homosexuals have created a new version of the Bible ("Queen James Bible: Homosexuals' False Scripture") that in no way even closely approximates the oldest extant versions known to humanity but rather clearly and extremely deviates from all of them and because this Piers Morgan is being celebrated by the homosexual activists, it is all a clear admission that all of the claims they were making before that the Bible does support homosexuality were lies and distortions. You shall know them by their lies and distortions: demons, serpents, as Jesus called them, evil, unrepentant sinners. They trap themselves. They tangle themselves in their own talk and doings.
By the way, this site is the Real Liberal site because to be really free is to be saved from iniquity. Homosexual-promoting sites are ill-liberal. They are enslaving to depravity with numerous wholly negative consequences absent any human intervention, just naturally negative consequences.
Now do you see them backing up? I wasn't kidding when I first wrote: "MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE REVERSAL OF THE HYPOCRITICAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA."
In case you haven't heard, the truth finally wins. Homosexuality does not prevail. You can be on the right or wrong side about homosexuality, and fence sitting is also on the wrong side.
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)