Posted on 01/12/2002 2:14:54 PM PST by GrandMoM
If four anonymous individuals in Maryland said that you were a nuisance to the entire state for some reason or another and wanted you to move, would you take that as sufficient evidence of soma malfeasance on your part and start packing your bags?
Or would you want further evidence?
I'm sorry, but the mainstream press would LOVE to make a big deal out of the narrowness of a bunch of people in a supposedly Christian country like Romania.
The FRC has its antenna up for things like this, and would have published this story if all it could find was ONE individual who objected to Guest's behavior.
If the groundswell grows, I suspect Guest will be gone.
My guess is that 98% of Romania doesn't even know who the American Ambassador to Romania is.
You're right that we've been a little slow to take up the standard and start reminding people that homosexual attraction is a disorder. We've allowed the other side to shout it's position so long without challenge because, deep down we're compassionate.
But better late than never.
Shalom.
I know the tactics the enemies of Christ use. My point is that we Christians shouldn't match those tactice.
Adultery, pre-marital sex, pornography (including Playboy and "skin flicks") no-fault divorce, are just as dangerous sins as homosexual attraction. Why is the church so focused on homosexual attraction? Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
I'm not talking about the official positions of the churches. I'm talking about what receives focus from the pulpits and in the newsletters.
To be fair, there was a great amount of noise regarding X42's adultery, ditto Newt's and Condit's. But for the most part adultery doesn't get nearly the same negative press as homosexual attraction. And when was the last time you heard a pastor talking about men who go home to watch skin flicks on HBO?
Shalom.
I agree about the abortion, but most pulpits that I've heard speak out against homosexual attraction don't say nearly as much about - say - adultery or fornication.
Your mileage may vary.
Shalom.
I'm not talking about the official positions of the churches. I'm talking about what receives focus from the pulpits and in the newsletters.
Because homosexuality is not something that "we" do; it's something that "they" do.
Are you comparing adulterous ATTRACTION with homosexual ATTRACTIONS? Or adulterous ACTS with homesexual ACTS?
Anyway, I could agree, that adultery might be similarly harmful. But pre-marital sex is a much smaller sin and quite often ends up in a normal marriage.
Why is the church so focused on homosexual attraction? Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
Maybe because we do not have media campaign or school promotion of adultery or the attempts to criminalise the disaproval of it as a "hate crime".
LOL! Bad, bad example!
Here's why: I am a pro-life, pro-second amendment, right-to-work, school-choice supporting conservative Christian. Attend the next convention of the Democrat Party of the People's Republic of Maryland and you should be able to find several thousand people who'd like to see me, and all who dare to think as I do, to be rounded up and deported (after several years in a re-education camp, of course).
The kicker is that I agree with them! The problem is that moving to Virginia is a costly experience. Housing prices are nearly double on that side of the Potomac than on this side. Very odd. You'd think that people preferred to live in a conservative area and were voting with their feet or something. ;-)
I visited a friend down in Charlottlesville recently. Not only do the businesses, but the schools down there still have CHRISTMAS parties. I figure we'll be making that move in a couple of years. Then I'll start my second career of sending letters to the Gov., Senators, and my former representative from the People's Republic of Maryland just to remind them of how damn happy I am to be free of their liberal nit-witted Bravo Sierra. Woo-hoo!
It's because of the homosexual agenda. It's virulence demands a response. Has Hefner been trying to get Playboy handed out to preschoolers? Bad example.
Is it because so few homosexuals are contributors, as opposed to the others?
I think it has more to do with God and that 'abomination' thing. ;-)
And when was the last time you heard a pastor talking about men who go home to watch skin flicks on HBO?
I haven't heard anything that specific, but just before Christmas our priest did include admonitions against sexually explicit entertainment as being "spiritually unhealthy" for Christians.
First off...I'm not a yellow dog repub so your insinuation is insulting...if that was your intent.
Second...I'm not from Massachusettes so those names don't mean anything to me. I *am*, however, from California and we have our own political problems. ;o/ The next gov race I'm voting Simon.
That's sort of my claim. Whenever I teach Sunday School I say, "Let's not talk about 'them' sinners. Let's talk about 'us' sinners. Once we're perfect, we can worry about 'them.'"
Shalom.
I respectfully disagree. I believe all extra-marital sex is destructive of the individuals involved and our social structure as a whole.
Shalom.
It sounds like your pulpit is well focused and did not deserve my comments.
Good for them (you?).
Shalom.
I don't always believe what FRC says as gospel, but I wouldn't go out on a limb for your guess either.
Shalom.
If he finds out an appointee is a liar, that should be taken into consideration. After all, he's going to depend on reports from the man. By the way, I don't lie on my income taxes. Do you?
What about drinking? Drunkenness is one of the seven deadly sins.
If the ambassador is given to drunkenness, he should not be appointed. Intemperence is very dangerous. Drinking of itself is not universally recognized as a sin.
How about a man who's been divorced a couple of times? No government job for him?
It depends on why he was divorced. The reason can point to a character flaw that indicates the man may be unfit.
Shalom.
You must be kidding! Most ambassadors have always been assigned according to their politics and how much they have given to their respective parties. You must have your head in the sand..
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.