Translate

Saturday, October 3, 2015

Local Controversy Concerning A TV Show 

GEORGE L. FAULL



Regarding Kevin Hunter's letter to the Editor Saturday; he claims to be a voice of reality. I don't think so.   He maintains that the "Pastor" of the show "The Book of Daniel" who "supports" his homosexual son is not wrong. In fact, he says it is Christian. He says that the Christian thing to do is to love them anyway. Agape, unconditional love. He then argues because you cannot stop it, you must not try to stop anyone from their Constitutional right to practice homosexuality.

Excuse me! At one time sodomy was a felony in every state. When President Clinton wanted us to celebrate National Gay month, he was trodding on the State Rights of a dozen states where it was still a felony. The people who wrote the Constitution lived in states that had it as a capital crime because it was against nature. To speak of the Constitutional right to practice homosexuality is so contradictory it is absurd. A constitutional right to commit a felony!!!! So says our current Supreme Court since 2006 because new Supreme Court Justices came in and overthrew the 1986 decision declaring that the Texas Sodomy Law was unconstitutional. This is certainly not the "voice of reality".

As for the love of God being unconditional, I think he should read John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That beautiful passage not only contains a promise, but a threat. The believer will not perish, but what of the unbeliever? What of those mentioned in Revelation 21:8, Revelation 22:14-15, Romans 1:26-28? Where is the unconditional love in these verses?

Did Jesus ever address the subject of homosexuality? Yes, he did. He said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;" Mark 10:6-7.  Jesus never mentioned the word homosexuality, but then he never mentioned beastality or pedophilia either. I wonder, if Mr. Hunter believes these two gross crimes should also be Constitutional Rights and that we must support those who practice them because they don't live the way we think they should? Perish the thought!

1 comment:

  1. What many are failing to examine is the thought that, If judgment were to begin with the Church, what would it look like?

    How do wolves get into the fold? Explain to yourself first, Why is no one asking, "Who's watching over them"?

    Even the most recent visit by one who has seated themselves in the seat of oversight over the message received by millions of believers world wide is only NOW addressing what's been going on for HOW LONG?

    Whether termed the "Ripple effects" or "Back Lash" you can call it what you want but the sins of People include the Sin(s) of the individual who is part of the whole OR they are NOT......You can't have (live it both ways) with any Hope that's also TRUE can you?

    Being a father of 5 (girls) I personally would NOT allow mixed gender sleep overs or known pedophiles or those who I know have other motives within reach of my beloved children.

    Some would argue and they'd be right, that if you'd trained the child they'd know NOT to ask that I accept inviting in such personalities, yet that does not account for the children of others who've been raised to the contrary who some how see certain perversions as if a GOD given right where they can then exercise those same RIGHTS at will and also in MY house (home). SO back to the question, who's protecting the flock?

    Someone else?

    Yes it's a beautiful thought of Jesus coming back to collect those who belong to him, yet what if that same entitlement was first given to the enemy of God? One where that enemy could come and take those who DO in fact belong to him? Ever ask why your child is one of those being claimed and so freely? Why is it always Someone else's fault?

    There's a reason such an enemy can so easily barge in these days and come into the flock (house of God) as if a father who does have a rightful claim to those who DO live as though they belong to him.

    If he had no rightful claim to come in and TAKE, he'd be stuck with his only option would he? Burn the building and let them all suffer together.......

    There used to be a valid reason why all the guest wore name tags which stated such a fact.....guest verses family used to mean something because it CLEARLY and widely known that family JUST doesn't certain things to other family members....

    What happened to "It takes a village to raise a child"? Try and find that village today even among those who claim to be the children of God?

    If your honest you would conclude and find yourself in agreement as to the "Why" you can't/won't trust EVERYONE that might be seated within arms length of your child on any given Sunday and the TRUTH as to why you are NOT comfortable letting them out of your sight at a said church you do NOT regularly attend?

    The facts are in the "Cracks". yet some might consider those as the chink in the armor.....

    ReplyDelete

Anonymous comments will not be posted