no...
Posted on 06/16/2011 11:20:42 AM PDT by illiac
Link only to watch the news conference (Weiner is late)
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
"Stones" is not the point here - accusation and condemnation is.
Here’s the deal with the heckling: http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b247723_howard_stern_heckler_hijacks_anthony.html
no...
Exactly backward.
Oh Lord.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world. John 3:17
And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn you... John 8:11
YEah same, for some reason all reporters are trying to be funny like john stewart or colbert instead of doing their job. Personally I would fire any hecklers if they worked for me. If you cant be civil while doing your job and represent the company you work for with dignity then you have no business working there.
Agree completely with that statement.
There’s going to a lot of mad people in
Queens tonight, for they truly believed in him.
Indeed. And the penalty that weenie is paying, is stiff.
The Anthony Weiner case is not about salvation. It is about sexual predation by a government leader.
At NO point does the Bible ever suggest that a person who seeks salvation automatically must have all civil and social consequences blocked. That would include civil judgements, punishment, public disdain, and family breakup.
The enormity of Weiner’s recklessness is being glossed over by a desensitized populace: a SITTING US Congressman repeatedly sent pornographic images of himself to whom it may concern all over the country.
That sense of power, entitlement, and disdain on his part for those he considered beneath him is breathtaking.
RESIGNS! That’s the way, uh huh, uh huh, I like it, uh huh, uh huh.
Personally, I’m glad it dragged it out over weeks, glad he tried to stonewall it, glad he took a few of his copartisans down — the media shills — when he first admitted he was sorry that he’d been caught, glad that I’ll have a choice of whether or not to tune in to the talk show he’s sure to get (I won’t be tuning in, but thanks for asking).
Thanks NormsRevenge.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2735679/posts?page=149#149
Nobody’s questioning that his actions were not reprehensible. That wasn’t the point.
And his “taking responsibility” and “resigning” were not faith and repentance toward Jesus Christ, either.
well even if he was devout, as a Jew, I wouldn’t expect him to
You need to read the background at post #226
Wow. You're sure of that. You know what's going on in this guy's heart towards repentance or faith? Is this something the Lord has shown you? And the Lord's also shown you to judge him and condemn him? Really? How could that be if "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved"? John 3:17.
John 8:1-11 is considered a spurious, later addition.
Uh, considered spurious by whom? Not the Body of Christ over the ages, its recognized Pastors, Teachers, leaders, or the Holy Spirit.
Wow. Going to start justifying these attitudes by cutting out the parts of the Bible that you don't like? Scripture warns sternly about that. What about John 3:17? Is that spurious too?
Scripture warned about adding to it as well, but that didn’t stop anyone. ;)
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.