Warren insists he’s not homophobic: I served ‘water and donuts’ to gay people.
Warren insists he’s not homophobic: I served ‘water and donuts’ to gay people.
Pastor Rick Warren, President-elect Obama’s choice to deliver the inaugurual invocation, has espoused far-right views on gay rights, including likening same-sex marriage to polygamy and incest. Today, MSNBC previewed a segment from Dateline NBC’s interview with Warren, airing tomorrow, in which he laughs off accusations of being “homophobic” because he “talks to” gay people and served protesters water:
Q: Your position has raised the specter that you are homophobic.
WARREN: Hahahah! [...]
Q: Are you homophobic?
WARREN: Of course not. I have always treated them with respect. When they come and wanna talk to me, I talk to ‘em. When the protesters came, we served them water and donuts.
Watch it:
Warren also stuck up for his belief that gays should not be allowed to marry, saying, “For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Because we have solid evidence that Rick Warren is a LIAR, there is no reason to believe anything he says.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pm“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
So do cultures and religions that practice/d polygamy and polyandry no longer count as cultures or religions?
Why does Rick Warren hate Africa?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pmWow. “Water and donuts”…??
*What* a guy. I am soooooooooooooo impressed.
NOT.
Yo, stupid! YOU’RE STILL A BIGOT!!!!!
December 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pmFor 5000 year it’s been between a man and women.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pm…..while you drink soda’s and eat too many donuts, Fatso.
¶ AIO
December 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmI’m sure a lot of bigots are polite to those they hate when they meet them face to face. Denying someone the right to marry is far worse than some more overt hate crimes.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWarren’s social views are not very jesus-like.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pmHe is a bigot masquerading as a christian.
“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
Lies. Mormons would have 5,000 wives for 5,000 years if they could get away with it.
Mittens, where do you stand on this?
December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pmYeah, and I’ll bet that “some of your best friends are black,” too.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pmHomophobia isn’t about giving water and doughnuts to gay people. It’s about not respecting the reality that two gay people can be in love with each other, can form a family, and can be happy and contributing members of our society, and doing so to such an extent as to actually prevent gay people from having the things that they have been taught to cherish: a family, honest work, children, and even more.
What is disgustingly obvious is that he thinks he isn’t homophobic just because he can be near gay people and hand them food. That might be a good test to see if someone is afraid of a dog, but on a human level that is ridiculously poor at best.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pmrepublicans hate facts,
December 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pmYou are indeed correct. Marriage, as we know it today, was based upon property rights – who owns whom, and who owns what! Anyone who has ever studied anthropology or sociology would find that to be true.
For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.
“See how the Bible just lets ya make shit up and declare it as gospel?”, the Rickster added
December 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pmNow that we’re opening up the inaugural events to hatemongers of all sorts, I do hope Prussian Blue will be playing one of the balls.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pmAccording to people like Rick Warren, women and gays need to be told how to live their lives by people like Rick Warren.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pmWarren is a bum, and I still don’t understand Obama’s decision which only serves to validate Warren.
R_B
December 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pmIt’s so nice that he’s served gays water and donuts! It’s a sure-fire way to lure them into the gas chamber, right Herr Warren? Hyproctitical, nazi m-f’er.
I’m shocked that Obama would even consider this a**hole.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:59 pmI would not piss on Rick Warren even if he was on fire.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmHey Ricky? What else is that little invisible omnipotent man on your shoulder telling you about how others should live?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmFor 5000 years, marriage was a property issue, not a relationship issue. For 5000 years, white folks couldn’t marry other races. For 5000 years, people of different faiths and tribes could not marry. Marriage wasn’t even a religous sacrament until about 1250.
The simple truth is that marriage has had numerous ‘definitions’ applied to it depending on the person seeking the definition. And are you going to tell me that the marriage of Britney Spears to Kevin what’s his name is a better one than your typical loving gay couple.
The right side hates people in general, and in particular people who don’t think like they do. How does two people being married affect anything other than their own two lives?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmBut 6,000 years ago, Eve had a thing with a walking talking snake and don’t tell me Adam wasn’t at least checking out all those exclusively herbivorous dinosaurs.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pmI will admit that Rick Warren has the right to perform only the marriages he approves of. Beyond that, he needs to mind his own bidness.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:03 pmAren’t all these comments, this attitude of hate and rhetorical bullshit, a performative contradiction of everything that liberalism stands for? When a pastor or anyone holds a position we disagree with that doesn’t mean that he can’t be listened to and respected. Gay-rights activists would and should expect the same from him and other evangelicals. That how the public discourse works: you give, you get. Respectfully… I’d rate the views expressed here as far more worthy of the label fundamentalist than Rick Warren. And fundamentalism is always a sign of lack of belief in the power and truth of one’s own beliefs. Fundamentalism is impotence.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
They also didn’t know about proper sanitation… should we follow everything they did back then?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pmOn a side note, Ann Curry could have done a better job with her interview. Instead of responding to the answers she just stuck to her talking points. I’m tired of robot journalism.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pmWARREN: “For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
“That’s just the way we’ve always done things” just doesn’t cut it anymore, dipshit.
Teh ignorance is strong in this one.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pmnewpolity Says:
Respectfully… I’d rate the views expressed here as far more worthy of the label fundamentalist than Rick Warren. And fundamentalism is always a sign of lack of belief in the power and truth of one’s own beliefs. Fundamentalism is impotence.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Respectfully — bite my lily white ass.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pmWhat Warren meant to say was, “For 2000 years Christians have been making sh*t up and rewriting the bible every time we had something new to sell. We’re not about to stop now.”
December 18th, 2008 at 1:20 pmnewpolity Says:
Aren’t all these comments, this attitude of hate and rhetorical bullshit, a performative contradiction of everything that liberalism stands for?
No more so than condemnation of: nazis who want to kill or enslave everyone who does not agree with them, neo-nazis of the same bent, white supremecists (of whatever particualr group) doing the same. Liberalism does NOT condone actions attempting to stop another person from living their life. Warren is in the category of actively attempting to deny others living their lives in a peaceful manner that does not affect him. Thier sexual preference does not match his ideology, and therefore he would gladly deny them basic rights.
As a liberal, one does NOT have to love the neo-nazis who want to kill all non-aryans (and particularly the jews), nor does a liberal deny the liberal ideology by not wanting to discuss with these kind of people anyhting.
And respecting these kinds of people, you say? RESPECT him? No, and it is exactly part and parcel of the liberal ideals to NOT repsect this kind of hateful garbage passing as a human. He and his kind (you? You sound a little ‘concerned‘ about liberals… troll) would prefer (and seek to) force everyone who does not believe like them to HAVE to live the way that they say you should live, even if the differences (like homosexuality) have no effect at all on anyone elses’ lives.
I see that there are a number of churches with the ‘pray to change the gay’ approach, and even the camps to ‘help’ these people. I have yet to hear of ONE camp where they try to MAKE heterosexuals into homosexuals. Not one. So, who is trying to force whom into their lifestyle?
And, one does not have to be a fundamentalist to be bigoted, hateful, or homophobic. Those things are NOT exclusively the realm of fundamentalists– not by a long shot.
Nice try, little man, but you do not have a valid point. In Limpball’s world it might fly, but your misunderstanding of ‘liberal’ and any ideology clearly shows in this post. Liberals are open and accepting, but that does not mean that liberals must accept even bigots and homophobes (or anyone else in general or particualr) simply because of liberal ideology.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:21 pmTo all the folks who want to support Warrens view of ‘marriage’ please tell me what difference it makes to you if two gay people want to have access to the very same rights hetero couples have (inheritance, medical decisions, housing, etc…)? Why should you care if YOUR RIGHTS are kept intact? Why do you care about the happiness of two other Americans?
Maybe you are not so happy yourselves? Hmmm. Something to consider, no?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pmFor 5,000 years, slavery has been a standard practice in all cultures and religions, in one form or another. However, in the last 150 years or so, we’ve begun to erode this proud tradition. Now the only remaining pockets of slavery in this great country exist among tomato pickers in Florida and textile mills in Saipan.
It’s high time we brought this country back to the traditional values that made us great. Repeal the 13th Amendment!
December 18th, 2008 at 1:23 pmFrom a CL(CraigsList not CrooksNLiars)poster
Sorry for the longness (worth reading)
by Jeff Goode (Californian)
About a decade ago, as a young playwright, I was hired to write a
script for the Renaissance Festival of Kansas City. It was a period
piece about knights and jousts and intrigues of the court, building
up to a lavish royal wedding between a prince and a princess,
restoring peace to the troubled land.
This was one of my first professional writing assignments, so I was
really excited about doing all the research and making sure that
everything was historically accurate, especially the royal wedding
which needed to follow all the traditions exactly.
Over a summer of research, I learned a lot of surprising facts about
the history of marriage and weddings, but by far the most shocking
discovery of all was that the tradition of marriage-as- we-know-it
simply did not exist in those days. Almost everything we have come
to associate with marriage and weddings — the white dress, the holy
vows, the fancy cake and the birdseed — dates back a mere 50 or 100
years at the most. In many cases less.
And the handful of traditions that do go back farther than that are,
frankly, horrifying. The tossing of the garter, for example, evolved
from a 14th Century tradition of ripping the clothing off of the
bride’s body as she left the ceremony in order to “loosen her up”
for the wedding night. Wedding guests fought over the choicest bits
of undergarment, with the garter being the greatest prize.
Savvy brides got in the habit of carrying extra garters in their
bodice to throw to the male guests in hopes of escaping the ceremony
with some shred of modesty intact!
It turns out that marriage, in days of old, was a barbaric custom
which was little more than a crude exchange of livestock at its most
civilized, and a little less than ritualized abduction at its worst.
That’s why you’ll find no reference to white weddings in the Bible,
or the union of one man and one woman. Because up until fairly
recently, there was nothing religious about it.
You will of course find plenty of biblical bigamy, practiced by even
the most godly of heroes– Noah, Abraham, David, Solomon — because
that’s what marriage was in those days. Even in more enlightened New
Testament times, the only wedding worth mentioning (the one at Cana)
is notable only for the miraculous amount of wine consumed.
In the 21st Century, we’ve heard a lot about the sanctity of
marriage, as if that were something that has been around forever,
but in reality the phrase was invented in 2004. Google it for
yourself and see if you can find a single reference to the “sanctity
of marriage” before the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-
sex unions in that state. The proverbial Sanctity of Marriage sprang
into being because opponents of gay marriage needed a logical reason
to overturn an established legal precedent. And the only thing that
trumps the Constitution is God himself.
Unfortunately, God is still pretty new to the whole marriage game
(or he might have made an honest woman out of the Virgin Mary, am I
right? Try the veal!)
The truth is that marriage has always been more a secular tradition
rather than a religious one. Up until the early Renaissance, in
fact, couples were traditionally married on the church’s front
doorstep, because wedding ceremonies were considered too vulgar to
be performed inside the building: After all, there was implied sex
in the vows and shameless public displays of affection. No clergyman
in his right mind would have allowed such an unholy abomination on
the premises.
But as times changed, ideas and attitudes about marriage also
changed. So when people became religious, matrimony became holy.
When people became nudists, clothing became optional. And so on
throughout history.
And the wonderful thing about the institution of marriage — the
reason it has remained strong and relevant through thousands of
years of ever-changing times — is its unique ability to change with
those times.
Marriage is, and always has been, a constantly evolving tradition
that never fails to incorporate the latest shifts in culture and
climate, changing social habits, fashions and even fads. (Because,
seriously, that chicken dance is not in the Bible.)
Thus, in the 1800s when the sole purpose of marriage was procreation
and housekeeping, marriage between an older man and a hard-working
tween girl was considered perfectly normal. Today we call it
pedophilia.
For thousands of years marriage was essentially a business
transaction between the parents of the bride and groom. But in the
last century or so, we’ve finally seen the triumph of this new-
fangled notion that marriage should be about a loving relationship
between two consenting adults.
Followers of the Mormon faith can tell you that the traditions of
their forefathers included a devout belief that polygamy was
appropriate and sanctified. But modern Mormons generally don’t
support that vision of happiness for their daughters.
And during the Civil Rights era, when opponents of interracial
marriage tried to pass laws making such couples illegal, we came to
realize that they, too, were wrong in trying to redefine marriage to
prevent those newfound relationships.
Always marriage has triumphed by becoming a timely celebration of
our society, rather than a backlash against it. It’s strange, then,
to see “tradition” used as a weapon against change, when change is
the source of all its greatest traditions.
Just ask the white dress: In 1840, Queen Victoria of England married
Prince Albert wearing a beautiful white lace dress — in defiance of
tradition — in order to promote the sale of English lace! The image
was so powerful that practically overnight the white wedding gown
became de rigueur for the well-heeled bride. And then it became de
rigueur for every bride.
By the dawn of the 20th Century, the white dress had also
inexplicably come to symbolize chastity. (Even though blue was
traditionally the color of virginity –”something borrowed,
something blue…”)
And the new equation of white with virginity eventually achieved
such a rigid orthodoxy that older readers may remember a time when
wedding guests who happened to know that the bride was not perfectly
pure would have felt a moral obligation to demand that she change
into something off-white before walking down the aisle.
Fortunately, as cultural norms eased during the Sexual Revolution, a
sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy took hold where all brides
were required to wear white regardless of their virtue and the less
said about it the better.
In recent years, as a generation of divorcees have remarried and a
generation of young people have entered wedlock with some degree
of “experience” , the pretense of a connection between literal
virginity and the bridal gown has become entirely obsolete. A
colorful journey for a custom which has always seemed iron clad,
even as it was evolving over time.
And not all traditions have to do with changing sexual standards.
The long-time custom of pelting the newlyweds with birdseed did not
exist before the 1970s when animal-lovers realized that songbirds
were bloating on dried rice that they found on the ground after the
former custom.
Economic times have caused families to rethink the age-old
convention of the bride’s father paying for the entire ceremony — a
last vestige of the days of dowries when a young man had to be
bribed to take a free-loading daughter off her parents’ hands —
that well-established custom has gradually given way to a more
humane approach to sharing the financial burden.
Even religious traditions of marriage have experienced constant
metamorphosis over the years. As more interfaith couples have wed,
we have seen the emergence of multi-disciplinary ceremonies where
couples have chosen not to follow the out-dated tradition of
rejecting one or both of their faiths as a prerequisite of holy
matrimony.
One of the most beautiful weddings I ever attended was between a
young Jewish fellow and his Catholic fiancé, whose mother was born
in France. The ceremony was performed by both a rabbi and a priest
with intertwining vows in English, Latin, Hebrew and French. A
perfect expression of the union of their two families, yet one which
would have been unthinkable just a generation before.
But, again, marriage has such a long history of changing with the
ever-changing times, that the last thing we should expect from it is
to stop growing and changing. We know today that marriage is not a
rote ritual handed down by God to Adam & Eve and preserved verbatim
for thousands of years. It is, rather, an expression of how each
community, each culture, and each faith, chooses to celebrate the
joining of loved ones who have decided to make a life together.
Christians do not expect Jesus to be central to a Buddhist wedding,
nor do Jews refuse to acknowledge Lutheran unions because they
didn’t include a reading from the Torah. Marriage is what we each
make of it. And that’s the way it always should be.
Perhaps the greatest irony of the traditional marriage argument is
that it seeks to preserve a singular tradition that has, in fact,
never existed at any point in history.
Because, honestly, which traditional definition of marriage do we
want our Constitution to protect?
…The one from Book of Genesis when family values meant multiple
wives and concubines?
…Or the marriages of the Middle Ages when women were traded like
cattle and weddings were too bawdy for church?
…Since this is America, should we preserve marriage as it existed
in 1776 when arranged marriages were still commonplace?
…Or the traditions of 1850 when California became a state and
marriage was customarily between one man and one woman-or-girl of
age 11 and up?
…Or are we really seeking to protect a more modern vision of
traditional marriage, say from the 1950s when it was illegal for
whites to wed blacks or Hispanics?
…Or the traditional marriage of the late 1960s when couples were
routinely excommunicated for marrying outside their faith?
No, the truth of the matter is, that we’re trying to preserve
traditional marriage the way it “was and always has been” during a
very narrow period in the late 70s / early 80s – just before most of
us found out that gays even existed: Between one man and one woman
of legal age and willing consent. Regardless of race or religion
(within reason). Plus the chicken dance and the birdseed. Those are
okay.
But there’s something profoundly disturbing about amending the
December 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pmConstitution to define anything about the 1970s as “the way God
intended it.”
newpolity Says:
Aren’t all these comments, this attitude of hate and rhetorical bullshit, a performative contradiction of everything that liberalism stands for?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
_________
No. Liberalism does not stand for universal tolerance. Tolerance of intolerance allows fascism to fester and breeds ethnic cleansing and genocide.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pmLet’s adopt suttee — the practice of the widow being burnt alive on her husband’s funeral pyre (against her will, if necessary). It dates back farther that ANY Xian ‘tradition’.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pmAnyone know of Rev. Warren’s opinions regarding civil unions?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pmShorter Warren:
“I’m not homophobic, I’m just scared of gay people”
———————————————
December 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pm‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
So, Ricky, what happened in the first 1,000 years of creation?
(We won’t trouble your narrow mind about the preceding billion or so…)
December 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmPoor choice Obama..Ugh to warren and all like him…Sure would be nice to see some non church type’s giving speeche’s….What do I know, I’m just another witch that want’s to see justice and right’s for all…There end’s my only post for this day..Blessings all.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
No. Liberalism does not stand for universal tolerance. Tolerance of intolerance allows fascism to fester and breeds ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Well, DUH! That’s exactly what that there troll would like, as well as mr. warren, and all that ilk. “Destroy the heathen non-believers!!”
December 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pmWarren also stuck up for his belief that gays should not be allowed to marry, saying, “For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
Not a student of history or sociology at all is he?
“every single culture”?
Funny, the christian church married men to men in the early centuries, the syrian christian communities still believe gays are allowed to marry, middle east and many other cultures believed marriage was defined as a man and a woman and a woman and another woman, so on…., polinesian cultures believed a marriage was a man and a woman and another man, and another woman, etc.
I could go on an on about different cultures, to show what an ignorant idiot Warren is.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pmAaaaa why does care?…he should mind his own business,and stop trying to cram is believes down everyone elses thoats. Obama is smart, even a blind man can see this fake for what he is. Bringing people together is good,people can see right thru this ‘holy-er than thou’ jerk. Get a real job and pay taxes like the rest of us.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pm“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
I don’t maintain to be an authority on cultures, there are far too many that have existed in 5000 years for anyone to know them all. BUT, on the National Geographic show “taboo” (or is it discovery or history, who knows) they talked about a culture in indonesia in which there were 5 different acknowledged genders and there were most certainly marriages that we’d classify as homosexual. this culture still exists.
had he said the vast majority instead of all, i couldn’t argue with him, but his absolutism allows his ignorance to shine.
There is no reason to be against gay marriage other than religious ones. Our nation has a separation of church and state. Thus, gay marriage should be allowed in our country and if you can’t agree to that you need to learn how to participate in a secular democracy.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pmMaybe he was quoted out of context, as he referred to the single religion he is familiar with.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pmCageyCretin: Don’t think that you might be losing the plot a bit when you conflate a battle over a symbol (in California, must if not all the substantive rights of marriage have already been granted to same-sex couples) with an actual threat to liberalism like Nazism?
Liberalism doesn’t protect intolerance, true. but how did the idea of intolerance balloon to include saying anything that discomforts progressives? And liberalism definitely doesn’t mean excluding religious perspective from public discourse. No position is privileged within a robust liberalism, except for an opposition to the discursive resolution of differences.
December 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pmcalavzma Says:
Thus, gay marriage should be allowed in our country and if you can’t agree to that you need to learn how to participate in a secular democracy.
Well, from what I’ve seen, the counter argument to that seems to be that we’re being hateful of their religion, and trying to persecute them based on their religion, and that we should be more open to a discourse with them.
However, said discourse will defer to them, and not disparge their right to believe in their religion. So, see, by the arguments, you are persecuting them for not allowing them to persecute the homosexuals. Can’t us liberal and progressive types just stop warring against the xians? Can’t we see that we are infringing on their rights to infringe on other’s rights?
Just remember : if you are not in agreement with the xians at all times then you are persecuting them. Poor wittle victims…….
December 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pmHey! I’ll bet Tracy_5 is Rick Warren!
December 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pmNevar Says:
Maybe he was quoted out of context, as he referred to the single religion he is familiar with.
Which didn’t actually exist 5,000 years ago.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pmnewpolity Says:
CageyCretin: Don’t think that you might be losing the plot a bit when you conflate a battle over a symbol (in California, must if not all the substantive rights of marriage have already been granted to same-sex couples) with an actual threat to liberalism like Nazism?
December 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
So true. Why are we so caught up over silly things like labels and symbols, when gay people have a perfectly acceptable alternative to marriage? Sure, it’s separate, but it’s equal, right?
While we’re at it, why are we still bothering to integrate our schools? I say we roll back Brown v. the Board of Education, while we’re at it – let the Negro kids go to Negro schools and the White kids go to White schools. What could possibly be wrong with that – the substantive rights of education are still there, right?
December 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pmwhat christians REALLY want to say:
“we don’t like gay people and we don’t want them to have any cookies!”
———————————————
December 18th, 2008 at 2:13 pm‘ere – Atlanta’s Progressive Jazz
(yes that’s me on the piano)
Find us at ReverbNation.com/ere
———————————————
newpolity Says:
CageyCretin: Don’t think that you might be losing the plot a bit when you conflate a battle over a symbol (in California, must if not all the substantive rights of marriage have already been granted to same-sex couples) with an actual threat to liberalism like Nazism?
How is marriage just a symbol? It is asocial arrangement. However, I made no comparison beyond that there ARE people (e.g. nazis, supremecists, xians who actively seek to IMPOSE their personal beliefs on those around them — no different from the talibon) to whom those following a liberal or progressive ideology are not bound by that ideology to listen to, allow public forum, or to respect. You claimed otherwise:
Aren’t all these comments, this attitude of hate and rhetorical bullshit, a performative contradiction of everything that liberalism stands for?
To answer your question again, NO.
Pay attention.
When a pastor or anyone holds a position we disagree with that doesn’t mean that he can’t be listened to and respected.
In general this has a vague truth, however, as I posited, this does not apply to nazis, white supremecists (I do not need to respect these people — not at all), and to small minded religious people who wish to impose their dogma upon others, regardless of what religion we’re speaking of. Believe what you want, talk about what YOU believe, but as SOON as you attempt to impose your beliefs on another, you have crossed the line and are no longer deserving of respect. Do you feel that the Taliban is deserving of respect and to be listened to? How about Al Qeda? (they ARE a religious group)
Gay-rights activists would and should expect the same from him and other evangelicals.
Yes. And gay-rights believers and activists don’t really care what Warren believes himself — what they care about is that he attempts to force his believfs upon other people.
Liberalism doesn’t protect intolerance, true. but how did the idea of intolerance balloon to include saying anything that discomforts progressives?
Again, Warren is not “just saying something uncomfortable” — he actively seeks to enforce his personal religious beliefs on others (see how this one little thing keeps coming up? See the difference between this and simple ‘discourse’?). Thus, he crosses the line.
And liberalism definitely doesn’t mean excluding religious perspective from public discourse.
Not necessarily, however that is a VERY vague statement that can be interpreted VERY broadly. So, really, response to that is both yes and no.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:17 pmAccording to a post at The Washington Monthly, some of the wingnuts are unhappy about Warren’s participation in the inauguration. Some sick puppies over there.
The “Christian” response?
December 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pm“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
WRONG.
Plenty of pre-Christian (and 5000+ years is DEFINITELY pre-xtian) religions allowed for same-sex partner relationships (or for lack of a better term “marriage”.
Additionally, why is it Warrens’ religious definition of marriage that is the benchmark for all of our society? Shouldn’t the LEGAL definition of marriage be subject to the same separation of Church and State as other legally recognized institutions?
What a sad, sad case of cognitive dissonance he suffers from and promotes among his followers.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm“For 5,000 years, every single culture and every single religion has defined marriage as a man and a woman.”
This is simply not true. For most of human history, marriage has been between one man and as many women he can get his hands on.
It’s almost as if Warren is intentionally forgetting about the stories told in his own holy book, Abraham, David, Solomon, they all had multiple wives. And that’s without getting into the subject of the concubines…
December 18th, 2008 at 2:22 pmconcubine = civil union
December 18th, 2008 at 2:30 pm1. No religion ever defines marriage; it’s always been a social contract.
2. That contract has changed forms and value numerous times across societies and time.
3. Less than 100 years ago, even in the United States, marriage was little more than a property contract.
4. The vast majority of societies in recorded history recognized polygamy.
So, Warren is advocating polygamy? Incest (in the modern sense of the word, which includes sibling relationships)? Because those were part and parcel of the definition of marriage in quite a few societies, including the society which gave birth to Jesus (if he even existed).
December 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pmfirst this bigot should read up on greek culture under the Sparta section.
second, up until about 150 years ago almost every single culture that existed also thought slavery was fine and dandy as well, including the one that authored the bible.
this guy is such an idiot.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pmEven religions disagree on what can constitute a valid marriage. The Catholic church does not recognize remarriage (2nd marriage after a divorce), whereas Protestant churches do. This difference does not cause a significant problem with the legal definition – the government recognizes the broader category and leaves it to each denomination to determine what they’ll recognize.
If the government should use restrictive definitions of marriage, which of the above two definitions should we use? The most traditional one would be the Catholic definition, since it resists Henry VIII’s attempts to redefine it. In that view, people who remarry are asking society to condone their lifestyle choice of adultery.
The problem with mixing church and state is that as often as not, the form of religion that the government adopts ends up excluding most of those who wanted religion in government to begin with. See Iran for a good example of this problem; the establishment of Islam as practiced by the Iranian government is much more restrictive than any of its supporters in 1979 actually wanted.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pmOh, if only the christain homophobes had KKKarl Rove to help them with their talking points. At least they would be convoluted enough to make the discussion tricky. As it is: they just stick their digits in their aural orifices and go, “La,la, la, la, la…. traditional marriage is what I say it is… la, la, la, la….”
And I have yet to ever hear anyone defend the value of “tradition”. Why is anything at all validated by “tradition?”
December 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm(I’ll answer: nothing at all is validated by tradition: ALL cultures have developed assinine or stupid traditions, some are even morally reprehensible).
The ONLY purpose for marriage, ever, has been to ensure the orderly inheritacne of power and property among elites.
proles like warren didn’t even start getting married until about the beginning of the 15th century when artisans began to accumulate wealth.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pmPassing out snacks to people while campaigning against their civil rights does not excuse one from being a homophobe.
If Warren is against the full equality of gay and lesbian citizens of this country, then he is a homophobe. It is plain and simple.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pmFor most of history, marriage did NOT mean “one man + one woman”. Polygamy was the norm in many ancient societies – including the Hebrews. Besides, marriage was more about property transfer than love. It is only in modern times that we actually expect that two people love one another before they get married. Arranged marriage was also normal in the past and still is today in some traditional societies.
Marriage has been redefined and redefined and redefined again over many thousands of years. Expanding the legal definition of marriage to recognize the unions of same-sex couples is a logical next step in the evolution of marriage as a human institution.
Those who claim to support “traditional marriage” should really take a long hard look at the past and try to reconcile their current marriage to that of their ancestors long past.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pmIs water and donuts the new grape juice and crackers? Odd that he would claim that serving water and donuts to gays absolves him of bigotry.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pmWho else thinks it is no coinkydink that his “ministry” is located in S. Orange County? My my, one of the wealthiest areas in the whole freaking world!
December 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pmAlso it’s true, one donut fed 5000 gays, and one bottle of Evian completely slacked their thirst, and he walked across the backbay of Newport harbor to server them!
Rick Warren does not want gay people to get married. He actively promoted the proposition that espoused that view. He used lies and distortions to get his point across. How can any respectable Christian keep company (or faith) in a man that would use such tactics to promote his agenda? How Christian is that? Rick, eat a donut, and hopefully you’ll have the same response that Bush had when he ate that pretzel.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:46 pmdrobert_bfm Says:
1. No religion ever defines marriage; it’s always been a social contract.
.
.
.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
In Matthew 19 Jesus alludes to Genesis to answer a question about divorce. Jesus said that the Creator intended that a man and a woman would be one flesh in marriage. In the context of the answer, He apparently meant that marriage was intended to be a life long marriage relationship; that is, one man one woman forever.
This seems to be the authoritative answer that continues to influence western civilization.
Based on the setting in Genesis marriage would be seen as older than both religion and government.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:32 pmcareful reverend (with a small r): in New Testament Theology, there are several reasons for casting suspicion on so-called acts of charity done in the public eye.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pmWell there you are. He served water and donuts to gay people. Would that be the equivalent of turning water into wine? I guess not. That’s like saying I’m not prejudiced against blacks. After all I never hung one did I?
Like most evangelists this man is self promoting scum.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:43 pmI voted Obama the worse of two evils. The media makes such a big deal out of this thing. Either you are on 1 side or the other and I am for the Christian side the way the bible says it is to be 1 Man 1 Woman. The bible says homosexuals will not go to heaven. Those that support gays in the media and Hollywood that are “straight” would never march in a gay parade or go on a gay cruise or hang out in a gay bar or let their children do a sleep over with gays and on and on you get the point. They are fake phony gay supporters, hypocrits to the core. Being gay is a choice like the bible says. That is my take…
December 18th, 2008 at 4:50 pmjpopphan Says:
For most of history, marriage did NOT mean “one man + one woman”. Polygamy was the norm in many ancient societies – including the Hebrews.
.
.
.
Expanding the legal definition of marriage to recognize the unions of same-sex couples is a logical next step in the evolution of marriage as a human institution.
.
.
.
December 18th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
bit doesn’t believe that one can categorically say that polygamy was the norm even among ancient Hebrews. It is the case the the Old Testament does record that many of the big names in the OT had more that one wife. However, the Bible doesn’t endorse this or even remark that it was a good thing.
In fact in several case the Bible comments about the negative consequences of a man having more than one wife.
The first polygamist recorded in the OT was a killer, and some scholars believe, he was involved in the first recorded war.
Further, not every man mentioned in the OT had more than one wife. bit thinks that the OT records only one wife for Noah.
expanding the legal definition of marriage to recognize the unions of same-sex couples is a logical next step in the evolution of marriage as a human institution.
bit missed the logical part. Care to elucidate?
Numbers out of CA and MA put the number of same-same gender couples who are interested in being “married” at about 0.9% of the general population and at about 3% of the homosexual population. This suggests to bit that this is really a non-issue with even the homosexuals. Consequently bit doesn’t see the logic here.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:52 pmThis “pastor” appears to be guilty of the sin of Gluttony.
December 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pmWhen I was in college, I had a special way of serving doughnuts to the girls I dated.
You don’t think Warren did that also, do you?
Yeah, probably not.
:-)
December 18th, 2008 at 4:54 pmSome state have tried to institute “covenant marriage.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/marriage/A000000901.cfm
Conclusion of
The Role Faith Plays in Marriage and the Likelihood of Divorce
References to studies at the link.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pmHi bitblt. While you are tossing studies about can you show me the peer reviewed mainstream one that shows that that weird make the gay strait therapy shit works? I also continue to look forward to your explaination as to why it only “works” one way and if so why some oddballs get so freaked out about gay scout leaders.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pmthanks
Technodaoist Says:
Exactly he is just flat out wrong. Many cultures had gay marriage in ancient times including Asia and North American Indians.
Bit you are just a bigoted moron and you can keep shovelling your bigotry till the seas dry up and the Sun burns out it will never be ANYTHING except bigotry.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:26 pmHello bitblt. It’s good to see a fellow atheist here.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:33 pmdbadass Says:
Hi bitblt. While you are tossing studies about can you show me the peer reviewed mainstream one that shows that that weird make the gay strait therapy shit works? I also continue to look forward to your explaination as to why it only “works” one way and if so why some oddballs get so freaked out about gay scout leaders.
thanks
December 18th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
bit would not have described dbadass as persistent, but it appears he is.
Actually had some stuff for you yesterday about the histories of the Am Psychiatric and Psychological Associates, Dr. Spritzer ( bit thinks that’s the name ), and the changes that the two associations had in 1973 and 1975, respectively, when it was discovered that homosexuality was not longer a deviancy. Apparently many of the associations members didn’t vote for the changes ( consensus science ? ). But bit decided that you could do the research yourself, if you’re really interested.
Check http://www.narth.com if you’re interested. This group seems to be strongly promoting the change from homosexuality to heterosexuality therapy. They publish their own stuff, and their web-site makes a “professional” impression on bit. Guess if you publish your own stuff you can pick your own peers.
NARTH does have some articles on Dr. Spritzer (????) and notes that he was involved in the APAs changes in the 1970s. Other conservative site say that these changes were due to homosexual members who had an agenda in getting homosexuality removed from the diagnostic manuals.
As to the change from hetero to homo (is that conversion or reparative ) therapy, you’ll have to follow up on that yourself. bit will not pursue this because bit understands that this reparative therapy requires a strong desire for change. So, strong desire would mean “a choice,” right?
Nonetheless, there do seem to be organizations promoting self determination in the area of unwanted same sex attraction.
(Whereas dbadass, et al, seem to be promoting the gay agenda orthodoxy.)
From what bit has read at NARTH, he gets the impression that NARTH makes a distinction between psychiatrists and psychologists and practicing therapists. This may be a way to separate the reparative therapists from the professional associations. This seems to be the case in the account of Bart Allen.
http://www.narth.com/docs/increasing.html
Bart went to a professional who told him he was stuck with being a homosexual. Before Bart could find another source for the reparative therapy, he was brutally murdered by his homosexual room. Not being about to change seem to be part of the orthodoxy.
-bit
December 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pmWhy would a room, even a homosexual room, brutally murder someone? Much less how. Where of course, is a given.
My fellow atheist doesn’t make a lot of sense here.
December 18th, 2008 at 5:49 pmSo in a nutshell bit is saying that bit knows of no peer reviewed published research on the matter but would like to offer a clearly biased group bit likes and an attack on an individual who bit doesn’t. Bottomline is that no such rsearch data exists so in the future perhaps bit might stop announcing the proven efficacy of such “therapy”. As to straight to gay conversion, you were the one that announced that it couldn’t happen to both ralph and I a week or two back. I have just been trying to get you to explain why not. Seems to dbadass that you are backpedalling on that one as well
December 18th, 2008 at 5:52 pmBitbigot Not a SINGLE professional medical organization supports that psuedoscientific claptrap and they ALL think it does harm to those it purports to help. Your BIGOTRY does not define reality. You are simply a hater and a bigot, you and those like you help NO ONE and hurt people. Not that you care as long as your hatefilled arrogance and bigotry are served. You are pathetic and an embarassment
http://www.umsl.edu/~pope/documents/Stmtonconvtxs_001.pdf
December 18th, 2008 at 6:05 pm“Water and Doughnuts”
Isn’t that special? Reminds me of that story about loaves and fishes.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:57 pmKeep this in mind, folks — this is merely an invocation: Warren is NOT going to be making policy.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pmocmark1 Says:
I voted Obama the worse of two evils. The media makes such a big deal out of this thing. Either you are on 1 side or the other and I am for the Christian side the way the bible says it is to be 1 Man 1 Woman. The bible says homosexuals will not go to heaven.
Can you explain why you think it is wrong for gays to marry WITHOUT mentioning the bible?
Let’s not forget this is Obama’s choice, much like the other Pro-Surveillance, Pro-Zionist/Likud, Pro-Wall Street, Pro-Genetically Modified Food, and many other Conservative Non-Progressive choices he is making.
“CHANGE!!!!!”
December 18th, 2008 at 7:12 pmHey Brain,
Let’s not forget this is Obama’s choice, much like the other Pro-Surveillance, Pro-Zionist/Likud, Pro-Wall Street, Pro-Genetically Modified Food, and many other Conservative Non-Progressive choices he is making.
I agree with you, I am stunned by the centrist appointments and decisions O. is making. This thing with Warren blows my mind, and since I am ambivalent on gay marriage this type of triangulation doesn’t do much for me.
But then I ask, is triangulation a bad thing? Obama seems to be reaching out to the Right…if his efforts make him more palatable to all Americans, is that bad? He keeps Gates at Defense, but then when he picks Daschle for H&S I say to myself, there is some balance there.
Again, this Warren thing really weirds me out, what an odd choice, but I am not an evangelical Christian. Right now, they are probably looking at O. going, wow, maybe he isn’t so bad.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:27 pmWater and donuts? Wow, all Jesus could manage was loaves of bread and fish… Oh Hell, celtic got there first. Never mind.
December 18th, 2008 at 8:32 pm______
jpopphan Says:
If Warren is against the full equality of gay and lesbian citizens of this country, then he is a homophobe.
December 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
______
As you redefine the term. ;)
December 18th, 2008 at 9:06 pmLike the Bible says, to paraphrase:
“Beware of FALSE prophets, saying they are following JESUS example, when they are not.”
I am EXTEMELY disappointed in Obama, another STRAIGHT MALE Democrat who just doesn’t see to “get it”.
If he does not fix this by January 20 (i.e., cancel the Warren “prayer”), he will have a political fight in his hands that is NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.
And he though the No On 8 rallys brought out GLBT activists.
Obama pretty much deflated the excitement of his presidency with this OUTRAGEOUS action.
WOMEN should also be upset with this fat clown Warren who believes women do not have the right to chose.
December 18th, 2008 at 9:07 pmNot only is Warren anti-gay, he is anti-choice and anti-science. Nice to know Obama will include those who long for the Dark Age.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm_______
jb Says:
Not only is Warren anti-gay, he is anti-choice and anti-science. Nice to know Obama will include those who long for the Dark Age.
December 18th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
_______
That’s not technically correct. Though he can be called anti-choice if that choice is to kill unborn babies, he’s not anti-gay, but anti-gay marriage. And he’s only anti-science if it claims to prove something that it doesn’t. ;)
December 19th, 2008 at 7:51 ambity thing says: “I have brain damage.”
(short version)
But, really, your entire argument is based on the bible that YOU read. You would like to use you interpretation of your choice of bible as policy for the entire society. That is a specific religion directing society: precisely like the Talibon, precisely what Al Qeda wants to do. You throw your lot in with that precise type of people, and disregard the entire foundation of America and the Constitution. If ANY one religion sets social policy outside of the religious believers it is oppressive. However, perhaps bit bit and her fellow religiosos believe, like AQ &c., that their religious beliefs should be used to create laws that all others must follow.
What is more, on the gay marriage issue it is just incomprehensible. Explain, without reference to your choice of bible, how it would harm you or society if gays could be married and recieve all that married people receive. It cannot affect you or society in any way. You simply deny a group of people from participating in the legal structure of a secular contrivance that is used to determine property rights and inheritance (as well as affecting their taxes — and as a conservative/republican/neocon, bit bit and her ilk ought to CLEARLY be on board with that point).
Argue against gay marriage without the use of your choice of bible and without your personal interpretations of your choice of religion.
And — Warren claimed that ALL marriages, 5,000 years back, in EVERY culture have been 1 man + 1 woman. Posters have pointed out clearly that THAT broad statement is a flat out lie and falsehood, and that even according to any of the variety of bibles (and the Torah) there are many examples of polygamy: not that every single person mentioned in those texts were polygamous (what is this bi-polar function in your religious thinking that insists that things are always an extreme of one or the other? You conflate the points made about this to meaning that we say ALL biblical people were polygamists, or that if they all were NOT then YOU are substantiated, which is not true either. Your bibles do NOT CONDEMN the polyagamy there, so they must, by omission (in a book to teach you how to live, an omission of this regard IS a statement) accept the polygamy. They also, specifically, support slavery. And how about all of the punishments in there? Why don’t you all follow those RULES FROM YOUR GOD? You pick and choose — you decide what ‘rules’ and such you agree with, and you discount anything in there that you may not agree with. Sad, really. You can’t even be honest with your own religion.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:13 amupright left Says:
he’s not anti-gay, but anti-gay marriage.
Well, I don’t know all that much about this fellow, and you MIGHT be right. However, the surface indications are that you are wrong: that he is a person who believes his religion tells him that those who are gay are evil AND that he ought to do something about it. Therefore, he actively tries to keep them from things (such as marriage) and seeks to change them, whether they want to or not.
Diminish their role in society to marginalize them. Then they can be forced to convert.
And he’s only anti-science if it claims to prove something that it doesn’t.
Nice try ;).
He is anti-science if it claims to prove something that HE DOESN’T ALREADY BELIEVE.
Fixed it for ‘ya.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:18 ambitbit says: It is the case the the Old Testament does record that many of the big names in the OT had more that one wife. However, the Bible doesn’t endorse this or even remark that it was a good thing.
Nor does it repudate the practice. Since it IS mentioned, and not given a rule for punishment, then it MUST be acceptable.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:45 ambitbit says: self deluded stuff.
You wanted to cite Matthew 19. The discussion was not a lesson, but an answer to a trap question by the pharasies. Now, Jesus’ answer there was SPECIFICALLY in reference to divorce. He did mention man and wife (however, that is just the one bible i went to. Further research may indicate alternate translations), but then he immediately goes on, when his disciples state that marriage is obviously bad, then:
“If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
What he says here is, as clearly as anything else in the bible, that every person must follow their own calling in these matters. He says that those who CAN marry as man and wife should do so, but those who cannot, either by matters of birth or of choice, then they should not nor should they feel compelled to do so. Each needs act to his or her own nature or desire. What he says is that it is a special “calling” to be a man and wife couple. He does NOT say that that is the ONLY union possible: simply that it is a special calling.
Your religion can’t even interpret it’s own text.
Sad, really.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:54 am______
Marie Says:
Warren’s social views are not very Jesus-like.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
_____
Of course they are. He served the protestors while maintaining his stand. Jesus loved the sinner, but said go and sin no more.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:39 amupright left Says:
Of course they are. He served the protestors while maintaining his stand.
What a small-minded approach to the philosophy presented by Jesus. That he gave out a donut makes him Jesus-like? Marie pointed out that Warren’s SOCIAL VIEWS are not very Jesus-like. I didn’t know that one of Jesus’ SOCIAL VIEWS was “donuts and water”. Sorry, your idiotic comment is not even applicable to the comment you are trying to rebut. Handing out donuts is in no way a social view (… actually it could be, but talk about a lunatic fringe type of social view: “Donuts for everyone!” Although, we don’t have anything more than Warren’s claim — how many donuts versus how many protesters, and did those donuts come with a healthy dose of reprimand for “being sinners”?
Warren’s social views are Anti-American.
Apparently, so are yours.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:16 amupright left Says:
Jesus loved the sinner, but said go and sin no more.
Actually, he loved the sinner in word and deed — your reference to him saying “go and sin no more” was a SINGLE INCIDENT, NOT a lesson. That was a comment to one person, after he aided them (not requiring any promises of anything before hand).
Jesus was also VERY clear that one is to love ALL of one’s enemies. Killing one’s enemies, regardless of their intentions toward you, is specifically AGAINST what Jesus taught as God’s Law. Your hateful attitudes towards your enemies makes you VERY unChristian (Christian = “Christ – like”).
Your tone is self-righteous (that is the opposite of righteous, and both are discussed in your bible: examine waht BOTH of those words means in a Christian sense. You will most likely find that YOU are one of MANY professed christians who are of the self-righteous kind. Woe be unto you).
December 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am______
CageyCretin Says:
What a small-minded approach to the philosophy presented by Jesus. That he gave out a donut makes him Jesus-like? Marie pointed out that Warren’s SOCIAL VIEWS are not very Jesus-like. I didn’t know that one of Jesus’ SOCIAL VIEWS was “donuts and water”. Sorry, your idiotic comment is not even applicable to the comment you are trying to rebut. Handing out donuts is in no way a social view (… actually it could be, but talk about a lunatic fringe type of social view: “Donuts for everyone!” Although, we don’t have anything more than Warren’s claim — how many donuts versus how many protesters, and did those donuts come with a healthy dose of reprimand for “being sinners”?
Warren’s social views are Anti-American.
Apparently, so are yours.
December 19th, 2008 at 11:16 am
______
It’s interesting that you begin with a statement about a small minded approach and then focus on donuts. ;)
Warren could have served a steak dinner instead; would that have made you feel better? Was there any indication that the gay protestors were poor or in need? He gave them something as a gesture. He believes their lifestyle is sinful and he does a disservice if he doesn’t speak up for those who are inclined to follow the Bible in mkaing their decisions. For those not so inclined, he makes the case that male/female marriage has historically been the norm and society has a right to maintain that as long as the majority feels it is the thing to do.
Warren advocates the position that Californians approved. Californians are Americans. That makes him pro-American. If you are on the other side, does that make you anti-American? ;)
December 19th, 2008 at 2:44 pmupright left Says:
You are an idiot. There is no such THING as an unborn baby RUBE. Its not a baby until its born. When you say he is only against science that claims to prove something it hasnt proven you only show that you dont know didly about science which is hardly a surprise since you dont know much about ANYTHING.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm______
CageyCretin Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
Jesus loved the sinner, but said go and sin no more.
Actually, he loved the sinner in word and deed — your reference to him saying “go and sin no more” was a SINGLE INCIDENT, NOT a lesson. That was a comment to one person, after he aided them (not requiring any promises of anything before hand).
Jesus was also VERY clear that one is to love ALL of one’s enemies. Killing one’s enemies, regardless of their intentions toward you, is specifically AGAINST what Jesus taught as God’s Law. Your hateful attitudes towards your enemies makes you VERY unChristian (Christian = “Christ – like”).
Your tone is self-righteous (that is the opposite of righteous, and both are discussed in your bible: examine waht BOTH of those words means in a Christian sense. You will most likely find that YOU are one of MANY professed christians who are of the self-righteous kind. Woe be unto you).
December 19th, 2008 at 11:23 am
______
I’m not aware that Warren required anything of the protestors either.
Neither Warren, nor I have have killed anyone. Warren loves gay people. He believes they are not living according to God’s word and that legitimizing gay marriage would lead others to choose to live that lifestyle if they aren’t aware.
I haven’t displayed hate toward anyone. You equate disagreeing with a behavior with hate. Do you hate everyone with whom you disagree? Perhaps that is why you incorrectly attribute that to me. I have no enemies. I hate no one.
I really appreciate you trying to tell me what’s in my Bible. I’m always happy to learn more about it. It’s a great book, dontcha think? Unfortunately, you are off base on the self righteousness comment. I’m well aware that all people have a sin nature. ;)
December 19th, 2008 at 3:12 pm______
EugeneDebs Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
You are an idiot. There is no such THING as an unborn baby RUBE. Its not a baby until its born. When you say he is only against science that claims to prove something it hasnt proven you only show that you dont know didly about science which is hardly a surprise since you dont know much about ANYTHING.
December 19th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
_______
Hey Deb, how in the world are you, bud? Of course it’s a baby. How many people do you know who refer to their fetus throughout their pregnancy? You know, “the fetus is kicking, look at the sono pic of my fetus, the dr says the fetus is boy, I can’t be around smoke because of the fetus, etc.
Not only do I know about science, I also know how to spell diddly! ;)
December 19th, 2008 at 3:21 pmNo it isnt I dont care WHAT it is called. People CALL Pandas bears, doesnt make them bears. Yeah I know how to spell diddly too. I just type badly. No you DONT know about science. Your statement shows that directly. You regurgitate the idiocy you have been TOLD to believe.
December 19th, 2008 at 9:12 pm______
EugeneDebs Says:
You regurgitate the idiocy you have been TOLD to believe.
______
Good morning Deb. Let’s get this straight: Everyone who agrees with Deb thinks for themselves. Anyone who disagrees with Deb regurgitates the idiocy they are told to believe. Got it! Merry Christmas, bud! (I know you can spell diddly, but it was irresistible.) ;)
December 20th, 2008 at 9:25 amLiberalism does NOT condone actions attempting to stop another person from living their life.Bedava mp3 indirWarren loves gay people.sohbet He believes they are not living according to God’s cetword and that legitimizing gay marriage would lead others to choose to live that lifestyle if they aren’t aware.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am