Posted on 05/23/2007 2:50:09 PM PDT by Esther Ruth
Missionaries and evangelists are trying to reach the people you mention. The problem with the current liberal theology and cultural acceptance of homosexuality is we eliminate any hope that the homosexual will let their lives be transformed by Jesus. Instead we are telling them a lie that they are bound to this sin and that nothing God can do will help them. It is a terrible lie.
I think it’s the left that is being dramatic, in constantly trying to paint Republicans as a Christian version of the Taliban. When the Cheneys lovingly embrace their daughter, or the Bush twins travel to third world countries to work with impoverished people (while Chelsea has a cushy six digit job on Wall Street) it messes with their view of Republicans as the secular devil.
No. No! That's just my point. We as a society should not approve of anybody's illicit or illegitimate sex. Not that the baby's illegitimate. The parents are.
This in no way denies that the illicit parents may be pleasant, well-spoken, and well-intended people. We've all known such people. In fact, God knows how many of us have been such people. But that's unfortunate for our children and our world.
I mean, I've seen some pretty outrageous comments on this thread that would never be made about non-Judeo-Christian folk.
Isn’t that Paul condemning things, not Jesus?
Sometimes it's really useful to have a catechism on hand. :o)
Catechism Question: In how many ways may we either cause or share in the guilt of another's sin?
Answer: We may either cause or share the guilt of another's sin in nine ways:
1. By counsel;
2. By command;
3. By consent;
4. By provocation;
5. By praise or flattery;
6. By concealment;
7. By being a partner in the sin;
8. By silence;
9. By defending the ill done.
Honest question: do you class moral disapproval of certain behaviors, per se, as hate? Or do you think disapproval could be right and just, but contempt, ill-will and slander directed toward the person are what really qualify as hate?
I can't remember where I read it, though, but apparently the reason for a father being absent from the home, does have some impact.
For instance, if the father died, he may still be held in honor by both his widow and his children. His picture may be on the mantel, the wedding portrait on the wall, a snapshot in Mom's wallet.
His physical and material heritage are appreciated ("You have your dad's sense of humor" "You may end up going to USC like your father" "Matt Sr. planted that maple tree when you were just a toddler.")
His side of the family are all acknowledged --- grandma and grandpa, aunts uncles and cousins --- and may supply more stories about he father who passed away. ("Woo, he had a temper when he was young! But he got grounded for cussing your grandpa once, and he never did it again.")
His moral authority might still be strong ("Your dad would want you to tell the police the truth about that incident.")
Whereas if an absent father abandoned the family, or was never there at all, all this wealth of patrimony is lost. It's a big loss. I think, especially for a boy. It leaves a big wound.
all of scripture is from God, not just the red line parts.
Calling anyone names is not helpful to anyone's salvation. Explaining what is sin and what is not is helpful to enable one to see the need for a savior. Lying to someone that sin is not sin is probably the larger sin because that one is deliberately causing another to turn from God and not receive the healing power that only God can bring.
Hey there fellow Freepers,
Unfortunately, this whole scenario of Mary Cheney’s pregnancy and the subsequent birth of the baby while she actively promotes, as a vociferous and highly public profile figure as Vice President Dick Cheney’s “daughter” (i.e. wannabe “son”) in a lesbian “relationship”, is just one more harbinger of how the world / modern culture is descending into further immorality.
It saddens me that as human beings, we are giving credence to what is evil / disordered, and inversely, showing contempt / disdain for what is inherently regarded as good / moral. I have a strong feeling that this child was conceived in the following manner which has become the de rigueur fashion of lesbians wanting to produce a child sans male involvement (except of course, for supplying the spermatozoa):
1. More than likely, Mary Cheney’s lesbian “partner”, Heather Poe, donated her unfertilized egg to be used in the in vitro artificial insemination procedure.
2. Mary Cheney and Heather Poe either sought out a male both known to them and held in close confidence (a possible homosexual male?) to be the sperm donor -OR- they consulted a fertility bank, and after reviewing the various genetic profiles of the anonymous sperm donors, selected one whose attributes they would most likely appreciate as hereditary traits in the child (hair and eye colour, intelligence, no known genetic abnormalities, etc.). This is akin to a “design your own kid” type of medical procedure that shows great disdain for God’s Divine Providence in our lives ... His Will be done, not ours.
3. After in vitro fertilization of Heather Poe’s donated egg and the sperm donor’s sperm, the now developing embryo (in the blastocyst stage of a fertilized zygote) is then transfered to Mary Cheney’s uterus (via a plastic catheter [read: artificial phallus]) to function as the host womb. Approximately 36 weeks later, Mary Cheney gives birth to the child without having provided any genetic material to the infant other than nourishment via her own food / fluid intake which is subsequently passed through the umbilical cord to the fetus.
The mix of the matter is that in the warped viewpoint of all parties involved in the pregnancy, everyone has been a participant ... how much more liberally inclusive could you be? It is like creating a poster child for the Rainbow Coalition or the Homosexual Agenda. An anonymous sperm donor is the father, the lesbian’s “significant other / partner” is included as a passive participant by donating the egg (and hence not having to be regulated to the periphery of the entire nine month pregnancy as a quasi “cheerleader of moral support” for her “partner” as she undergoes the physical changes associated with the three trimester stages that make up the development of a full term pregnancy ... heck, she’s the egg donor, so no need for her to feel excluded), and finally, the second part of this lesbian equation (i.e. the lesbian egg donor’s “partner”) now acts as a womb donor to the IVF embryo. Hence, her uterus becomes the surrogate host enviroment in which the embyro develops and eventually is born from.
All in all, it boils down to a perverted equation of selfishness by everyone involved in the pregnancy (excluding the fetus). Eliminate the male figure, raise the child in a “two mommy” enviroment, have the gay and lesbian friends and pseudo in-laws over for support (and subsequent “tolerance / diversity conditioning” of the child as it grows up), and what do you have? Bingo! A well-groomed and indoctrinated gay-friendly child who will never know what it is like to be raised by their own biological father or mother (that is if the mother didn’t provide her own egg in the fertilization process and went the route that I described previously in my post by having her “partner” donate an egg). The child will potentially view conventional families as the aberrant familial ideal, and thus, the homosexual agenda’s usurping of conventially held (and God Willed) familial structures is then completed. The cycle will then potentially repeat itself until morality triumphs over evil.
I bid you all PEACE, and thank you for taking the time to read and review my imput here on this particular thread.
Take care,
Front 242
Thanks Ray, I appreciate it!
From my observation, in most cases it is not a choice. I know someone who was Christian who thought her same-sex attractions were sinful, who fought against them for years, who wept over them and prayed constantly that God would take these feelings away. It would have been so much easier to choose heterosexuality and get the white wedding, handsome husband, little house with a picket fence, two kids, and a dog. I see no conceivable reason why someone would choose a sexual orientation that resulted in such personal suffering (due to her and her family’s religious beliefs) and rejection by others (due to theirs). Moreover, this woman has never had a girlfriend, so she’s certainly not chosen this orientation for licentious pleasure.
I can’t say that I chose to be heterosexual, either. I just started being interested in boys when I hit puberty. I’m sure some people are mentally flexible enough that they can be interested in either sex, but most are just hard-wired to prefer one or the other. There’s not much they can do about it.
So the selfish choice is picking the alternative that makes one the most unhappy, and persisting in that choice even when actively trying to change one’s “choice” back? You have a baffling mind.
You didn't direct this at me, but I will say that I think that while some posts indicated disapproval and no more (see the posts reading along the lines of "I don't approve of homosexual relationships but any new life should be celebrated"), many posts on this thread went way beyond moral disapproval into hate (see the "She will spend eternity in hell" post and all of those handwringers posting about this poor poor child who apparently would have been better off never having been born than being child of two lesbians.) .
Free Republic used to be a political forum advocating Republican/conservative/libertarian thought; it's turning into a forum advocating theocracy, and this thread is just one of many examples.
this baby just arrived. I welcome him without any obstacles.
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.