tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post8497467291467778286..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: John Shore Responds to Jim Wallis of SojournersMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-40521563736584889202011-05-14T20:48:25.493-05:002011-05-14T20:48:25.493-05:00I've just read Wallis' 2008 interview in C...I've just read Wallis' 2008 interview in Christianity Today. I've read his recent Sojourners blog reasons for not accepting the ad in question.<br /><br />They seem logical to me from his point of view.<br /><br />John Shore says that Wallis' reasons are "tantamount to saying that gays and lesbians are (pick your word/phrase) unnatural, inferior, morally corrupt, shameful, disgraceful, freakish, an abomination before God. That is necessarily the correlative truth to "the only legitimate, God-pleasing marriage is between a man and a woman." That's what those words of yours mean, friend."<br /><br />Just what kind of reasoning would possess someone to conjure up such an inflammatory statement as this? Jim Wallis is considered by many Christians (including many Catholics) to be closest thing to a Protestant saint since Reinhold Niebuhr.<br /><br />Just what do you suppose that the word "friend", the last word in that quotation, means? <br />So Shore would be saying that every Christian in the world is guilty of far more heinous thoughts, words and deeds than Wallis?<br /><br />And apparently you whole-heartedly agree with Shore, Michael?<br /><br />Apparently there is never a justification for not agreeing 100% with something that the homosexual community proposes?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08332138030182107580noreply@blogger.com