Columnist leaves out reform of sinner

After reading Carlton Fletcher's article on June 3 regarding those who cast stones, I felt I had to respond as a follower of Christ. Mr. Fletcher, you left out a very important part. Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you, go now and leave your life of sin" NIV (John 8:11).

I am one of the all in Romans 3:23 that says, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is through the grace of God and His Son Jesus Christ that we find redemption for our sins.

We have gone from taking prayer out of schools, abortions on demand and now our leaders support same-sex marriage. While I think we should treat everyone with love and respect, we should not condone behavior that is contrary to the Word of God.

As a proud American, I pray our nation will once again believe in the God that created each of us. I am thankful for the freedom of religion and speech that we enjoy. We as Christians need to be a voice in this world again.

I would like to leave you with two verses from God's word that I hope will be printed.

Romans 1:26-27: "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned the natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (NIV), and Isaiah 5:20, "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil." (NIV )

God have mercy on America!




waltspecht 3 years, 2 months ago

The asumption being that there is only one God, and one relegion that is true. What about the other Faiths of the world? I would never want to challenge your beliefs, and I hope you wouldn't take it that way. However, our own personal beliefs don't matter anymore. Through Anti-discrimination laws and court rulings your life has been invaded. If you have a room for rent, you may have a member in your house that does not match your perception of normal. Look at the Vermont Inn Keeper that was sued because they wouldn't rent their facilities to a Gay Wedding. Their relegious beliefs were that Gay marriage was wrong, and their beliefs were well known for their involvement in the movement to stop it's approval in Vermont. So this couple singled them out, and used their views for the suit. It just so happened that the facilities had been previously booked. The Gay couple in their suit said they had expressed first interest in that date, but hadn't left a deposit. Does anyone wonder how this will turn out in court? Plus, if you own the duplex, and your Grand Children live with you in your side, you could be forced to rent the other half to a known Pedophile, as long as they aren't convicrted yet. Now tell me the Government isn't too involved in our personal lives.


gotanyfacts 3 years, 2 months ago

The writer, as well as a number of commenters, demonstrates that Carlton's criticism of Christians' opposition to gay marriage is totally vacuous. On a secular level, Walt points out something that has crept into our system. Krytocracy, the governmental rule of judges in which they reach “desirable results” that fit some particular social philosophy, is replacing our democratic republic. Judges are claiming the authority to over rule the people by claiming laws to be unconstitutional. The arguments they use require redefining terms (freedom of speech becomes freedom of expression) or creative interpretations which prevent the people, through their elected representatives, from having a government of the people and by the people. Certainly, the constitution offers protection from discrimination, but it was never intended to give the minority control over the wishes of the majority. If the people can not establish standards of behavior for the society, it is no longer a democracy of any sort. Claiming that one group will be impacted to a greater degree than another is often the argument against laws disliked by liberals. Almost every law will impact some group disproportionately. Application is what has to be fair and across the board. Liberal interpretations of our constitution have eroded the basic concept of government by the people.


FryarTuk 3 years, 2 months ago

gotanyfacts, got any knowledge? Where did you come up with your diatribe. "Certainly, the constitution offers protection from discrimination, but it was never intended to give the minority control over the wishes of the majority. " That is exactly why the Southern state reps insisted the Constitution include the Bill of Rights aka the first 10 ammendments to US Constitution. When the wishes of the majority (larger, more populated states) overwhelmed the rights of the minority (smaller, less populated states), the southern reps wanted constitutionally guaranteed protection. Your entire line of reasoning is flawed. Point, set, match!


gotanyfacts 3 years, 2 months ago

Not hardly Fryar! The Bill of Rights limits what the Federal government can do, reserving all other powers to the states or the people. It is only due to the "creative" interpretations of liberal courts that there is even a question as to whether the people can maintain, through law, a standard that has been accepted throughout history. While you are correct in that the Bill of Rights resulted from a fear of tyranny by a majority, the founders did not intend for tyranny by the minority! I apologize for changing sports, but I think you spiked the ball well short of the goal line!


MisterEd 3 years, 2 months ago

FryarTuck...............gotanyfacts should change his name to BUS.........because he just took you to school.


Sign in to comment