I was visiting your sites yesterday, in fact. You have quite the automated process now. I couldn't read all those links in one day I suppose, but I know you're not suggesting that you do.

About Uganda, as you know, I'm not coercive. I'm also adamantly opposed to the death penalty, naturally; otherwise, I'd be wholly inconsistent with regards to anti-coercion. That said, not all of Uganda's concerns are illegitimate.

Peace

This is not an endorsement of all things Coach Dave Daubenmire; but I suspect he wants the whole truth from God more than do the vast majority of self-styled liberals. I suspect he'd grasp my use of the term liberal, as Isaiah started using it to bring it back to sanity and then how Jesus actually lived it right along with real conservatism at the same time. A real liberal wants to conserve the real within, and God is the real — the only real, as in not false-hearted but rather completely trustworthy. That's not confused or confusing to the softhearted, as was and remains Jesus Christ, my brother whom I will never renounce.

Damien [not his real first and last name],

I will post this as a comment, as you've made clear that you were not intending to conceal your identity. I don't risk violating any intended confidences on your part. Anyway, I am not identifying your location or email or IP, etc.

I have never done this before and am not setting a precedent upon which anyone else may depend. I reserve the right to exercise my sole discretion as personally directed by the Holy Spirit on a case-by-case basis.

Here is Damien's first submission:

I find your theology fascinating, and in many respects similar to my own. I consider myself a Democratic Socialist Christian. I admire your goals, and agree with most of your positions. One I cannot agree with, and was curious to hear more about, is your position on homosexuality. Christ does not address this issue in FOUR Gospels, and in fact directly goes AGAINST the Levitical Code from which this prohibition comes (Christ stops the prostitute from being stoned to death, does not require his disciples to observe the strict washing rituals before meals, hangs out and even touches lepers, heals on the sabbath, etc.). Additionally, in Ezekial we are told EXACTLY what the \"sin of Sodom was-- Ezekial 16:49-- apathy toward the poor. The only other references to homosexuality come from St. Paul, who was a great Man of God, but was HUMAN--he also believed women should be silent in church and that EVERYONE should remain celibate. Could you clarify your position on this issue?

My reply that likely will shock some who can't see who Damien is by his submission:

Why do this as a form submission rather than as a comment submission? Is it so you didn't have to give your identity? That's hardly Christlike. [Notice that it is a question and not a statement.]

"...homosexuality. Christ does not address this issue in FOUR Gospels...."

He certainly does. http://www.realliberalchristia.....mment-5825 [Please note that, that link links to the comment above, which sits on this post that is part of a series. All the linking is there for really sincere seekers.]

Besides, as I've pointed out in my comment linked above, it isn't necessary, regardless [isn't required for Christ to have addressed the issue in the canonical Gospels in the direct, verbatim way demanded of Damien]. Truth is truth.

Ezekiel 16:49 is not exhaustive.

"...St. Paul, who was a great Man of God, but was HUMAN--he also believed women should be silent in church and that EVERYONE should remain celibate."

I am not Pauline and never have been.

Please refrain from using all caps the way you have here.

I would prefer that you ask any further questions as open comments on the site. Your questions don't appear to require stealth for any reason other than your fear publicly to be shown to be in error on the matter. Have the courage of your convictions and be prepared to change. [Again, I have not made a statement but only worded things in a way that says "if." If the shoe doesn't fit.... What spirit led Damien not to use the comment submission form? Nothing happens that doesn't say something about spiritual movement and guidance &mdash which spirit is which.]

His reply follows. Please note that he did not submit a comment using the open and direct commenting system. It further says who he is rather than who he is attempting to suggest that he is:

Your website is confusing. I used the "contact us" icon, as I thought that was the most general way of reaching you. You do not make it clear that you prefer comments to be made in another forum. For being a communist, which many people revile and are prejudiced against, you show a surprising lack of willingness to consider that prohibitions against homosexuality were part of the OLD Covenant and not the New, and show some measure of respect towards others who are rejected by society. In case you've forgotten, that was something Christ was famous for. I was simply interested in your position on this. Obviously you have some serious issues in hypocricy to deal with, not to mention manners. I would be interested to see how many Liberal/Progressive Leftists you are able to win over to your cause, since the vast majority of them do not accept the prohibitions against homosexuality as being part of Christ's message, and are very supportive of gay rights. The link you sent had NOTHING to do with Christ addressing the issue of homosexuality, but was merely your opinion given over and over again to someone who had disagreed with you. The passage in Ezekial IS very clear on what "the sin of sodom" was, by the way, and you never addressed the issue of Christ rejecting Levitical Law repeatedly throughout The Gospels, and those are the laws from which the prohibition against homosexuality come from. I would wish you good luck, but I don't feel someone like you needs to be supported in any way. By the way, I don't know what your credentials are, but I am a vowed Religious Brother (that IS my identity, dufus), so I do know a thing or two about scripture, and how people (conservatives, as well as people like yourself) have twisted and misused it, and in the process have driven countless numbers away from Our Lord and Saviour and in search of alternative religions where they feel they can belong. I assume, as a communist, you believe very strongly in the "judge not least ye be judged" doctrine. Pity you can't abide by it. Peace and Blessings.

Brother Damien, monastic

And now, my reply to that:

Damien,

You used the form submission to send an email to me where you intermittently shouted IN ALL CAPS at me in support of homosexuality.

The open comment submission form is there on every post and page. It isn't on the blog index page where, right now, 10 posts are showing, but then that's how all the blogs are of which I know (comment forms are on individual posts and pages). You knew that. So, when I've received form submissions, they have all been for reasons of legitimate stealth, retardation, spam, or because the subject matter was not on any immediate post topic. I've never received a form submission from anyone who otherwise didn't understand that the comment section is right there for open comments and questions concerning posts and pages.

The comment section requires first and last name. You submitted (twice) only one name, as it is.

I'm explaining this so you can see things from the other direction to consider whether or not you should cut me some slack, so to speak.

Now, if you didn't know that the comment section was right there and if you weren't avoiding identifying yourself with your first and last name (because I would have deleted any comment from simply "Damien" and still would) and if you were not shouting in your head when you used ALL CAPS for certain words (which application does have it's place but certainly not in an introductory set of questions to someone from someone with good manners, which "manners" you claim to value), then I apologize to you for reading to much into things. You may quote me on that too. I have no problem with standing corrected by the facts.

In my book, one properly emphasizes what others miss that is of value. Your ALL CAPS came across as condemnation wrapped in your whole style. What is good?

Jesus said to be as harmless as doves; and homosexuality is not harmless, as I've shown on the site, concerning which post/page I provided a link in the comment thread where I directed you. You could have looked deeper. You could have done a site search. The answers to all of your questions are already there. They are actually already in your Bible, even your revised one. Rather though, you decided to challenge (and that is the spirit you employed).
"Homosexuals: What they ignore."

Damien, do your monastic brothers bugger each other in the next room or right in yours with you? Does that question offend you? If so, why? Are you fine with hearing their "pleasure"? Do you not consider it hedonism in the worst sense? I do. It is an affront to my God, who is not yours, in your mind.

I am well aware of the "movement" of the homosexuals who are revising scripture. I've studied Protestant Higher Criticism. I started doing that about 40 years ago and continued until I was satisfied I'd evaluated it enough. I understand textural criticism.

As for your vision concerning Leviticus, Jesus did not overturn the law. He enhanced understanding. There are plenty of the laws of Moses that Jesus quoted verbatim. Jesus did not give an exhaustive list as those of the letter and not also the spirit demand, you being a case in point. He gave the spirit of the law that he summated in a way that covers the whole of the law from the greatest to the least.

You are not in a position to use the letter as a justification for the act of sodomy or the spirit from which it came and is still coming.

...and those are the laws from which the prohibition against homosexuality come from.

Wrong. The prohibition predates Moses. You don't understand and apply what is meant by "the beginning." The law has always been and always will be. To unrepentant sodomites, they aren't given the law. They can't receive it.

You presumed to teach concerning that which you do not understand. You staked out a false and failed rebuke via your ALL CAPS, etc.

I explained that if the words had never been written in the manner in which they were written and which words have survived in that manner largely un-amended for purposes of justifying sin until recently, we would still be faced by the fact, the truth, that homosexuality is always harmful. As for whether or not you have a sufficiently softened heart to come to discerned that remains to be seen. So far, you are ignoring the fact, which means to me that you are too hardhearted.

I'm aware of the revisionism of what is intended by the term "fornication" and also whether or not it was even the best translation/interpretation of the original word as meant by Jesus. I know that "movement" is not for the sake of righteousness but rather self-licensing to iniquity. The whole thrust of the admonitions of Moses as enhanced by Jesus lead in the exact opposite direction from such self-licensing.
To be a whole being (wholesome) requires an absence of homosexual persuasion. A desire to put one's penis up another male's anus is not a sign of a healed soul but rather a fractured soul. It is a sign of confusion. Moses was not wrong about that, and Jesus did not ever say in either letter or spirit that Moses was wrong about it. What Jesus did do is say that it was wrong to stone people regardless. I agree with him completely regarding these matters. Jesus did not say to the adulteress to go and keep sinning. Your view of the incident as pertains to homosexuality is an abuse of Jesus's actions and what they say.

The homosexuals are attempting to limit the prohibition to temple prostitution. Jesus cleans the temple of commerce. The real temple though is within. Therefore, clean your heart of commerce. Did he say that? I just did. What is such commerce? It is a lack of faith in God. It is fractured. Now, if you can receive that from me from God, why am I wrong in other matters that have been hidden from you? Why is it selfish to hold out your hand for mammon for self apart from God but it isn't selfish to hold sexual organs for twisted gratification? Can you not see the parallels? That road leads to Hell. Why do you think otherwise?

You read my comment about that penises and anuses don't belong together and you came back complaining that I hadn't addressed your questions. I had, but you couldn't see. Hence, here I am trying yet again but not under the commandment to continue with you indefinitely. Either you catch on or you fall into the ditch.

Now, Damien, did God create penises for anuses or mouths or ears or anything other than urinating and for vaginas? We already know that Jesus said (directly to me but indirectly to you so far at best) sex only in monogamous marriage. Please answer that direct question with a yes or no. Qualify to your hearts content, but answer. Understand that I am warning you that if you answer incorrectly either here or in your mind and also continue spreading the error rather then standing firmly against it, you will be held to account. I won't judge you and condemn you and sentence you and punish you. I am warning you against all of that.

To continue, Jesus removed the hypocrisy from the law of Moses. He did not throw the whole of Moses's law away. Your reading, as I take it based upon your comments, is clearly selective to make homosexuality acceptable where it is not. In other words, whether you have realized it or not, you have a twisted, incorrect view of Jesus's message.

The sin of Sodom was all the sins of Sodom. The sin of Sodom was definitely not limited to "apathy toward the poor." The sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It was also rape. It was also homosexuality. It was unrighteousness where the angels of the LORD could find no one but Lot who was even trying not to be utterly depraved (beyond what can be tolerated for existence in fallen Earth).

Apathy for the poor comes out from the general and specific spirit of error. It is the selfish spirit that allows for war, greed, and any form or degree of sexual harm. The different aspects are a matter of degree one individual from the next, but it all remains error. Heaven contains none of it. That's were I want to be. That's where I'm headed. If you want to stay back with the homosexuals, that's your error to make. As for which level of Heaven/Hell you'll be on next is not for me to say. You won't be on the same one I'll be on though if you hold true to form and I hold true to form.

As for Paul, he was much as Moses. He had partial-truths in his head that he thought added up to the whole message of Jesus. At least he is projected in a way that he wanted everyone to believe that he had the whole message. He was not wrong about everything. He was right that homosexuality is confusion to be avoided. He was right that the lust of the flesh is not what is in the Highest. He was right that Jesus didn't say that sex, per se, was a sin fatal to the soul. Jesus did not say that sex was a good thing though. He didn't hold it out as perfect. God is spirit and can and has manifested in the flesh. This presents as an irreconcilable paradox for many but not for me.

For being a communist, which many people revile and are prejudiced against, you show a surprising lack of willingness to consider that prohibitions against homosexuality were part of the OLD Covenant and not the New, and show some measure of respect towards others who are rejected by society. In case you've forgotten, that was something Christ was famous for.

The fact that people don't know that Christianity is communism (not Marxism) is telling that people also don't understand that homosexuality is sin. Your attempted logic says you hold that if things are reviled, they must walk together. That's unsound. It has come out from you toward me. You are asking me to respect that which is against God's perfection, yet you call yourself a follower of Jesus. Why haven't you considered these things before? You have a beam in your eye, Damien.

Jesus was not correctly famous for respecting sinners. You don't understand his mind. Nowhere did he show respect to sinners in their sin. He showed no partiality for sinners for their remaining in any sinful condition. He rather rebuked all backsliders though he was prepared to forgive and did in different ways and degrees, depending.

Obviously you have some serious issues in hypocricy to deal with, not to mention manners.

What laws do you lay out? Where do you draw lines? Does the Bible allow for necrophilia simply because Jesus didn't say don't have sex with flesh that has given up the ghost? Are you really that literal, or are you able to have the spirit written on your heart?

If a homosexual can continue being such without sinning in your book, can a man penetrate the anus of a child? Jesus didn't say not to in the way you are requiring that he should have said regarding homosexuality if he thought and still thinks homosexuality is sinful.

Your arguments are on a par with John Yoo's arguments for a President ordering the crushing of a child's testicles. The U.S. constitution isn't clear on it to John Yoo. Jesus's message isn't clear on homosexuality to you. John's President might legally order the crushing of a child's testicles before the parent's very eyes. We aren't talking about saving the child's life because physical circumstances require that the child lose his testis here. Your Jesus, likewise, might say to you that homosexuality isn't against God's design for Heaven on Earth.

Is penetrating a child's anus for sexual gratification good manners in your book? I hope not for your sake and for the children's. It isn't in mine, and I don't mind coming off as offending the homosexuals to the homosexuals and to you, in your view. I am not though the offense.

He said not to offend a little one who believes in him. What is offensive? After he had risen, he wouldn't even be touched before returning to God. What do you make of that with your authorizing homosexuality? What is being risen from the dead? He came again and had Thomas physically touch his wounds. How do you reconcile all of this since you believe you are familiar with the correct reading of scripture?

I would be interested to see how many Liberal/Progressive Leftists you are able to win over to your cause, since the vast majority of them do not accept the prohibitions against homosexuality as being part of Christ's message, and are very supportive of gay rights.

Jesus came to save the lost. How many "conservative rightist" will change from greed and war? I am not out to win "Liberal/Progressive Leftists" by simply giving them what they've already taken. You don't understand.

There are no homosexual "rights" other than to apostates. You are talking about those dead of the Holy Spirit who can't receive the Holy Spirit.

The link you sent had NOTHING to do with Christ addressing the issue of homosexuality, but was merely your opinion given over and over again to someone who had disagreed with you.

As I said, you don't understand. You are reading as a fractured soul not looking to be completely healed. I'm looking to be completely healed. I'm looking to be free from evil forevermore. That means to be free of wrong acts where I am, which means my Heaven that is free of homosexuality, which is even beyond the pale in this here and now. You though, haven't been given that before. What about now? You've been told.

I would wish you good luck, but I don't feel someone like you needs to be supported in any way.

This shows a deep lack of understanding and also carelessness. Luck has nothing to do with God. Furthermore, if you meant it as a prayer and were it to be granted, it would mean that the world would come to my view and not yours. All of humanity would, and will, reject homosexuality. That is something you do not support.

By the way, I don't know what your credentials are, but I am a vowed Religious Brother (that IS my identity, dufus),

They asked Jesus for credentials. You're showing your carelessness again here — ironic for one who claims good manners. My words are my credentials.

As for manners, you've said here in a snotty way, "In case you've forgotten," "not to mention manners," and "dufus." Read those within your context above. I call them serpents who are serpents.

...so I do know a thing or two about scripture

Calling yourself a "Religious Brother" doesn't mean you know. You've shown here a great lack of knowledge. I see no humility in you, thus far.

Everything revealed by your reply was in your first comment via the form submission. I read you correctly. The Holy Spirit said who you were and are. I wasn't misled. I didn't react incorrectly. You are not moved by the Holy Spirit of truth. You are being moved by the spirit of Satan, which was your view, and may still be, of me, as evidenced by your comments.

...twisted and misused it [scripture]

Do you countenance necrophilia? I don't. I don't countenance pedophilia or pederasty. Where did Jesus say verbatim not to sleep with your sister? Yet, I don't countenance incest. My law comes from God. Yours does not. With regards to necrophilia, pedophilia, pederasty, incest, and bestiality, what can we expect in the future as a result of the inroads homosexuality is making not just in your version of Christianity but in society as a whole? Have you thought it out? No, you haven't. I have. Who's twisting? I am not. You judge incorrectly, and I rebuke you. Will you be a real brother or continue distorting Jesus's message to license iniquity?

...and in the process have driven countless numbers away from Our Lord and Saviour and in search of alternative religions where they feel they can belong.

Those who want to continue in homosexuality and not be healed, those who want to accept and affirm them in their fractured and unwilling condition are the blind following the blind. Also, few there be that find it.

I'm not in a popularity contest by means of the lowest common denominator. Jesus is not popular.

You hate him you know. You hate his anti-homosexuality. You can't love him and hate his anti-homosexuality.

I love him because he clarified for me when I was lost and "accepting" and "tolerating" and even condoning, as you are now, which opened the gates of Hell that he closed. He's my brother in flesh and spirit. I agree with him completely.

You, Damien, do not. You argue against him. You are misled and misleading. If you love the truth, who is God and Jesus, you'll love what I written here to you.

I assume, as a communist, you believe very strongly in the "judge not least ye be judged" doctrine. Pity you can't abide by it.

I adhere to it completely. I will be judge by my own standard that I share from Jesus. You too will be judged by the standard you've shown here, unless you turn from homosexual acceptance and repent. I've already given you much of what the prosecutor will hold out against you. I've done it now while you have time. I've shown you the real love. What will you do in turn?

Peace and Blessings.

First, define peace. Your homosexual world isn't it.

Brother Damien, monastic

My real brother does the will of my father.

monastic

The Christian Commons isn't for you the way you present here and neither is the New Heaven. You hate both.

Make the tree good, and his fruit good.

He that is not with me is against me.

It's all or nothing in the end. Choose, Damien.

You make your bed. You'll sleep in it.

"Homosexuals: What they ignore."

Please explain to me exactly who it is my husband and I are harming.

You cannot put a penis up an anus without doing harm. Penises were not meant for anuses. Anuses were not meant for or designed for penises going back and forth in them until ejaculation, especially year after year after year. What kind of artificial measures have you had to take to keep your rear ends from falling out or worse? It is not good for the anus or the penis. To suggest otherwise is a blatant denial of what is obvious on its face.

You say you are married. I don't give you that. I say you are engaged in fornication at best.

You define love not as I define love. It is not loving to give way to harmful temptations, and homosexuality is always harmful to one degree or another. That is inescapable. The same thing cannot be said of heterosexual relations on the level you've ascribe to homosexuality. The two are never comparable in the way you've wrongfully attempted here.

There is a difference between heterosexuality and all heterosexual relationships. There are murderers amongst humanity. That does not condemn the whole. Homosexuality though can never rightly claim harmlessness. It is a filthy thing that has come out from confusion. You are engaged in a filthy habit that you should never have started. Why you started, is for you to tell. What got you both off into confusion? Why are you both not straight and also monogamous?

Monogamy in homosexuality is no virtue.

Why do heterosexual marriages often end in divorce? The answer is other forms of confusion that are directly related to selfishness that is at the heart of homosexuality regardless of your view of your relationship. Your relationship and your advocating for it here if it is accepted by youth for instance, becomes and nevertheless is, your selfish advocacy, for you encourage acceptance of the harmfulness, while I don't accept harmfulness including in heterosexual relationships.

You have called me ignorant, but I am not ignorant of your arguments at all. I have heard them for many decades. You cannot say the same concerning my arguments because many of them are original and even so-far singularly unique with me by way of God, whom you do not accept but against whom you rather rebel, obviously.

Who called all heterosexual marriages "perfect"? You attempt to defeat a straw man. That never works here. Argue against what I say, not what you attempt to put in my mouth. You show mental error by doing that you know. What other mental errors are you holding forth? Upon what other errors do you construct your sexual house of cards?

There is no doubt that given the best heterosexual couple as parents versus whomever you would care to put up against them who are homosexuals, the heterosexual parents will turnout the better result in children. In fact, you and your partner in sin against God cannot even produce offspring together by God-given means. Why is that if you were meant to be parents as homosexual couples of groups? Homosexual adoption for instance is insanity.

I’ve also seen a statement, again, not backed up by any facts that suggested that all we (homosexuals) do is have sex with as many partners as possible.

It was suggested to you in your imagination, which is obviously yet another problem of yours. You don't look for the facts on the site before spouting off. You assume to put words in my mouth that aren't there and never have been and never will be. You then imagine that I have suggested (unless you're using the comments of someone else against me, as if I wrote the comments) that I have said or "suggested" (a convenient contrived straw man for you — typical) that all homosexuals have multiple partners (not that that isn't common because it is).

I can only imagine from which orifice this assumption was extracted, suffice to say it should probably be returned from where it came.

Ah, you with your dirty mind are sickeningly referring to the place you put your penis and your partner puts his — a place the seed for procreation never has any business except for with the mentally ill and self-deluded. You can't even avoid attempting to tempt here. How brazen. How foolish.

Yes, I don't buy into the change by some of the so-called mental-health professionals who decided one day that homosexuality is not a disease state. It is a disease. You have it. Many, most even, of your fellow homosexuals are trying mightily to spread it too and to spread the multiple-partner variety (so called "right") too while pretending there's nothing wrong with what they are doing either. Their symptoms are just greater than yours, that's all.

All joking aside,

I didn't take it as a joke. I'm still not. I have taken it as an instrument of obfuscation.

Now, since you are here defending your homosexuality on the grounds of your monogamy, then you are renouncing all homosexuality that is not monogamous. Don't those other homosexuals have the same right that you have to engage but with as many partners as they want? Why do you draw the lines where you draw them? On what facts do you base this position that, by the way, is not merely "suggested" by your comment here? It's an inevitable conclusion. Do you stand against them at the polls? It's my understanding that sodomy is now not against law in the U.S. and that adult homosexuals can engage as many adult partners as they want — disgusting!

Well, I'm not for the secular and coercive state one way or the other. You though, aren't going to win the day with your false position that homosexuality is not inherently harmful. Even the mundane science is going to end up confirming this.

...we love and respect one another the exact same way any loving, caring, heterosexual couple does and to suggest otherwise or to discount our relationship by suggesting otherwise or believing that homosexuality is a choice that can be “cured” by some quack physiatrist who is doing nothing more than pushing his or her own agenda “fits perfectly with the downward direction in which” radical fundamental so-called Christians are trying to drag humanity.

How ignorant that all is. As I already pointed out, you don't define love as not only harmless but purely beneficial. You do not love and respect in exactly the same way as a Real Liberal Christian because Real Liberal Christian's respect God and not anyone who is not completely in sync with God's harmless will and not your harmful deviations.

As for homosexuality not being a choice, that's the dumbest thing you homosexuals put forth as an argument in favor of homosexuality. Can a murderer stop? Can a thief stop? Can an addict stop viewing pornography and even come to loathe it? Can a heroin addict give up smack, which becomes a physical addiction, just as does nicotine? Can an alcoholic brave the delirium tremens? Can a anyone change at all in your book? You're full of self-licensing, harmful nonsense.

In addition, you make another wild assumption that you're dealing here with Fundamentalist Christianity, which couldn't be further from the truth. Don't say that you weren't addressing that at me as a Fundamentalist, which I am not and never have been.

It's just one error after another with you. It is time for you to revisit your first premises to see whether your whole existence is a fraud. Do some soul searching. You do have a soul in your book, don't you? Well, perhaps not.

While we’re pointing out statements that have no purpose other than to incite hatred and drag humanity to a place everyone here seems to believe there’s no possibility their self righteous soul will be spending eternity,

"...self righteous...." You haven't a clue. You don't know what you're talking about here. Yes, I hate homosexuality. That's a good thing. It's a righteous position because homosexuality as harmless is a lie. You're in denial of truth. That's not a righteous position. It is you who are self-righteous and self-licensing and misled and misleading. God hates it too. There is no homosexuality in Heaven. There isn't even sex, period. But God doesn't call heterosexuality sin. Jesus didn't consider it sin. It is only sin when it is turned to selfishness.

"...drag humanity..."? You have the audacity to be talking about dragging humanity downward to Hell while pointing at the RLCC and Christian Commons?

Who's judging and condemning and even sentencing here? You are.

The Real Liberal Christian Church is about harmlessness. It is about being as harmless as doves. You aren't there, John. You aren't trying to be not only as harmless as a dove but as beneficial as Jesus, who was anti-homosexual with clear and plain cause. Yet, unlike you, I don't throw you into the proverbial Lake of Fire.

I don't know where you as an unrepentant homosexual who has been told the truth ends up other than that it won't be where I spend eternity. You aren't going to be closer to God than am I with your current attitude.

I must ask Tom Usher who he thinks is writing a “blatantly homosexual bible” and suggest that if he has any common sense or an ounce of integrity that he rethink that statement and print a retraction as well as an apology.

The Bible is for each person how he or she interprets it or receives it or not. The Episcopal Church has an openly homosexual Bishop. I don't need to answer to you about blatantly misinterpreting the Bible as accepting homosexuality. Only an airhead would not know what is going on concerning that. Watch, and you will see what even you won't be able to deny is a complete rewriting in order that homosexuals will have something to point to directly stating and held to be Holy Scripture saying that homosexual "verbatim" is acceptable to God. The theological arguments for that position have already been floated. It is now only a matter of time before the distortion is printed as the Bible itself. Mark my words here. You will eat yours.

By the way, re-read my comment above. It didn't say what you've said I said. It was a question. You're a dangerous distorter. Your brain is a mess. Get it fixed. Turn to God.

Needless to say, I not only did I disagree with any of the hateful remarks written in this thread, I find the ignorance disturbing. There isn’t a single comment I wasn’t offended with and that didn’t judge me personally. (“you people” don’t even know me)

Who are just echoing the same sentiment of other homosexuals who have been here before. It's nothing new, and yes it's personal. Your lifestyle is invading the personal lives of others who don't want your sinning around them or their children. They don't want their children even exposed to the idea of the evil you're doing. If you don't like that, well they don't like what you're doing. Your words are full of hate for them no matter how you try to sugar coat after the fact.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? (Matthew 7:16 KJVR)

That says he knows you for what you are, for what you do. You're thorns and thistles, not what brings forth fit fruit. He says to you, change. Make your whole tree good.

I sincerely hope my comments did not offend anyone or their beliefs because that was not my intention.

Well, it's obvious that you don't know what you're doing on a certain level. You are an offense to God. No Christian can say otherwise and be Christian. If you don't like being an offense to God, then stop.

1. Who actually wrote the Bible?
Men, not God.

2. Who translated the Bible and reorganized the different styles of writing of what must have been hundreds, possibly thousands of different individuals into the generic translation commonly accepted today?

3. Does anyone know what’s written in the books the “church” didn’t feel were worthy or appropriate to include?

Now, how sure is anyone that the Bible as we know it today is 100% accurate and word for word, exactly as God envisioned “His Word”.

You're in way over your head here.

The words of Jesus came from God. If you don't believe that, and I know you don't, why attempt to support homosexuality on such grounds?

If there had never been a Bible, homosexuality would still always be harmful. That's the truth, and God is the truth.

You've not helped yourself or your cause here. You've further exposed your utter nonsense is all. You are completely wrong. If you don't repent, you will regret it.

That's not a hateful threat. That's a warning. If my closest fleshly relative were a homosexual, I'd say exactly the same thing to him. If he continued on to the death of his flesh as a homosexual, I would not see him near God until after he had paid the last penny to Satan. It would not be my fault where God would put it to me, "Why didn't you tell him what would have saved him had he listened."

Now, repent before it becomes too late in this age for you.

Real peace

I’ve also seen a statement, again, not backed up by any facts that suggested that all we (homosexuals) do is have sex with as many partners as possible. I can only imagine from which orifice this assumption was extracted, suffice to say it should probably be returned from where it came. All joking aside, I feel as if it’s my responsibility to educate your members and reiterate something I written in my first paragraph. My husband and I are in a committed monogamous relationship and have been for 19 years. We have never “slept around”. I think it’s also important for your members as well as every other homophobic person who may read this to understand that we love and respect one another the exact same way any loving, caring, heterosexual couple does and to suggest otherwise or to discount our relationship by suggesting otherwise or believing that homosexuality is a choice that can be “cured” by some quack physiatrist who is doing nothing more than pushing his or her own agenda “fits perfectly with the downward direction in which” radical fundamental so-called Christians are trying to drag humanity.

While we’re pointing out statements that have no purpose other than to incite hatred and drag humanity to a place everyone here seems to believe there’s no possibility their self righteous soul will be spending eternity, I must ask Tom Usher who he thinks is writing a “blatantly homosexual bible” and suggest that if he has any common sense or an ounce of integrity that he rethink that statement and print a retraction as well as an apology.

Needless to say, I not only did I disagree with any of the hateful remarks written in this thread, I find the ignorance disturbing. There isn’t a single comment I wasn’t offended with and that didn’t judge me personally. (“you people” don’t even know me)

I realize that I’ve said some things that may infuriate the majority of the bloggers here, and I sincerely hope my comments did not offend anyone or their beliefs because that was not my intention. I would however like to conclude with a couple questions regarding the numerous biblical passages scattered throughout various entries.

1. Who actually wrote the Bible?
Men, not God.

2. Who translated the Bible and reorganized the different styles of writing of what must have been hundreds, possibly thousands of different individuals into the generic translation commonly accepted today?

3. Does anyone know what’s written in the books the “church” didn’t feel were worthy or appropriate to include?

Now, how sure is anyone that the Bible as we know it today is 100% accurate and word for word, exactly as God envisioned “His Word”.

Thanks for reading.

Your comment has been placed around the Internet, but I'm allowing it even though technically it's comment-spam. Try varying what you're saying from post to post. Otherwise, you're liable to find that your name is mud with the anti-comment-spam services.

Anyway, God has the power to change anyone. Some people lie about their conversion, but others are not lying. The old cliche, "Once a thief, always a thief," for instance is false. By God, people can break any habit and be healed of anything. It is a matter of faith, both individual and collective.

Thank you for witnessing here.

Tom Usher

Hi Chris,

I want to add that concerning my statement in my previous comment that "Claiming God made people homosexual is making God the author of sin," we must sort the truth.

The following is true:

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. (John 9:2-3 KJVR)

The man was born blind but not on account of his parents' or his sin. Being blind in that way isn't necessarily a sin. It isn't necessarily the result of witting wrong-doing.

Any analogy between homosexuality and the state of that blind man isn't applicable, because homosexuals know in the sense Jesus used the term "know" in this case.

Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth. (John 9:41 KJVR)

The unrepentant homosexuals see but reject.

Thanks,

Tom

Amen, Tom!

Hey Chris,

I'm sorry to learn about this fall, but I'm glad you shared it as a warning, an alarm. It's your duty you've done here. You're the watchman sounding the trumpet. The blood won't be on your hands.

A Song of degrees for Solomon. Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it: except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.
(Psalms 127:1 KJV)

It's not your fault. This society has been built up by men, not God.

The person of whom you've written here is committing adultery without doubt. That's bad enough isn't it, but he didn't stop there.

So many people are focused on the wrong things. Look at this one relationship where bonding, loyalty, and promise have been put asunder just so some may abuse themselves with others. Rather than falling to this abuse, we want overcoming. It's what Jesus wants.

Most people think they're off the hook. They're not the least bit repentant about it or their trying their best to pretend they're just fine with it.

His marriage vow was not sacred to him. So, what will this one homosexual or bisexual person think when God isn't there for him, when the tormentors get him so he learns, or maybe not, through the pain and suffering he's inflicted, is still inflicting, and only magnifying? We experience our own standard in the end.

It's not God punishing. Satan does that. It's to learn that God is where cause and effect are compassionate and merciful. Where's the spirit of mercy in homosexuality? Harming others for twisted sexual gratification isn't merciful in any sense.

Well Chris, this is why Jesus said that few there be that find it (the strait and narrow and New Heaven).

You're doing your best to tell people to have soft hearts toward each other. As you and I have already been through, if we discuss things openly enough, we finally can see how to understand the different contexts of words.

We can't though say fornication is okay just because usage dictates. My God (I mean that in no blasphemous sense), if we do that, child sacrifice and cannibalism and pedophilia and frankly stuff we haven't imagined in terms of utter depravity are licensed just because we can. That's the ultimate sociopathic life isn't it?

I even saw a person in a video several years ago saying that he couldn't wait to get to Heaven where God would introduce him to His hot son, Jesus. The thing is, this young man who said that was serious. He actually has been deluded into imagining that his homosexual lust for Jesus Christ is acceptable even in the Highest.

How much damage has been done to get to that point?

Claiming God made people homosexual is making God the author of sin. People are just in denial that we exist in a fallen condition brought about by our choices and our proselytizing (tempting) generation after generation. This isn't Heaven. I hear people say, "It could be worse" though. Yes, it could be, and humanity is heading that way even while many are headed in the opposite direction.

Chris, Satan sifts souls as wheat, as you well know. This whole life here and now is about that sifting – who doesn't and doesn't fall into that sieve. Our hearts are measured. So many souls who have engaged in homosexual behavior are just refusing to look at the harm they are doing and also are refusing to put the welfare of others before their sexual whatever it is (release; sense of power at getting away with something; now being exhibitionists about it).

God made humanity before the fall. God made us to learn. We are in this together, but we are capable of being separated.

Jesus said it right. If one is of God, one knows it and returns. If one is not of God, one stays with the dead root of Satan. Satan is a spiritual Lord. He's the dark side. You and I and others like us want the truth. We are promised that if we keep going for it, it will be given to us but not to those who don't go for it. They stay back with Satan as their god, the god of this old earth. We look forward to the New Earth, one with the New Heaven. Satan is overthrown from his portion he's futilely fighting to maintain.

What are they doing, writing a blatantly homosexual Bible? Tell me about that. I'm not aware of it although it would fit perfectly with the downward direction in which they are trying to drag humanity. Even King James had the sense not to let all the commoners know he was a sodomite.

"Please come soon LORD Jesus!" Yes, Chris, but it will be very, very dark before the Dawn of the New World. Amos is right about that. Jesus warns about it. He wanted the coming wrath of Rome to already have been over. Of course we know that Jesus's whole message wasn't just about Rome wiping that one manifestation of the temple away.

Blessings to you to, friend.

Tom Usher

Just this week, I found out that someone who is rather famous within Christian circles, came out of the closet and disclosed that he is a homosexual.

He even divorced his wife of 33 years so that he could pursue his lust to the full measure!

It was a shocking discovery to say the least, as I once had great respect for this person whom I believed had a solid relationship with the LORD. That, of course, has changed.

And to make matters worse, he is trying to say God made him that way.

To use such a premise to justify homosexuality is to use the same premise to justify all sin. I just don't understand why he can't see this.

After all, if God made people to be what He doesn't want them to be, then what does that say about God; and what sense is there in being held accountable for our sins?

Nevertheless, the Bible is very clear on the subject. Only those who are perverse in their manner of thinking will attempt to twist the scriptures so that they may have their cake and eat it too, so to speak.

And now some are even attempting to change the Bible, to make it look like God supports homosexuality! It's just absolutely repulsive and disgusting behavior to do such a thing to God's Holy Word!

Indeed, we are living in the last days!

Please come soon LORD Jesus!

Blessings to you...
Chris [deleted]
[deleted]

Originally Posted By C. S.
In American, UK and other industrially advanced countries, people do rally and ask their right and law for it but till this time non government has supported.

Hello,

In America and the U.K., homosexuals are protected by law. If you mean that in general they have not obtained all the sanctioning they seek, that's correct.

I'm opposed to both homosexuality and coercion. What about you?

Thanks,

Peace,

Tom Usher

Thank you both for leaving comments in solidarity with seeking to cut through to the real truth.

People who don't claim Christianity who also say homosexuality should be treated on an equal footing with heterosexuality are one thing. People who do claim Christianity and still say the same thing are just blowing off Jesus's very words.

It's coming down to this. There is no escaping it. The goats and sheep will be divided along this fault line. I don't mean over just homosexuality. I mean over being as honest as can be about Jesus's words and giving it our all to adhere to his principles. There are just people twisting and making up a new religion calling it Christian. Let them go start another religion because they can't have Christianity that blows off Christ.

If they don't like it, what's it to Jesus? They aren't of his fold. They can't be. If they are of his fold, then there are no goats and Jesus is the biggest liar who ever existed. I don't believe that for any fraction of a second. These people try to turn Jesus into Satan.

You two should visit this article: "Ethiopian eununchs and reading the text from the margins" (by Miguel De La Torre. Associated Baptist Press. December 2, 2008) and chime in there too.

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship supports them.

God bless the truth seekers.

Tom Usher

University of Michigan (could be Ohio) did a study a few years ago on this topic. They hoped to support the Gay Gene view and failed miserably.

Of course their findings are not widely quoted since it would not fit well with the need to justify deviant behavior.

Blessings