About our name: Real Liberal Christian Church

Last updated: Friday, March 13, 2009

Each term in the name "Real Liberal Christian Church" is redundant. To be "real" is to be a "liberal," a "real liberal," a "Christian," a "real Christian," a "liberal Christian," a member of the Church (the real Church), and so forth. That they are redundant terms is understood within a certain overarching context (reading or interpretation of scripture). Each term has connotations that are synonymous with certain connotations of each of the other terms within that certain overarching context. That context is the divine language of the revelation.

The term "real," as used in "Real Liberal Christian Church"

The term "real" as used within our name also means "true." John 6:32 says, "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven." "Real" and "true" here are of course together opposites of "unreal" and "false."

The short of it is that "real" and "true" as used here are the truth in answer to the question posed by Pontius Pilate to Jesus, which was "What is truth?"

John 18:36-38 says as follows:

  • 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
  • 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
  • 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

What is the answer to Pilate's question? The answer is summed up in many individual words within the language of the revelation. One such word is "Jesus." Another is "love." Yet another is "life," life here meaning eternal life, righteousness, unselfishness.

All these terms and many more all line up on one side versus all their opposites which are false, dead of the Holy Spirit of truth, damned, destined for pain and suffering, fractured, selfish, etc.

How does "liberal" fit in, as used in "Real Liberal Christian Church"?

How does "liberal" fit in? Well, the term "liberal" has undergone a severe devolutionary process, not unintentionally I might add.

The true meaning of the term is its original meaning. Originally it meant adding without taking away. It's what God does.

The concept may appear elusive or nonsensical at first. Consider the following in contrast.

Today, we see more and more the Holy Spirit revealing the truth about the worldly economic system. Material wealth has been up to the present largely considered by most, regardless of the means of procuring it, to be a blessing or the engine of bounty. It has been misconstrued to be prosperity while in reality it is degradation. The truth is coming out that how material possessions are brought about by the current system is by devouring far more than the system as a whole yields. It brings more death and disease than health and life (real life). It destroys more than it creates. The system depletes without replenishing more than it takes. It takes while the taking is mundanely possible (until things run out or are exhausted). It does not add overall. It is truly illiberal in this context.

The term Neo-liberal

The term Neo-liberal is often evoked. There is nothing new about it. It is the same old laissez faire ("or allow to do") capitalism. It is unbridled capitalism: Unregulated, selfish, evil appetite.

It gives as the addictive-drug pusher with one hand while it robs much more with the other. It robs through usury, pollution, and the privatization of everything the capitalists covet, which knows no bounds. It robs everyone of the rightful inheritance of all: God's gift to each and all (the commons).

Liberalization

Liberalization has been twisted and distorted to obfuscate its original and correct meaning, to hide the true path from the masses, and to, thereby, protect the ill-gotten gain of those of the robber-baron mentality and spirit (hardhearted liars).

Privatization

Privatization will bring forth less for the increasing mass of the people while it provides more for the few who have self authorized themselves to have private, special privileges and advantages.

It is within this context that the revelation is spoken and understood.

Therefore, "real" is eternal life, unselfish, and "liberal" is also these things.

What about the term "Christian," as used in "Real Liberal Christian Church"?

What about the term "Christian"? Well, here again we find all the same terms and their divine meanings. The teaching about "real" or "true" and "truth" and the like comes directly from the lips of Jesus. We see that liberalism in its true sense is completely consistent with the revealed truth. To be a Christian is to abide by these terms, meaning to live by them. It means to be real.

Isaiah said, "But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand." Isaiah 32:8

Isaiah meant this in the original sense-meaning of the term "liberal." He was very keen on recapturing the original (divine) meaning of human language. He preached about how the language had been distorted causing a devolution of the human spirit.

  • 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

"Woe" is a warning of damnation. It is as serious as it gets.

He also said, "The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful." Isaiah 32:5

Here, Isaiah prophesied. He said that when the kingdom of heaven comes to earth, into the lives of humans, the understanding will be set right again. The term "liberal" will be used correctly again.

What constitutes being a "vile" person

What constitutes being a "vile" person as used by Isaiah? Isn't it a subjective term?

The real question is can it be objectively understood. Is it only relative, or is there an absoluteness one may comprehend?

There are otherwise generous people who prey upon others to feed selfish, lustful appetites, thereby, damaging those others, especially if those others don't know to, or how to, resist properly or finally overcome. Well, those predators are vile tempters. Just because they also advocate what is thought of as of the time of this writing as being liberal doesn't make them truly liberal. They don't really add or increase for the whole. They are shortsighted. They bring a different form of the same selfish disease and confusion the churls (stingy) bring. That's what Isaiah meant. The real bountiful one is not vile, even in part.

What about sex?

What about sex? What constitutes sexual depravity? Is homosexuality vile? Is it immoral? Is it sinning against God?

Jesus is upright, moral, and resolute.

He told adulterers to stop sinning.

  • And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:11

He gave stern warnings to those who would harm or offend the little children who believed in him.

  • But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Matthew 18:6

He said it is better to cut off parts of one's body than to offend with them.

  • Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Matthew 18:8

These sayings are not to be taken as purely figurative. He meant them both literally and figuratively. Quite literally, Jesus meant that it would be better to cut off one's penis than to sexually abuse a child with it or do any other depraved thing with it.

Why don't I mask my words here for so-called polite society? Well, I believe in appropriate politeness. So much is at stake here though that it would be inconsiderate (inappropriate) not to warn people. There are people going about speaking and writing lies saying that this isn't what Jesus meant. They work to obfuscate so they may continue on with their disgusting practices tolerated by the wider society and making their prey evermore vulnerable.

For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders. Mark 7:21

We see here that Jesus is openly opposed to sexual activity between people not married to one another. What is marriage in Jesus's eyes? Everywhere he refers to marriage in the mundane (alluding to the spiritual or figurative), Jesus refers to the husband as male and the wife as female and only husbands and wives are married. That said, we must point out the following:

And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Luke 20:34-35

This is so because evil temptations of the flesh are inescapably cascading for many. One sip and they can't stop. One sip of greed, one sip of violence, one sip of sin, and they can't stop. This raises certain issues of Gnosticism and God's purely spiritual perfection. The question is, can anyone be married in the mundane sense and not be fallen thereby no matter how otherwise faithful? Jesus doesn't state that such marriage, per se, is sin. How though may anyone be truly undivided from God and be married to any other? How perfect is perfect? Why were we made male and female and who made us? What are we each given by the Holy Spirit to know about such matters? Is Jesus speaking in a way that we are to take it that we are better off not being married in the here and now? Certainly, doing as in the New Heaven here and now is always better and best. As to whether the fleshly and mundanely married in the here and now are hereafter precluded, Jesus doesn't say that directly. We do know that Jesus's original disciples were married in the worldly sense. What we also know though is that they forsook their fleshly wives but without being unfaithful to them and for the sake of spreading the words and deeds of God as directed by Jesus. And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. Luke 14:20

Can there be any doubt about where Jesus and God stand concerning homosexuality, pedophilia, and all other purely selfish sexuality?

Sex is an appetite that must be checked.

If you are interested specifically in the subject of homosexuality versus real Christianity, you may fine the following interesting:

Can there be any doubt that penises are not supposed to enter anuses? Sodomy is an error.

What's a "churl"

What's a "churl" as used by Isaiah above? A churl is a conservative. A churl is out for self first and foremost. Even when the churl claims to be for his flesh and blood, he or she is doing it at least out of ego. It can be subtle or not seen at all until pointed out and pondered at length. After due consideration though, it is incumbent upon the churl to turn to God and, therefore, away from selfish, egotistical motives.

Jesus said, "For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?" Matthew 5:46.

A publican is a tax collector, a sinner. The churl (conservative, selfish, stingy) coerces people to give taxes on pain of imprisonment or worse. The worldly system is set up by the greedy to pay for the police and military that will protect that selfish system. Those taxes historically have been, and currently are, directed toward further enriching the false bountiful, those who claim to be bringing forth bounty but who are really a drain on the whole (the environment as a whole, including the people).

What does it matter?

What does it matter, all these terms and their original meanings?

Without the true meanings, the people are lost. They are misdirected. They are caused to be blind to the option (the strait gate) that opens up once the words are restored. This is where "the term "liberal" has undergone a severe devolutionary process, not unintentionally" comes in.

You see, there are those today in the world who definitely want to keep this information from you. They don't want you to have it, to ponder it, to grasp it, and especially to live it, for to do so would mean in their eyes their destruction and your salvation. They know that their false gain (the material wealth derived from devouring more than truly bringing forth) would end and that you would be freed from the tyranny of the current economic system serving them first and foremost.

Over thousands of years, souls who have turned to selfishness consciously and subconsciously have worked to create the illusion that is the worldly system in which we ostensibly exist. It is hardly existence when one compares it with the vision of heaven.

The Real Liberal Christian Church alternative

What is the alternative that those with the greatest ill-gotten gain (false, degrading gain) wish to keep from you? Giving and sharing all is the short answer. It is socialism without Marxism. It is communism without Stalinism. It is unity without coercion — without any violence. It is the strait and narrow.

Jesus said, "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." Matthew 7:14

Few there be that find it

Why did he add the words, "and few there be that find it"?

How many people will overcome all the years of conditioning they've undergone as a result of formal education, marketing, public relations, advertising, peer pressure, and the rest? How many will see through the distortions put out by the worldly system that says that the giving and sharing way has never worked and never will–that it is against human nature?

It is not against human nature, it has worked (many communes and religious orders have worked), it will work, and it will displace the selfish way.

Revelations

Many of the self-styled, so-called conservative Christians, who are no Christians at all, are fond of quoting Revelations. They conveniently avoid repeating certain portions such as, "And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth." Revelation 11:18

That's positively pro-environmentalism. All those calling themselves Christians who have been anti-environmentalism had better think again and get straight with the LORD.

The truth is that all the false conditioning is contagious, and the greedy know it full well. They spend billions on perfecting mind numbing and soul killing (literally soul killing) methods to perpetuate and magnify the big lie.

Take the pronouncement by George W. Bush that government can not bring forth affordable healthcare. Someone wrote, "what about Medicare?" Medicare [US government funded healthcare for primarily the old] has been extremely affordable and cost-effective when compared with private healthcare. Therefore, George W. Bush was simply planting contagious falsehoods in the minds of those gullible enough, mesmerized enough, selfish enough, to buy it and repeat it.

I used that example not because Medicare is a Christian answer. Ultimately, it isn't. The example is however readily understandable by a large part of the population. A truly Christian example would be too esoteric for our introductory purposes here.

Cooperation and compassion

The truth is that cooperation and compassion bring forth the real bounty while competition and insensitivity bring forth an overall lessening. It's cooperation on the highest order. It's cooperating with and believing in God. Competition and pitilessness on the other hand are principles upon which capitalism are based. Competition, pitilessness, and capitalism are from the dark side. They are rooted in evil.

  • The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself. Proverbs 11:25

What do "fat" and "watereth" mean here? There is a positive connotation to the term "fat," which is the case here, and there is a negative connotation, which means fat as a result of being greedy. The real bounty is the positive connotation of the term "fat." Real bounty results in net increase. It's a win-win result with no real losers anywhere. Bottom line, it doesn't cause depletion or degradation of the life-sustaining creation. It adds to the creation through God. God does this, gives the real bread from heaven, out of God's love for repentant children.

Consider the feeding of the five thousand. Jesus, by way of God's power, fed five thousand men, plus the women and children with them, with but five loaves and two fishes. Afterwards, there were twelve baskets full of bread left. There was more bread after feeding everyone than there was before they started eating. Now that's real bounty! It was real adding. It was the exact opposite of evil capitalism. It happened, because they believed. There was no hypocrisy among them for that time. It was a little bit of heaven on earth for a time. It was a foreshadowing of what is to come permanently for those who will but believe it.

"Watereth" in Proverbs 11:25 means here to give and receive the real spirit for both body and soul. It does include ordinary, commonplace water, which won't be so commonplace for the greedy if they keep it up.

Consider on the other hand the negative use of the term "fat."

  • I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong; I will feed them with judgment. Ezekiel 34:16

Ezekiel was referring to the false fatted or those who have fed upon the poor. They are not the liberals of Proverbs 11:25 just a bit above. They are not Isaiah liberals. They are churls: Stingy takers; devourers (devils actually).

Duped

Now, many who consider themselves conservatives will insist that they have not been duped. Well, George W. Bush took the oath of office in which he swore to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States; however, he also called it a "God damned piece of paper." Now how are you going to believe that he hasn't been duping you about more than just Medicare? Consider that he claimed to be a born-again Christian. However, what has he done that is Christlike, which is the measure of Christianity?

He has not been even remotely attempting to be Christlike. Any child can readily see that.

No, George W. Bush is not a member of the real Church. He's a member of a false-hearted church. Just as Jesus was the real or true bread relative to that bread called manna that came down from the sky, we see today that there are churches dishing out falsehoods that will save no one from the death of the soul. They promoted George W. Bush. They asked their members to cast their lot with him: To sell their souls. They better repent, turn, and atone to buy them back.

There you may see how the term "Church" fits into our name. The real Church doesn't mislead followers unto the wide path to hell: Selfishness, violence, greed, depravity, and the rest of evil temptation and deeds.

Sexual depravity isn't liberal, and greed is never bountiful! Be a Christian: A Real Liberal Christian.

It takes some getting used to, to be able to feel, think, speak, and act in this language of the revelation of Jesus. Feeling it is doing it consistently. We can do it though, with practice.

It takes a softening heart. It takes a heart looking for the answers and not afraid to discover its own complicity and ignorance. It takes reflection and soul searching. It takes learning connotations and contexts that have been traditionally avoided. It's why most of the intellectuals at the time Jesus walked the earth didn't grasp the revelation while many in the grassroots did. The hard hearts of the vast majority of elitists wouldn't allow them to hear and understand the truth of which Jesus spoke that came directly from God. They wouldn't, they couldn't, bring forth and were therefore cut off. The same is going to happen again only on an even larger scale, a much larger scale, a global scale.

We trust this is all making at least some sense to you. Continue on in this vein, and you will find the answers you, we all, need.

There is much more to all of this than we will say here. It is endless in fact. The revelation is infinite. Yet, it is all summed up in the New Commandment, once the New Commandment is understood within the proper context we've opened up here in this introduction to being a member of the Real Liberal Christian Church.

  • A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. John 13:34

Join

Please donate to this loftiest and noblest cause (Jesus's cause).

Tithe or better if you are able, if the Holy Spirit gives you to do it, moves your heart to have the real faith to do it.

Let us together bring forth the Christian Commons. Donate liberally now to the Real Liberal Christian Church Common Treasury to bring forth the Christian Commons.

Remember, he said, “Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.”

May God bless us all.

  • Subscribe


    • Don Swartz

      Nice illogical logic. Well stated. You completely ingnore the fact that words through time can completely devolve or reverse. Yes liberals and conservatives (today's meaning)can be Christians, but only if they seek to follow God's will. Capitalism is not anti-Christian, note that Paul worked to support himself, which meant being a "capitalist." The U.S. one of the largest capitalist nations n earth, is also the bigegst charitable donor on earth, both officially through the government and unofficially through other religous and non-religous organizations. Socialism doesn't work in large groups unless everyone is of a like mind. Your examples of communes is valid, but it will not extrapolate to a larger group unless everyone accepts the premise that all should work their hardest for the common goal. Enjoyed reading your article, and thing you do have avalid point, I just think you need to broaden the scope of your argument.

    • Hello Don,

      You wrote that we "completely ingnore [sic] the fact that words through time can completely devolve or reverse." Did you read the whole page above? Search the page for "Isaiah." We definitely did not ignore "the fact that words through time can completely devolve or reverse." We raised the issue and explained prophecy concerning it. It is one of our main themes.

      Further comment-reply to Don Swartz

      God bless all,

      Tom Usher

    • Rachel Wilson

      My only comfort is that your website is so incredibly hard to understand that I doubt if many people will take the time to figure out what the heck you're talking about!

      I think you're crazy. God Bless You.

      • Hello Rachel,
        You don't understand this site, but you don't understand the Gospel either. You attack from a position of willful ignorance — no interest in seeking and doing ultimate truth. There's no comfort in the end for that.
        Also, more and more people are taking the time.
        You are a person of doubt. I'm not.
        Do you think Jesus was crazy too? Do you not believe in blasphemy?
        You're holding with the dark side. Is that sane in your book? It's not in mine. Come clean.
        "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you." Bless you too.
        Tom

    • I am very impressed with this. I will put this blog to my facebook favourites.

      • Thank you, Juna. Come again.

        Tom Usher

    • Obama is the worst choice ever made.

      • Hello Jack,

        Juna Kuno came from greymindz.com and left a short comment too.

        Your comments are too short. They come across to the anti-spam plugin as just seeking back-links. Your comment too went to spam.

        I may have to add comment rules requiring longer comments clearly on topic.

        This page really isn't about Barack Obama. It would be better were you to have addressed the substance of this page or found a post dealing expressly with Barack Obama. There are plenty of them on this site.

        So, I've allowed this this time; but I see a definite trend over the last several days that isn't good. I don't want this site to be for back-link-generation only. I trust you understand.

        Thank you.

        Tom Usher

    • Rev. Roger Thompson

      Brother Tom, while I agree on much of which you share here I do feel you are being over critical and mean spirited toward gays. Where is the love and acceptance that Jesus would show to all people as he met them where they were? I have homosexual family members and friends whom I accept and love them as they are, their sexual orientation and lifestyle is none of my business... These things should be left between them and their creator.

      In the spirit of love,

      Pastor Roger D. Thompson.

      • Hello Roger

        You indicate here that you are a reverend and a pastor. Are you claiming that you are a Christian?

        JESUS DOESN'T ACCEPT HOMOSEXUALITY

        Look, Roger, Jesus does not accept homosexuality. He considered it, and still considers it, a sin. It is a sin, just as adultery and fornication are sins. The homosexual act was always and will always be, among other things, the act of fornication. You don't hold that anything Jesus did or said as recorded in the Gospels shows otherwise do you?

        Now, let's take a look at "mean spirited" and the term "gays."

        MEAN SPIRITED

        Is fornication not mean? Sin is sin against God. Do you hold otherwise? Is teaching people that fornication and homosexuality are okay and not harmful not mean and cruel? "Homosexuals: What they ignore." What part of harmful is okay with you? What part of harmful is good to teach the children?

        GAY

        "Gay" is a poorly contrived euphemism. It used to be a good word. The real meaning of gay is still good. The homosexuals took that word so they could twist people's minds into correlating depravity with something cheerful and bright (light; truth) rather than licentiousness. All they've really done is associate it with their drama (all contrived; nothing real). It's just the same as psyops. It was a transparent, worthless psychological ploy to dupe the masses into accepting homosexuality. Well, I reject it. It hasn't worked on me and won't. I see right through it. What's your problem? Do you have scales on your eyes?

        WAR, GREED

        Is it good to teach them warfare? Is it good to teach them to be greedy? Do you teach the children to fight for money and then tell them that homosexuality is okay too? Are you leading them astray or are you teaching them to follow Jesus? I know you are leading them astray. I know you are being dishonest. I know you could have linked to something that would show people who you are, but you deliberately chose not to and to conceal.

        REAL LOVE

        Where is the love and acceptance that Jesus would show to all people as he met them where they were?

        Where is Jesus telling people to sin no more and that if they reject that, that they will not find themselves accepted? Where is Jesus calling people "serpents"? You are sugarcoating and hence misleading. Real love is warning people. That's how Jesus showed his love. You aren't showing that love. Your approach shows hate only. If you loved them, you'd stand up straight and warn them. You're afraid to do that though. You're afraid the addicted will hate you. That's selfish of you. God doesn't lie to be loved in the false spirit. God doesn't lie, period.

        MY FATHER'S BUSINESS

        You "have homosexual family members and friends whom [you] accept and love ... as they are, their sexual orientation and lifestyle is none of [your] business…" Then what business is it of yours to come here telling me what is, or is not, my business? Isn't that none of your business?

        It is my business to tell the people and to warn the children. That's what I'm doing whether any of your family members or friends or you like it or not. Jesus didn't take your approach and for right reason.

        The negative consequences of homosexual behavior are not going to be on my hands. I am the watchman sounding the alarm. You are not. Those negative consequences will remain on your hands unless you turn and repent. That's the way of it, and there's nothing you can do to alter it.

        As for what is between people and the real Creator, blessed is the one who comes in the name of the LORD to warn the people from iniquity that is selfishness and harm, violence (including all forms of violent, self-defense and resisting violence with violence), greed, and sexual depravity (which definitely includes the wicked choice that is homosexuality — and it is a conscious choice that no one has to choose).

        BAD THEOLOGY; TWISTED DEFINITIONS; MISLEADING

        As for the "spirit of love," you are using the wrong definition, the wrong connotation, the twisted connotation that Isaiah and Jesus came to set right.

        You are not a Real Christian. You need to do some real soul searching. You need to consult the Gospels in full and not selectively to support your half-truths at best.

        Stop misleading. Stop teaching evil in the name of Jesus. Tell the truth. Homosexuality is not all right. It is not harmless. It comes out from the dark side. There is no doubt about it. Quit the sexual addiction. That's what you should be teaching.

        FALSE SHEPHERDS WAKE UP!

        I truly hope you come to see the light, Roger. Until then, you're a false shepherd. You're a wolf in sheep's clothing. You may not see yourself that way, but you need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and be completely honest.

        I suggest you do it alone so that you can let it all out and have the cry that will result when you realize (if you will be honest) just how much harm you've allowed and caused.

        God Bless You, Roger.

        REAL NEW AGE

        The next time I hear from you, I hope it's after you've accepted Jesus's real words and deeds rather than some New Age, selective, obfuscation that only leads down.

        WOE, SERPENTS

        What Jesus did and said was, and remains, the New. Your theology constitutes the same old words spoken by the serpent. "Go ahead, homosexuality, greed, and violence won't hurt you." Liar from the beginning!

        Tom Usher

    • Hi Tom,

      I used the search box to find posts regarding mr. Obama ... somehow I didn't turn them up. I'm going to hazard a guess that he has not won your approval.

      Good answers to the 'pastor' above regarding homosexuality.

      The pastor's confusion (I'm being charitable) and the homosexual-activists agenda to cast abomination in a good light are an excellent example (one of many in our society) that Isaiah was spot on:

      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

      I haven't yet read a lot of your stuff, Tom, but I think we might not disagree on too much...I am a big fan of Paul, though...

      You know where to find me...don't be a stranger, eh?

      IHS,

      Bruce

      • Hi Bruce,

        On the "Obama" search, the search result was returning just one post per page. I wasn't aware of that until you mentioned it. Thank you for letting me know. I had just changed the template and settings the day before. I've corrected the situation. It took some doing, but it was worth it. It should now give 20 results per page in excerpt form.

        Much of the criticism of Obama (not all) is done by blatant hypocrites who refuse to apply the same spotlight to so-called far-right conservatives or to themselves. I am frank though about the truth that neither Obama nor McCain (or Bush, etc.) are Christians. For one simply to say he's a Christian doesn't mean he's even trying to be. All those politicians are working within, and for, the secular system. They are furthering that system. They are furthering the position that the message and exemplary life of Jesus isn't the best. They don't call for all to adopt the best. They laud Jefferson and/or Lincoln, etc., where Jefferson was actually a Deist and didn't claim to be a Christian and where Lincoln is still given undeserved credit for freeing slaves when his real motive was holding the budding empire together by all violent means he could bring to bear (evil). Mind you, there was a time when I was in the middle of the political-socialization process (education, indoctrination) where I was in awe of the Founders and Lincoln. That was before I grew up. It's easy to dupe kids. It's easy to remain duped. Jefferson was a dupe. They all were.

        As for Paul (Saul of Tarsus), I treat him as anyone else. I simply listen to Jesus. Where Paul diverted (and he did), I don't follow. I continue doing my best to follow Jesus. That's it.

        I'm under no illusions about how much it will take to get people to take a clear look at Paul. Paul is treated as a demigod by the traditionalists. I sat there in church for years listening to the readings and lessons, etc., not understanding. I took it on faith that my parents knew what they were talking about and went along. Then I grew up. Now I want the truth no matter where it leads — no matter what I must discard and pick up.

        Your point about Isaiah is absolutely right. People twist the language.

        You'll notice that in the headers on this site, I quote Isaiah. It's a link too with a mouse-over feature. The verse, as you probably know, is from the King James Version (KJV). I use it so the King James Only crowd is confronted with the truth about the term "liberal" and what it really meant and still does. Too many churls (selfish, greedy, covetous...) are trying to pass themselves off as Christians, just as are the vile. I also use the KJV because it's in the public domain in the U.S.

        Anyway, I appreciate your approach. So many people come here loaded for bear. They have on their sheep's clothing, but a really ready to have a war. They don't want to discuss different views to get at the truth. They want to defend their mundane and illogical positions. That's no good.

        I was once a fighter. I had to cast that off. I knew it for a long time, but I was afraid in my ignorance not to defend the flesh. It was false-heartedness. It was harmful and therefore selfish. Now I have to be what I want others to be toward one another (ultimately toward me), just as Jesus says. I have faith in God, who is spirit.

        Thanks again, and God bless.

        Tom

    • nice post...I liked it
      http://icfun.blogspot.com/

    • Sam Uglow

      I have two problems with your arguments against the Pastor above. First and foremost I find it utterly sickening that you believe you have the right to call into question another person's Christianity merely because he disagrees with you on an issue. It is even more sickening in light of the fact that according to scripture Jesus kept company with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. As it says in Romans, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes you, this includes me, this includes all who claim Christ as Lord and Savior and those who live lifestyles in direct opposition to what he stood for and preached.

      Secondly, though I do believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin, I do not believe that it is right by any means and it is not Biblical to hate others because of their participation in sin. The lost are considered thus for a reason. If we are to live as Christ does we have to exercise the love that he embodied for all people. Jesus even prayed for the forgiveness of those who mocked and ultimately killed him. By the same token should we not also instead of wasting our time and efforts on hating the sin, pray fervently for the salvation of those who are lost as Christ would?

      I leave you every right to call me a hypocrite, heathen, or false prophet, but the Bible does say in 1 Cor. 12:3- No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.

      And further in 1 Cor. 13:1- If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

      And finally Jesus himself said in Luke 10:27- ... and love your neighbor as yourself.

      • Oh, Sam, Sam, Sam,

        I have two problems with your arguments against the Pastor above. First and foremost I find it utterly sickening that you believe you have the right to call into question another person's Christianity merely because he disagrees with you on an issue.

        If you are sickened by truth, go somewhere else and don't come back here because I'm not interested in obfuscation and am not going to start saying homosexuality is okay in Christianity. Jesus did not, and does not, hold with it. As for the Pastor's Christianity, I suggest you go find out who he is and what he's preaching before leveling attacks against me and what I wrote in reply to his falsehoods.

        It is even more sickening in light of the fact that according to scripture Jesus kept company with tax collectors, prostitutes, and sinners. As it says in Romans, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." This includes you, this includes me, this includes all who claim Christ as Lord and Savior and those who live lifestyles in direct opposition to what he stood for and preached.

        Jesus kept company with...but wasn't one of them and told them to stop, which they did. Get the facts straight. Do you think I've never been around homosexuals? I've lived with them, whoever you are!

        As for Romans, no. I take my New Testament scripture only where it's completely consistent with Jesus's own words and deeds (message).

        Secondly, though I do believe that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin, I do not believe that it is right by any means and it is not Biblical to hate others because of their participation in sin. The lost are considered thus for a reason. If we are to live as Christ does we have to exercise the love that he embodied for all people. Jesus even prayed for the forgiveness of those who mocked and ultimately killed him. By the same token should we not also instead of wasting our time and efforts on hating the sin, pray fervently for the salvation of those who are lost as Christ would?

        You call hating evil, which is sin, a waste of time? You're out of your depth. You're attacking someone who isn't going to lose to your arguments. Are you saying Jesus didn't hate anyone? Yes, that's what you're saying, and you're dead wrong: dead of the Holy Spirit wrong.

        "If any" man "come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26 KJVR)

        What's that say? Be honest. What's it say? It says you're wrong! It says you're here spouting off when you should be learning.

        You obviously don't understand the post here. You are working against the cause of this website. You have more to your agenda than just this issue you put forth but couldn't sustain with any scripture, even Paul's writings or those attributed to him (for those of Higher Criticism).

        "No one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit." What's your point?
        "If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal." "...love your neighbor as yourself."

        Read the post/page again. Look for the definition of "love." Read my reply to the New-Age Pastor again and for the term "love." You are one of those readers whose eyes gloss over when he gets to the parts that don't work to reinforce his position.

        You have offered nothing here of any value to anyone. All you did was a hit job and failed. You find this site and me sickening? So what? Your being sickened doesn't signify. You aren't changing God's mind with your wrong emotional reactions.

        Know, I just showed you truth, which is showing you real love. Many others wouldn't have bothered to give a damn about telling you where you off the narrow way and on the broad way.

        Peace and Real Love and Real Truth and Real Christianity,

        Tom Usher

    • Steve Mendonsa

      what is your stance on evangelism? intercession? missions (i.e the great commission matt. 28:16-20)? When Jesus said he came for the unrighteous and not the righteous? Also substitutionary atonement, wording was funny are you saying you believe sinless this side of heaven?
      And my last is I would like to point out two errors in your section sex, where you take out of context luke 20:34-35, and the context of luke 14:20. Not looking to start an ignorant fight or see who can out pretzel who. Based on things read, these i believe are legitimate questions and concerns

      • Hello Steve Mendonsa,

        First of all, we capitalize the first letter in our names here. I took the liberty of doing that for you. It is clearly stated in the text box into which you entered your submissions. I reserve the right to use my solely Holy-Spirit-led discretion in deciding concerning whom I will and will not do this in future.

        Second, you've asked a number of questions. I now ask you to define your terms (evangelism, intercession, missions, substitutionary atonement) before I reply.

        You wrote, "And my last is I would like to point out two errors in your section sex, where you take out of context luke 20:34-35, and the context of luke 14:20." Are you asking me for permission to attempt to do this here? Just say what's on your mind. If you are right, I'll agree and make the correction and give you full credit. If you are wrong, I'll explain why.

        Lastly, you have said nothing good about this site or its theology explained in the article above. You have commented solely to call things into question. You have characterized things as worthy of "concern." That's pre-judging even though we have not dialogued. You have assumed that I am wrong rather than asking me with specifics.

        I have many people come here challenging. This is not a gun fight. This is seeking truth.

        Are you a homosexual?

        Please get to your points.

        Peace,

        Tom Usher

    • Steve Mendonsa

      ignore the sinless this side of heaven part...just asking for a clearer defintion

    • Steve Mendonsa

      First, I figured those terms needed no further definition, was just curious about your churches position on these subjects. Does your church evangelize, do you believe in sending out missionaries. What is your stance on intercession(do you pray and sweat over the lost or just curse them from the ivory tower of pseudo intellectualism etc.)

      Second, you isolated parts of Luke that do not allow for the meanings you gave them. It was not a disciple that said i have a wife, and therefore cannot come. It was a part of a parable, a man using an excuse to get out of coming to a great supper. A showing of excuses that man uses to avoid coming to the Lord, that begins in verse 18 and ends in verse 20 of chapter 14. In Luke 20 the section starts in vs 27 and ends in 40. And begins under the guise of a question about the resurrection from a group that previous to that had denied a belief in the resurrection. And the Lord says in reply to their question in verse 33" Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become?" that man marry in this age but not in the age to come, and He continues to expound taking there attention to Moses in exodus 3, and the fact that God is the God of the living and not the dead.

      In your section you said "Certainly, doing as in the New Heaven here and now is always better and best." I agree. There are a lot of nuggets throughout your site that I feel are led by the Holy Spirit. Things i agree with and things i disagree with. I don't fully agree with my pastor sometimes, people i serve with in ministry sometimes, more often than not i am in agreement with them. Thats the way it goes.

      Third, i am not a homosexual, you are very combative in the way you present your points and views in your guestbook. I am a 27 year old man with a wife and a baby on the way. I serve in youth ministry and teach sunday school for a month every quarter in Utah, where i was called to go by the Lord.

      Now i'm done. Tom good luck on the things the Lord has given you to be overseer of.

      Be Blessed

      Steve

      • Steve Mendonsa,

        I asked you to define your terms to save time. You didn't appreciated (realize it).

        It is obvious that I evangelize. Also, the Church is a mission. I don't use terms the way you do. Perhaps you will now see why I asked you to define your terms. It wasn't helpful that you didn't do it. You asked me questions. I asked you to do something to make it easier to get to the points.

        You wrote:

        What is your stance on intercession(do you pray and sweat over the lost or just curse them from the ivory tower of pseudo intellectualism etc.)

        Is that your definition of "intercession"? It's still unclear. This is an either/or of praying and sweating over the lost or just cursing them from the ivory tower of pseudo intellectualism etc.

        I write what I do to get the word out. Is there somewhere I'm unaware of that I've cursed anyone? Your question implies that I have. However, you can't point to that anywhere. I have qualified my view on cursing on this site. Also, it's nervy to say "pseudo intellectualism."

        I use the term intellectual for the sake of those who put stock in it. For you to prefix that with pseudo is a serious charge. What it says is both fake and stupid. Is that the impression you have of this site and me while in nearly the same breath you write, "There are a lot of nuggets throughout your site that I feel are led by the Holy Spirit." How can it be?

        Second, you isolated parts of Luke that do not allow for the meanings you gave them. It was not a disciple that said i have a wife, and therefore cannot come. It was a part of a parable, a man using an excuse to get out of coming to a great supper.

        Do you really think I didn't know that that was the source of the saying?

        It is arrogant for you to assert that Jesus's words "do not allow for the meanings [I] gave them." You're cock sure of yourself, and you are also wrong. You're being myopic.

        You're young, Steve, and have your nose too close to the pages.

        A showing of excuses that man uses to avoid coming to the Lord, that begins in verse 18 and ends in verse 20 of chapter 14. In Luke 20 the section starts in vs 27 and ends in 40. And begins under the guise of a question about the resurrection from a group that previous to that had denied a belief in the resurrection. And the Lord says in reply to their question in verse 33" Therefore, in the resurrection, whose wife does she become?" that man marry in this age but not in the age to come, and He continues to expound taking there attention to Moses in exodus 3, and the fact that God is the God of the living and not the dead.

        Steve, tell me something I don't already know.

        Have you ever read poetry? I assume you have. Have you ever struggled with it try to get from it what the author intended? Have you ever seen how thoughts can move over whole paragraphs and pages and chapters and even from book to book and language to language? Well, when I wrote, "And another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come. Luke 14:20," why did you assume that I was saying that a disciple had said it? More importantly though, why did you not allow for the sentiment of the one who said it to apply to each person who is confronted by a choice, even the most important choice of following Jesus? Is that my error or yours? Was I lacking in my writing, or are you missing something?

        Do you understand hard-heartedness and what it does to thinking?

        Since you appear to wish to appeal to Aristotelianism, if I said that disciples were married and if they were his disciples who followed him, how then could I have been referring to one of them if I said he refused to follow? That didn't occur to you. You prefer to think me fake and stupid but full of nuggets just the same. Slow down young man.

        Take some advice from someone more then twice your age. Slow down and think before you write to challenge. You would also be better off asking questions in a more generous spirit, such as fleshing out your questions — perhaps asking fewer and being willing to cooperate in a back and forth as in, again, defining your terms.

        Third, i am not a homosexual, you are very combative in the way you present your points and views in your guestbook. I am a 27 year old man with a wife and a baby on the way. I serve in youth ministry and teach sunday school for a month every quarter in Utah, where i was called to go by the Lord.

        You consider it combative to inquire whether or not you are a homosexual. You need to consider that that is a matter of how you choose to take the question. Can you hear my tone of voice when you read my writing? Tell me, am I a loud person? Is my voice soft or booming? Is it deep or high pitched? Do I speak rapidly or slowly? Was I angry when I replied to you or matter-of-fact or distracted or tired? Do you know all the answers here? Are you taking my point?

        Let me explain. Asking you whether or not you are a homosexual is not combative. Since you don't seem to be very good at not jumping to final conclusions about me in an instant, let me further explain that I asked you so I would be better able to prepare to answer you. You raised the section on sex. The vast majority of people who have commented on sex here have been homosexuals. I did not think you were a homosexual. I asked. In the old days, yes, such a question constituted "fighting words" in the mundane: a huge insult. I think we can't assume that people will by-and-large not accept such a question as grounds for punching someone. The times have change for the better in some ways and for the worse in others.

        If you are referring to how I've handled others who come here. Well, was Jesus combative in your eyes when he called them serpents and the sons and daughters of Satan — the same spirit who murdered the prophets? People come here, read a little, don't like it that I'm not a republican, democrat, super patriot or hyper capitalist or a gung-ho militarist or sexual pervert and then go on the attack. Shall I cower, or shall I be as Jesus was? They see in my message the end of their apostate world. The end of their apostate world is salvation: Kingdom come, as it is within my heart already. Does that answer some of your questions? It should. In fact, you could have spent more time and found all the answers.

        You also said, "Now i'm done." So, what have you accomplished here? Have you taught or learned? What Christians are supposed to do is not resign themselves to disagreeing with each other. We are supposed to communicate until we are likeminded. That takes work, not short shrift.

        Lastly, it would behoove you to analyze your initial comment:

        what is your stance on evangelism? intercession? missions (i.e the great commission matt. 28:16-20)? When Jesus said he came for the unrighteous and not the righteous? Also substitutionary atonement, wording was funny are you saying you believe sinless this side of heaven?
        And my last is I would like to point out two errors in your section sex, where you take out of context luke 20:34-35, and the context of luke 14:20. Not looking to start an ignorant fight or see who can out pretzel who. Based on things read, these i believe are legitimate questions and concerns

        How would you grade yourself? Is that a comment with which I should be favorably impressed? Are you really ministering to youth?

        When you "disagree," how often might it be your misunderstanding or not following?

        Steve, you dashed in without much thought and are ready to run before having to examine your life and what you are truly willing to do. You have much company. "Few there be that find it." I'm sorry about that for you.

        May God help you in all you do,

        Tom Usher

    • Melanie

      Wow... this is truly unbelievable. Seriously, I just read all these posts after reading your article and I'm astounded that you don't realize that you come off as very combative and hateful. I'm sorry, but you can talk about Jesus all day long, but the bottom line is that the people Jesus was hardest on were the Pharisees... the ones who were proud and looked down on everyone else. I can't hear your tone, and I don't know you. But just be aware that you sound very much like a Pharisee! It would've been nice to hear you speak in a loving tone... regardless of whether or not you believed you were speaking to a homoesexual. I couldn't hear your words through the loud noise of your judgement. I'm not interested in the intellectual argument anymore... at least the pastor here was loving. Don't worry, you dont' have to tell me not to come back... hopefully no one else will come back here either.

      • Melanie of the dark side?

        Have you never heard of spiritual warfare? Exactly what spirit do you think crucified Jesus? That spirit made war on Christ.

        The difference between us is that I hate evil, which is the right thing to do. Anyone who doesn't hate evil is automatically evil.

        You think that loving without hating evil is possible? It's not.

        Being engaged in spiritual warfare and hating evil is not pride. If it were, then Jesus would have been being prideful.

        You speak of the Pharisees, but you write, "I can't hear your tone...But...you sound...." You sound just like one. You're deaf to Jesus. You don't hear his voice.

        Do you know what hypocrisy even means? You come here and comment: "I couldn't hear your words through the loud noise of your judgement." How is that not you judging me? You don't even know the meaning of the word in Christian terms.

        You hope no one comes here because you are what, loving of men who perform anal intercourse on each other. You don't hate that? They aren't what they do? A tree is not known by its fruit? The fruit of the homosexual has been anal intercourse, which has resulted in all sorts of bad things so much so that now some resort to condoms to stop the spreading of their diseases. There are other types of disease though that their condoms don't protect against, and I do mean diseases of the soul.

        Anal intercourse is a disgusting act, and you're disgusting for not saying so in no uncertain, rebuking terms. Homosexuality is disgusting.

        A strong rebuke is not love to you? God has never rebuked you sternly? If so, you've never heard from him. If you think Jesus was hardest verbally on the Pharisees, then you haven't considered what he said to Peter about Peter.

        You'll be judged by your words here, and I'll be judged by mine. Who's speaking truth?

        So, go with the homosexuals and tell them that they don't have to listen to me because I'm too strict or harsh and not loving enough and see where that gets you.

        You're not being bright at all. You're in the dark and shedding zero light.

        What the homosexual so-called community wants more than anything is to silence all rebuking of their evil way. They think that doing the Carl Rove thing of attacking Christianity at its strength will work. Well, it doesn't work here.

        If you want to be a weak link, that's your problem. Many fall away, and it's not prideful of me to say it. It speaking truth, with which you have a big problem.