Posted on 09/13/2006 3:09:58 PM PDT by kellynla
It's been a while since the Romans made sport of feeding Christians to the lions, but there's a terrible new Colosseum-style feeding frenzy emerging – a new bloodlust for eliminating the plague of uppity Christians right here in the U.S.
You think I'm exaggerating?
Take a look at what Mel Seesholtz, a Ph.D. and professor of English at Pennsylvania State University, offered up yesterday in the Online Journal, a website that boasts of being established in 1998 "to provide uncensored and accurate news, analysis and commentary."
Seesholtz has his panties in a bunch over opposition by Christians in California to what is euphemistically called there "the Bias Free Curriculum Act."
He holds out for scorn the Capitol Resource Institute, a Christian pro-family lobby in Sacramento, James Dobson's Focus on the Family and me.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
BTW, I noticed you didn't answer my question about Hal Lindsey. Do you think his propensity to multiply wives should have any bearing on his standing or acceptance within the "Christian" community?
Go back and read it again.
The article clearly supports the title.
And to me, the most disturbing fact is that we have been paying these socialist/commie clowns to indoctrinate our children in colleges & universities throughout America for the past fifty years!
Yes.
"should have any bearing on his standing or acceptance within the "Christian" community?"
Is his sin any different or worse than what we all do every day? He should lose any platform or audience or public hearing but his acceptance or not should be determined by how we deal with anyone who is living in sin (present lawyers excepted).
IOW nothing.
It's a WorldNutDaily article. You weren't expecting something connected with any sort of reality, were you?
I wasn't commenting so much on the sin itself but on the propensity to continue in the sin, and repeat it.
At last count, Hal is on wife number 4. It's difficult to think that the first three Mrs. Lindseys were all guilty of adultery or desertion against poor Hal.
The way Christians deal with sin is through repentance and forgiveness by the garace of Christ. Hal seems to have skipped the first part of that and tried to go right to the second, counting on the suckers listening to him on TV and reading his books and web site.
Christians turn away from sin. Public figures, especially those who profess to be teachers in the church, are particularly culpable. "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." (James 3:1)
It think this is an example of what the theologists call "cheap grace".
Most of our sins are not public. The other guy's sin always looks worse than our own.
Let him who is without sin cast the next stone.
Yes.
In what way?
You forgot the part about, "Go and sin no more."
Rock whizzes by Jesus, hitting the harlot square in the temple, she drops like a sack of potatos.
Jesus turns slowly and with and exasperated voice says 'Mother....'.
Well he can't be a bishop, that is for sure. I suspect he should be precluded from pastoring a church, since a church pastor should be a man who can keep his own house in order.
But in regard to his rendering of lay opinions in regard to such issues as biblical prophecy, I would have to say that he has as much authority to do that as any other sinner.
Thank you, Mr. Sinless.
It's difficult to know how to respond to that seemingly nonsensical point.
But I'll note that I'm not aware of God having any problem with my heart attitude in that post.
Irrelevant. The question had to do with Farah's decision to employ Lindsey and Laurie on WND. I stated my opinion.
= = =
I'm exceedingly thankful that God's opinion is the ONE that counts.
The point, dear Quix, is that you make a big show of declaring someone's criticism of Hal Lindsay to be prideful and sinful...and then when somebody points to Scriptures which admonish us to be judges of each other to an extent you retreat to speaking of one's "heart attitude" as an issue between "all of us and God."
Well, you had no problem a few posts prior making implications about the "heart attitude" of those who criticized Lindsay.
But I'll note that I'm not aware of God having any problem with my heart attitude in that post.
Does the juxtaposition of your own words change that, or are you looking for a lightning bolt or something like that? :)
I certainly don't always succeed . . .
However,
I've found it growthful in my Christian walk to at least earnestly attempt to avoid harsh judgments of folks over points of the faith and Scripture about which reasonable people can differ. And there are many such.
On the other hand, whether God likes phariseeism, or not, seems to be a pretty abundantly clear value stated rather plainly in Scripture.
Of course, what constitutes 'pharisee-ism' tends to be like beauty--in the beholder's eye--though virtually never in one's mirror--unless and until God has decided to make it painfully clear to the individual.
And HE IS WELL ABLE to do that in His ways and His time.
Hal Lindsey et al have stated their perspectives on many Scriptures--many of which SEEM to have more than one plausible interpretation. I think most of them don't but I haven't counted each one accordingly.
But it is plausible that reasonable people disagree about the proper interpretation of such Scriptures. Emphatic pontifications based on merely plausible interpretations on Scriptures which seem to have at least potentially more than one meaning . . . seems to risk God's wrath for mostly vain rantings.
imho, of course.
Been a while since I read anything about Greg.
But given the Hollanders' hostility, I suspect Greg must be pretty Biblical and alert to END TIMES realities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.