It was not a good night for Piers Morgan's prepared talking points on Robertson's controversial statements about homosexuality, as two of his three panelists would not allow him any wiggle room on his false premises and biblical misconceptions.
Michael Brown has it exactly right!
He and I came to the exact same conclusions independently. We aren't the only ones. People who read the Bible in-depth and focus upon the words of Jesus as to how they do or don't apply to situations and who don't manipulate them for preconceived reasons, invariably conclude that Jesus was absolutely opposed to homosexuality.
Watch the video. Then read my brief comment below.
Dr. Michael Brown schools Piers Morgan on biblical view of homosexuality. CNN. 12/19/2013 - YouTube
Jesus's words: "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies." (Matthew 15:19)
As I've said for many years now, absolutely no homosexual could engage in sex with someone of the same sex without violating the prohibition against adultery or fornication.
It was not possible for a homosexual to be legally married to anyone of the same sex. Jesus carved out zero exceptions for homosexuality.
Secular and religious sanctioning of homosexual marriage is anti-Christ. There's no way around it. This is not a figurative usage. Jesus is being literal in the common understanding of that term "literal."
When fornication, that is Ï€Î¿ÏÎ½ÎµÎ¹ÌÎ±, transliterated as porneia, is used figuratively, it is alluding back to the literal. Both are evil. When idolatry is condemned figuratively or metaphorically as porneia (adultery, fornication, including harlotry, homosexuality, and bestiality, etc.), it doesn't relieve the homosexual of the sin of homosexuality. It doesn't contextually narrow the sin to idolatry. It means that going after other gods is as bad as homosexuality, etc.
This is fundamental. It is a huge error to claim Jesus and/or Paul were referring only to idolatry as being wicked and not that the root word/concept being alluded to was not also wicked. Were it otherwise, the figurative impact would also be its opposite. If idolatry is as homosexuality while homosexuality is acceptable in the eyes of God, then idolatry would also be acceptable.
If you can't comprehend this very basic concept, I'm sorry for you; but there's no way around it. You either grasp it and think correctly on it, or you live in ignorance on the matter.
I don't say this to offend you. The truth about Jesus's words vis-a-vis homosexuality as I've outlined them above is inescapable; and if you will receive it, it will set you free.
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)