Addressing Confusion Over, and Caused By, Homosexuality

Well, I don't have time to write a book that starts at the beginning so that all the various broken trains of thought here are straightened out to the satisfaction of each person here who currently doesn't simply acknowledge that men sodomizing each other is a self-evident error and say so openly.

Tom1

Tom Usher

I realize, as Jesus also clearly taught, that there are people who simply will refuse to listen anyway. The Book is already written concerning which this debate, such as it is, is swirling. As you know, it's called the Bible. It does answer all of the points people have attempted to make here.If you are advocating the error of men putting their penises up each other's rectums and telling little children that it's fine for them to do it and that there is no slippery slope of harm or even unacceptable risks involved, that's a mistake on your part. You aren't showing any love to them by doing that. You're showing carelessness and adding to the general confusion. If you are saying it's an error and then leaving those to whom you've said it to then decide whether they'll harm themselves and others by doing it and spreading it, what's different about that and my position? Nothing. If you call calling an error "hate" and by way of that, claim that the message of Jesus is to love sin, you're quite mixed up.

Chris, Jesus addressed the general population with many commandments, including that they go to each other and tell each other the error of their ways. Do I really need to cite chapter and verse to you on the many, many times he did that? What do you think he meant by telling the adulteress to go and sin no more? Was he "going crazy" on her? Was she a person of power, as you put it? Neither.

Juan, all of your protestations are irrelevant to what I've said. I understand what you are trying to say. I don't disagree with all of it. The main point in answering you is that not saying that males sodomizing each other is wrong is not showing love. Jesus rebuked people. He showed how much he loved people by doing it. He rebuked me to me and did so concerning all sorts of issues. That was good. I love it. Do you understand how that works? Why is homosexuality a special case where that process isn't to apply?

What most people want now is a non-Jesus Jesus, a fake, one who only loves the way they define the term, which is to define away all the discomfort they feel at his rebuking of sin.

Hal, I haven't quickly glossed over anything. You think it isn't self-evident that penises aren't meant for anuses? Do you know why something called "safe sex" exists? Do you know where and when and how sex doesn't have to be "safe" without people running the risks of widespread diseases? There is no safe sex with anal sex. Putting on a condom doesn't make it safe and regardless if the condom doesn't break. There are changes in the brain (structure and function) that lead to more and other problems. Historically, these things haven't been understood by science, and only recently have they started to be shown via "the scientific method."

What heterosexuals do is irrelevant to the point. Whatever heterosexuals do that is wrong doesn't make males sodomizing each other right.

If adultery was wrong in Jesus's eyes, then doesn't doing away with marriage work even better? That's consistent with your reasoning. Why was adultery wrong? Do you know? Do you think it isn't wrong now? Many people don't. Why shouldn't homosexuals get married? Why shouldn't men sodomize each other? I've answered you.

The issue is the New Testament and Jesus. Regardless of whether people sold people into marriage or not doesn't justify the twisting of the Old Testament as an argument against Christianity. Jesus didn't advocate selling people to people. Selling people to people is not Christian. Think about it. Did he have to say that verbatim for you to understand it? It's more than implied by all that he did say, which words we have and can read for ourselves.

Where does it say that Peter received the message that there are no unclean people? People insist upon verbatim literalness from me, so where or even how do you get that Peter received that message? What you are doing is taking the term "unclean" and defining it to suit your narrow purpose of trying to convince others that males sodomizing each other is not an error. Your approach is flawed. Your theology concerning "unclean" is insufficient. Uncleanness still exists. The understanding of it was enhanced by Jesus for those who, in his words, accept it.

You are in denial regarding men sodomizing each other. You are doing everything in your mind to rationalize it. If you are engaging in it, you should stop. My saying that to you is no different than Jesus telling the adulteress, I mentioned above, to go and sin no more. Did he hate her or love her?

https://www.facebook.com/Chris.Wright86/posts/10100224448141632?comment_id=6223852

Chris, you avoid what I've written. Was Jesus showing the adulteress love or not? Was she rebuked or not? She was. You can dance around it, but that won't alter it.

You talk about fixation, but you brought it up. You said you want to "ring" the necks of people professing Christianity who do not accept homosexuality. Was that loving of you? Did you show love by doing that? Are you going to bring Christians to homosexuality that way in 2013? Wow, your hypocrisy is overwhelming; but, I don't give up on you. I don't judge you as irredeemable. It remains to be seen.

This is your post, isn't it? This homosexuality issue is one among many. The question is whether men having anal sex with each other is an error. If it is an error, then the children should be told that it's an error rather than that it is not. Is that too complicated for you?

The idea that Paul raised the issue as concerns prostitution or idolatry has been thoroughly debunked. I did it myself. If Paul meant only what you've alleged, then every sin he mentioned in the same verse would also be concerned with only prostitution or idolatry, which clearly is not the case. The illogic of that terrible, false interpretation spread by homosexual activists attempting to rewrite the text is glaring. That you would repeat it even though you have a degree in the Christian religion is sad. Re-read the verse.

As for Paul, I have never been Pauline. I have referred to Jesus here. Others have raised Paul. Though I am not Pauline, I don't say he was wrong about homosexuality. He wasn't.

Yes, you already posted what you claim the sin of Sodom was limited to, but that doesn't make you right about it. The text makes quite clear that the men wanting to have sex with the angels was evil of them — sin. Yet, that isn't listed in the text you cited. As I told you already, that text you cited is not all-inclusive in the way you've limited it. It does not behoove you to remain stubborn on it. You were mistaken about it, and should drop your error — not repeat it again.

Do you even profess to be a Christian anymore? You sure haven't been sounding like it.

D'Angelo, it's irrelevant that some homosexuals don't engage in sodomy. Homosexuality is being promoted, including sodomy. Sodomy is not the only thing that's damaging about homosexuality. The question here is whether people tell the truth that males sodomizing each other is an error. Is it an error?

Mikey, if the subject is sodomy, which it is, how is it to be discussed without using the term? Are you troubled by it? You can substitute in anal sex or anal intercourse. It's irrelevant. If we were to be discussing some other issue, such as men raping women, would the number of times the term "rape" were used somehow offend you?

Anyway, I've said all that any people truly seeking truth here need to hear on it. I haven't said anything that's wrong. No one here has corrected me on a single thing.

I have other work to do, so I leave you all to ponder and convert or go on about your way ignoring the facts and spreading falsehood, which is inherently harmful.

Peace and love,

Tom

The subject I raised was and is males sodomizing each other. The rest was introduced by others. I am the sole person here advocating against homosexuality. If you want to argue between yourselves, have at it. If you want to debate me, then the subject is what it is with me. If you want to change the subject, then I'm under no obligation to go along with that.

I have my points, and I've made them. They still stand.

If males sodomizing each other is an error, which it clearly is, then the video is obfuscating concerning homosexuality because the video doesn't draw any lines anywhere concerning homosexual acts.

Hal, you completely missed the point of what I said about uncleanness. Try reading it again. I said you have limited the definition to suit your confusion. You proved my point by going on and on with a very poor reading of the text. Just as with Paul and the "law," there is law and then there is law. Jesus's commandments are law even though Paul felt freed from the particular connotation of the law as he defined it. There is uncleanness and then there is uncleanness. The fact that Peter was told essentially what Paul was saying doesn't do away with uncleanness in total. For Paul and Peter and others, it did away with the ritualistic traditional requirements of the Pharisees. It did not do away with the new commandments and uncleanness that is sin. You are mixing and confusing Old and New Testaments.

What a pity it is that people rationalize their errors to the point of professing that their errors aren't errors. As if God gives men penises to put up each other's bottoms. Just ignore what I said about so-called safe sex. Just continue hyper-actively ignoring all the points.

Telling you the truth now might sink in later though. I hope so. It's worked with many people who formerly were active homosexually and who now are only attracted to the opposite sex and glad of it. Of course, the hardcore homosexual activist like to pretend such people don't exist.

The truth will set you free, and the truth is that males sodomizing each other is harmful to the individuals engaging in it and to society as a whole. It is the slippery slope, and human kind will rue the day that it was ever allowed to be taught as wholesome.

Now, I realize that much, even most, of what I've written here has fallen on currently spiritually deaf ears. This is the point where it usually becomes obvious that the hyper homosexuals will only flit from one stale meme of theirs to another rather than actually thinking carefully before they speak. At that point, there's no point in continuing to try to shed some light in their direction. Therefore, if you reply and I don't, that's the reason.

Okay, I just finished fixing a major two-day tech problem, so I will come up for air here and deal with loose ends.

Juan, you don't like the idea of engaging in anal sex with some other male. You actually don't think you could for whatever reason. You claim though that the act itself is not inherently wrong because others like it and do it. What kind of logic is that? Are you a murderer? You could be, but I'll assume for the sake of discussion that you are not. There are however people who like to murder and do it. Does that make murder right? It does not. The same applies to males sodomizing each other.

Why is it that none of the homosexuals here or their supporters in their anal intercourse pointed that out to you? It's because granting the "enemy" the credit for the points he makes is just not done. Pointing out the errors of those who are attempting to score any points at all against the one who opposes homosexuality is just not done (at least it's very rarely done). It wouldn't surprise me if when it does happen that arguments ensue afterwards. "Why did you say that...? Huff."

Neither did anyone here tell Chris that desiring to wring people's necks is not a good choice of words, to say the least. Were I to have immediately said that I want to wring all the homosexuals' necks, how would that have been received? Would you all have remained silent about it, or would you have rebuked me for it? Why the double-standard? Why the hypocrisy if not that it comes with the mind-set that is homosexuality and its support? What other evils will you overlook while you pursue your homosexual behavior? That's the slippery slope in you showing.

Chris, you say you know many homosexuals and that they seem fine to you. Generally accepted European research has shown conclusively that the homosexual lifestyle is fraught with risks way over and above those faced by heterosexuals, and that's all in a highly permissive society where the homosexuals are, frankly, coddled. So even though heterosexuals make plenty of mistakes, including sexual (which they should not, and Jesus has told them that), homosexuality brings with it many more risks. This is aggregate results, so appealing to the outliers is of no avail.

HIV is epidemic right now in male-on-male sex in America's youth. It has been on the rise despite all the homosexual sex-education they receive. The problem isn't in the water. It's in homosexuality. HIV is far from the only high danger or last one that will show up. The list of physical and mental symptoms of numerous diseases that often attend homosex much more so than with heterosex is long and serious. So when you say the homosexuals you know are fine and do so without knowing or caring about the facts I just cited, you are doing everyone a major disservice.

Try overcoming your ego on this subject. You've been wrong about it and should admit it openly and stop spreading the falsehoods. The video is not innocent. It is apostate. It is leading people astray by its omissions. It is based upon ignorance, not truth, not the whole truth.

Hal, being Black is genetic. Jesus was never a racist. The grandma you mentioned was, or still is, an anti-Christ. All real Christians have always been opposed to enslaving others. Why do you persist in ignoring that fact. If the various major identical-twin studies are any indication, homosexuals are by and large not born that way. To suggest that I am in the same position concerning homosexuality that a racist is in, is more than a stretch.

As for being on the wrong side of history, in the long run, being right with God is being on the right side of history. My God doesn't tell anyone that anal intercourse is a wholesome activity but the opposite. Yours might, but if so, yours isn't mine. I'm sticking with mine. Mine says that there will be a day when the lies of the homosexuals will be put right in the minds of all humanity living with God together without those who rather unrepentantly ignore the revealed truths. If I don't make it to being as close to God as is possible, I'll still be glad for those who do. I'm glad Jesus was here and still exists regardless of how bad I've been, still am, or will be.

As for your comment, Chris, about not understanding why I stand up as I do against this homosexuality you're embracing, the State of California has outlawed anyone under 18 receiving professional mental-health assistance overcoming unwanted same-sex attractions the result of even homosexual rape. Where's your mind, Chris? Where's your heart? Where's the love? Who cares? I do. So should you. You should be outraged for the sakes of the boys and girls abused who never before had any same-sex sexual attractions but now are being left out to dry for the sakes of fascistic homosexuals, hell-bent.

The homosexual false propaganda has become so virulent that I had people say to me that it doesn't matter that those kids were homosexually abused or neglected by their parents or what have you, that the resultant same-sex attraction where before they were attracted to the opposite sex, is good for them. Now, that's sick. Where are the homosexuals standing right up, openly, and often for those children? I haven't seen even one. If that doesn't tell you anything, you're thick. So, what are you going to say here and now about that? You'll duck it if your pattern is any indication of your future behavior. You'll not tell the homosexuals here that everyone should be squarely against that law and its spreading like a plague to other states, which it has already started to do. How soon will you forget all of this, Chris?

Fact: Homosexuality is the result of nurturing in its whole scope. That includes socialization processes beyond the immediate parents' ability to always control. If there is any genetic component at all, it is slight relative to nurturing, or environment if you prefer. Even the highly politicized APA openly states that homosexuality is fluid. It can come and go. It has.

Thousands of people have availed themselves of help coming to understand what environmental factors led to their homosexual attraction. Thousands have overcome and are now truly happier and healthier and much less at risk for all the typically attendant problems of the homosexual life. If you choose, and it is a choice, to ignore all of this and not avail yourselves of such help, that's just another error – part of the pattern. Break it. Change.

Truth,

Tom

Mikey, you aren't listening. You aren't hearing. Males engaging in anal sex with each other is homosexuality. Why are so many of your fellow male homosexuals infecting each other when they've all heard what you've heard? The rate of HIV infection in male-homosexual youth in the US compared to the rest of the population is astronomical. You explain that mental state if it is disassociated with their homosexuality, per se. It's directly associated. It's a causal relationship. Remove the homosexuality, and they revert to the heterosexual mean or better. You're dreaming and misleading others.

The issue is not marriage alone. The issue is with the error and attending slippery slope that is homosexuality, per se. An anti-Christ marriage isn't going to fix homosexuality. It doesn't make it acceptable in the eyes of Jesus Christ, and the video was about Jesus (Christianity was started by him and is named after his title) vis-a-vis homosexuality, that includes, among other things, millions of males (the vast majority of male homosexuals) mistakenly sodomizing each other and showing much other reckless behavior that is typically hidden, though paraded out to the degree they can capture the reins of secular power to allow them to flaunt their extremely high degree of promiscuity, including many who are "married." They have "open" marriages but conveniently left that out when appealing to monogamous heterosexuals to "tolerate" homosexuality. It went along with other methods of false propaganda, such as that 10% of the general population is homosexual and were born that way, while those activists tactically pushing those lies knew they were lies. Do you denounce their tactics, their deliberate lies?

You wouldn't do that, just the way you had nothing to say to Chris about his wanting to wring people's necks. You don't stand up for the truth wherever it leads. You know you don't.

As for depression in homosexuals, you conveniently left out where that depression is occurring. I clearly said in permissive (that's "accepting," "affirming") societies. They are being reinforced societally in their risky, damaging behavior, yet they are still having all sorts of problems not the result of people saying that males putting their penises up other males orifices for defecating waste is a fundamental error. Regardless, do smokers become depressed and commit suicide hearing others say they should stop smoking? Some perhaps do. Should we all remain silent about the dangers of smoking tobacco? No. That wouldn't be love. That would be hate. Should we deal with smokers' addictions (as with homosexual sexual addictions) while we also deal with any depression? Of course we should.

You couldn't resist devolving the discussion by claiming I'm a moron. Should I now go become depressed and blame you the way you are blaming me for homosexuals in Denmark and elsewhere being depressed at such high rates? Far from being depressed about it, I'm actually laughing. You're not being brilliant. It is you who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Since you are showing what I was referring to when I said I might not reply by way of calling me a moron and then saying I didn't read anything after the word sodomy, I'll just point that out and leave it to others to see your devolution. It's telling – proves my point.

Hal, your analogy doesn't work. The "science" then and the religion then didn't support racism. There were plenty of Christians then telling those who supported slavery that they were wrong. The science now and Christianity now as before support the statement that males sodomizing each other is a bad idea, fraught with high risks not all even slightly mitigated by condom use or other "safe sex" measures. The things alleged about interracial marriage didn't unfold. The things I'm saying about homosexuality are already here and documented. Look, there's something about homosexuality that causes greater promiscuity and risk-taking, reckless behavior. Exceptions are so rare as to make the rule. The wild majority appears fine with letting the more outwardly "acceptable" homosexuals take the lead in attempting to refute the likes of me. The problem with that though is that I can see it and openly state it, as I just did.

I'm having difficulty with your, what appears to be, frantic writing style. For one, are you unable or unwilling to paragraph?

Fascism is a term with more than one connotation, and political science (if that's what you're referring to) is far from settled upon one definition. If applying the term to homosexuals who have blocked homosexually rape children from gaining licensed, professional help overcoming resultant unwanted same-sex attraction offends you, that just speaks to your fascistic streak.

You ignore the vast majority of people who have obtained such help and are satisfied. You are claiming that children who want the help of authentic reparative therapists for the children's unwanted same-sex attraction the result of even gang homosexual rape will risk suicide due to that therapy? If that's your hypothesis, I can guarantee it will test negative. Yes, you'll pass. You'll let the children who want the help not get it. In addition, you are presumptuous to even suggest that what I advocate would be to not deal with reasons such children would seek to hurt themselves. It is you who has openly stated here that you'll leave homosexually abused/raped children stuck without the very help they want. That's your slippery slope hanging right out here for all who read what you've said to plainly see. You just prove and prove my points.

Exodus International was headed up by a hyper-antinomianist. I'm sure I know a great deal more about its demise than do you. I've dealt with Alan Chambers and predicted his turning away from the true teachings of Jesus, which includes Jesus's still-enforce definition of marriage as being between a man and his wife, would result in Exodus failing sooner than later. It failed quite quickly. Chambers ruined it. By the way, Alan Chambers never studied Reparative Therapy, never underwent it, and severely mischaracterized/misunderstood it.

"And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?" (Matthew 19:5)

That's marriage, Hal, and it doesn't happen between homosexuals and never will. You cannot become such "one flesh" with your male friend(s).

You're repeating lies about Reparative Therapy. Very few people who've been all the way through it have had anything negative to say about it. The vast majority support it. They are glad they went through it. They don't regret it. There was not even one official complaint made before SB-1172 (the legislation) was introduced. Your type just makes up the "facts." Where's a documented suicide caused by authentic (non-coercive) Reparative Therapy? Is there even one instance where any claim of such is generally seen as credible by the licensed community? I know of none. The APA certainly has never claimed any that I'm aware of. If you know of any, let's hear about it. Otherwise, don't you think you should stop spreading such falsehoods as emphatic conclusions? I sure do, but then I'm not a homosexual nor do I support it at all.

Do you realize how many people undergoing therapy, regardless of what it's for, feel worse before they feel better? Besides, you're pointing up primarily coercive cases. I have referred to children who want the therapy. NARTH for instance has published guidelines that make clear they are opposed to coercive efforts. They are told, and tell others, to treat only those who want it. Were you unaware of that? Maybe you were, but maybe you just ignore it so you may continue in denial and continue misleading others..

"hate on the gays" is one of those stale memes I referred to earlier. Did Jesus hate the adulterous woman or not? Until you can answer that with honesty, who can possibly take you seriously when you say that by my pointing out the huge problems with homosexuality that I'm hating? I can't take you seriously. I can only conclude that you need God's help, that you need to turn to God, to Jesus, to the Holy Spirit.

Do you see how your mind works, how you twist things? Doesn't that bother you? It would sure bother me if someone were to show me how I'd been twisting. In fact, when I read Jesus and understood and stood there rebuked and bothered, I changed. You could change too. Try it. Maybe you'll be fertile ground. Do you know about that?

An ex-gay rally is hardly proof that reparative therapists have only had 10 satisfied patients. Your attempted point is just more substantiation of my point that homosexuality negatively impacts the brain.

So, you've shown your confused way of thinking. You've fallen back on failed positions. You've not shown me wrong in a single instance. Rather than scrambling in your mind for ways to try to undermine my position, why don't you slow down and reflect on whether you really are confused and should turn to God? That's what you should do. That's what all of you who are pro-homosexuality should do.

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.