You mean he picked two Reverends and rather than be happy about the progressive one you’ve been tricked by conservatives into concentrating on the one you don’t like.

http://www.tips-q.com/content/gene-robinson-january-18-glbt-token-minister

I was at the Convention that consented to Gene’s election. The allocations of impropriety were a last minute (literally) attempt to discredit him by the conservative forces. He is an amazing man who lives out the inclusion that he preaches. I am sure he would welcome all of you… deist and atheist alike.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson#Allegations_of_impropriety

You are still an ignorant bigot bitomoron. Love the mind reading. Yeah. Jesus hates homosexuality so much he preached against it constantly. Wait a minute. No he didnt. He never SAID A SINGLE WORD ABOUT IT. Yeah must have been a real big issue for him. What a loaf you are.

I look back at times where my cynicism kicked in and think, ‘Maybe I was too hard on Obama?’ But I simply hated the ethics lecture from Obama when he defended Rick Warren.

I agree with the above posters that there’s too much religious representation slated for the inauguration, but I’m also inclined to agree with Miss Molly’s previous assessment of ‘out with the old, in with the new.’

You are correct, bitblt. The change in people is through their belief, not governmental oppression via laws. And some of us Christians believe that those who think homosexuality is sinful are the mistaken ones to be changed.

Why does your god lie? President elect Phuckabee?

Hehe, fool.

Anyone else think it’s ironic that we’re having so many different preachers/priests appear at this event in order to appease the many different Christian sects, when Christ was supposedly all about tolerance, unity, acceptance and love?
January 12th, 2009 at 10:52 am

Believe you really need a book, chapter, and verse for this assertion: “all about tolerance, unity, acceptance and love,” because bit believes your description means you believe that Christ was “Ok with sin.” Christ was not Ok with sin. This would include the sin of homosexuality.

Remember in the book of John Christ told the woman, whom he rescued from execution by stoning, to stop sinning.

As far as inclusiveness, the Gospel of Christ is for everyone. However, it seems to be plain that not everyone is for the Gospel. John 3:16, and following, elaborates on this.

One has to believe that Christ was the Son of God to have access to Christian “tolerance, unity, acceptance and love.” One may experience “tolerance, unity, acceptance, and love” in their dealings with Christians, but this doesn’t begin to mean that one’s sin is Ok and this doesn’t begin to mean that Christ was “all about tolerance, unity, acceptance, and love.”

Christ was about changing people through their belief in Him.

The phrase “all about tolerance, unity, acceptance and love” is a twenty-first misrepresentation of the Gospel of Christ, and to bit’s way of understanding, is more descriptive the “feel good” of a nativity scene than it is to the “feel awful” of the crucifixion scene. The nativity scene doesn’t demand anything of a person while the crucifixion scene demands acceptance or rejection of Christ’s sacrifice. Without acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice as a necessary part of one’s salvation, that “all about tolerance, unit, acceptance, and love” is irrelevant.

Your use of this phrase seems to imply that Christians are suppose to be Ok with sin. Christians aren’t Ok with sin.

Certainly many members of the Episcopal Church aren’t Ok with sin. The three nearest Episcopal churches to where bit is sitting declared several years ago that they would stop supporting Episcopal USA because of the choice of this particular man as bishop. bit hasn’t followed the story lately, but the last reports bit saw indicated a major schism – a breaking away from the Anglican fellowship – because this man put his sexuality about the interest of Episcopal USA.

From wikipedia…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_Church_(United_States)

The Episcopal Church affirmed at the 1976 General Convention that homosexuals are “children of God” who deserve acceptance and pastoral care from the church. It also called for homosexual persons to have equal protection under secular law. This was reaffirmed in 1982. In 1994, the GC determined that church membership would not be determined on “marital status, sex, or sexual orientation”. The GC also discourages the use of conversion therapy to “change” homosexuals into heterosexuals.[35]
Despite these affirmations of gay rights, the GC affirmed in 1991 that “physical sexual expression” is only appropriate within the monogamous, lifelong “union of husband and wife.”[36] Although some dioceses within the Episcopal Church bless same-sex unions, the church as a whole does not.
.
.
.
Responses to the controversies
Dissenters have dealt with these controversial moves in various ways. Some withdrew completely from both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion to form their own Anglican jurisdictions. Others withdrew from the Episcopal Church but aligned with other bodies within the Anglican Communion.

Throw off the shackles, my religious buddies, and live for today. This is a good life and it’s all you have. Coge Diem!

I feel that Obama has taken what should be a day of celebration and changed it into something ugly. I don’t want to have to listen to Rick Warren so I’ll skip the whole thing. I trust Obama will still be sworn in whether I am watching or not.

LUV IT…

Though I would wish the Nation could forego all these hoary rites and simply install the new CEO…