Another Helping of FDR Please | Obama should follow the New Deal president's example and make his Thanksgiving Proclamation a call for economic justice.
John Nichols
52 Comments
Filibuster Follies | "The filibuster has become a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body."
Katrina vanden Heuvel
86 Comments
Bad Black Mothers | For African American women, reproduction has never been an entirely private matter.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell
95 Comments
Coal Country | Stunning film reveals new dimensions to the cost of America's over-reliance on coal.
Peter Rothberg
107 Comments
A Kingdom of Bicycles No Longer | China's ambassador for climate change speaks on the eve of the Copenhagen summit meeting.
Robert Dreyfuss
59 Comments
Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
RSS
Rapture Index 155
Net Change -1
11 Leadership
Barack Obama's election victory ensures a new liberal shift is coming to Washington D.C.
-Yep, he is filling his cabinet with those darn Marxist Mooselums!! Juts as was foretold.
37 Earthquakes
The lack of activity has downgraded this category.
-the sheeps bladders must be working.
Posted by crabwalk at 12/24/2008 @ 07:20am
I can't see all the controversary over Rick Warren and this inaugaration prayer he'll make for PE Obama. I must admit he does have some off the wall ideas and some I don't agree with either, but he's giving a prayer for God's sake not asking that folks be wiped off the face of the earth!!! Do we not all know or have people in our lives who have different views on things that are not our own....come on now let's get real here. As regards to PE Obama is there no room for him to have other people whether they be colleagues or in this case a minister who views may be different to his be involved in his life!!! I think all this hype over Rick Warren is given too much air time...do we not have more serious things to worry about?
Posted by Caj at 12/24/2008 @ 08:19am
rick warren is a primitive panty waist who never broke the apron strings of his dumb ape minded primitive mommy.
he is gonna live FOREVER in another dimension with angels and god and saint peter and jesus BBBBBWWWAHHAHAHHAHAAHA
WHAT A PRIMITIVE the sad part is so is obama and the rest of you fools who believe in a so called "AFTERLIFE"
BBBBWWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHH WHAT IMBECILES
of course you all give men like this money and PROMOTE his repitition of this non sense. didnt 911 trach you anything religion is a farce a FAKE PROPAGANDA for imbeciles.
grow up cut the apron strings learn to think for yourselves.
until you do your AMERICAN culture will be a primitive one. beholden to superstition and demogogues like rick warren and the next dumb religious fad to come along.
speaking in tongues not enough for ya well there is always the HINDU PANTHEON FREAK SHOW. really want to hate gays become muslum and STONE THEM TO DEATH. etc etc etc primitive shamefull apes all
Posted by reality check at 12/24/2008 @ 11:30am
I agree Caj. It is precisely because Waren makes my skin crawl that i have to make an effort to listen to him. Lets face it he will not convince any of us of his views. He will only reinforce the views of his followers. Anyone not sure needs to listen to him too. Anybody with a brain not black washed by this type of religion will see that the most reasonable voice out there is just this side of "lets burn them at the stake."
Posted by bascaville at 12/24/2008 @ 11:31am
All you good looking ladies out there are duly warned Rick Warren wants to have sex with you. Sounds like he has some sinful thoughts with which he needs to deal.
Posted by Rightaintbright at 12/24/2008 @ 11:36am
To: REALITY CHECK
Merry Christmas
ct
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 12/24/2008 @ 12:42pm
To realitycheck. America IS a primitive nation Merry secular holidays
Posted by pachonegro at 12/24/2008 @ 3:55pm
I find it interesting that Mr. Warren (he's no Reverend) argues against his own actions. He financially and actively supported the campaign for California's Proposition 8, the prohibition against (gay) marriage, yet in his interview he rails against (gay) promiscuity. Marriage (in the US) is usually taken as a pledge of monogamy, whether you're straight or gay. Since he argues against gay promiscuity and he argues against gay monogamy, he is evidently attacking the gays themselves. (Celibacy? - He doesn't argue for that to cure his lust for beautiful women, does he? His answer for that is marriage - oops.)
But he loves the gays...
Posted by Rational_Enquirer at 12/24/2008 @ 6:48pm
Warren should have been asked a follow-up question:
IF YOU KNEW ONLY 10% OF THE POPULATION HAD THIS "NATURAL" PREDISPOSITION TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY SHOULD RESTRAIN SUCH AN IMPULSE WHEN IT IS CLEAR THAT SUCH A SMALL 10% NUMBER IS NO THREAT TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES?
In other words, WHERE IS THE HARM?
Posted by Metteyya at 12/24/2008 @ 8:01pm
"You are confusing the secular with the spiritual. Pastor Warren was addressing the spiritual aspect and those actions that we take that are expressly outside of G-d's standards."
Oh please, do tell, what are god's standards? Genocide, as seems to be the order of the day in the Hebrew Sacred Scriptures (oooh, iron--Hitler was a Christian...which may explain some links to the modern day in this country)? Stoning adulterers and eaters of shellfish? Plowshares into swords? Swords into plowshares?
Posted by onthehelm at 12/24/2008 @ 9:53pm
Of course that doesn't include the hetrosexual perversions of normal sexuality of which I am sure there are various experts on that blogging at the nation!
Posted by comanchenation at 12/24/2008
he who smelt it, dealt it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 12/24/2008 @ 11:36pm
>>>Thus, the harm you ask of is to the soul. As Jesus asked, "What does it profit a person to gain everything, but lose your soul (condemnation)-Matthew 16:26
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/24/2008 @ 8:15pm<<<
One's soul is a reflection of one's actions and how one treats another human being, not on one's sexual preference. In fact, one's soul is "sexless", and can not be identified with the body at all.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 12:58am
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the snagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen." Matthew 6:5-6.
Also worth noting, seperation of church and state was established not so much by our founding fathers, still less by so called liberals, but by Jesus himself. When facing execution he told Pilate: "my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my soldiers would fight..." John 18:36.
We've had 2000 years of ugliness from people who believe they understand Christianity better than Jesus did.
Posted by uwakeup at 12/25/2008 @ 01:13am
One's soul is a reflection of one's actions and how one treats another human being, not on one's sexual preference. In fact, one's soul is "sexless", and can not be identified with the body at all.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 12:58am
Your definition of the soul is similar to the Buddhist view so as we are talking about homosexuality and Warren said all religions have similar views here is a bit from the Dali Lama:
Homosexuality in Vajrayana/Tibetan Buddhism
In a 1997 interview, the Dalai Lama (the leader of Tibetan Buddhism and a widely-respected spiritual figure) was asked about homosexuality. He did not offer any strong answer either way, but noted that all monks are expected to refrain from sex. For laypeople, he commented that the purpose of sex in general is for procreation, so homosexual acts do seem a bit unnatural. He said that sexual desires in themselves are natural, perhaps including homosexual desires, but that one should not try to increase those desires or indulge them without self-control. (Which interestingly sounds very much like Warren's position).
In a 1993 talk given in Seattle, the Dalai Lama said:
nature arranged male and female organs "in such a manner that is very suitable... Same-sex organs cannot manage well." But he stopped short of condemning homosexual relationships altogether, saying if two people agree to enter a relationship that is not sexually abusive, "then I don't know. It's difficult to say."
The Dalai Lama was more specific in a meeting with Buddhist leaders and human rights activists in San Francisco in 1997, where he commented that all forms of sex other than penile-vaginal sex are prohibited for Buddhists, whether between heterosexuals or homosexuals.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 01:42am
Jesus replied, "you are in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry or be given in marriage; they will be like the angles in heaven. Matthew 22:29
Posted by uwakeup at 12/25/2008 @ 02:17am
I saw this broadcast and couldn't believe my ears. Check out the look on Anne Curry's face...She looks like she's about to reach for a can of mace.
Posted by koroviev at 12/25/2008 @ 04:11am
It kind of reminded me of something Monty Python would have done....But, he keeps elaborating about different depraved sex acts that he would like to do, always qualifying it with "but I don't act on those urges." Too funny!
Posted by koroviev at 12/25/2008 @ 04:15am
thank you al for the replys it is great to be noticed on this primitive day of voodoo ritual. with the superstitions flying left and right a midestern cult which is absorbed by the romans for propaganda purposes mixed with ancient northern pagan rituals ie the trees candles story of the rebirth of the sun etc etc and who can forget the HYSTERIA of the VIRGIN BIRTH my a s s !! yup it all comes together in a marvelous outpouring of mankinds love for eachother unless your a jew a muslum an american indian a hindu an ATHEIST ect etc or GAY. what about gay atheists?? or people with strong radio wisdom which is also called GAY, beleive me it is hell out there for anyone who dares to express the truth in radio wisdom. poetic metaphors aside
Posted by reality check at 12/25/2008 @ 10:03am
I thought with Palin off the main stage the Gringo Political Comedy Show would end. I was very sad about this.
Rick Warren has given me "hope" and "faith" that things will "change" and be even funnier during Chauncey Gardener's administration.
Posted by DexterManley at 12/25/2008 @ 10:39am
Can't we find something more meaningful to argue about than Barack Obama's choice of someone to say a prayer for his presidency and our nation?
Rick Warren is most likely the result of a search for someone who would be the least objectionable person to deliver the invocation rather than one with whom Obama shares the most theology. Sure, some of his ideas are different from mine, but so what?
Can you imagine what would be said if he invited the Pope? Or the Archbishop of Canturbury? Or the twelve Apostles of the Latter Day Saints?
If it were me being innaugurated I would choose Jimmy Carter, the most steadfast Christian who has occupied the White House in my lifetime, but frankly anyone who wishes to pray for America's wellbeing during the next four years is welcome to do so. Please.
Posted by thomas meek at 12/25/2008 @ 10:49am
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 01:42am
The problem with many Christians is that they believe all other spiritual paths are organized in a similar manner to their own.
In Buddhism, there is NO Pope or "head of the faith". You must find your own Buddha nature from within and fully embrace it, rather than embracing something or someone external to yourself.
The Dali Lama says many things I agree with, and some things that are limited by his own Tibetan tradition. I think his views on homosexuality are affected by Tibetan culture, which is fairly conservative by Western standards. The Dali Lama speaks for himself, not for all Buddhists.
The plain fact is that Buddhism concerns itself with karmic life force energy - how to harness and develop it for benefit of all. Buddhism is much more than a collection of "do's and don't s", and to reduce it to a bunch of rules is to give it a "Christian character".
If a homosexual has great karmic life force energy (i.e, a great soul), this will be apparent in how they treat other people, and it is therefore completely inappropriate according to the teachings of the Buddha to "judge" this person or treat them poorly or in a manner different than how you would like to be treated based on their sexual preference.
Granted, uncontrolled sexual desire, like any other desire to gratify the ego or senses, can be a hindrance to spiritual enlightenment, but this is for that person to overcome in their own individual struggle, not something for others to judge.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 12:13pm
I think Rick's argument doesn't take a lot into account. He seems to imply that homosexuals, by nature, are drawn to have multiple partners. He equates this with his own urge to have multiple female partners. But what about the many homosexuals who desire monogamy? Is this not a sign of "maturity" that he speaks of? Is it possible that the option of marriage for homosexuals increase monogamous relationships in the community? Why fight against something that might lead to his desired outcome in society: stable, two parent families that will provide a supportive and nurturing in which to raise kids.
Steve
Posted by spotts101 at 12/25/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 12:13pm
Your approach seems to be a bit of a cop out. The Dalai Lama is a contemporary Buddhist who, because of his international interactions is unlikely to be as culturally "Tibetan" as you claim. However if that is so it just shows the inadequacy of Buddhism to allow one to rise above ones own cultural mores.
If you like to check you will find that all forms of Buddhism are bound by their culture as in fact yours seems to be. Your Buddhism it could be said is bound by Western liberal sexual values and its fierce desire for personal autonomy, which autonomy is the antithesis of the Buddhist goal.
In that sense Christianity and Islam are truly universal religions that transcend culture and are not bound or controlled by it. My sense is that Buddhism is not a religion in the classical sense at all but rather a rationalisation of the circumstances all humans find themselves in, particularly suffering, and as such it is no more than whistling in the dark to keep ones spirits up through a sort of primitive psychology.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 1:44pm
The fact that the Dali Lama has a very nuanced response to the issue of homosexuality means that he has - to some extent - transcended Tibetan culture, as the culturally correct answer according to Tibetan tradition would be that homosexuality is not allowed.
What I tried to do is give you some insight into the Buddhist focus on self realization and development and on how one treats other human and sentient beings. This focus is decidedly different than the Western interpretation of Christianity that tends to focus on rules and keeping score on others.
The Gospel of Thomas was not canonized by the Romans because it would be difficult to control Christians if they believed they could develop Christ-like spirituality from within themselves, and therefore putting everyone under the control of a Pope seemed like a very "king-like" thing to do to subjugate those seeking spiritual liberation.
It is a fallacy, however, to extend this king-like model to Buddhism as you have done with the Dali Lama, and the Dali Lama, himself, would be the first to admit he is no Buddhist king.
He is no Buddhist king because he realizes that everyone has the same potential to fully embrace their Buddha nature according to the teachings of the Buddha, and one person's path to enlightenment may not be suitable for another person.
No one in Buddhism really cares whether you view this as a a "religion" in a classical sense because we are not concerned about being defined or judged by people like you, we are concerned with developing our own spiritual consciousness for the benefit of all.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 2:38pm
Having prepared an article titled, "Sexual Orientation: Science and Society," with over 400 references in a number of languages, there is overwhelming evidence from the medical, psychological, and sociological literature that sexual orientation is determined by biological events beyond the conscious choice. Male homosexuals have a greater sexual interest than heterosexuals due to the amount of circulating male sex hormones in relation to their neurological "female" mating center which develops in the fetus or is made dominant by accidents, tumors, and viruses. Rev. Warren's statements that a large group of individuals should abstain from their natural sexuality is absurd on face. By forcing homosexual males into heterosexual liaisons, those where genetics is causal, will pass the X chromosome along to daughters who will then have homosexual male children. When will the so-called "Christian" right stop their crusade against God's creation of differing sexualities. Carl Jung, a psychoanalyst, proposed that homosexuality is a means of population control. While lesbians have not been studied as extensively as male homosexuals, a biological causation is also posited and proven through numerous physiologic manifestations. Christ in the Gospels and the Book of Mormon never mentions sexual orientation and asks us to be tolerant of those who under early Jewish tradition were to be stoned.
Why should one expect that a pre-scientific society without the many medical measuring devices should know about sexual orientation? While being antihomosexual is not homophobia, it comes from a state of ignorance and lack of education.
Maybe Pastor Warren and his proponents should read the words of Christ: Matthew 7, verses 1-5.
Posted by murphy0071 at 12/25/2008 @ 2:48pm
No one in Buddhism really cares whether you view this as a a "religion" in a classical sense because we are not concerned about being defined or judged by people like you, we are concerned with developing our own spiritual consciousness for the benefit of all.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 2:38pm
Again you duck the issue. The Dalai Lama is a defacto Buddhist "Cardinal" in Buddhism generally and the equivalent of the Pope in his sect of Buddhism as the following shows:
" Dalai Lamas personify the most senior religious authority recognised by Tibetan Buddhism. They are considered to be re-incarnations of Avalokitesvara - the Bodhisattva of Compassion.
Although the title "Dalai Lama" came into use in later times the person who is retrospectively recognised as having been the first, Gendun Drub, lived 1391-1474.
The actual title, meaning "teacher of wisdom as vast as the ocean", was first associated in 1578 with the third incumbent Sonam Gyatso (1543-1588).
It was in 1642 during the times of the fifth incumbent (1617-1682) that Dalai Lamas came to be recognised as being the spiritual and temporal leaders of Tibet." (ie Pope)
I repeat, you in contrast are a doctrinaire Western liberal values person who imagines that your psuedo-religious position is a reflection of historical Buddhist doctrine. When in fact you are but another Western individualist who thinks you are discovering your place in the cycle of life through this a sort of pop psychology devotion, in which your individualism takes prior place and in the process gives Buddhism a bad name.
You seem to know less about Christianity than you do about Buddhism though you set your self up as a harsh critic and judge of Christians and Christianity. Precisely the attitude you criticize in Christianity.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 6:28pm
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/25/2008 @ 6:28pm
By your own admission, you say that the Dali Lama concept first started in 1538, when Buddhism has been around for at least 2,500-3,000 years. It is a cultural tradition in Tibet, and NOT part of mainstream Buddhism or the original teachings of the historical Buddha.
The problem you are having is the same facing many Christians - a desire to assert their religious thinking as superior over all others. This desire comes from ego gratification, and is actually a sign of spiritual weakness.
If you spent less time pretending that your spiritual view is superior to others and start "living" the Greatest Commandment taught by Jesus, then maybe you will see what you have in common with mainstream Buddhism rather than focusing on differences that have very little spiritual value.
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 8:40pm
The issue is a serious one, not a glib discussion of promiscuity or religion. Equal rights for all Americans: thats the bottom line. As long as you deny women and African Americans and Jews the right to vote you are violating the basic tenants of the Constitution. As long as your prescribe rights for one segment of the population and deny the same rights to others you are Un-American and you have basically broken the law. Jefferson specifically defined and defended the separation of the church and state for this very reason. The church has not kept up with the advance in civil liberties. The state, in some rare cases, has. As a multicultural, mutireligious, multisexual and multigendered tapestry that the American people compose, taking a stance limiting social freedoms to any American is shameful, a disgrace and a warning flag on any person, church or political order that endorses it. Mr. Obama would do well to heed this warning.
Posted by wolf43 at 12/25/2008 @ 10:50pm
Posted by wolf43 at 12/25/2008 @ 10:50pm
That's all fine rhetoric but it may come as a surprise to you that there is debate over a bill before the UN to decriminalize homosexual practice at present so the US which, along with Russia and China abstained from voting, is still in advance of the UN on that aspect of civil rights.
On the other hand The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights still defines marriage in this way:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
One could construe 16.3 as UN support for member states legislating in that way.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/26/2008 @ 04:05am
Liberty and Comanche,
You are getting nowhere on this site with your views because you are operating from a premise that is not accepted here in any form...
that being..
the BIBILE is SCRIPTURE...
which, here, is rejected out right on all levels..from definition of terms to final analysis...
where your opening premise is rejected, your "arguemental points" therefore, will be constantly ridiculed as a mental disorder or dillusional.
You do not have a level table from which to discuss issues.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:44am
Your proof is in the fact that your detractors only use Scripture to throw in your face as a counter arguement to your use of Scripture, rather than a position of their own standing..
I.E.,..... someone who does not believe in Jesus using Jesus to try to point out your own error in using Jesus....
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:47am
I understand, of course.
Posted by YourJomamma at 12/26/2008 @ 11:17pm
Wait...
There's places outside of church where the use of scripture is a valid argument?
Get the fuck out.
Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:18pm
<i>Posted by TexasFlood at 12/26/2008 @ 11:18pm </i>
Why is this a bad thing? Yes, there's still some interpretive process that has to take place, but why are arguments embedded within a religious tradition justifiably excluded from public debate? Is any argument which relies on premises not shared by the entire US population off-limits?
That said...I think the reason the Bible is being utilized here is because part of the discussion is internal: does Christianity entail that homosexual behavior (not a homosexual orientation) be regarded as sinful? I tend to think that the answer is no.
There are three possible arguments (somewhat interwoven) that I could envision: Old Testament, New Testament, Adam-Eve framework. What's crucial to see is that quotations from Scripture are not themselves sufficient, since it's still necessary to determine how much impact any one verse has on the bigger picture. The problem that I have with all of the arguments is that they seem to rely on the premise that man-woman is the fundamental structure of human sexuality (such that deviance from that is sin). For starters, the Adam-Eve creation story is not a literal, historically accurate account (the Earth is not 6000 years old). Moreover, Paul and Old Testament authors were able to attack homosexual acts only because they had no concept of homosexual orientation. Insofar as homosexual orientation exists, and insofar as it is extremely difficult to find any compelling independent argument why homosexuality could be deemed sinful (which you have to do since orientation and behavior seem inextricably related), I simply cannot see a compelling argument for homosexual behavior being regarded as a sin.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/26/2008 @ 11:56pm
evidently, there are some in this thread who failed to understand the implications of what pastor warren said at 1:18 minutes.
he claims to have the urge to have sex with every woman he meets. "every woman i meet," he said.
he made this claim to counter his gay friend's similar claim of an insatiable desire towards other men, but in the process, unwittingly implicated himself.
this is why they call it an "EPIC FAIL"!
pastor warren = total s&*t head.
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 01:17am
<i>Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 01:17am </i>
I don't really follow your argument here. Warren's whole point was that there is a huge difference between possessing desires and indulging them; the mere existence of desires does not itself justify their indulgence. This premise seems to me utterly unproblematic and in fact virtually incontrovertible.
What I find problematic is the next step in his argument. He's clearly right that some desires are good to indulge in and others are not. The important premise is therefore the one which rules out homosexual desires as inappropriate per se. That's the real link that should be contested.
As a sidenote, Blumenthal's excerpt here is really rather childish (though I hope this isn't too harsh). He captures a moment where Warren says he has desires he admits are corrupt and touts it as some kind of revelation, as though pastors or even religious people in general were expected to be morally spotless. Quite to the contrary; no one is without their moral flaws.
The more I think about it, though, the more this excerpt matters in a way that neither Blumenthal nor Warren understand. As I suggested before, the position confining condemnation to homosexual acts seems difficult to defend because orientation and action are not so cleanly divisible. What I really wonder is this: what would Warren say about homosexual DESIRES? After all, the desire for someone else's wife is still regarded as wrong even if you never act on it. If homosexual acts are wrong, then, why would a woman's desire for another woman be any different? I don't think you can condemn acts without condemning the orientation, and since for a substantial number the orientation is unchosen and deeply embedded, this is a problem.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 02:11am
"Warren's whole point was that there is a huge difference between possessing desires and indulging them"
that's not his "whole point," as you later pointed out:
"The important premise is therefore the one which rules out homosexual desires as inappropriate per se"
you agree that what he said wasn't what he implied. he implied that what is really immoral, is for one to indulge a certain type of desire (in this case, homosexual desire). he also (far more subtly) implied that gay people are more susceptible than straight people to this indulgence (simply by virtue of the fact that he used his gay friend as testimony, rather than any one of his many straight friends).
how much one indulges their desires is immaterial. i think having multiple sex partners can lead to a very satisfying sex life. if one can manage a polysexual lifestyle, so be it. it is nobody's business but mine.
so, for pastor warren to not indulge his fantasies is his choice, but just because he negates his fantasies does not mean that he is morally superior. nor is marriage and monogamy morally superior.
he has fantasies, just like all of us.
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 02:20am
his fail is in admitting that, just like everyone else, gay, straight or bisexual, he too has rampant sexual fantasies. whether he acts on them does not in any contest the claim that homosexuality is a biological certainty (which was the core of the matter in that video).
for instance, pastor warren can argue all he wants that marriage and/or is morally superior, but that doesn't mean he is more logical and/or reasonable. just because he represses his own fantasies, does not mean, ipso facto, that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry (because, presumably, homosexuals only exist to engage their own rampant sexual fantasies.)
hope this makes sense.....
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 02:28am
<i>Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 02:20am </i>
I don't think he implied that all. He didn't use any of his straight friends as a differing example, but he used himself. That seems pretty significant.
Moreover, if taken as a general statement divorced from a specific context of sexuality, the statement "how much one indulges one's desires is immaterial" is clearly false. Why? The state is justified in outlawing murder despite any desires an individual may have had to commit it. Additionally, and this is the more important part, a desire to commit murder does not thereby justify it.
It's also important here to distinguish between politics and morality. Maybe politics has nothing to say about what individuals do privately if they don't harm others, but it's at least far from obvious that a moral framework works the same way. Can it be wrong for someone to fantasize about sleeping with other people's spouses? Of course it can, and I think it is, even though in doing so you're not harming anyone else. The fact that an individual's actions might not harm anyone else does not automatically mean that those actions are morally justified/neutral.
The crucial question, as I said, is not WHETHER desires should be indulged, but WHICH desires should be indulged. Far from being irrelevant, what we do with the various desires and fantasies we all have makes ALL the difference. That's where the role of individual choice comes in, where an individual chooses whether they will seek to conform themselves to the good or dismiss it as irrelevant. What Warren has to show is that, categorically, homosexual desires are among those that must be restrained and not acted upon. I don't think he can show that, and I think THAT is why his argument fails.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 02:34am
<i>Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 02:28am </i>
I think it makes sense. You're saying that repression of desire is not an automatic good, right? It's a question of which to repress and which to express. Am I getting your argument right?
Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 02:40am
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 8:40p
Well it hardly matters whether the Dalai Lama is, in your estimation, a heretic or not. Your original authority, Buddha, was quite ambivalent on this issue and in general those societies where Buddhism was and is dominant seem to be just as culturally uncomfortable with homosexual practice as the Dalai Lama apparently is.
As Buddhism is non-theistic and is for all intents and purposes an atheistic philosophy one can only suggest that its uneasiness with homosexuality is on the basis, not of religious precept but consideration of what is functionally unnatural. That is what in fact the Dalai Lama effectively said. That, on the face of it, is a rational rather than a religious argument.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/27/2008 @ 05:39am
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 8:40p
As far as looking for the shared values in Jesus "Greatest Commandment" teaching let me show you why there are none and why a Buddhist along with other non-theists and atheists cannot live that commandment. Here is its context:
One of the Pharisees tested Jesus with a question, "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" (Matthew 22:36). Jesus replied, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:37-40).
Notice the call to love God (the greatest commandment) comes in the context of a command. But who is this God? Jesus teaches it is the self-existent, personal God he calls father. Well how do I love him? With my all my being. But how? By obeying all his precepts (contained in: " All the law and the prophets ...."). So I love God by obeying his precepts.
And the next is a command (again) to love my neighbour. Well Jesus how do I do that? …"Don't murder your neighbour" (Jesus says to be angry is to murder), "don't steal from (or kidnap) your neighbour", don't steal your neighbour's wife or husband (in fact Jesus goes further and says to lust after one or the other is to fail to love my neighbour), " don't be envious of your neighbour's possessions or covet them", etc. Thus I love my neighbour by obeying the Law of God.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/27/2008 @ 06:06am
Posted by Metteyya at 12/25/2008 @ 8:40p
Thus the Law of God, as exegeted by Jesus, has a spiritual or inward dimension that finds us all out and in that context is a relevant place to start to understand where Warren is coming from theologically. This is the impossible ethic, that none of us can keep because it really comes back to our natural anti-God disposition which rebels against the Law of God and Warren was on sound theological ground when he pointed up that it is the desires, that spring from that disposition, that prevent us from loving God and our neighbour from the heart. (Jesus has an answer to that dilemma).
Why then can't a Buddhist embrace the Greatest Commandment and in fact has no common ground with Jesus in this matter? Very simply because he/she is an" atheist" who does not believe this personal God, that Jesus teaches us of, exists and obviously sees no need to submit to him or to his Law. Which submission, is the unique way Jesus taught us to truly love God and thus to truly love our neighbour.
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/27/2008 @ 06:09am
Here's the trouble with all this. Religion is mythology. Revealed religion is a particular type of mythology most typically promulgated to codify patriarchy and religious power over the freedom of the individual. In cases such as Warren's, it's used so obviously for material gain; one should dismiss his rhetoric as one would dismiss an advertisement for penis enlargement. It's nonsense.
His claims are so outlandish: married women should submit to their husbands; gay promiscuity is bad, but gay marriage is worse; same-sex couples are akin to incest, pedophilia and polygamy (please!) that he should be ignored as a relic, not given a national stage. Although as a business man, he's got to love the attention. All this press is free advertising to those that would believe an herb can make your organ larger or a Jewish god-man named Jesus walked the earth raising the dead and turning water into wine (which, by the way, were very common miracles claimed by many gods and demi-gods back then - it was the herbal viagra spam of its day). As a sentient being, I do not need Warren nor his ilk to emit so called biblically-based twaddle to decide what is moral. Reason, understanding and yes, even science should suffice. It doesn't hurt to have sensible leadership, either.
To our shared misfortune, we've had eight years of the worst kind of leadership and demagoguery. Warren couches his rhetoric in folksy style, but his message mirrors all too well the lies we've heard before.
This is not the change we voted for.
Posted by jdweekley at 12/27/2008 @ 09:54am
Just because a hetro has a desire to bunch someone in the face just because s/he woke up mad 'and' a gay has the same desire, only means that two people can be wrong about what they want to do-- but why does that mean one is ok to get married and the other not?
Ok so religion isn't logical, I've always gotten that-- but isn't it more likened to a ponzi scheme than anything even remotely associated with TRUTH and LOVE?
There's nothing in a religion if 'the people' stop paying into it.
And the only reason for religion is for a few to have power over many. And indeed inevitably those few with the power of religion will have many flaws. Great, only when they've a few: flaws and followers. (Can we say 'hsuB... well ok there were supposed to be 3 co-equal branches to help prevent that, but then again-- aren't there also supposed to be 3 parts to a christian god? UHMMmmmm...)
Oh-- just maybe-- that's O's big plan!?!?!
To illustrate the very hypocrisy of selecting just one religious leader, that's ssoooo obviously flawed, to PRAY for our country's political future?
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/27/2008 @ 10:26am
Does anyone actually believe that whomever PE Obama chose for this prayer at his inauguration would please everybody everywhere??? Which ever side of the religious spectrum you come from, it was going to offend someone. So does it mean because Rick Warren has some different ideas on certain things than we do that this country is damned?? I've never heard such a load of nonsense, he is entitled to his opinion like we all are, we don't have to agree with him on everything....but because he is a Rev does not make him any less entitled to say what he believes. On the other hand though, I suppose if it were another Pastor/Rev who had the total opposite views of Rick Warren there would be folks on the other side complaining about that also. So it really is a no win situation and a mute argument as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by Caj at 12/27/2008 @ 11:07am
<i>Posted by jdweekley at 12/27/2008 @ 09:54am </i>
A few responses:
1) Barack Obama is religious, and has been absolutely clear about this since the beginning. No one should be surprised about that.
2) I don't think the two frameworks you offer work. One, how in the world can science offer a moral framework? Morality= that which benefits the species in an evolutionary sense? Nope. This suffers not only from blatant inconsistency with our most basic moral intuitions, but also from an utter inability to provide any kind of ontological grounding for morality. I don't know of anyone who's been successful in grounding a moral theory in scientific theories.
Though reason is a far more attractive candidate, I don't think it succeeds on its own either. Reason may give me practical advice (ex: don't hit that person because they'll hit you back, people won't trust you, etc.), but that doesn't mean that going against the advice is WRONG in any meaningful sense.
3) As far as the mythology/profit point goes, I think you're generalizing too far from a limited set. The church has often been corrupted into the kind of money-making scheme that you describe, but it's crucial to note that it didn't originate that way and often isn't that way today. I'm not even sure Rick Warren is the way you describe; massive amounts of the offerings in his congregation go to provide relief (including, thankfully, condoms) to desperate African countries. I'd like to see just a little bit more evidence for your claim here.
I won't go too far into the miracle issue, but suffice to say that from a philosophical perspective, it's virtually impossible to establish that miracles can never take place. Not even Hume was willing to definitively make that claim.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 12:14pm
Actually, sorry, strike the condom point. Warren's programs do not actually appear to involve condom distribution.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 12:16pm
Anyone notice there are alot of "Homosexual Knowledge Base" experts in the Republican/Christo-Facist right ..??
ALL OF Warrens Gay Frends..??? How many gays do you thing hang out with biggoted right wing blo hards..?? "Hey Blaine, after we're done shopping for antiques, why dont we go party at Pastor Ricks..?"...
Why does anyone look to people like a Rick Warren.. Or a Hagee..?? How are these people qualified IN ANY WAY to be pastors..?? Because they memorize a book..?? Because they can talk over most ..?? Is This all it takes to stand behind the yellow curtain and tell all the lost sheep what Jebus and God had in mind..?? GTFO...
Fairy Tales..
Mark my words... Warren will fall like the rest.. There will be a needle in his arm and a penis in his butt inside 5 years from inauguration.....
Posted by Vvf1969 at 12/27/2008 @ 1:15pm
Since RW has little to do with adhering to his own concept of 3(trinity) +1 (Mary) basic make-up a christian god dogma. Where-oh-where is he coming up with his BS?
We're talking religious fantasy-- what about the 'sci-fi' robot protocol golden rule logic•.
1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
http://www.asimovonline.com/asimov_home_page.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
Nope, not there. Definitely not applying a golden rule thing.
What about some historical concept form of higher reasoning? ...esthetics or math even: 'the golden mean/proportion or ratio-- the golden rectangle rectangle'; (maybe he's getting that mixed-up with the trinity plus Mary god-thing?).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoldenRatio.html
Being an artist, I already know that all the math calculations are just describing the proportionality found in our very own peripheral vision. Funny how that works, describing ourselves all the time...
But what RW says has no proportion or vision.
So, where-oh-where IS RW getting his esthetic BS from?
http://tinyurl.com/7lx44s
Posted by hsuBfools at 12/27/2008 @ 1:24pm
Is Warren condemning homosexual acts and desires more than any other types of sexual acts or sexual desires that do not lead to procreation?
Posted by joepanzica at 12/27/2008 @ 7:12pm
thrawn,
these two statements of yours cancel each other out:
one:
"Additionally, and this is the more important part, a desire to commit murder does not thereby justify it."
and, two:
"The crucial question, as I said, is not WHETHER desires should be indulged, but WHICH desires should be indulged"
and btw, murder is not permiscuity.
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 7:57pm
"I think it makes sense. You're saying that repression of desire is not an automatic good, right? It's a question of which to repress and which to express. Am I getting your argument right?"
yes, you are mostly correct. indulging sexual fantasies can be a win-win situation for many people. as long as nobody is hurt by it.
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 7:59pm
"Which ever side of the religious spectrum you come from, it was going to offend someone."
not necessarily. when it comes to the constitution, there is no gray area. there is only right, and only wrong. discrimination based on sexual preference is unconstitutional and inhumane.
Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 8:04pm
This is a non issue for tea leave counting whiners. Where's this man of Jesus on the ASYMMETRICAL evil - Israel bombers pressing buttons, killing hundreds, kids, moms, grandparents...
Posted by winyahn at 12/27/2008 @ 9:19pm
err, leaf
Posted by winyahn at 12/27/2008 @ 9:20pm
<i>Posted by hsuBfools at 12/27/2008 @ 1:24pm</i>
Huh? I'm not entirely clear what your argument is. First, what is the "3+1" thing even supposed to mean? Warren doesn't attach any special deified status to Mary, so I don't have the slightest clue what you're going for here. Second, what is your overall argument again? I'm completely lost.
<i>Posted by joepanzica at 12/27/2008 @ 7:12pm</i>
I don't think he is, though as a word of caution I'm not sure he criticizes all sexual acts that don't (or, more precisely, couldn't) lead to procreation. I think he has in mind more a model based around the narrative of man-woman marriage as in the Adam-Eve story.
<i>Posted by darladoon at 12/27/2008 @ 7:57pm </i>
I'm not sure I follow why these are at all inconsistent. I meant one as an illustration of the other. My point is that having a desire does not automatically justify acting on it (hence the murder example). I never meant that murder should be equated with promiscuity, not by any means; the only thing I meant for them to have in common here is that they're both plausible counterexamples to "if X is a desire that person Y has, Y is justified in acting on X."
That leads into the other statement you got from me. If we're not justified in acting on all desires, the question then becomes which desires we're justified in acting on and which ones we're not justified in acting on. THIS is the point where I part from Warren. I don't think that homosexual desires universally fall into the latter category, and in order for his position to mean anything, I think he has to say that they DO universally fall into that category.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 02:14am
<i>Posted by Vvf1969 at 12/27/2008 @ 1:15pm </i>
This just strikes me as unfair. Though I would love for you to actually define the term "Christo-fascist," I'll skip over it for now because I want to deal with the core of your post.
Why should we automatically assume that Warren is bigoted? He believes that certain forms of relationship are wrong; how in the world does that constitute bigotry? It certainly doesn't translate into contempt for individual people, as he himself has tried to make clear.
You might try to make an analogy here to interracial marriage, because after all we would consider it bigotry if someone said "it just doesn't seem like black-white relationships are what God had in mind." I think there are two problems with this, though (besides the fact that it's patently absurd). One, we would consider it bigotry because of its inextricable historical entanglement with white racism; there isn't that same fundamental entanglement here.
Two, far more importantly, we would consider it bigotry because it established an arbitrary boundary between two separate classes of people, one of which was judged to be superior to the other. I think that's really the key differentiation, and is clearly not the case in Warren's position (he can clearly dislike the action but still like the individual people involved). Insofar as an imuutable personal characteristic is brought, it is one which is intimately bound up with particular modes of action and relationship. Unless you believe that all strong genetic or biological predispositions towards a certain kind of action free that person's action on said predispositions from moral scrutiny, I think it's very hard to say all opposition to homosexual acts qualifies as bigotry.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 02:27am
This is a non issue for tea leave counting whiners. Where's this man of Jesus on the ASYMMETRICAL evil - Israel bombers pressing buttons, killing hundreds, kids, moms, grandparents...
Posted by winyahn at 12/27/2008 @ 9:19pm
Hardly one for Warren. Surely we don't want the church meddling in the affairs of state now, do we? However it will be instructive to see what Obama's response is to this attack. There seems to be two positions in which America, France, Britain, EU and Russia call on both sides to stop fighting including Hamas provocatively firing rockets into Israel and the Muslim world that blames Israel.
The US response calls on Israel to prevent civilian casualties while at the same time leaving Israel free to go after Hamas. This is Obama's first real test. Will he stake out a different US position. Or will he again disappoint the Left?
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/28/2008 @ 03:03am
The US response calls on Israel to prevent civilian casualties while at the same time leaving Israel free to go after Hamas. This is Obama's first real test. Will he stake out a different US position. Or will he again disappoint the Left?
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/28/2008 @ 03:03am
As I stated earlier, we have given the green light to our "friends" Israel yet again...do what you like but be "careful". It really is sickening how we pander to that country...I do feel however that unfortunately PE Obama will take the same kind of stance here as well. This is definitely one thing that I don't agree with PE Obama on and it's this continuation of our policy as regards to Israel and our constant defense of it. I am hoping that he will be more tolerant and involve talking to Palestine and it's leaders...as they are the chosen leaders, they should be heard.
Posted by Caj at 12/28/2008 @ 08:59am
<i> Posted by Thrawn at 12/27/2008 @ 12:14pm </i>
Specifically in response to Paragraph 2:
If science is inconsistent with our most basic intuitions (such as go forth, be fruitful and multiply?), then perhaps it is our basic intuitions that are in error. Science certainly does provide an ontology for morality. It is an extension of the very argument you offer: ignoring science, such as the study of climate change, is the equivalent of punching a neighbor in the nose writ large. Science provides us additional information, so lays the groundwork for reasonable thinking. Morality could then be constructed, not based on what is not only good for a single individual, but also for the planet at large.
If you don't know anyone who has been successful in grounding morality in scientific theory, then you obviously haven't read Jared Diamond. Read it. Read it all.
And no, philosophy cannot disprove miracles, but I bet science can.
Posted by jdweekley at 12/28/2008 @ 09:36am
<i>Posted by jdweekley at 12/28/2008 @ 09:36am </i>
I think there is somewhat of a confusion here. In any argument defining a course of action as moral or immoral, there are at least two key premises. For instance:
1) We ought do that which maximizes utility
2) Conserving energy maximizes utility,
Therefore
3) We ought conserve energy
Science can provide evidentiary support for (2) by explaining the finiteness of energy sources, the harm to the environment that overuse causes, etc. That seems to be the function you're addressing, but it's not the one I'm interested in. I'm interested in (1), and I don't see how science could ever provide support for it. Rightness is not some kind of physical property which inheres on a person or action, and that means that it's not discoverable by the scientific method. Any moral inquiry will require normative premises like (1) that the scientific method has absolutely no way of warranting. Since normative premises aren't strictly empirical, they aren't discoverable by strictly empirical methodologies (i.e. science).
Similarly, when you say science can disprove miracles, what do you mean? Scientific inquiry could certainly cast strong doubt on any particular miraculous claim. However, it can't say that miracles, in principle, are impossible. That, like the normative premises that are crucial to morality, is outside science's scope.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 11:23am
Christo-Facist..?? Whats an "Islamo-Facist".?? Dosen't exist ... See now, its no problem if you put the Islamo part in there... But put Christs name and Im out of bounds... LOL..
Thrawn, like I asked in an earlier post, how many gay/lesbians are Warrens friends..?? LOL... (and you cant count ANY of The Villiage People)
So dont give a diatribe about Warren "hating the sin/loving the sinner" bullshite.. Another religious biggot. nothing more nothing less.
I guess my point is this... I hate hippocrites... No matter what side they are on... Does America really need another snake-oil salesman to kick off a 4 year presidential term..?? If he wasn't there would everyone miss it ?? Would we be lost without the inspirational words of a fat hippocrite..??(Gluttony?? Check !)
Wether or not you like this guy isn't the point.. The controversy just isn't worth his (or another salesman's) presence... IMO...
Posted by Vvf1969 at 12/28/2008 @ 2:22pm
<i>Posted by Vvf1969 at 12/28/2008 @ 2:22pm</i>
I agree with you that the concept of "Islamo-fascism" is dumb and meaningless (both terms are), though obviously this doesn't negate the existence of suicide bombers.
As far as gay friends...I don't keep detailed rolls of his friends. Your whole claim was that given the position he has on homosexuality, he couldn't possibly have gay friends. I've already given an argument for why these propositions aren't mutually exclusive, and Warren himself has claimed that these friends exist. The burden is therefore on YOU to prove otherwise. Not responding to the arguments I gave doesn't make them stop existing.
Though you keep claiming that Warren is a religious bigot, you never make the effort to back your assertion up. Are you saying that "hate the sin, love the sinner" is incoherent? You can take that stance, but that means you either (a) stop believing that people ever do bad things, or (b) hate everyone. Since I'm betting you do neither, I'm pretty sure you don't take that position.
I agree with you at least partway about hypocrisy, but at the same time I think it's at least partially a good thing because everyone who believes that good things are good and doesn't always do good things is definitionally a hypocrite. One quote I rather like is "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue," and I think it's apt. I'd much prefer hypocrisy to no moral concern whatsoever.
As I've said before, I happen to think (in fact, rather strongly) that Warren is wrong here. That doesn't make him a bigot.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/28/2008 @ 4:17pm
It always seems to me that conservative Christians have never read the gospels - at least with comprehension. As God come to earth, is it your position that: 1. he didn't understand what it was important to teach us about, or 2. that he couldn't figure out how to get the really important material published in the bible? Not one word does he say on the subject of homosexuality!
He says plenty about social justice, non-violence, the rich and the poor. Somehow I never hear any passion for the things he was passionate about. Is that because his message was about as anti-neocon as you can get? Whatever you believe, Jesus actaully believed in a life after death - so he wasn't too worried about self defense and big finance. 'Do not fear those who can harm the body and do not lay up for yourself treasures on earth,' are just banner lines to a huge amount of concurring material. He and his followers lived that way too - some holding possessions in common and none entering into any kind of self defense. I don't really get conservative Christianity. It's like talking to people who believe the earth is flat "Have you ever been to Iowa," they assert disdainfully, amazed at your stupidity.
Posted by uwakeup at 12/28/2008 @ 11:23pm
Posted by uwakeup at 12/28/2008 @ 11:23pm
I'm not so sure they haven't read them. They just don't buy them. You know, all the social justice things you mentioned. They can't exert enough control over the lives of others that way. They need to foment their hatreds in order to turn people against each other - distraction makes the picking of pockets that much easier.
Some of these right-wingers, including the Rev. Larry, have gleefully called for the extermination of entire groups of human beings, through the use of nuclear weapons. And yet he will reference "G-d" as if he actually has any respect for God, or for God's beings. It still comes down to this - were Jesus of Nazareth alive today, it would be the Christian right who would most loudly call for his execution.
Posted by jmusolino at 12/29/2008 @ 01:44am
<i>Posted by uwakeup at 12/28/2008 @ 11:23pm </i>
Hear hear, though I think a caveat is important. Jesus rejected materialism, but he did NOT reject inquiry into people's "wordly circumstances" (bringing "good news to the poor" and "freeing the captives," etc.). He was very interested in helping out people right here on Earth, though he took care to note that this world is not the ultimate reality.
If you listen to Tony Campolo, he makes a very similar argument to the one you make. He believes that homosexuality is wrong, BUT at the same time argues that there are far more important issues (i.e. poverty) to which the Gospels demand much more immediate and systematic attention.
Now, one could argue in response that the New Testament includes the letters of Paul and these need to be given great weight. Two responses. One, by ANY reasonable Christian framework Jesus' own life and teachings are the principal standard. No matter how much Paul cares about something, if Jesus says absolutely nothing about it one can legitimately wonder how important or true it actually is. This doesn't mean it WOULDN'T be important, but it at least leaves it open to reasonable discussion and disagreement. Two, and related...Paul isn't God. Since (for instance) most would probably agree that it's totally fine for women to sing in church and things like that, it follows that Paul's theology is not automatically correct. Therefore, quoting Paul is not in and of itself sufficient to constitute a decisive argument.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/29/2008 @ 01:56am
<i>Posted by jmusolino at 12/29/2008 @ 01:44am </i>
Though I think you're right about the focus being off from where it should be, I do think your suggestions regarding motive are a bit unfair.
Speaking about Larry in particular, I don't think he "gleefully" speaks about killing anyone. He may be certain that some individuals need to be killed, but I don't think he does it with any kind of joy. Indeed, I think the calculus in question here is much more difficult than you're letting on.
Within the Christian tradition, there is a very difficult dilemma: we ought to love one another, but at the same time must conform our behavior to a world of imperfect people (including, of course, ourselves). That means that in many situations, we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. That's why, for example, many Christians have rejected pacifism. In fact, one of the conspirators to kill Hitler was a German pastor who wrestled a great deal with precisely this issue. From what I've read, I think this kind of framework is what motivates a lot of Liberty's arguments. Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's wrong, but though I think he jumps a bit too quickly to war, I don't think it's due to any kind of eagerness for war. I just think he often takes realism much too far while taking too little stock in the human consequences. I have to confess, I sometimes do that too.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/29/2008 @ 02:47am
Well, we have come a way... (that we can have this conversation in a public forum)
But we still have a way to go (that we need to have this conversation at all.)
All extensions of rights and freedoms should be seized and expanded where possible. Those affected, and those who care about freedom in general, should keep on pushing, should keep on presenting 'difference' as ordinary and natural, part of the rich tapestry.
Eventually people will relax and let other people be who they are.
Posted by mikecope at 12/29/2008 @ 03:49am
I like Thrawn's reasoned approach to the matter and my guess is that he probably comes from a Catholic rather than a Protestant or Evangelical background, which gives a more general Christian perspective but still one that is consonant with historical Christianity.
Christians, remembering the birth of Jesus, don't sing "Christ the teacher is born.." but rather exult in his Saviourhood. Most all of what Jesus taught is found in the Old Testament and is not new. He exegetes it and develops it but it is all there. So had Jesus merely taugh ethics from the OT he would have soon been forgotten as at best a minor Jewish Rabbi.
What Jesus is certain of is that he is the Messiah promised in the OT so when he comes to the house of the tax collector this is what happens:
Jesus and Zacchaeus - Luke 19
He entered Jericho and was passing through. And there was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector and was rich. And he was seeking to see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he was small of stature. So he ran on ahead and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was about to pass that way. And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today." So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. And when they saw it, they all grumbled, "He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2008 @ 06:54am
Jesus there states his mission not as a teaching ministry but a redemptive one. Incidentally those who imagine Jesus was primarily about "social justice" in the contemporary sense will need a very powerful magnifying glass to find it. He was far more concerned that the religious leaders were adding their own doctrines to the OT and misleading the people (blind leaders of the blind- in his words).
If one is observant it will be seen that the NT writers are more interested in that aspect that uniquely belongs to Jesus rather than his ethical teaching derived from the OT. Which manuscript was the only written scripture that the early Church possessed. They used it, the same way Jesus did, as well as his own words from the gospels to authenticate his and now their claim that he was indeed the promised Messiah and Savior of the world. That's the genius of Christianity and the ethics of Jesus flow from that source only and not the other way around.
Those who wish then to find out what Jesus thought about homosexuality etc need to know that he was steeped in the OT and in that context says "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every ("inscriptured", if you like to check what Jesus thought of the OT) word that proceeds from the mouth of God". Jesus then observed all those OT precepts and accepted them as the very word of God.
(That's one reason Evangelical Christians accept the bible as the word of God viz. following the example of Jesus).
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2008 @ 07:09am
Posted by lrjones4 at 12/29/2008 @ 07:09am
So Jesus believed people should be put to death for being gay....or working on the Sabbath? (Leviticus)
Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 07:43am
Warren has no good reasons why people should not engage in sex and relationships with those of the same gender. He simply regurgitates what his fundamentalist version of Christianity has taught him. Perhaps he will see the light some day--let's not give up on him.
Whether sexuality is primarily nature or nuture--i.e. socially taught or hard wired in the genes--is IRRELEVANT in a so-called democracy. To justify one's sexuality based on this argument is apologist at best. "Well, you know, they can't help it...heterosexuals are wired that way".
Ponder this: queer folk are here for a reason-- always have been. We have special gifts to contribute to society. Acknowledge us, support us, and thus you contribute to healing society.
Posted by elotrolado at 12/29/2008 @ 11:27am
Paul, writes in 1 Corinthians that we are not to judge those who are outside of Christ, that G-d will judge them. We have the authority currently to judge only other believers (1 Corinthians 6:11,12). What many mistake (including some Christians) is that we are called to share the hope of Christ and like Christ, inform that life in Christ also means to turn from our sinful behavior to that modeled by Christ Himself. that sharing is not judgment as is often confused by all.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/29/2008 @ 1:15pm
So what IS the fine distinction between "sharing" that "homosexuality is evil" and "judging" that "homosexuality is evil"?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/29/2008 @ 1:43pm
<i>We have the authority currently to judge only other believers (1 Corinthians 6:11,12). What many mistake (including some Christians) is that we are called to share the hope of Christ and like Christ, inform that life in Christ also means to turn from our sinful behavior to that modeled by Christ Himself. that sharing is not judgment as is often confused by all.
As many like myself have stated, constitutionally, there is no reason to prevent civil union contracts for homosexuals, heterosexuals, or polygamous unions. If all civil union contracts were labelled as such instead of the religious term "marriage", much of this argument would disappear.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/29/2008 @ 1:15pm </i>
Three points in response:
1) For the sake of clarity, what does it mean to "judge" believers? Paul certainly says that, but his statement appears to directly contradict Jesus' "judge not" admonition.
2) Neither Paul nor the Old Testament writers had any clear concept of homosexuality as anything apart from specific acts, and they certainly aren't authorities that we accept unconditionally (see universally-applicable but still flawed commands like stoning adulterers or prohibiting women from speaking in church) but now that it is clear that the acts are at least sometimes inextricably bound up with a biologically-based orientation, why should we believe that homosexuality is sinful?
3) You may have supported this before, I don't remember precisely, but it seems like your argument would favor the government instituting civil unions across the board and relinquishing the power to confer the status of "marriage" on any couple. If that were the case, it seems like this entire political controversy would basically disappear.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/29/2008 @ 4:48pm
<i>Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/29/2008 @ 5:12pm </i>
We agree on (3) and (1) isn't that key, so I'll focus on the most interesting part (namely (2)). I don't remember any explicit statement by Jesus that marriage is between a man and a woman (and I doubt there is since, despite the strong impact it would have, no one cites one). Though he's identified as Rabbouni (teacher), he would not be classified as a Rabbi in the strictest sense since no Rabbi at that time would say that healing people on the sabbath was OK. He also, by the way, does NOT say that sex outside of marriage is a sin, though he does specifically go after adultery (which is not at all the same thing).
As a sidenote, he did NOT make the woman at the well feel condemned, nor did he intend to spread that feeling to any of the people he talked to. He specifically said his intention was to save the world rather than condemn it, and the angels upon his birth announced news of great joy, not of great condemnation.
Finally, none of this deals with the crucial orientation analysis. First, even if orientation isn't biological, there was still no concept of it within the Hebrew scriptures, which makes condemnation of it based on those scriptures prima facie problematic. Second, there is a strong biological basis not only from the reports of many actual homosexuals, but also from the existence of homosexuality in nature (in, for example, other animal species). It is often a fundamental aspect of being, not a simple choice, and contrary to both Warren and yourself, I think that fact is crucial. Condemning the behavior condemns the unchosen orientation, which is problematic. Compound that with the lack of good independent arguments against homosexuality, and your position seems problematic.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/29/2008 @ 9:08pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/29/2008 @ 4:17pm
A fine SEMANTIC distinction, of course.
So you don't consider it "judging" to say "I think what you do is evil"...
just "sharting" your view on it?
So if I call you a bigot...it's not being judgemental, just "sharing my view."
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 07:24am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/30/2008 @ 3:12pm
So, unless it "carries weight of action"....it's merely an opinion or view, not a "judging"?
That DOES leave a clear out for Paul's injunction, doesn't it.
I think I'll see if I can find other semantic ways around the New Testament.
For instance, "Suffer the little children to come unto me" now means "Children will be in pain if they go to Jesus". I mean that IS a possible definition of "suffer".
or when Matthew says ""Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"...
he's referring to Lasik. (Laser beam...huh? huh?)
LOL
Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:30pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 12/30/2008 @ 4:30pm </i>
I mean, I GUESS this is sort of fair, but I feel like it misses the underlying point. I don't think that saying "X is wrong" is the kind of thing Jesus was saying not to do; calling out injustices, for instances, was a long and venerable tradition within Judaism and Jesus continued it rather than rejecting it. I think he's more talking about judging PEOPLE. He's saying that you should at the VERY least be reluctant to pronounce condemnation on anyone else, at least in part because you don't know their circumstances and their struggles. That also means, by the way, that I don't think we're in a position to state "X person is saved, Y person is not." Contrary to common argument, the New Testament does not give us any clear justification on which to do so. On top of that it seems just a bit presumptuous to tell God who he can and cannot save (which is what you have to do, because the alternative is to suggest that there are those God could save but chooses not to, which is problematic...).
Sorry for the side-rant, but I think the point is made. Saying "doing X is wrong"= fine. Saying "Y person who does X is condemned/evil"= not fine. Judgment refers to people rather than actions, otherwise moral discourse is meaningless.
Posted by Thrawn at 12/30/2008 @ 6:22pm