Mr. Obama has shown no concern pertaining to religious persecution (of Christianity) in his own country; but then, I do believe he has neither interest nor affinity with American citizens or Christians.
In the vernacular, this is called 'playing ball'. If the 'word of god' (note lower case) can appeal to everyone, it probably won't fall under censure. I've seen many different portrayals of the Last Supper with many nationalities/races attending our Lord. The mentality seems to be (as with the feminine versions), 'He must be one of us first, or He can't be worth following.'
This is like some of those great biblical stories about great and powerful, but idolatrous nations, that believe they could not possibly be brought down (or at least, cannot perceive how it could happen) according to the prophetic utterances against them, and so continue heedless in their same course. Pardon my cynicism, and we can only pray that ours does not, contrary to all of the signs, follow suit, but I just love the shock factor. People are different; we simply refuse to acknowledge it.
Key words: responsible lifestyle, Frank Dombrosky. Whether battle is waged from a tank, or your living room window, if you are inexcusably incapable, all prerequisites from any quarter, are irrelevant. Simple, but foundational, post.
Exposure is an extremely potent weapon. Perhaps to uncover the real intent behind these demonstrations of 'human rights', we should hold a heterosexual celebration. The world might possibly be led to admit that there is no need to celebrate that, because it's simply normal; or merely bare it's teeth and deny us that right... without cause.
You cannot give absolute power to aberrant thinkers. Sadly, much of the persecution probably issues from obsequious persons with concurring sentiments. (For a moment, I thought this person was fired for mispronouncing homosexuality. A poorly worded headline.)
In order to more intelligent prayer, San Jose John, is Harlan's hatred of God the result of some specific event in the past, or circumstance in his present; or is it intellectual? As I have no desire for intimate prying, an extremely general response would be sufficient. Please forgive my delay. My computer has not been behaving for a couple of days.
None of the benign comments in this article match up to the atmosphere concerning this individual, that I have been hearing about, from the persons whom he worked with, was evaluated by, or lived next to.
I wonder how the Christian who believes that holiness and a righteous indignation toward sin should be an integral part of the Christian walk, is looked upon by the 'Christian' who thinks that such sentiments are austere and radical, and should have no place in the gospel.
Would you care to elaborate, catchaser? Perhaps something that we on this 'Christian' website might grab a hold of and respond to rationally; or is this just a drive by shooting? Maybe even some enlightenment concerning the motivation behind your censure.
This was no tragedy; this is a criminal act.¬†The lack of distinction can certainly be traced to the belief of the modern mentality that the wicked and the just are identical. The crime is not in the act itself anymore, but in calling it what it is.
Even the resurrection of our Lord had to be interpreted for us by the Spirit of God. I'd be curious, if this 'got out', what the interpretation of it would be (to the obvious enslavement of multitudes).