Rick Warren wavering on gay marriage?

Rick Warren is apparently changing his tune about opposing gay marriage:

Evangelical leaders say they are bewildered and stunned by the Rev. Rick Warren’s apparent turnaround on gay marriage after the famous California pastor said earlier this week that he was not a proponent of California’s Proposition 8.

Mr. Warren told CNN’s Larry King on Monday that he “never once even gave an endorsement” of the proposition, which said marriage in the state could only involve one man and one woman. The measure won at the polls last November by a close margin, in effect negating an earlier California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriages.

Proponents of the proposition had gathered from earlier comments that Mr. Warren stood with them on the issue, and they reacted vigorously to his CNN interview.

“I was extremely troubled by the way he appeared to be so anxious to distance himself from the same-sex issue and to make clear he was not an ‘activist’ and that he’d only addressed the issue in a very minor way,” said the Rev. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.

It is very difficult for those who want to appeal to the culture to find themselves not liked and out of synch with the trends.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    It would be so very nice for folks to focus on the FACT that christ crucified is not anywhere apparent in this man´s sermons or church programs or his message to the world.

    This is a FAR more dangerous situation than what he publicly advocates concerning what the christian response should be towards the idea of gay marriage.

    after all it IS possible for someone to be opposed to homosexual sex etc etc and still support the government allowing gay marriage on grounds of pluralism, EXACTLY as one would support treating paganism equally to christianity. ALL the arguments here are EXACTLY THE SAME as those for or against religious pluralism are they not?:

    "pro" the government "condoning" and "tacitly approving of " false gods, and, in. fact. :

    redefining an important word (the God of Jesus and the Holy trinity ENSHRINED in united states constitutional law as 'god" intentionally defined as anyone choses to understand the word…

    Is someone going to argue here that this is NOT "postmodernism" enshrined in our constitution?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    It would be so very nice for folks to focus on the FACT that christ crucified is not anywhere apparent in this man´s sermons or church programs or his message to the world.

    This is a FAR more dangerous situation than what he publicly advocates concerning what the christian response should be towards the idea of gay marriage.

    after all it IS possible for someone to be opposed to homosexual sex etc etc and still support the government allowing gay marriage on grounds of pluralism, EXACTLY as one would support treating paganism equally to christianity. ALL the arguments here are EXACTLY THE SAME as those for or against religious pluralism are they not?:

    "pro" the government "condoning" and "tacitly approving of " false gods, and, in. fact. :

    redefining an important word (the God of Jesus and the Holy trinity ENSHRINED in united states constitutional law as 'god" intentionally defined as anyone choses to understand the word…

    Is someone going to argue here that this is NOT "postmodernism" enshrined in our constitution?

  • Matt C.

    I guess I'll argue it. Calling it "postmodernism" is very anachronistic. The consitution was the product of a worldview in which reason along with its attendants, the laws of nature and nature's God were the ultimate concern–the driving force of thought and action. Postmodernism, on the other hand, agrees that reason and its attendants ought not be the ultimate concern, but is all over the map on what if anything takes their place.

    The practical difference is this: post-modernism tries to be neutral on the subject of religion and ultimate concerns (and ultimately on morality as well). The constitution, on the other hand, was never intended to be religiously neutral; it put itself squarely in the domain of basic natural religion of which most at the time believed Christianity was the best expression. Free exercise of religion was never intended to go beyond the boundaries of "natural law." The founders assumed a worldview rather than enshrining one in the constitution; they were under no illusion that the document was only useful to a certain kind of people.

    In postmodern times, however, the laws of nature and nature's god have wildly different meanings, and the constitution is interpreted accordingly. The "justice" and "general welfare" the consitution seeks to establish have been mostly emptied of their meanings, and so we end up with people thinking that the constitution makes the incoherent demand that the government is not allowed to make any kind of judgments concerning religion or morality.

    The consitution is easy to read in a postmodern way, but postmodernism was in no way enshrined in the constitution.

  • Matt C.

    I guess I'll argue it. Calling it "postmodernism" is very anachronistic. The consitution was the product of a worldview in which reason along with its attendants, the laws of nature and nature's God were the ultimate concern–the driving force of thought and action. Postmodernism, on the other hand, agrees that reason and its attendants ought not be the ultimate concern, but is all over the map on what if anything takes their place.

    The practical difference is this: post-modernism tries to be neutral on the subject of religion and ultimate concerns (and ultimately on morality as well). The constitution, on the other hand, was never intended to be religiously neutral; it put itself squarely in the domain of basic natural religion of which most at the time believed Christianity was the best expression. Free exercise of religion was never intended to go beyond the boundaries of "natural law." The founders assumed a worldview rather than enshrining one in the constitution; they were under no illusion that the document was only useful to a certain kind of people.

    In postmodern times, however, the laws of nature and nature's god have wildly different meanings, and the constitution is interpreted accordingly. The "justice" and "general welfare" the consitution seeks to establish have been mostly emptied of their meanings, and so we end up with people thinking that the constitution makes the incoherent demand that the government is not allowed to make any kind of judgments concerning religion or morality.

    The consitution is easy to read in a postmodern way, but postmodernism was in no way enshrined in the constitution.

  • Matt C.

    Rick Warren was alway a pragmatist; this development should hardly be surprising.

  • Matt C.

    Rick Warren was alway a pragmatist; this development should hardly be surprising.

  • boaz

    The law already codifies and tacitly approves lots of sins. At one time the state did license religions. The decision to stop doing that wasn't a bad thing. Maybe it would be better for the state to stop licensing marriages. The state can make laws governing equitable division of property without licensing marraiges.

    I think the sooner Christians recognize our society is not a Christian society, the more effective Christians can be telling others about Jesus.

  • boaz

    The law already codifies and tacitly approves lots of sins. At one time the state did license religions. The decision to stop doing that wasn't a bad thing. Maybe it would be better for the state to stop licensing marriages. The state can make laws governing equitable division of property without licensing marraiges.

    I think the sooner Christians recognize our society is not a Christian society, the more effective Christians can be telling others about Jesus.

  • Booklover

    Years ago, pastors did not marry their congregants to divorced persons. ". . .whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt. 5:32 People were horrified at the thought. Now almost all pastors do it, no matter how conservative they are. The culture changed the practices of the church. Maybe the same thing is happening now with this issue.

  • Booklover

    Years ago, pastors did not marry their congregants to divorced persons. ". . .whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Matt. 5:32 People were horrified at the thought. Now almost all pastors do it, no matter how conservative they are. The culture changed the practices of the church. Maybe the same thing is happening now with this issue.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Perhaps it would be better for the state to get out of the marriage licensing business. Certainly many libertarians would agree. This would render the entire discussion moot.

    However, it still leaves open the question: Can and should we legislate civil morality at some level? And isn't all legislation an exercise in civil morality? The Christian as citizen has a stake in the welfare of his society. Yes, the Christian has a responsibility to tell others about Jesus. He also has the responsibility to uphold the general welfare of his society, ie caring for the temporal needs of his neighbor. This would include maintaining a level of civil morality in society.

    The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Perhaps it would be better for the state to get out of the marriage licensing business. Certainly many libertarians would agree. This would render the entire discussion moot.

    However, it still leaves open the question: Can and should we legislate civil morality at some level? And isn't all legislation an exercise in civil morality? The Christian as citizen has a stake in the welfare of his society. Yes, the Christian has a responsibility to tell others about Jesus. He also has the responsibility to uphold the general welfare of his society, ie caring for the temporal needs of his neighbor. This would include maintaining a level of civil morality in society.

    The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Apples and oranges. Regardless of the practice regarding divorce, the definition of marriage remains constant here. The issue of whether a man may marry a divorced woman is different from whether a man may marry a man. The former does not affect the essential definition of "marriage," the latter does.

    As a side note, I don't know what "years ago" refers to, but the church has always exercised pastoral discretion and latitude with regard to divorce and remarriage, always recognizing the fact that divorce is the result of sin and the need for repentance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Apples and oranges. Regardless of the practice regarding divorce, the definition of marriage remains constant here. The issue of whether a man may marry a divorced woman is different from whether a man may marry a man. The former does not affect the essential definition of "marriage," the latter does.

    As a side note, I don't know what "years ago" refers to, but the church has always exercised pastoral discretion and latitude with regard to divorce and remarriage, always recognizing the fact that divorce is the result of sin and the need for repentance.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    the religious pluralism analogy is in no way false. One must run exactly the same arguments for religious tolerance as one must run for allowing homosexual marriage. give just one argumentative example where that is not true!

    churches ARE given a legal status by the state equal to that given to christianity. the state officially licenses, regulates and governs religious organizations in various ways. it condones and tacitly approves therefore you are saying, of the root of all sins, the worst of all sins, which is idolatry and the worship of false gods.

    sure the founders lived in a more homogenous society religiously. yet the word "god" was deliberately inserted to be allowed to mean whatever one wants it to. the founders "redefined" the word "God" specifically to allow religious pluralism. Most were free masons. free masons are deists.

    The notion that to remove the prohibition of something is the equivalent of condoning or tacit approval is sort of silly isn´t it? the government not prohibiting mormonism does not mean I am being forced in any way to approve of it or condone it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    the religious pluralism analogy is in no way false. One must run exactly the same arguments for religious tolerance as one must run for allowing homosexual marriage. give just one argumentative example where that is not true!

    churches ARE given a legal status by the state equal to that given to christianity. the state officially licenses, regulates and governs religious organizations in various ways. it condones and tacitly approves therefore you are saying, of the root of all sins, the worst of all sins, which is idolatry and the worship of false gods.

    sure the founders lived in a more homogenous society religiously. yet the word "god" was deliberately inserted to be allowed to mean whatever one wants it to. the founders "redefined" the word "God" specifically to allow religious pluralism. Most were free masons. free masons are deists.

    The notion that to remove the prohibition of something is the equivalent of condoning or tacit approval is sort of silly isn´t it? the government not prohibiting mormonism does not mean I am being forced in any way to approve of it or condone it.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    every law by definition is a legislation of morality of the second table of the law. this law is written in man´s heart and can be discovered , imperfectly, through reason and logic. eg aristotle and the stoics.

    every law is about the interaction between two parties. civil law addresses the balance between the necessary interest of govt to maintain order in society vs limits of individual actions, and private law to govern actions between individuals (my right to swing my arm stops at your nose…).these two kinds of law are implicit to any society.

    "morality" logically therefore, in a legal sense cannot be about regulating personal morality apart from how it positively (positive=actively, concretely, demonstrably) affects at least one other person. It is impossible to wrap evidentiary rules in a court of law solely around intent, which defines personal morality. Nor is it necessary or wise.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    every law by definition is a legislation of morality of the second table of the law. this law is written in man´s heart and can be discovered , imperfectly, through reason and logic. eg aristotle and the stoics.

    every law is about the interaction between two parties. civil law addresses the balance between the necessary interest of govt to maintain order in society vs limits of individual actions, and private law to govern actions between individuals (my right to swing my arm stops at your nose…).these two kinds of law are implicit to any society.

    "morality" logically therefore, in a legal sense cannot be about regulating personal morality apart from how it positively (positive=actively, concretely, demonstrably) affects at least one other person. It is impossible to wrap evidentiary rules in a court of law solely around intent, which defines personal morality. Nor is it necessary or wise.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    for this very reason, our legal tradition has soundly rejected laws that operate solely on the basis of who someone is as being Unlawful and unjust. agree or not, lady justice blindfolded (the law being blind to social status, race, color, who someone IS), and SOLELY judging what someone DOES (she is holding a scale to symbolize this, is regarded as the idealistic standard that all laws aim for. to oppose this idea rends the organic fabric that our laws spring from.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    for this very reason, our legal tradition has soundly rejected laws that operate solely on the basis of who someone is as being Unlawful and unjust. agree or not, lady justice blindfolded (the law being blind to social status, race, color, who someone IS), and SOLELY judging what someone DOES (she is holding a scale to symbolize this, is regarded as the idealistic standard that all laws aim for. to oppose this idea rends the organic fabric that our laws spring from.

  • Efrem K. Sepulveda

    Our pastor here in Arizona had an interesting comment that while America's stand for Christ has worn down, it is blossoming in Africa and China. Homosexuals think they are smug with these little victories in Iowa and Vermont, but I have news for them; God is Sovereign and will control the end. Who knows He might send China against us in judgment.

  • Efrem K. Sepulveda

    Our pastor here in Arizona had an interesting comment that while America's stand for Christ has worn down, it is blossoming in Africa and China. Homosexuals think they are smug with these little victories in Iowa and Vermont, but I have news for them; God is Sovereign and will control the end. Who knows He might send China against us in judgment.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    the fact that noone here can produce a single example of how the prohibition against gay marriage would advance a social good or prevent a social harm is evidence that those laws are based soley on religion.

    example: children do better with their biological mom and dad. proihibiting gay marriage does nothing to advance this cause. prohibition also does nothing to reduce the number of heterosexual divorces, avoid damage to hetero marriages, etc. gay marriage certainly gives your children no more idea that homosex is ok than legalization of mormonism instructs that same child that wanting to become a god is ok.

    conclusion: the prohibition is based soley on a religious definition of morality. what evidence to the contrary would YOU produce in a court of law to justify, constitutionally, such a prohibition?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    the fact that noone here can produce a single example of how the prohibition against gay marriage would advance a social good or prevent a social harm is evidence that those laws are based soley on religion.

    example: children do better with their biological mom and dad. proihibiting gay marriage does nothing to advance this cause. prohibition also does nothing to reduce the number of heterosexual divorces, avoid damage to hetero marriages, etc. gay marriage certainly gives your children no more idea that homosex is ok than legalization of mormonism instructs that same child that wanting to become a god is ok.

    conclusion: the prohibition is based soley on a religious definition of morality. what evidence to the contrary would YOU produce in a court of law to justify, constitutionally, such a prohibition?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    how would you argue for the word "reasonable" in this context in a court of law?

    why do you not insist that the word "God" be used only in the one correct sense if your ONLY basis is the meaning of the word Marriage,?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    how would you argue for the word "reasonable" in this context in a court of law?

    why do you not insist that the word "God" be used only in the one correct sense if your ONLY basis is the meaning of the word Marriage,?

  • John C

    Then again, He probably won't.

  • John C

    Then again, He probably won't.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. "

    are you thereby saying that the definition of the word marriage is more important to defend as a moral imperative than the meaning of the word God? why would you not argue in an identical way therefore for a prohibition against the immorality of idolatry? on what moral basis do you not do that?

    how is homosexuality differently immoral than the practice of idolatry?

    "The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept. "

    This is a moral argument in what sense exactly? the fact that some or even most pagans and worshipers of false gods share a christian moral concept proves what exacty ? how does it do that?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. "

    are you thereby saying that the definition of the word marriage is more important to defend as a moral imperative than the meaning of the word God? why would you not argue in an identical way therefore for a prohibition against the immorality of idolatry? on what moral basis do you not do that?

    how is homosexuality differently immoral than the practice of idolatry?

    "The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept. "

    This is a moral argument in what sense exactly? the fact that some or even most pagans and worshipers of false gods share a christian moral concept proves what exacty ? how does it do that?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. "

    are you thereby saying that the definition of the word marriage is more important to defend as a moral imperative than the meaning of the word God? why would you not argue in an identical way therefore for a prohibition against the immorality of idolatry? on what moral basis do you not do that?

    how is homosexuality differently immoral than the practice of idolatry?

    "The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept. "

    This is a moral argument in what sense exactly? the fact that some or even most pagans and worshipers of false gods share a christian moral concept proves what exacty ? how does it do that exactly?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The issue has nothing to do with our being a "Christian society" but whether we are a moral society. "

    are you thereby saying that the definition of the word marriage is more important to defend as a moral imperative than the meaning of the word God? why would you not argue in an identical way therefore for a prohibition against the immorality of idolatry? on what moral basis do you not do that?

    how is homosexuality differently immoral than the practice of idolatry?

    "The definition of marriage as a union of a man and woman is not a uniquely Christian concept. "

    This is a moral argument in what sense exactly? the fact that some or even most pagans and worshipers of false gods share a christian moral concept proves what exacty ? how does it do that exactly?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Charitably, Rick Warren seems to be concerned that his involvement in a political issue (Prop 8) has compromised his ability to get his message out, Gospel-deficient though that message might be. Clearly, Prop 8 made some strange bedfellows, (vis the Mormons and the Catholics, no pun intended). This is always a concern when the church and its clergy get involved in political life.

    It is quite possible for someone to be morally opposed to homosexual sex and politically opposed to Prop 8, say, for example, on libertarian grounds. On the other hand, I cannot see how one who is a Christian, instructed by the Word of God, can sit silently where he has a voice and a vote and allow society to redefine marriage and codify what he believes to be sinful.

    The religious pluralism analogy is false. The issue on the table is not whether homosexual sex should be illegal, but whether the state should grant homosexual marriage a legitimate status in society. The state, to my knowledge, does not license religions nor does it regulate them. But for the state to officially license, regulate, and govern homosexual marriage is for society to condone and tacitly approve of homosexual sex.

    This is not "postmodernism" (a term which tends to mean whatever one wants it to mean, which in itself is very "postmodern"). The framers of our constitution tempered the principles of liberty and equality with a notion of civic morality. Even Jefferson believed in a civic morality. What we are seeing today is an exercise in amoral liberty and equality in a society that has no moral compass.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/wcwirla wcwirla

    Charitably, Rick Warren seems to be concerned that his involvement in a political issue (Prop 8) has compromised his ability to get his message out, Gospel-deficient though that message might be. Clearly, Prop 8 made some strange bedfellows, (vis the Mormons and the Catholics, no pun intended). This is always a concern when the church and its clergy get involved in political life.

    It is quite possible for someone to be morally opposed to homosexual sex and politically opposed to Prop 8, say, for example, on libertarian grounds. On the other hand, I cannot see how one who is a Christian, instructed by the Word of God, can sit silently where he has a voice and a vote and allow society to redefine marriage and codify what he believes to be sinful.

    The religious pluralism analogy is false. The issue on the table is not whether homosexual sex should be illegal, but whether the state should grant homosexual marriage a legitimate status in society. The state, to my knowledge, does not license religions nor does it regulate them. But for the state to officially license, regulate, and govern homosexual marriage is for society to condone and tacitly approve of homosexual sex.

    This is not "postmodernism" (a term which tends to mean whatever one wants it to mean, which in itself is very "postmodern"). The framers of our constitution tempered the principles of liberty and equality with a notion of civic morality. Even Jefferson believed in a civic morality. What we are seeing today is an exercise in amoral liberty and equality in a society that has no moral compass.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The religious pluralism analogy is false."

    Is the next paragraph the reason you consider the analogy to be false:

    "The issue on the table is not whether homosexual sex should be illegal, but whether the state should grant homosexual marriage a legitimate status in society."

    no. the issue on the table, LEGALLY, is whether the state has ANY reason to single out homos as a class in the narrow case of marriage licensure beyond the FACT that this discrimination was universally the tradition.

    No one disputed the historic fact you continually return to, as pure unavoidable fact or could because it was not constitutionally permissible as a legal argument in the case.

    Only ONE practical stated govt objective would have been necessary to uphold the law that was contested. only one…..there simply IS none. The state made as good a case as anyone could have. They did not fail at all with respect to legal acumen or ability.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "The religious pluralism analogy is false."

    Is the next paragraph the reason you consider the analogy to be false:

    "The issue on the table is not whether homosexual sex should be illegal, but whether the state should grant homosexual marriage a legitimate status in society."

    no. the issue on the table, LEGALLY, is whether the state has ANY reason to single out homos as a class in the narrow case of marriage licensure beyond the FACT that this discrimination was universally the tradition.

    No one disputed the historic fact you continually return to, as pure unavoidable fact or could because it was not constitutionally permissible as a legal argument in the case.

    Only ONE practical stated govt objective would have been necessary to uphold the law that was contested. only one…..there simply IS none. The state made as good a case as anyone could have. They did not fail at all with respect to legal acumen or ability.

  • Booklover

    There's that side of it. And there's the side that says both are against the words of Jesus.

  • Booklover

    There's that side of it. And there's the side that says both are against the words of Jesus.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    ok booklover that IS my point. why do you not consider it inconsistent to treat both in exactly the SAME way and push for the government to do likewise: to exclude all NONlutherans in various ways because what they practice is contrary to the words of Jesus ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    ok booklover that IS my point. why do you not consider it inconsistent to treat both in exactly the SAME way and push for the government to do likewise: to exclude all NONlutherans in various ways because what they practice is contrary to the words of Jesus ?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    dr satinover is a member of NARTH, which does no original research and exists SOLEY to dispute the declasification by the APA and AMA , of homosexuality as mental disorder and pathology .

    1) FACT: you can produce NO scientific study to support a single one of the "facts" that you have produced. try following the footnotes of ANY narth article on their site to verify that as a fact for your own self Peter.

    2) the items you produced correspond to smoking causing cancer. or alcohol being THE gateway drug to all other drugs, and overeating is immoral and leads to demonstratable health issues and is practiced by alot of christians. your argument here in THIS context is what peter?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    dr satinover is a member of NARTH, which does no original research and exists SOLEY to dispute the declasification by the APA and AMA , of homosexuality as mental disorder and pathology .

    1) FACT: you can produce NO scientific study to support a single one of the "facts" that you have produced. try following the footnotes of ANY narth article on their site to verify that as a fact for your own self Peter.

    2) the items you produced correspond to smoking causing cancer. or alcohol being THE gateway drug to all other drugs, and overeating is immoral and leads to demonstratable health issues and is practiced by alot of christians. your argument here in THIS context is what peter?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    agreed that there is no solely religious definition of morality. ALL law IS a legislation of morality. but there are laws for which ONLY a religious argument can be produced .

    I am not arguing for untethering, even conceptually, the excercise of law from morality. Exactly where are you reading that in what I write Peter?

    this is one such case. and here is my proof: how does a prohibition against gay marriage foreseably mitigate any of the "facts" you present to us here?

    THIS was the precise question the iowa court presented to the state. The state needed to argue exactly this point successfully in exactly that way. capiche?

    the LEGAL issue was not to prove something immoral now was it?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    agreed that there is no solely religious definition of morality. ALL law IS a legislation of morality. but there are laws for which ONLY a religious argument can be produced .

    I am not arguing for untethering, even conceptually, the excercise of law from morality. Exactly where are you reading that in what I write Peter?

    this is one such case. and here is my proof: how does a prohibition against gay marriage foreseably mitigate any of the "facts" you present to us here?

    THIS was the precise question the iowa court presented to the state. The state needed to argue exactly this point successfully in exactly that way. capiche?

    the LEGAL issue was not to prove something immoral now was it?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    I believe that unbelief and the worship of false gods (mormonism, jws, muslims, etc etc) is not only contrary to the words of Jesus, but THE most immoral thing anyone can do. I also am horrified that parents would raise their children in a way that sends them straight to hell.

    should you and I therefore discriminate against these groups and agitate for the government to to prohibit the practice of these religions?

    I understand that you are saying we should? if not , why not? why should we treat idolatry differently than homosexuality as a society and government?

    please do explain this to me.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    I believe that unbelief and the worship of false gods (mormonism, jws, muslims, etc etc) is not only contrary to the words of Jesus, but THE most immoral thing anyone can do. I also am horrified that parents would raise their children in a way that sends them straight to hell.

    should you and I therefore discriminate against these groups and agitate for the government to to prohibit the practice of these religions?

    I understand that you are saying we should? if not , why not? why should we treat idolatry differently than homosexuality as a society and government?

    please do explain this to me.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Young people are rather impressionable. Laws that allow sodomite marriage give the impression that homosexual behavior is an acceptable standard.

    so from this you feel it is ok to allow children to be actually raised and taught by mormon parents who are sending their children to hell with their teachings. are you advocating the government doing something bout this?

    The civil law in a truly religious society should reflect the well-founded tradition of every known civilized society that homosexual behavior,

    so now you consider america to be a "truly religious society"??!! define "truly" and "religious". you include mormons in this? you do not consider mormons to be satanically inspired?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Young people are rather impressionable. Laws that allow sodomite marriage give the impression that homosexual behavior is an acceptable standard.

    so from this you feel it is ok to allow children to be actually raised and taught by mormon parents who are sending their children to hell with their teachings. are you advocating the government doing something bout this?

    The civil law in a truly religious society should reflect the well-founded tradition of every known civilized society that homosexual behavior,

    so now you consider america to be a "truly religious society"??!! define "truly" and "religious". you include mormons in this? you do not consider mormons to be satanically inspired?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book.Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book.Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    i have, in fact, read his book. he has done no original research on this subject. I don´t know who the "congressional record reviewer" is or what his/her qualifications are. I DO know that the points you mention are NOWHERE supported by any scientifically done research.

    So peter, let´s for arguments sake grant that all you said are facts. how does a prohibition on gay marriage mitigate in ANY way those health concerns? If you could demonstrate this you would have won the Iowa supreme court case!

    I also note that you did not address my argument.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    i have, in fact, read his book. he has done no original research on this subject. I don´t know who the "congressional record reviewer" is or what his/her qualifications are. I DO know that the points you mention are NOWHERE supported by any scientifically done research.

    So peter, let´s for arguments sake grant that all you said are facts. how does a prohibition on gay marriage mitigate in ANY way those health concerns? If you could demonstrate this you would have won the Iowa supreme court case!

    I also note that you did not address my argument.

  • Booklover

    Dear fws,

    My response about both being against the words of Jesus was to wcwirla's apples and oranges post, not a response to yours.

    I don't know if this is exactly a response to you, but here goes. . .In my gut, I am firmly opposed to gay marriage. It goes against everything that God has said marriage is. On the other hand, I don't think the homosexual couple in another city influences a child nearly as much as the Christian father who watches a TV show which glorifies premarital and/or extra-marital sex every single night.

  • Booklover

    Dear fws,

    My response about both being against the words of Jesus was to wcwirla's apples and oranges post, not a response to yours.

    I don't know if this is exactly a response to you, but here goes. . .In my gut, I am firmly opposed to gay marriage. It goes against everything that God has said marriage is. On the other hand, I don't think the homosexual couple in another city influences a child nearly as much as the Christian father who watches a TV show which glorifies premarital and/or extra-marital sex every single night.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    a doctor who states falsehoods as documented "facts" when they are in fact NOT supported by any scientific evidence, misdiagnoses patients, and characterized homosexuality in a way that looks like pure characature to anyone who IS a homosexual appears to me to be neither compassionate or understanding. to the contrary, dangerous and malevolent are two words that come to mind.

    prove me wrong.

    please.

    show me where ANY of those "facts" you produced here are supported by ANY scientifically done, double blind, or otherwise scientifically controlled, peer reviewed study.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    a doctor who states falsehoods as documented "facts" when they are in fact NOT supported by any scientific evidence, misdiagnoses patients, and characterized homosexuality in a way that looks like pure characature to anyone who IS a homosexual appears to me to be neither compassionate or understanding. to the contrary, dangerous and malevolent are two words that come to mind.

    prove me wrong.

    please.

    show me where ANY of those "facts" you produced here are supported by ANY scientifically done, double blind, or otherwise scientifically controlled, peer reviewed study.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    i can match and raise:

    1) what about a father who teaches his child to believe and trust in a false god?

    2) how does a prohibition on gay marriage reduce the number of children who have bad or immoral?

    3) i too believe homosexual sex (as with ANY sex outside of marriage, as we both define it as christians) is wrong. ok., lots of things are immoral and not prohibited. is THAT wrong?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    i can match and raise:

    1) what about a father who teaches his child to believe and trust in a false god?

    2) how does a prohibition on gay marriage reduce the number of children who have bad or immoral?

    3) i too believe homosexual sex (as with ANY sex outside of marriage, as we both define it as christians) is wrong. ok., lots of things are immoral and not prohibited. is THAT wrong?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    here is THE question we are all dancing around I think:

    1) does the government shirk it´s responsibilities by not passing a law prohibiting EVERYTHING that is immoral?

    2) what should be the legal basis for determining exactly what makes something immoral?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    here is THE question we are all dancing around I think:

    1) does the government shirk it´s responsibilities by not passing a law prohibiting EVERYTHING that is immoral?

    2) what should be the legal basis for determining exactly what makes something immoral?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    if the answer to 1) is "yes" in post #60, then what would be the argument(s) for NOT passing laws against the worship of false gods or for that matter atheism or agnosticism?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    if the answer to 1) is "yes" in post #60, then what would be the argument(s) for NOT passing laws against the worship of false gods or for that matter atheism or agnosticism?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for over twenty years. He is a former fellow in psychiatry at Yale and past William James Lecturer at Psychology and Religion at Harvard. He holds degrees from M.I.T., Harvard, and U.Texas. His book. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth was regarded by The Congressional Record reviewer as The best book on homosexuality written in our lifetime.

    I should suggest that you read Satinover's book, including his extensive analysis and scholarly citations, for all his work, as opposed to spouting the party line of the gay activists who smear him. He actually has great compassion and understanding for those caught in the toils of homosexual compulsion. That's why he dedicated himself professionally to helping homosexual people

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    I agree. Martin Luther understood that given the fallen nature of man the state including its civil laws and sword was a hard necessity. I see no reason to believe that matters have essentially changed since Luther's time. American Christians, notwithstanding the strength of the secularists, need to support a strong state that has a moral compass.

    On the subject of homosexual marriage the state has a definite interest in laws that try to ensure that children have the benefit of both a mother and father, ideally involved in lifelong unions.

    Homosexuals, however noisy and powerful politically, are estimated to be about three per-cent of the population. While they have scored some victories in a few states, twenty -nine states have amended their constitutions to define marriage to be between a man and a woman. The homosexuals would like us to believe that their cause will be surely won over time, though serious Christians and Jews with backbone and will could defend reasonable laws against homosexual marriage.

    This cultural battle is far from over.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    I agree. Martin Luther understood that given the fallen nature of man the state including its civil laws and sword was a hard necessity. I see no reason to believe that matters have essentially changed since Luther's time. American Christians, notwithstanding the strength of the secularists, need to support a strong state that has a moral compass.

    On the subject of homosexual marriage the state has a definite interest in laws that try to ensure that children have the benefit of both a mother and father, ideally involved in lifelong unions.

    Homosexuals, however noisy and powerful politically, are estimated to be about three per-cent of the population. While they have scored some victories in a few states, twenty -nine states have amended their constitutions to define marriage to be between a man and a woman. The homosexuals would like us to believe that their cause will be surely won over time, though serious Christians and Jews with backbone and will could defend reasonable laws against homosexual marriage.

    This cultural battle is far from over.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Young people are rather impressionable. Laws that allow sodomite marriage give the impression that homosexual behavior is an acceptable standard. The civil law in a truly religious society should reflect the well-founded tradition of every known civilized society that homosexual behavior, however compulsive, is a disorder of nature that often causes serious physical and moral harm to individuals.

    Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with extensive experience counseling homosexuals, notes in 1996 that "a body of opinion has recently arisen that the benefit (pleasure) of high risk sex outweighs its risk (death). Specificlly, Dr, Satinover lists the folowing destructive consequences of "gay" sex:

    "A significantly decreased likelihood of of establishing a successful marriage.
    A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy.
    Chronic, potentially fatal liver disease- infectious hepatitis which increases the risk of liver cancer
    Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers
    Frequently fatal rectal cancer
    Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases.
    A much higher than usual incidence of suicide.
    A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is changed.

    There's no such thing as a "solely religious" definition of morality for the simple reason that morality is a seamless whole that affects people in their moral, political and religious lives. While the two kingdoms need to be recognized, they are not totally separate.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    Young people are rather impressionable. Laws that allow sodomite marriage give the impression that homosexual behavior is an acceptable standard. The civil law in a truly religious society should reflect the well-founded tradition of every known civilized society that homosexual behavior, however compulsive, is a disorder of nature that often causes serious physical and moral harm to individuals.

    Jeffrey Satinover, a psychiatrist with extensive experience counseling homosexuals, notes in 1996 that "a body of opinion has recently arisen that the benefit (pleasure) of high risk sex outweighs its risk (death). Specificlly, Dr, Satinover lists the folowing destructive consequences of "gay" sex:

    "A significantly decreased likelihood of of establishing a successful marriage.
    A twenty-five to thirty-year decrease in life expectancy.
    Chronic, potentially fatal liver disease- infectious hepatitis which increases the risk of liver cancer
    Inevitably fatal immune disease including associated cancers
    Frequently fatal rectal cancer
    Multiple bowel and other infectious diseases.
    A much higher than usual incidence of suicide.
    A very low likelihood that its adverse effects can be eliminated unless the condition itself is changed.

    There's no such thing as a "solely religious" definition of morality for the simple reason that morality is a seamless whole that affects people in their moral, political and religious lives. While the two kingdoms need to be recognized, they are not totally separate.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    and your answer peter to my other two questions are? or are you going to duck them?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    and your answer peter to my other two questions are? or are you going to duck them?

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    does the government shirk it´s responsibilities by not passing a law prohibiting EVERYTHING that is immoral?

    Governments obviously cannot legislate small matters of immorality. However, on the serious matter of marriage, they have every right to protect the interest of impressionable children and the conclusions they might draw from the legalization of sodomite marriage.

    Also, given the lethal physical and moral dangers of sodomy as described by Dr.Satinover above, most civilized governments, have been traditionally wise in declaring sodomy illegal. In my view in the past governments have been wise to outlaw fornication, though they were careful not to enforce the law.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/PeterLeavitt PeterLeavitt

    does the government shirk it´s responsibilities by not passing a law prohibiting EVERYTHING that is immoral?

    Governments obviously cannot legislate small matters of immorality. However, on the serious matter of marriage, they have every right to protect the interest of impressionable children and the conclusions they might draw from the legalization of sodomite marriage.

    Also, given the lethal physical and moral dangers of sodomy as described by Dr.Satinover above, most civilized governments, have been traditionally wise in declaring sodomy illegal. In my view in the past governments have been wise to outlaw fornication, though they were careful not to enforce the law.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/DonS DonS

    To get back to the issue raised by the original post, it seems clear, in context, that Rick Warren was simply saying that he took an awful lot of heat for making one video message in support of Proposition 8 for his congregation, and that he had never been a figure in the Prop. 8 campaign. This is consistent with his position over the years — he has clearcut political views but he doesn't want them to define him, or to keep someone from Christ. After he hosted the Saddleback Forum last August, he was on Sean Hannity's Fox News show. In response to a question from Sean, he stated, point blank, that he is a conservative and it would be clear to those who know him whom he supported in the 2008 presidential election, but he doesn't want his ministry to be about his politics. This whole Prop. 8 thing, particularly in the aftermath of his selection to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, was clearly frustrating to him. Billy Graham has always had a similar "hands off" approach to politics. Yes, he hung around with a lot of politicians, but always in an "equal opportunity" way.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/DonS DonS

    To get back to the issue raised by the original post, it seems clear, in context, that Rick Warren was simply saying that he took an awful lot of heat for making one video message in support of Proposition 8 for his congregation, and that he had never been a figure in the Prop. 8 campaign. This is consistent with his position over the years — he has clearcut political views but he doesn't want them to define him, or to keep someone from Christ. After he hosted the Saddleback Forum last August, he was on Sean Hannity's Fox News show. In response to a question from Sean, he stated, point blank, that he is a conservative and it would be clear to those who know him whom he supported in the 2008 presidential election, but he doesn't want his ministry to be about his politics. This whole Prop. 8 thing, particularly in the aftermath of his selection to give the invocation at Obama's inauguration, was clearly frustrating to him. Billy Graham has always had a similar "hands off" approach to politics. Yes, he hung around with a lot of politicians, but always in an "equal opportunity" way.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/DonS DonS

    As for Warren's ministry, I live in the area and have never attended a service at Saddleback Church. Seeker churches are not my style. But, his message is not "gospel deficient", at least relative to other similar mega churches. For example, you cannot put Warren in a category with Joel Osteen. If you look at the "What We Believe" portion of the church website (http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/whatweb… it is a pretty conventional presentation of the Gospel. He is, to all appearances, a serious man doing a serious work that he seriously believes the Lord has called him to. And I personally know many, many people who have been restored to the Lord through his ministry, and are active in the Body, either at Saddleback or elsewhere (many leave and find another church as they mature in the Lord).

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/DonS DonS

    As for Warren's ministry, I live in the area and have never attended a service at Saddleback Church. Seeker churches are not my style. But, his message is not "gospel deficient", at least relative to other similar mega churches. For example, you cannot put Warren in a category with Joel Osteen. If you look at the "What We Believe" portion of the church website (http://www.saddleback.com/aboutsaddleback/whatweb… it is a pretty conventional presentation of the Gospel. He is, to all appearances, a serious man doing a serious work that he seriously believes the Lord has called him to. And I personally know many, many people who have been restored to the Lord through his ministry, and are active in the Body, either at Saddleback or elsewhere (many leave and find another church as they mature in the Lord).

  • Trey

    Morality is how one interacts with each other. Religion is how we relate to God. Homosexuality is immoral because it is contrary to the design of man and woman. They are meant for each other. This is evident by their ability to reproduce. The family is founded on marriage for without marriage the family would not exist. Thus, we do not create marriage, but describe it. In contrast, homosexuality no reproduction takes place nor could it. In addition, the sexual act practiced by gays do not mesh. The Natural Law which God has given to everyone demonstrates this to us. This is not revealed by God in Scripture alone but separately and complimentary by biology.

  • Trey

    Morality is how one interacts with each other. Religion is how we relate to God. Homosexuality is immoral because it is contrary to the design of man and woman. They are meant for each other. This is evident by their ability to reproduce. The family is founded on marriage for without marriage the family would not exist. Thus, we do not create marriage, but describe it. In contrast, homosexuality no reproduction takes place nor could it. In addition, the sexual act practiced by gays do not mesh. The Natural Law which God has given to everyone demonstrates this to us. This is not revealed by God in Scripture alone but separately and complimentary by biology.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Tell me if I am summarizing your logical chain correctly:

    1) We can know, apart from scripture, what is moral by observing what occurs in nature, by conjecturing what is the utilitarian purpose for what we observe.

    2) whatever conforms to that utilitarian purpose is moral and good.

    3) whatever does not conform to the utilitarian purpose that we conjectured from our observation of nature is not.

    4) I call points 1-3 above Natural Law.

    5) Society is obligated morally to regulate civil and interpersonal relations by laws that are based wholy on what they determine by observation that this "natural law" is telling them.

    6) homosexuality itself, not only homosexual behavior , because it violates natural law, is therefore immoral and should not be allowed to exist. It should be exterminated.

    8) it would be unnatural to allow people who cannot reproduce to get married, therefore civil law should forbid this as contrary to natural law.

    8) one does not need to believe in God to be able to prove that points 1-7 are true.

    Is that what you are saying Trey?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Tell me if I am summarizing your logical chain correctly:

    1) We can know, apart from scripture, what is moral by observing what occurs in nature, by conjecturing what is the utilitarian purpose for what we observe.

    2) whatever conforms to that utilitarian purpose is moral and good.

    3) whatever does not conform to the utilitarian purpose that we conjectured from our observation of nature is not.

    4) I call points 1-3 above Natural Law.

    5) Society is obligated morally to regulate civil and interpersonal relations by laws that are based wholy on what they determine by observation that this "natural law" is telling them.

    6) homosexuality itself, not only homosexual behavior , because it violates natural law, is therefore immoral and should not be allowed to exist. It should be exterminated.

    8) it would be unnatural to allow people who cannot reproduce to get married, therefore civil law should forbid this as contrary to natural law.

    8) one does not need to believe in God to be able to prove that points 1-7 are true.

    Is that what you are saying Trey?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "Morality is how one interacts with each other. Religion is how we relate to God. "

    I assume Trey that you do not mean this absolutely, but rather, mean it as a classification, based upon which, we can allow religious tolerance under civil law, even though false religion is immoral, and even though false religion IS the root cause of all immorality?

    I assume you would also agree that up until the 30 years war, european christians generally assumed that religious immorality should be outlawed along with all other forms of immorality.

    The idea that one can separately enforce morality between citizens apart from "religious morality" here is modern view that comes from the enlightenment. is that correct? am I right in assuming these are your views?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "Morality is how one interacts with each other. Religion is how we relate to God. "

    I assume Trey that you do not mean this absolutely, but rather, mean it as a classification, based upon which, we can allow religious tolerance under civil law, even though false religion is immoral, and even though false religion IS the root cause of all immorality?

    I assume you would also agree that up until the 30 years war, european christians generally assumed that religious immorality should be outlawed along with all other forms of immorality.

    The idea that one can separately enforce morality between citizens apart from "religious morality" here is modern view that comes from the enlightenment. is that correct? am I right in assuming these are your views?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Don thanks for that. I think that your post here is exactly right. and as you say, most directly answers the original post.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Don thanks for that. I think that your post here is exactly right. and as you say, most directly answers the original post.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Don, thanks for the link. It looks ok as far as doctrinal statements of evangelical churches go. you are right.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    Don, thanks for the link. It looks ok as far as doctrinal statements of evangelical churches go. you are right.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "…most civilized governments, have been traditionally wise in declaring sodomy illegal"

    in many countries , even meeting free association (literally meeting for coffee and conversation) is a capital crime. this would include most all muslim countries.

    are you in favor of this Peter? if not why not? what logical argument would you present against the killing of homosexuals? This is a serious question. not one of sarcasm. I sincerely would like to hear you out on this.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/fws fws

    "…most civilized governments, have been traditionally wise in declaring sodomy illegal"

    in many countries , even meeting free association (literally meeting for coffee and conversation) is a capital crime. this would include most all muslim countries.

    are you in favor of this Peter? if not why not? what logical argument would you present against the killing of homosexuals? This is a serious question. not one of sarcasm. I sincerely would like to hear you out on this.

  • http://geneveith.com jim jones

    the bible says in the last days that there will be a fallig away GODS standard for holiness, that so- called men of GOD would not stand up and call sin for what it is. rick warren is one who perverts the word of GOD. these kind of people are fearful and they say that they do not want to offend people.JESUSmust be preached the precious blood of CHRIST JESUS, the cross on which he died for us hell MUST be preached to the masses. the evil spirit of homosexuality has brought a curse upon the land and those such as r. warren are lead by a lying sprit or a doctrine of demons. may GOD have mercy on us and spineless leaders such as obama and yes george w. bush. he also played polotis so to appease the sodomites.

  • http://geneveith.com jim jones

    the bible says in the last days that there will be a fallig away GODS standard for holiness, that so- called men of GOD would not stand up and call sin for what it is. rick warren is one who perverts the word of GOD. these kind of people are fearful and they say that they do not want to offend people.JESUSmust be preached the precious blood of CHRIST JESUS, the cross on which he died for us hell MUST be preached to the masses. the evil spirit of homosexuality has brought a curse upon the land and those such as r. warren are lead by a lying sprit or a doctrine of demons. may GOD have mercy on us and spineless leaders such as obama and yes george w. bush. he also played polotis so to appease the sodomites.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X