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 ...
“In the leftist world view, hypocrisy is the very foundation upon which you stand.”
You missed the point all together. My point is that to vilify Ann for agreeing to speak to a group without knowing anything about what she is going to say is unwise.
If you had a child that was gay would you not speak to that child for fear of being accused of tolerating the lifestyle? Would you condemn a pastor for speaking to a gay because you feel that he would be condoneing the lifestyle?
I, for one, am not going to condemn Ann untill I know what she has said and if she in fact condones the lifestyle.
And if Ann’s entire speach is pointing out the conservative agenda and reasoning behind that agenda trying to show them why the conservative agenda is a better way to proceed? What if she adds to that that she disagrees with the gay lifestyle and points out the Biblical problem with it. Would you still condemn her for speaking to them?
See my post 103
Really? She's doing business with them by accepting money and "performing" for them.
Did God approve of doing business in Sodom?
Coulter said she’s the Judy Garland of the right. Do you understand what she’s saying? Do you REALLY believe she’s going there to preach?
The homosexual advance has been achieved by disarming one opponent at a time. It’s by approval or tacit acceptance. Just interacting with these disgusting creeps sends the wrong message.
I will repeat myself yet again, since you seem unable to grasp my simple points.
I am not - NOT - not - referring to homosexual practices. Got it? I am not saying or thinking that Coulter is or will be a sellout if she doesn’t tell them to seek counselling and leave the “gay” life.
I am focusing on the homosexual agenda - which the GOProud organization exists to promote, which is unconstitutional and anti-freedom of speech, of religion, of association and even of thought.
Since Coulter is happy to be a sort of “pet” of the GOProud homosexual activist organization, it seems quite iffy that she will tell them “Your agenda is leftist unconsitutional garbage”.
If she does, I will be the first one to say that I am pleasantly surprised.
Again, just to make it crystal clear, I am not discussing the vice of what homosexuals do in their sexual lives, but their agenda of forcing the normalization of homosexuality on everyone else via legal and extra legal methods. AGENDA. That is all I am referring to at this point.
Is that clear?
I’m saying that it would be wise to hear what she has to say before we judge.
Is that clear??
I have absolutely no idea what she is going to say and will not judge untill I do.
We can’t judge what she’s going to say until she says it.
But anyone can judge her very acceptance of such a speaking engagement, her nastiness towards Farah, and her appearing comfortable with being a “pet” of the pro-homosexual agenda non-conservative GOProud homosexual activist group.
I disagree with her appearing as it gives them recognition. I read their tweets. They’re thrilled she’s going to be there. This is a militant homosexual group. And she’s thrilled to be their Judy Garland. She said so. Gays love Judy Garland. There have been articles posted declaring that it’s tacit approval of homosexuals. Why are you not getting what is happening? Do you REALLY think she’s going to take their money and then tell them they aren’t “ok”? Do you honestly think she’s going to tell them about Sodom and Gomorrah?
Everything you’re saying is not only reasonable but inarguable.
And the old saying “you dance with the one that brung you” is also applicable.
The argument that she goes to liberal univesities is not an apt comparison, because it is conservative clubs or organizations in the universities who make the actual invitations. The “Young ACLU fans” or “Radical Faeries” or “Feminists for Crossdressing” are not the groups that invite her.
Yes, as a practical matter, I happen to think you are right. We need good, conservative candidates if we are to really have a hope of winning in the general election. And there are candidates in primaries which would be hard pressed to convince me to vote for them, and some are even too far out for me to ever consider. However, coming to a decision about which is better is often not a very black and white decision and does at times come down to a subjective process. I understand that, and so I am not too terribly hard on people who may act differently than I do, especially when there are reasons which commend their decision. I am not dogmatic about this, of course, but it is just my own personal approach.
Gotta go to bed. Night!
I call'em like I see'em. This isn't about homosexuality, but about Coulter's failure to sufficiently shun homosexuals. Yeah, we're definitely getting into holier than thou territory on this one.
I agree completely.
Just who is being “holier than thou”? Look in the mirror. You’re “judging”, are you not? With quite the attitude of superiority.
It’s not a question of shunning, it’s a question of pandering to a homosexual activist group whose only agenda is the radical homosexual agenda.
Chairman of the Board, Christopher Barron: “We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.”
Twitter Aug 4, 2010 http://twitter.com/
The homosexual agenda is as far from conservatism as one can get.
And lack of convictions pays. Gotta keep that money coming in. Who cares what it looks like. A “conservative icon” addressing radical homosexuals? Pffft! Right? What’s it matter? They LOVE her! /s
>>> I WILL NOT EVER COMPROMISE OF THE ISSUE OF HOMOSEXUALITY...UPON EVEN PAIN OF DEATH.
Speaking of drama queens.
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.