The obligatory “gay bishop to deliver invocation at inaugural event” post
posted at 3:21 pm on January 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
Supposedly he was booked long before l’affaire Warren roiled the nutroots and Team Barry simply forgot to mention it until now. Ahem.
Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay civil rights organization, said in a statement that the choice was “encouraging.”
“Bishop Robinson models what prayer should be — spiritual reflection put into action for justice,” Solmonese said. “It is encouraging that the president-elect has chosen this spiritual hero, and that should remain our focus today.”…
An Obama source said: “Robinson was in the plans before the complaints about Rick Warren. Many skeptics will read this as a direct reaction to the Warren criticism — but it’s just not so.”
Also appearing at the event: Bono, Jamie Foxx, and Shakira, among others, although whether the biggest celebrity in the world will himself be making a cameo is as yet unclear.
David Brody thinks this might undo some of the goodwill Obama earned with Christian conservatives by tapping Warren for the inauguration. I’m skeptical.
If you line up ten Evangelicals on the street, my guess is that eight of them would say it doesn’t surprise them that Obama would choose an openly gay Bishop to deliver an invocation like this. But this cuts both ways to a degree. Obama took heat from the left on Warren and will no doubt take heat from the right on this pick. It’s a tough position for Obama to be in. He wants to reach out to all Americans but in the process he’s probably going to tick off a lot of people of faith. When you pick a controversial gay bishop that has been in the headlines for years and has come to symbolize gay rights (for some), it’s bound to get under the skin of conservative minded Evangelicals, many of whom may be ready to cut Obama some slack.
Exit question: 20 percent of evangelicals will be surprised to find a liberal Democrat endorsing a gay bishop? The reason picking Warren was shocking, I thought, was because they expected him to pick people like Robinson in the first place. Besides, no one in America believes The One’s sincerely against gay marriage. Why would this come as some sort of revelation?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Jesus Christ help us all.
lexa on January 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Much of Leviticus and Exodus is supposed to be ignored because the teachings there (such as keeping kosher or wearing a cotton-polyester blended shirt) fall under the Old Covenant, which was overturned with the coming of Christ, who established the New Covenant.
Homosexuality and various other sins covered in the New Testament do not fall under that which is no longer followed.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Exactly, so a 18 year old daughter says it was okay for her father to have sex with her…then it must be okay?
Consent is not the standard for whether a law is being broken, and certainly not one for a biblical edict to be broken.
right2bright on January 12, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Interesting Fact: “Gay_Bishop” is Bill Schulz’s gamertag on Xbox Live.
ScottMcC on January 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM
So then just recite the New Testament. Citing Leviticus is pointless and only opens up people for the argument that Christian cherry pick.
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM
the morality in the Old Testament laws are still valid. Homosexuality didn’t suddenly become okay thanks to Christ.
jp on January 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM
It isn’t irrelevant to the family. Divorce is a bad thing, and parents who work to maintain a strong relationship with their children deserve credit, at least more credit than parents who allow their spousal anger to interfere with a child’s growth.
Rudy was a really good mayor of NYC. He has much of what is needed to be POTUS. His judgment in personal matters has been unfortunate.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 4:54 PM
If Obama announced the Gay Bishop first, would the Atheists be jumping on the keep religion out of politics band wagon? My guess is no, but that’s just me.
PappaMac on January 12, 2009 at 4:54 PM
There is some pretty serious stuff, beyond diet and fabric, that is also ignored.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Exactly. That’s why I don’t cite the OT.
I’m speaking in a purely spiritual sense. Robinson is a member of the clergy, and his actions set a terrible example. If his sexual orientation was such an impediment to his marriage, then he should have lived the rest of his life in celibacy, not celebrated his sin.
And stop bringing Giuliani back into this. His politics have nothing to do with this subject.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:00 PM
That’s certainly an understatement, but then few people have everything together. Often you have to settle for either being great at your job or great with your family.
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Sorry. I couldn’t remember who posted the Lev. scripture.
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:02 PM
Like what specifically? Remember that many of the provisions set forth in the OT were relevant to the societal standards of the time – any references to polygamy or slavery (which more often than not meant indentured servants) would be good examples of this.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:04 PM
It’s cool. Thanks for being civil and logical.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:04 PM
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:02 PM
It was me. I did not mean to open a scriptural debate.
For those interested, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 is an example of where it is mentioned in the New Testament.
kingsjester on January 12, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I try. I’ll admit that I’m a little divided on the issue.
I know what’s wrong for me, but I believe fully that God tells us when we are doing wrong without the Bible. So it gives me pause when homosexuals have said they have a relationship with God and are not told to change their lifestyle.
Maybe they’re lying. Only they and God would know, but it’s enough to make me think. So I try to be objective in these threads and take in everything that isn’t pure flaming (which happens way too often).
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Indeed. If you want some perspective on this, I attend the last Anglo-Catholic parish in the Diocese of Long Island, and a very much out male same-sex couple attends. My father is the rector and held a private meeting with them explaining how we are not against them as people; we are just trying to obey the Word of God. They completely understood and said that they would be disappointed if my father changed his beliefs just for them; they are amongst our biggest contributors. We love them dearly and have invited them to several family functions.
Robinson has made his condition a source of pride and has also committed offences unrelated to homosexuality. He recently held a conference for Roman Catholic priests in which he instructed them to go back to their Churches and fight to get women “ordained”.
And again, he deceived everyone by hiding his alcoholism, then brought further shame to his diocese by refusing to resign once it became public. His personal orientation is of the least concern to me or any other Christian with his head on straight.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I didn’t realize that. Kinda depressing that he didn’t see any disconnect with being a Christian leader and being an alcoholic.
That’s a very cool story about your church though. I only wish more Christians took that approach.
Esthier on January 12, 2009 at 5:34 PM
More do than one might think. It’s that whole, “Hate the sin, love the sinner” thang.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:38 PM
I just thought that this should bear repeating.
For the people who want to espouse that God is “for” homosexual behavior/marriage…
…they can never offer any proof, all they can do is argue against the overwhelming proof that God is against this.
And please, let us not forget that Robinson is not just a gay bishop…
…he’s an alcoholic, adulterous, homosexual bishop.
How the Episcopal church squares ANY of that with scripture is beyond me.
Religious_Zealot on January 12, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Easy. Church leaders have gone on record as saying that since the Church wrote the Bible, so the Church can change the Bible. Both parts of the assertion are false.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 5:55 PM
FIFY
JetBoy on January 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM
I left the Episcopal Church and am so grateful. News like this used to send me into a spiritual coma.
This pick is the most bizarre spiritual selection by a president elect I have ever heard of. I’m sure it’s just going to get more and more out there as we approach the end of the American dream.
Hening on January 12, 2009 at 5:59 PM
You have to be kidding me!
This, after all the whining about how Jeremiah Wright spewing “God **** America” shouldn’t have anything to do with Obama, after Frank Davis, Bill Ayers, and Obama’s own statement regarding how “we need to be intellectually diverse.”
What. An. Asshole.
I was going to watch the inauguration, simply to use any of Obama’s slip ups against him at some point down the road, but now I’m having second thoughts.
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 6:16 PM
That is why God invented transcripts.
Damian G. on January 12, 2009 at 6:21 PM
he’s an alcoholic, adulterous, homosexual bishop
How the Episcopal church squares ANY of that with scripture according to me is beyond me.
–If the Catholic church wouldn’t allow alcoholics or homosexuals to be priests, they might lose up to 50% of their current crop.
jim m on January 12, 2009 at 6:29 PM
CHANGE we can believe in.
Cylor on January 12, 2009 at 6:41 PM
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
JetBoy on January 12, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Oh, and my husky says (and I’m sorry for the ripoff, Cipher, if you’re reading this):
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
–Orthodox Catholics who are upset that Robinson (who is apparently an alcoholic and a homosexual) has been picked should take a look at their own church, too.
jim m on January 12, 2009 at 7:08 PM
Instead of Giuliani I could have picked one of several other leaders who had a messy personal life but were decent people and effective at their jobs.
Your point is that a spiritual leader, unlike a secular leader, must lead by example. That makes sense. Though, since divorce is not consistently a disqualification for Protestant ministry some church leaders are allowed to go about their work with less than exemplary personal lives.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 7:18 PM
The devil plays all sides.
Mein Fuhrer is playing both sides.
Ergo, Mein Fuhrer is the devil.
madmonkphotog on January 12, 2009 at 7:41 PM
I’m familiar with Biblical direction that frees Christians from Jewish law, but I’m not sure where support for using societal standards of the time comes from, or how it doesn’t allow different countries in each ensuing century to apply the filter of societal standards to their interpretation of the word of God.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 7:44 PM
Still misquoting and misinterpreting scripture, I see.
Here, let me remind you of not what *I* say, but what scripture says:
Let’s see, the man has been married more than once, he is/was a drunkard, is not sensible in that he believes that homosexuality is not a sin (which also means he’s not an apt teacher), he certainly is not above reproach and by pushing to be a bishop he has shown himself to be VERY quarrelsome.
Yeah, wow, I’m really out to lunch on this!
/roll eyes
Religious_Zealot on January 12, 2009 at 7:52 PM
http://www.eightmaps.com/
Check that out. It’s time for the gays to go after all prop 8 supporters, it seems.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Human rights are entirely different than “civil rights” and vice-versa.
This pretensive so-called “bishop” is as deluded and disturbed in his soul as people ever can be.
S on January 12, 2009 at 8:10 PM
Isn’t this the same guy (saw a clip the other day on, I think it was, FOX) who was on the rotten Oprah show recently, who declared that “homosexuality is a gift from God”?
That should tell anyone all they need to know as to what this “bishop” is about and where he gets his hot marching orders.
S on January 12, 2009 at 8:12 PM
Those aren’t Christians.
S on January 12, 2009 at 8:14 PM
At one time this man was a decent parish priest in a smallish church in a small state. Now he seems content to be the ECUSA’s pet gay bishop. It’s pretty much all about him… not so much about God.
wtis02575 on January 12, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Would love to read that quote if you ever locate it. Your conclusions, also, are very well threaded together toward the right politic that we see functioning with the Axelrod/Obama monster.
S on January 12, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Right you are. But I think that’s the motivation, it’s no way to start a Presidency, so, thus, the antithesis, deconstructive thing…
S on January 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Rick Warren should cancel. A real Christian cannot share a podium with “Bishop” Robinson.
Phil Byler on January 12, 2009 at 8:56 PM
Rev. Manning would have been my first selection. THEN Rev. Wright. THEN Oprah and a few Hollywood “stars” and THEN Manning again. Osama and Ayers could stand ‘quietly’ on stage throughout.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:02 PM
My scenario ^^ anticipating just what Rev. Manning would have to say to each and every one of them: priceless.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:02 PM
Rev. Manning: “Produce the Dog Gone Birth Certificate“.
Wouldn’t it just be, well, stellar to see Manning deliver such a sermon on that fateful day?
And I can’t even begin to imagine the moment should Manning be present on that day to address the likes of “Bishop Robinson.”
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:05 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you. I wrote as much even before Robinson was announced — I’ve listened to Warren’s reasons for accepting the invite, but I disagree with how he reasons participating, both psychologically and religiously.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:16 PM
Well, then, you nor whoever you’re referring to do not accept the Word as Christ and vice-versa. Christ’s very New Testament as the Word of God is that he fulfills the law and the prophets. That which he clarified, he spoke about. That which he did not speak about, remained the Word of God.
Christ never denied what is contained in certain parts of the Old Testament, in other words, but declared that He fulfilled them. What He did deny, he spoke of, like, say, the food or dietary restrictions of the Old Testament, as Christ declared that they were no longer to be taken as law, that all foods were made by God for man to eat.
So the standard, or rule of thumb, so to speak, is that what Christ disagreed with, He stated as much. What He didn’t disagree with, He fulfilled.
Christ never declared homosexuality to be “love” nor defined “love” as such, nor did He ever then nor now declare that it was an act acceptable to God. And what God has to say about it is very, very clear and that is that it is rejectable as sin.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:21 PM
Thanks for posting that. I was not yet aware of this possibility as to the Navy — this movement by the Left with this guy, etc.
BUT now reading all this explains many of the worst and ugliest trolling on the net I saw last Fall and Summer from Democrats USING some “vet” stature and the disabled to lob hate against Republicans, as if Democrats owned the whole wounded vet issue (they certainly do not, to state the obvious).
Makes much more sense now as also to look back and see how nasty the Democrats and their typing operatives were on the internet, harassing the Right on such emotionalism as these (wounded vets, recovery — which the Left never focuses on because they go for more territory as suffering wounded — and our military missions [which they opine should be ended inorder to gain them more services as wounded, etc.]).
Anyway, reading this issue, now casts more light on what I read last Summer, Fall from many very nasty Democrats. It seemed at the time inexplicable an issue but now I see it was yet another move by the Left to discredit the U.S. by any means possible.
Which I believe would be the point of such an appointment to head the Navy. It’d be one way to discourage enlisted numbers.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:29 PM
You’re homosexual, right? If you’re comfortable with sin, you don’t know Christ. The Word is clear as to what homosexual behavior is about, it’s sin. This is not a light matter nor do God and Christ pick and chose what’s going to offend someone’s feelings or not, their objective is to save mankind and bring all souls to God.
You can’t get there when you embrace sin and reject what God asks you to honor and obey.
If you disagree with the Bible in this regard, at least respect Christ enough to not try and edit what the Word says.
S on January 12, 2009 at 9:33 PM
IRT the old testament not being valid; Christ said that he came not to replace the law but so that the law would be fullfilled.
The law included provisions for forgiveness through sacrifice. Unfortunately man’s sacrifices were insufficient and Christ came to be the perfect sacrifice paying the debt of our sin.
He also served as an example that living w/in the law was not only possible but the best way to live.
As a present example the life expectancy of a Gay male is roughly in the 65% range of a Heterosexual Male.
The law was not made to hold man down or punish him it was made to ensure that he lived the healthiest, happiest, most purposful life possible.
Danger on January 12, 2009 at 9:34 PM
I joined the Episcopal Church 56 years ago when I was 11 years old. The church (and my parents) taught me right from wrong, respect for God, and how to treat other people properly. The church always followed the good Bible principles then–the choice was follow God’s rules or get out.
***
The church had 6 million parishioners then–when our country had half as many people. The church has 2 million members now–and many are bailing out due to the acceptance of the homosexual agenda by “our” elected clergy and lay national convention members taking over God’s rules with their liberal agendas. A group of 10 percent of the church has hijacked what was a much more God oriented religion–it serves man’s (and Satan’s) agenda now at the national level.
***
The Episcopal Church seems to have a death wish. It proves once more that when you send a fool to Seminary you don’t get a smarter person–just an educated fool. I cringe every time I see another news story about my church–a few “Kumbayahs” aren’t helping me much.
***
John Bibb
rocketman on January 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM
S, let’s be intellectually honest…you’re a bigot. Worse, you hide behind some goofy religious dogma to justify your bigotry. That makes you a coward as well. You ought to be ashamed. Pathetic and embarrassing.
dakine on January 12, 2009 at 9:58 PM
The New Testament teaches that because of Christ we are saved through faith rather than adherence to the Jewish law. The Council of Jerusalem in 57 AD did away with circumcision and most of the dietary laws. Jesus didn’t line-item each of the Jewish laws to be discontinued, but the early church eliminated much of the law in the Torah.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 10:01 PM
wahh wahh wahh,
bigot, bigot, bigot, homophobe homophobe homophobe.
We are going to have to get used to this. If you don’t agree or approve of the homo-nazis, they’ll attack you and make you out to be the worst person in the world. I can already see them attacking anyone in the military who dare disagree with their nutty views. “Who cares if he served our country, HE’S A BIGOT!”
The problem they fail to see is they think lobbing silly pejoratives at anyone who has a biblical basis for their opposition to homosexuality is going to accomplish anything. You guys need to read up on some martyrs throughout history… you think people are going to reject the bible because you call them names when people have died grisly deaths for that same dedication to scripture throughout history? Give me a break.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 10:27 PM
I beg to differ.
Matthew 5:18
Romans 3:31
James 1:22
James 2:20
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Logan, sometimes the truth hurts brah. Some people are bigots. You appear to be one. S is obviously one. Then you have the audacity to justify your bigotry by hiding behind your fundamentalist religious beliefs. Sorry, doesn’t wash. You don’t like gay people simply because they are gay. That makes you a bigot. You excuse your bigotry by referring to religious dogma. That makes you a coward.
dakine on January 12, 2009 at 10:45 PM
This is all about quieting the homosexual community backlash from the wicked hater bigot Rick Warren at the inauguration.
Obama goes and finds not just a liberal Christian minister, but the single most radical anti-Biblical Christian minister presently employed by any recognized Christian church in America, and puts him on display at the Lincoln Memorial.
Every time he makes a move related to any form of Christianity, he comes off as an even bigger asshole than before.
Wright exposed = Obama must be an asshole.
Dumps on Wright = Obama must be an asshole and a liar.
Warren invite = Obama pandering to Christian Conservative bigots.
Robinson = Everything Obama has ever claimed about being a Christian was a lie.
Jaibones on January 12, 2009 at 10:53 PM
DAkine, you don’t seem to get it. As the emperor said, “your arrogance blinds you.” You’re using modern pejoratives to try to bully people into accepting a sin which has become socially popular. You don’t seem to understand that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years, as has Judeo-Christianity. Judeo-Christianity has always held that it is a sin, and it will always hold that it is a sin. For you to think calling people bigots, and wanting special status for the sin is arrogant and ludicrous. It’s honestly somewhat laughable in the sense that you honestly think that a faith that people have died grisly deaths for will be discarded because you, uh, call them names like bigot? Seriously, quit being so close-minded and get over yourself.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Certainly the dietary laws in the Torah have been thrown out, as was circumcision, though I don’t think Christ directly addressed either.
Here is Paul in chapter 3 of Galatians speaking more broadly on the Jewish law:
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:02 PM
You shouldn’t confuse the moral law(the 10 commandments) with the dietary laws. The moral law of the 10 commandments is still relevant and used frequently in the new testament. Paul said if not for the law he would not have known he was sinful.
The moral law shows us that we are all sinners and deserve hell, but christ paid our price on the cross. Without him, whether you are homosexual, straight, bisexual, transsexual, etc, there is only hell.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Agree in general, but determining which Jewish laws can be ignored and which constitute moral law can be a challenge. Paul is clear on some to be sure, but he also says that faith in Christ is the most important quality and, given that, the Holy Spirit will guide one to living a moral life.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:18 PM
Logan, big deal. You’ve confirmed your cowardly bigotry and attempted to justify it by pointing to your silly religious beliefs. I think you’re the one who needs to “get over himself”. Take your sanctimonious fundamentalist nonsense and shove it straight up your ass.
dakine on January 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM
There’s no challenge in determining whether or not the 10 commandments are still relevant. They are certainly part of or the complete moral law. That’s what I’m referring to.
Paul specifically says in romans 7 and in various other places that the law is necessary to understand your sinfulness. That is the reason we deserve death and hell, because we have broken the law and cannot pay the debt ourselves.
As for homosexuality, I think you get a pretty good understanding from the fact that every time it’s ever referenced in the bible, that it’s spoken of as a sin and condemned, that the biblical view is that it’s sinful. What the gay bishop and others like him do is the same that tons of people do: they find their pet sin and try to justify it. It’s been going on since the beginning of time.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM
Dakine,
As a Christian I respect free will. As a matter of fact I believe that with the exception of life and grace (forgiveness) it is the greatest gift God gave us.
I do not judge a person because of his choices because I make bad choices every day. But I also know that the consequence of these bad choices is death (or more accurately described as eternal seperation from God). Fortunately Christ paid a very heavy price by dying on a Cross so that I could avoid that fate. He only asked one thing in return. He did not ask for vengence, he did not ask me to judge others (actually he counseled the opposite). He didn’t ask me to take a vow of celebecy. He merely asked me to share the gift (good news) with others.
You seem to dismiss this belief as religious dogma which ironically is judgemental in itself. It may sound trite but most (suncere) Christians have the viewpoint of hating sin but loving the sinner. And we are supposed to recognize that we all are sinners.
Perhaps you should ask yourself if your life feels complete or if something is missing. Because you seem to be awfully defensive about what someone you don’t even know says on a Blog. I wish you no ill will but if you are certain of what you believe than my beliefs should have no effect on you. You are free to live any lifestyle you like (that is not harmful of others) but don’t expect me to endorse that behavior which is what I think a Church is guilty of if it allows a unrepentant homosexual person to be its Pastor. And no I do not think it is bigoted to exclude someone from leading a church if they clearly do not (even try) to live by its principles.
Danger on January 12, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Dakine, I consider it an honor to be persecuted for the sake of the scriptures and the cross. However, I would encourage you to think of something else, as name-calling is historically a rather weak attempt at trying to make Christians reject their faith. I mean, if they don’t reject it when they are devoured by lions, you think they’ll reject it when you call them names?
http://www.crossroad.to/Persecution/Scriptures.htm
I’m just letting you know, you might want to try a different approach. The persecuted church is the one that thrives.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:29 PM
Danger, you appear to be a reasonable person. However, I do not share your religious beliefs and actually believe the fundamentalist version of Christianity to be quite dangerous. I am not gay. Married for 27 years with 4 boys. I simply find bigotry to be unacceptable. The fact that you and others justify your bigotry by pointing to your religious beliefs does not sway me. In fact, I find it cowardly. You are making value judgments regarding individuals simply based on their sexual orientation. Folks are either decent or not decent. Nothing else is relevant. Sorry, you’re the one “missing something in his life”. You’ve bought into the biggest scam in history (organized religion) in order to fill some void in your life.
dakine on January 12, 2009 at 11:32 PM
Logan, I’ll stand by my prior post to you. As long as you keep your superstitious beliefs to yourself and keep your religion out of public policy, I really couldn’t care less what nonsense you believe.
dakine on January 12, 2009 at 11:34 PM
Paul is clear on homosexual acts being sinful. Though with regard to the 10 Commandments Christ does break them down to 2. In the NT there is an elevation of faith and embracing of the Holy Spirit over the legalistic adherence to OT laws.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:37 PM
Danger, I appreciate your heart in the matter, but the bible certainly does require far more than what you described in your post. It also does not at all promise to be the solution to make us feel “complete” and as though something is not “missing.” In fact, christ promised that the road is narrow and difficult(matthew 7:14)
The proper way to evangelize dakine and anyone else is to show them, through the use of the law and the 10 commandments, that they are lost, that they are not a good person(just as I am not a good person), that they deserve hell, and that if God gives them what they deserve on the day of judgement, they will certainly receive hell(1 cor 6:9, revelation 21:8).
http://www.thewayofthemaster.com/mp3/hbks.zip
is a good message on biblical evangelism. Promising them happiness and better feelings leads to disappointment, bitterness and false conversions. We cannot appreciate the cure of the cross until we understand the disease and consequences of our sin.
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:39 PM
Danger on January 12, 2009 at 11:26 PM
Do you mean to say that Jesus’ words on that subject – mostly in Matthew 7 – were ever intended to be a blank check on judgment of anything, at any time, or of any conduct that someone’s bad decisions might bring about?
If so, I disagree.
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 11:44 PM
dedalus, this is completely false. Christ said they can be summarized in 2, he never said they should be thrown out and are “legalistic.” When Christ spoke to the woman at the well, he talked to her about her breaking of the commandment of adultery. When paul evangelized the emporer felix, felix “shook with fear” after paul spoke to him about sin and judgement. The NT is filled with references about liars, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, etc… all deserving hell. It’s no coincidence that a lot of those things are enumerated in the 10 commandments. Paul, repeatedly, over and over, referred to the law and the necessity of it. To discard it as “legalistic” is completely unbiblical. The law is what shows us that we are wicked and sinful and deserve hell, and the cross is what saves us from it.
The truth of course is that we all have broken those commandments, and we all deserve hell just as a murderer deserves punishment for his crimes. Colossians 2 makes it clear that our debt was paid by the cross. How did we acquire this debt? By doing what? By breaking God’s law.
Dakine, you’re promoting a religious figure’s view of homosexuality, yet you’re telling me to keep my religious beliefs out…
TTheoLogan on January 12, 2009 at 11:45 PM
Dakine,
I (and other Christians) did not decide on the values/principles/laws/restrictions listed in the Bible, God did. If they were in fact bigoted then I guess you would have to condemn God as bigoted. I do not pretend to know why he gave us the guidance he gave us but I suspect that because he created us he knew what was best for us. I believe that it is no coincidence that Gay men live (on average) a much shorter life than other men.
I am not sure what you mean by “fundamentalist version of Christianity” I merely believe that the Bible is for lack of a better description the closest thing we have to a human operations manual. Without it where would we get the notion that stealing or murder is bad?
Danger on January 12, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Never. Christ Himself considered the keeping of the 10 Commandments one of the requirements of inheriting eternal life.
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 11:47 PM
What did Jesus ever say about homosexuals?
JetBoy on January 12, 2009 at 11:48 PM
JetBoy on January 12, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Nothing. At. All.
That’s the beauty of it, isn’t it? Since He said nothing at all, the then-existing view of homosexuality (as abomination) is upheld.
You really need to go back and read over previous posts.
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 11:50 PM
Why did Christ challenge the Pharisees? They were the keepers of the Temple who had over-legalized the access to God.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:51 PM
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:51 PM
That had nothing to do with it at all, and I’m absolutely baffled as to where or how you reached that conclusion. It was due to their hypocrisy and stubbornness in refusing to recognize Him as God’s Son.
Ryan Gandy on January 12, 2009 at 11:53 PM
I was mostly agreeing with you.
dedalus on January 12, 2009 at 11:54 PM
He has more issues with the Scribes and Pharisees than their failure to recognize him. Matthew 23 has Christ identifying several of their limitations.
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Ryan,
No I did not mean to suggest that actions should not be judged, just the act of condemning a person’s soul which is God’s decision. When I said that Christ asked only one thing I was referring to the Great Commision when he asked us to go and make deciples of all the nations. While I believe that Faith is sufficient for salvation, I also understand that works are evidence of faith. Without a doubt though, sharing the good news of salvation is the greatest work that I could ever hope to accomplish.
TTheoLogan,
Point taken, However Christ also promised us a more abundant life here on earth. Difficulties in navigating the narrow path do not mean a lack of Joy in a person’s life, actually I believe it is quite the opposite.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Logan, yeah, you’re really going to win folks over with the whole “if you don’t believe what I believe, you’re doomed to eternal damnation”. That always works. BTW, I’m not promoting the gay bishop or any other religious figure. I’m simply calling you out on your bigotry.
Danger, you’re not seriously going to the “without Christianity there’d be no prohibition on stealing and murder thing” are you? Notions of right and wrong were around long before the advent of Christianity. The evolution of moral behavior was a necessary component to the development of orderly civilizations. You must understand that. Your morality is based on a fear of eternal damnation and the possibility of immortality in heaven. Mine is based on thousands of years hard wiring as the result of societal evolution and reinforced by my parents and other adult role models.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Fair enough. Fact that one man doesn’t have the power to condemn another’s soul to Hell to begin with aside, where does trying to warn someone of their impending eternal death (which is no laughing matter and should be approached in all seriousness) end, and actual condemnation of the soul begin?
Jude probably spent a bunch of time grappling with that question himself, but unfortunately there’s only three verses on it. Sucks for me.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM
dedalus on January 13, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Oh, yes. Matthew 23.
The strongest proof for Jesus holding the (religious) beliefs of the Pharisees – which were quite different from their actions – yet.
Matthew 23:2-3
Matthew 23:23
(Bolding illustrative, of course.)
You tell me, is Jesus saying that the Pharisees must keep the whole of the law an admonishment against their being overly legalistic?
I don’t think so. Looks more like a warning to practice what they preach, which again goes back to hypocrisy.
And we can find verses to support Jesus’ dislike of hypocrisy, not to mention His focus on that more so than actually having the gall to correct someone, all over the NT.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:27 AM
Dakine,
Stealing and Murder were just two examples of behaviors that would likely be more acceptable/prevalent without the Guidance found in the Bible.
Where did the notion and definition of an “orderly society” come from and why is one even necessary? The Ten Commandments are God’s framework for orderly society, healthy relationships and purposeful lifes. And I bet that they have had much more of an influence on you (through your family and other adult role models) than you either understand or are willing to admit.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 12:29 AM
Why do non-Christians always bring the fear of eternal damnation thing up?
Here’s another one: Try “love for God.”
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:35 AM
Like I said Danger, you seem like a rational and decent person. Let’s just agree to disagree. We’re not going to get anywhere debating religion.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:36 AM
Ryan, I direct your attention to Logan’s post at 11:39 regarding the proper method for evangelizing the likes of me. Fire and brimstone he says.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM
And here, we get to the root of Dakine’s argument: he believes all evangelical Christians are *gasp* bigots.
Who’d'a thunk it.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:38 AM
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:37 AM
“The likes of you” . . .?
Now I notice what Danger was talking about circa 11:26. You are overly defensive, and personalizing this in a way that it was never intended to come across. I’ll refer you to that post and (my paraphrasing) of the words contained within it: We are all deserving of Hell. ALL OF US. You, me, him, Allah, Michelle, you name it.
You’re asking us to alter the basic tenets of our religion, which we were commanded by Jesus Himself to go forth and preach, simply because you feel offended or put upon and don’t want to face reality. This can’t be done.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:45 AM
Oh well. Heading out for the night, I need sleep. I’ll check back in on this thread tomorrow, if its still around.
I hope you’ll give some thought to the overly defensive – paranoid, I’ll even say – way in which you’ve approached this.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:47 AM
Jude probably spent a bunch of time grappling with that question himself, but unfortunately there’s only three verses on it. Sucks for me.
Ryan Gandy on January 13, 2009 at 12:14 AM
Agreed,
I don’t have an answer either. I try to approach it with a Parent’s outlook. I show my kids I love them with as close to a balance of Praise and Discipline as I can and let the situation dictate.
God loves us and wants a relationship with us. Sin prevents that relationship by seperating us from Him. I mentioned the consequences of sin being eternal death. But God clearly doesn’t want us to suffer that fate which is why he sent his Son to provide us a bridge and prevent us from suffering an eternal fall despite the fact that we have all chosen to jump and deserve to fall.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Ryan, you’re obviously entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. I’m also entitled to call you out as a bigot. The fact that your religious beliefs supposedly require your bigotry actually makes your bigotry sort of evil. I think you probably understand that religious fundamentalism has been responsible for some pretty disgusting behavior over the course of history. Just about anything can be excused by justifying acts as required by religious beliefs.
dakine on January 13, 2009 at 12:52 AM
Let’s be frank, dakine, you’re the bigot for calling me and anyone else your little pet pejoratives.
The problem with trying to discuss INFORMATION with the general public is someone just has to start throwing word rocks and can’t understand language in any context other than grunts and screeches, such as yours.
Good day to you.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:16 AM
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:18 AM
CORRECTING THE FORMAT OF PREVIOUS:
And like all rock throwers and grunters, you cannot do so little “intellectual” work as to identify to what you’re referring.
You win the bigot-badge here.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:19 AM
Dakine,
If I saw a truck coming toward you what kind of person would I be if I did not either move you out of harms way (assuming I am capable) or at least try to warn you.
This is the reason a Christian shares his faith. We know the truck is coming and understand the pain it will inflict.
We are motivated by Love and a sense of gratitude for the sacrifice we have been given. We do not have all of the answers and do not always utilize the best approach (sometimes we leave a bruise).
I agree that horifying acts have been committed with religious justifications. But my savior did not ask me to start a war or hurt anyone. He asked me to tell you he loves you.
Danger on January 13, 2009 at 1:22 AM
The Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality IS THAT IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PRIESTHOOD.
Blunt, to the point, succinct and efficiently stated. People engaging in homosexuality are not acceptable or “compatible” with the Priesthood. End of story.
And the Priesthood involves a respect for and honor of chastity.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:26 AM
Yes, and I was referring to what Jesus Christ has told us.
He fulfills the laws and the prophets. That means, he does not “cancel out” the Old Testament, but fulfills it — that means, the entire Testament, all of it, THE LAWS AND THE PROPHETS. Which is why the Old Testament today is accepted AS AN INTEGRAL PART of the Bible by Christianity, with a few arguments about contents (as in, translations) between sects.
Christ fulfills the laws and the prophets __ and so He said, very clearly.
What He did not “fulfill” or uphold, He also made clear.
What He did not renounce or condemn, he fulfills and upholds. He wasn’t here with us to mislead us and create a puzzle that was to be argued over but was very clear about what His purpose is and what He and the Father uphold.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:30 AM
And Christ didn’t arrive and declare that everything in the Old Testament was suddenly erased or was to be disregarded. Not even close.
And it’s not just the Old Testament contents, by the way, that addresses adultery, fornication, homosexuality, all other behaviors.
It’s really clear in the Bible what God cherishes and what he condemns — even IF it today “offends the feelings” of the politically correct Leftwing. That today some people with questionable or arguable behaviors even try to “reauthor” the Bible is pitiful, particularly since many of them are not in relationship with Christ in any context that Christ recognizes, IF WE ARE TO BELIEVE WHAT HE TELLS US IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
He says what he embraces, He also says what He condemns. He doesn’t mince words as to what He and God the Father regard as Holy, He doesn’t say there’s going to be some variable paths to Heaven, salvation, that we can arrive at a gate of our choice that suits our concepts and makes us feel comfortable and unchallenged, He declares the way, He tells us what will be rejected by God (sin) and what and how sin is defined.
What He didn’t declare anew or afresh (or, “revised” in terms compared to the Old Testament) we are told by Christ that He affirms and fulfills.
Romans 16: 9&10
Leviticus 18:22 (and all of Leviticus 18)
Deuteronomy 22:5
….none of which are incompatible with the others.
S on January 13, 2009 at 1:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »