Posted on 08/23/2010 4:54:09 PM PDT by Sola Veritas
.................I believe that's what Jesus meant when He told us to love our enemies. The ultimate demonstration of love for a Christian should be to evangelize the lost.
There is no indication Ann Coulter has ever used one of her paid speaking engagements to do this. In fact, I'm not even sure a paid speaking engagement is an appropriate forum for evangelizing.
Nevertheless, I have heard from a few Christians who compare Coulter's paid speaking gig to Homocon with Jesus sitting down with tax collectors and sinners.
That is not good discernment.
Coulter is a political activist, a pundit, a satirist. She is not Jesus. And she is not an evangelist. No one is likely to get saved at Homocon because Ann Coulter gives a conservative stump speech.
What will happen as a result of her appearance is that a compromise will be made with sin. Sin will be condoned or appeased. A conservative icon will find accommodation with a sin that would undermine the foundations of Western civilization, the Judeo-Christian ethic and the most basic biblical standards of sexual morality.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
The scriptures don’t clarify whether Adam was right there when Eve was deceived.
No it doesn't, does it.
she then enticed Adam to eat.
It doesn't say "enticed". It says that she gave it to him.
but, it was Eve who was first deceived.
Yes. And nothing happened until Adam ate it. Their eyes were not open until HE ate.
Genesis 3:6b-7a
She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7 Then the eyes of both of them were opened,
There is right and there is wrong. Only liberals see "nuance".
I can't share this view. There is always right and wrong, but never in perfect shades, and never readily available without decisions. Not in politics anyway. There were many candidates up for President last election, and some of them on the GOP side were rather dubious. Giuliani was pro-abort, and perhaps one or two others, though like Romney some claimed to have changed their position. In the case of somebody arguing for abortion there is probably a pretty clear distinction to work with. But, when faced with whether this one guy's generally conservative position on immigration and very conservative position on taxes is more or less right or wrong than the guy with very conservative position on welfare and generally conservative ideas about affirmative action it is necessarily subjective. Throw in the questions about possible chances of winning, and averting the greater evil, and things can without a doubt get fuzzy. Where something is absolute I can make an absolute judgment, but where things are subjective I am forced to make distinctions and weigh options. If I have to make that decision I can forgive others for making it slightly differently, unless they go completely off the deep end and vote for Kucinech or something.
“Moderate” aka “liberal-ish” or compromising reach-across-the-aisle conservatives lose.
Ever notice that?
“This whole issue is an example of the way goodie two shoes people run the better than thou mantra to play the “we are the way everybody needs to be” without room for tolerance.”
First of all, just because a person points out serious errors does not make them a “goody two shoes.” That is sophistry. I cannot claim to speak for others, but I believe my views are widely held. I WILL NOT EVER COMPROMISE OF THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY...UPON EVEN PAIN OF DEATH.
Bottome line folks....chose which side you are on. You can be for what is called “tolerance” that will lead to a screwed up America (or at least more screwed up). Or you can listen to what folks like Farah and myself are telling you....we are a sizeable number....much more than a handful of homosexuals that AT MOST make up 1-3% of the population (except in Hollywood). Were are telling you we won’t compromise.....IF you compromise on the homosexual issue, you will lose my(our) support....a substantial part of the base. The nonsense you have been reading about shifting opinions is just that....nonsense.
A country that allows sexual deviants or libertines to run amuck is NOT what I’m trying to “conserve.” The base word of “conservative.”
“The question is - will she suckup to them or will she tell them that 90% of their agenda is leftist and unconstitutional?”
Really ??? You say we should hold our judgement untill after we hear what she has to say? What a noval idea.
Yes, I think that is generally true. People don’t usually rush out for wishy-washy. Obama, for instance, is a staunch ideologue. He is hard left, and people will rally around somebody who stands for something. That draws out people in larger numbers in support and tends to help in elections. Namby-pamby lukewarm candidates are normally not going to be effective, except in particular periods of time, or against other particular kinds of candidates. A real conservative would be best for us, but I would still take a less perfect candidate if I had to. It is still better than some choices.
Most of them were. Because Dem lites run it.
Romneycare, before Obama thought of it. Romney is pro-abortion. Romney is a Rino. No more RINOS!
In politics, there is right and wrong. Too many don't take it seriously. They believe America is too big to fail. They are wrong.
Exactly. They were both guilty, but, you are missing the point. Adam could’ve refused to eat it, but, didn’t. Another point you are missing is that when God created Eve from Adam’s rib, they became one flesh. And, I seriously doubt that their act of disobedience took God by surprise. He knew exactly what was going to happen.
As a result, their eyes were opened to the fact that they were naked. I’m assuming they didn’t have to worry about shopping up until that point. And, the beautiful thing about God is that even though he put them out of the Garden, he also provided clothing to cover their nakedness. (coats of skin) This is also a wonderful spiritual lesson.
No, the Bible doesn’t say she enticed him, it merely states she gave of him to eat, and he willingly did so. The word enticed was my own, because it was Eve who the serpent went to first.
I’ve often wondered what would’ve happened if the devil (serpent) had first gone to Adam. Would the outcome have been different? That’s something we’ll never know, but, it is an interesting train of thought.
The point is that God held both of them culpable for their act. It sounds like the event took place in just a matter of minutes, because once Eve ate, then she gave to Adam to eat. So, yes he was there with her, but, I’ll have to look at another version of the Bible to see if there is something we’re missing here. If Adam was right there by her side when the serpent came upon her and beguiled her, why didn’t he raise an objection immediately? God punished both of them as well as the serpent, who it sounds like walked upright until he beguiled Eve.
And, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.
These are just minor points, but, interesting as well. I guess in my mind, Adam was somewhere in the vicinity, but, not actually standing near Eve when she was offered the fruit. And, you’ll also notice how Adam tried to cop out and totally blame Eve - she was seduced, but, Adam ate it willingly.
“Here’s a question, Would we all be happier if Rahm Emmanuel spoke to HOMOCON? Isn’t everyone better off with Ann speaking to them?”
I’m all for Rahm Emmanuel speaking at Homocon...he is there type of person. Ann is supposed to be “nominally” a conservative. As I had said before....homosexuality and those practicing it CAN NEVER be considered TRUE conservatives and those that attempt to say that can are just plain damnable fools. Homosexual and Conservative and two words that shouldn’t or can’t properly be used together. It is an oxymoron. It is like saying “Conservative Abortionist” or “Conservative pedophile” because the abortionist or pedophile decides they are for limited government and low taxes. There are TOO MANY extreme Libertarians on FR that call themselves “Conservative.” They ARE NOT, libertarianism does not equal conservatism.
The most important statement Mr. Farah made....
“Coulter is a political activist, a pundit, a satirist. She is not Jesus. And she is not an evangelist. No one is likely to get saved at Homocon because Ann Coulter gives a conservative stump speech.”
That reminds me. Didn't Huffington start out as a conservative as well? I always thought Coulter was the real deal but I have been disappointed before. If the homos pay her enough then I guess that's all that matters.
So you would say that if I saw you talking to someone who I knew was a gay person I should assume that you agree with that person as to their lifestyle?
I was not sure what her religion was. For some reason, I thought that she might be Roman Catholic. Thanks for the correction.
You are intolerant of anyone who doesn't share your social liberalism. If you were really tolerant you'd have a “live and let live” attitude about social conservatives.
But no, you recite the leftist talking points about “tolerance” and “inclusiveness” but it boils down to “free speech for me (leftist social issues) but not for thee (conservative social viewpoint).
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Your talking points are typical leftist spew that is so internally inconsistent that if you were to actually practice what you preach you'd implode. You drone on and one about tolerance, yet you cannot tolerate. You drone on and on about inclusiveness, and reject every vestige of moral absolutes.
Real conservatives are upfront and not hypocrites like all leftists. We say some things are right, and some things are wrong. Some wrong things can be tolerated, and some cannot. Pointing error or mistake or evil is a duty. You claim that no one should “judge” or point out wrong, and yet that is all you do!
In the leftist world view, hypocrisy is the very foundation upon which you stand.
“So you would say that if I saw you talking to someone who I knew was a gay person I should assume that you agree with that person as to their lifestyle?”
It is the acme of absurdity to equate talking to someone individually with addressing a convention gathered specifically to promote homosexual rights under the banner of conservatism.
One cannot justify Ann’s stance unless they are also saying that being homosexual is intrinsically OK. Homosexuality is intrinsically wrong....always has been and always will. Ann is NOT there to convert these persons from their immoral and harmful lifestyle....she is there to make money. She is NOT there to be an apologist for the entire conservative stanch which includes opposition to the homosexual agenda.
There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. But there have been many R candidates who were so flawed that they lost - and never because they were “too” conservative; it was invariably because they were to middle of the road/moderate/compromising principles to get along. Or had few conservative principles anyway.
I concede the debate.
I’m not saying anyone should have no opinion. I’m just saying that after she gives her talk then it will be clear whether she is going to promote conservative principles or not. What she’s said and done so far is pretty interesting.
And the GOProud legislative agenda is out there for all the world to see, and it has only one pinch (2nd Amendment rights) of anything conservative; and who knows if they have any restrictions on that anyway, they don’t say much about it.
Everything else is either pure homosexual agenda crap or heavily tainted. They admit openly that their organization is “all gay issues”.
Ah, the old “holier than thou” excuse. The sin of gluttony should be attacked. However, I’ve never heard of a glutton’s rights movement demanding that their life style be approved of by everyone else
Exactly nothing. Eve's action condemned nothing. Adam was the "head". When he ate is when the fall happened. Not before.
Adam could’ve refused to eat it, but, didn’t.
And when he ate is when the sin was committed.
Another point you are missing is that when God created Eve from Adam’s rib, they became one flesh.
Eve was a part of Adam, not the whole. She was not yet created when Adam was given the garden and named creation. It was given to him. As she was.
because it was Eve who the serpent went to first.
There is nothing that says that Adam wasn't present.
That’s something we’ll never know, but, it is an interesting train of thought.
It absolutely is. What if Adam had rebuked Eve for eating it, as he should have done, and he did not?
The point is that God held both of them culpable for their act.
Did he? He pronounced a curse on Eve but didn't say why. With Adam, he did.
Genesis 3: 17.
17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,
And, God told Eve that her husband would rule over her since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.
Where does it say : since she was the first one to eat of the forbidden fruit and gave it to Adam.?
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.