[safisoft]

They knowingly gave a "dysangelistic" platform to a homosexual activist who is vehemently opposed to the very truths the depicted missionaries gave their life for.

You think that's wise? By no lexicon in my possession.

It was both unwise, and rude. Casting the role of Nate Saint this way was disrespectful, and a flaunt in the face of Bible-believing people. They knew full well that this would become common knowledge.

How would people feel if Mel Gibson had cast Harvey Fierstein (an openly anti-Christian homosexual) in the role of Jesus in "The Passion"?

[BibChr]

Of course you're right. But mark my words: had they done that, there'd have been folks -- here, even! -- saying it was a wonderful stroke of casting, becaue Fierstein is Jewish. So it's a brilliant stroke of genius, outreaching to Jews and homosexuals at the same time!

Scary.

/c8

Dan