Jump to content

Rev. Rick Warren Controversy


Jim Ramelis

Recommended Posts

The use of metaphors does not make any scripture untrue, nor can a literal interpretation of the truth not be true.

 

I don't recall asking anything about 6 days, and it is of no matter whether or not "other earths" are mentioned. The important part is you recognize God as the ultimate cause. Why don't you consider the rest of Genesis as true as its first line?

 

I don't believe God has a problem knowing my intent, nor yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply
The use of metaphors does not make any scripture untrue, nor can a literal interpretation of the truth not be true.

 

I don't recall asking anything about 6 days, and it is of no matter whether or not "other earths" are mentioned. The important part is you recognize God as the ultimate cause. Why don't you consider the rest of Genesis as true as its first line?

 

I don't believe God has a problem knowing my intent, nor yours.

 

Is "six days" true or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davidk,

 

Please present us with each and every reference to homosexuality in the Bible, with the proper context and the "only possible interpretation". Many scholars have already done this, I want your version. Verse by verse. It would be the honest thing to do.

 

minsocal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is "six days" true or not?

True.

 

davidk,

 

Please present us with each and every reference to homosexuality in the Bible, with the proper context and the "only possible interpretation". Many scholars have already done this, I want your version. Verse by verse. It would be the honest thing to do.

 

minsocal

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

 

Don't you think it would more appropriate to speak to Mr. Warren's on this thread, his is the 'controversy' here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True.

I'll show you mine, if you show me yours.

 

Don't you think it would more appropriate to speak to Mr. Warren's on this thread, his is the 'controversy' here.

 

 

Having been to his mega-church and met him in person, I have a fair idea what the controversy is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

At this point I must say that I stand by my saying that some forms of homosexuality are not just homosexuality but a philosophic expression. It is an expression of the denial of absolutes, so the male and the female as complimentary partners are finished. It is of a philosophy that all the order of God's creation must be fought against- including male female distinctions.

 

Dk

 

"Some forms of homosexuality?" How many are there? Please, let us know them. And, provide their heterosexual counterparts. Continue, please. This could get very interesting. What philosophic expressions are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some forms of homosexuality?" How many are there? Please, let us know them. And, provide their heterosexual counterparts. Continue, please. This could get very interesting. What philosophic expressions are you talking about?

minsocal, the statement is self-explanatory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inclusivity makes use of the metaphor of the table at which all are welcome. This is a common theme of the Bible, and a major element in the teachings of Jesus. The story of Mary and Martha (another thread), points to this. While some would "gently scold" Matha (not my interpretation), they would condemn homosexuals and deny them the right of marriage (a place at the table).

 

But, hold on a minute ... the story of Martha and Mary is about marginalized women! Wake up folks (on that thread).

 

When I raised the question about "marriage" in the Bible referring to the exchange of daughters for status, I received no response. Frankly, I expected no response. Despite 36 references, I cannot find anyone with the courage to simply back what the Bible says about marriage!

 

What is wrong with this picture?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip) When I raised the question about "marriage" in the Bible referring to the exchange of daughters for status, I received no response. Frankly, I expected no response. Despite 36 references, I cannot find anyone with the courage to simply back what the Bible says about marriage!

 

What is wrong with this picture?

 

My question is..... Why would you feel the need to defend yourself if your premise is true?

Because you got no response from progressives why would that indicate a lack of courage on anyones part?

 

Love Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inclusivity makes use of the metaphor of the table at which all are welcome. This is a common theme of the Bible, and a major element in the teachings of Jesus. The story of Mary and Martha (another thread), points to this. While some would "gently scold" Matha (not my interpretation), they would condemn homosexuals and deny them the right of marriage (a place at the table).

 

But, hold on a minute ... the story of Martha and Mary is about marginalized women! Wake up folks (on that thread).

 

When I raised the question about "marriage" in the Bible referring to the exchange of daughters for status, I received no response. Frankly, I expected no response. Despite 36 references, I cannot find anyone with the courage to simply back what the Bible says about marriage!

 

What is wrong with this picture?

When you are invited to the table (as we all are), take your place, and are told to sin no more, what will be your response?

"What sin?"

You have left the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The interesting thing found in the thread about Mary and Martha is that Jesus never rejected Martha. A "better choice" for the individual is never absolute for the collective. A place at the table is never absolute. Jesus taught what is best for the individual, bring them back to a society with harsh laws and class driven society.

 

We could, of course, accept this as God's law. Progress, change, foreward movement, development of ourselves. A loving God saying "Yes, you are not perfect, just follow my lead. Join me for a walk in the Garden ... let's talk."

 

Original sin was neither.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it does get rather strange. On the one hand, I am expected to believe that a heterosexual couple messed up everthing in the Garden of Eden. Then I am expected to believe that 'homosexuality' creates serious philosophical questions. What a joke! Given the account, 'original sin' is a heterosexual problem! I will add that the sarcasm here is fully intentional and that we really need to get a grip on what we are doing to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes it does get rather strange. On the one hand, I am expected to believe that a heterosexual couple messed up everthing in the Garden of Eden. Then I am expected to believe that 'homosexuality' creates serious philosophical questions. What a joke! Given the account, 'original sin' is a heterosexual problem! I will add that the sarcasm here is fully intentional and that we really need to get a grip on what we are doing to each other.

Original sin has nothing to do with anything but the original man and woman willfully excercising their free will in disobedience against God.

 

Jesus' invitation is open to everybody, but not everybody will take Him up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Original sin has nothing to do with anything but the original man and woman willfully excercising their free will in disobedience against God.

 

Jesus' invitation is open to everybody, but not everybody will take Him up on it.

 

This is just too interesting to pass up. Your statement is a Progressive assumption until the second part. If it were not for sex, we would not be here today. If it were not for the evolution of care, empathy and compassion, we would not be here today.

 

sorry davidk, I will keep trying to ignore you. but, you know exactly how to frame and reframe an issue to manipulate ... so do I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just too interesting to pass up. Your statement is a Progressive assumption until the second part. If it were not for sex, we would not be here today. If it were not for the evolution of care, empathy and compassion, we would not be here today.

 

sorry davidk, I will keep trying to ignore you. but, you know exactly how to frame and reframe an issue to manipulate ... so do I.

:) Yes.

---

For it, in any way, to be considered progressive, one would have to stop listening before the thought was completed.

I didn't think Progressives approved of the Christian concept of an original sin, an actual space-time event where man commited the first willful disobedience against God.

Part of my earlier comments, on the purpose of the differentiation of the sexes, was procreation. Therefore, the orignal sin could not be considered to be a sexual sin.

Love was pre-existent to man. It did not, or need to, evolve, only learned by him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

---

Do you mean the first part of the first sentence prior to the word 'but'? For it to be in any way progressive, one would have to stop listening before the thought was completed.

I didn't think Progressives approved of the Christian concept of an original sin, an actual space-time event where man commited the first willful disobedience against God.

Part of my earlier comments, on the purpose of the differentiation of the sexes, was procreation. So, the orignal sin could not be considered to be a sexual sin.

Love was pre-existent to man. It did not, or need to, evolve, only learned.

 

Bingo. Got your language game. You repeat seeded words and concepts quite predictably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bingo. Got your language game. You repeat seeded words and concepts quite predictably.

 

President Obama was consistent by inviting Mr. Warren to provide the invocation. The President is on record of his disapproval of homosexual marriage. Any controversy is not between the two of them, but between Pres. Obama and those arguing for homosexual marriage. It should be taken up bearing that in mind. Any contempt should be directed toward the President in this matter, not Mr. Warren.

 

Seeded words and concepts? What? Like- love?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

President Obama was consistent by inviting Mr. Warren to provide the invocation. The President is on record of his disapproval of homosexual marriage. Any controversy is not between the two of them, but between Pres. Obama and those arguing for homosexual marriage. It should be taken up bearing that in mind. Any contempt should be directed toward the President in this matter, not Mr. Warren.

 

Seeded words and concepts? What? Like- love?

 

President Obama stated very clearly that he does not agree with Rev. Warren on a number of issues. Obama is a progressive in the best sense of the word. His church is affiliated with the United Church of Christ, a denomination that was the first to overwhelmingly endorse gay marriage. Obama supports civil unions for gays, provided that civil unions convey the same rights as marriage. He made this statement directly to Warren on national television during the campaign, at Warren's church. This is a matter of public record available to anyone who really wants to know. Video and transcripts should still be available and I will provide them for you if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

davidk,

 

Here you have it. Clearly you are misinformed or seek to misinform.

 

minsocal

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/18/o...n_n_152056.html

 

At his press conference on Thursday, Barack Obama for the first time addressed the flurry of protest that has erupted over the choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation.

 

Stressing his own advocacy of equal rights for gay and lesbian Americans, the president-elect raised a relevant anecdote from his biography as a defense.

 

"A couple of years ago I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion," he said. "Nevertheless I had an opportunity to speak, and that dialogue I think is part of what my campaign's been all about, that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable, and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

 

The remarks came after progressives and, in particular, the gay and lesbian community criticized the president-elect's decision to give such a prominent role to a pastor whose views on torture, gay rights, and stem cell research don't align with Obama's stated agenda.

 

Indeed, the backlash against the Warren selection has been swift and fierce, putting Obama's inauguration team largely on the defensive. A source sent over a copy of talking points making the rounds among the president-elect's staff in order to rebut these critiques. A transition official would not confirm or dispute the material, but did acknowledge that it sounded "an awful lot like what I have been saying."

 

• This will be the most open, accessible, and inclusive Inauguration in American history.

 

• In keeping with the spirit of unity and common purpose this Inauguration will reflect, the President-elect and Vice President-elect have chosen some of the world's most gifted artists and people with broad appeal to participate in the inaugural ceremonies.

 

• Pastor Rick Warren has a long history of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged and the downtrodden. He's devoted his life to performing good works for the poor and leads the evangelical movement in addressing the global HIV/AIDS crisis. In fact, the President-elect recently addressed Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health to salute Warren's leadership in the struggle against HIV/AIDS and pledge his support to the effort in the years ahead.

 

• The President-elect disagrees with Pastor Warren on issues that affect the LGBT community. They disagree on other issues as well. But what's important is that they agree on many issues vital to the pursuit of social justice, including poverty relief and moving toward a sustainable planet; and they share a commitment to renewing America's promise by expanding opportunity at home and restoring our moral leadership abroad.

 

• As he's said again and again, the President-elect is committed to bringing together all sides of the faith discussion in search of common ground. That's the only way we'll be able to unite this country with the resolve and common purpose necessary to solve the challenges we face.

 

• The Inauguration will also involve Reverend Joseph Lowery, who will be delivering the official benediction at the Inauguration. Reverend Lowery is a giant of the civil rights movement who boasts a proudly progressive record on LGBT issues. He has been a leader in the struggle for civil rights for all Americans, gay or straight.

 

• And for the very first time, there will be a group representing the interests of LGBT Americans participating in the Inaugural Parade.

 

The inclusion of Rev. Joseph Lowery, an icon of the civil rights movement and a respected progressive voice is, perhaps, the Obama team's most obvious defense. One progressive pastor I spoke with on Wednesday, who was critical of the Warren selection, said she would have been fine had the two pastors merely switched spots in the program.

 

But the inclusiveness of the inauguration is an important point to stress as well. At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other's company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in '04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 2, 2008, at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

---

About halfway through the Q&A session, following his speech:

 

Q- Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians.

They have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test as to who is worthy and who is not.

 

A- In terms of my faith, you know, there's been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through e-mails and so forth, so just here are the simple facts.

 

I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. Pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can when they're not working me. Used to go quite often. These days, you know, we haven't been to the home church, I haven't been home on Sunday for several months now.

 

So my faith is important to me.

 

It's not something that I try to push on other people. But it's something that helps to guide my life and my values.

 

My pastor is actually retiring this Sunday, Jeremiah Wright is retiring, and Otis Moss III, the son of Otis Moss of Cleveland, is the new pastor, and he's a wonderful pastor.

 

I don't think my church is particularly controversial. It's a member of the United Church of Christ. It's got a choir. We read scriptures.

You would feel at home if you were there.

 

Jeremiah Wright has said some controversial things, calling for divestment of South Africa and things like that and he thinks it's important for to us focus on what's happening in Africa, and I agree with him on that.

 

I think what you may be refering to probably has to do with two issues, which is abortion and gay marriage. Which has become, I think, how people measure faith in the evangelical community, and, you know, I think that there are genuine differences of opinion in this area.

 

I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage.* But I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.

 

I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital or transfer property to each other.

 

I don't think that it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

 

That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

---

* emphasis added

The video link you provided doesn't contradict his Ohio statement.

---

I don't believe you have much clear evidence that I was misinformed or that I'm making any attempt to misinform. It appears more likely you think you have heard Obama say something he really did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

March 2, 2008, at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

---

About halfway through the Q&A session, following his speech:

 

Q- Your campaign sets a quandary for most evangelical Christians.

They have a problem in what the conservatives have laid out as the moral litmus test as to who is worthy and who is not.

 

A- In terms of my faith, you know, there's been so much confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated through e-mails and so forth, so just here are the simple facts.

 

I am a Christian. I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. Pray to Jesus every night and try to go to church as much as I can when they're not working me. Used to go quite often. These days, you know, we haven't been to the home church, I haven't been home on Sunday for several months now.

 

So my faith is important to me.

 

It's not something that I try to push on other people. But it's something that helps to guide my life and my values.

 

My pastor is actually retiring this Sunday, Jeremiah Wright is retiring, and Otis Moss III, the son of Otis Moss of Cleveland, is the new pastor, and he's a wonderful pastor.

 

I don't think my church is particularly controversial. It's a member of the United Church of Christ. It's got a choir. We read scriptures.

You would feel at home if you were there.

 

Jeremiah Wright has said some controversial things, calling for divestment of South Africa and things like that and he thinks it's important for to us focus on what's happening in Africa, and I agree with him on that.

 

I think what you may be refering to probably has to do with two issues, which is abortion and gay marriage. Which has become, I think, how people measure faith in the evangelical community, and, you know, I think that there are genuine differences of opinion in this area.

 

I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage.* But I do think that people who are gay and lesbian should be treated with dignity and respect and that the state should not discriminate against them.

 

I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in the hospital or transfer property to each other.

 

I don't think that it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.

If people find that controversial, then I would refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think, you know, is in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans.

 

That's my view. But we can have a respectful disagreement on that.

---

* emphasis added

The video link you provided doesn't contradict his Ohio statement.

---

I don't believe you have much clear evidence that I was misinformed or that I'm making any attempt to misinform. It appears more likely you think you have heard Obama say something he really did not.

 

Again, you borrow and mislead. Obama clearly references the United Church of Christ, which has overwhelmingly endorsed gay marriage. The initiative that led to the vote by the UCC began in my church, which is a mere 15 miles from Warren's church. Instead of posting President Obamas's views, please post those of Rev. Warren. President Obama clearly, and consistently states he does not agree with Warren on the issue of gay rights. Are you claiming that Warren supports civil unions?

 

The issue here is local. The California Supreme Court determined that marriage is the only path to equal rights for gay families. As I have already stated, it is the rights of children that most concerned the Court. The Bible simply does not deal with this issue.

 

I remind you, yet again. I have heard Warren speak to these issues, in person. I have heard Obama speak to these issues, in person. The night that Warren hosted his version of a 'debate' between Obama and McCain, he actually lied. He said at the beginning of the program that John McCain was sequestered in a room where he could not hear the questions being asked of Obama. McCain did not arrive until 30 minutes after the program began. And so on ...

 

Bottom line ... show me that Warren supports civil unions and the full rights of gay families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is once again in the spotlight today as the California Supreme Court hears arguments for and against Proposition 8. The fundamentalist christians have been out in force with their "homosexualty is a sin" banners. Same old story. Updates later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, you borrow and mislead. Obama clearly references the United Church of Christ, which has overwhelmingly endorsed gay marriage. The initiative that led to the vote by the UCC began in my church, which is a mere 15 miles from Warren's church. Instead of posting President Obamas's views, please post those of Rev. Warren. President Obama clearly, and consistently states he does not agree with Warren on the issue of gay rights. Are you claiming that Warren supports civil unions?

 

The issue here is local. The California Supreme Court determined that marriage is the only path to equal rights for gay families. As I have already stated, it is the rights of children that most concerned the Court. The Bible simply does not deal with this issue.

 

I remind you, yet again. I have heard Warren speak to these issues, in person. I have heard Obama speak to these issues, in person. The night that Warren hosted his version of a 'debate' between Obama and McCain, he actually lied. He said at the beginning of the program that John McCain was sequestered in a room where he could not hear the questions being asked of Obama. McCain did not arrive until 30 minutes after the program began. And so on ...

 

Bottom line ... show me that Warren supports civil unions and the full rights of gay families.

"I will tell you that I don't believe in gay marriage."- Barack Obama, March 2, 2008

He is talking about and supports the traditional, historic, universal definition of marraige, one man and one woman, for life. He also supports civil unions for gays.

 

The CA Sup Ct had to redefine the term marraige in California law in order to interpret it the way they did. That trespassed on the exlusive responsibility of the legislative branch of California, violating the people's trust. Prop. 8 simply corrected the trespass. A stern reminder to the Court of its boundaries.

 

Mr Warren completely supports full equal rights for everybody in America.

 

The point of intrest is whether the gay "civil union" can be considered a civil right; and that is very arguable. Mr. Warren's position is that it is not; and had Prop. 8 not passed, anyone speaking against gay marraige could be considered involving themselves with "hate speech", threatening the well established and enumerated civil right: freedom of speech.

 

Gays in California already have civil rights. It appeared to many voters that their effort was, and is, not civil rights, but coercion of those who may disagree with them. This is demonstrated by over over 70% of the black vote supporting Prop 8.

---

The sequestration ("cone of silence") of Sen McCain was well discussed in public with Mr. Warren, and lying is not what it is considered by any but the most prejudicial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service