[subego]

Let the jackass speak.

[turtle777]

The jackass already spoke, starting this thread.

-t

[subego]

Oooooh.

[golf clap]

[besson3c]

That link points back to this thread!

[Railroader]

Huh...

[The Crook]

Oh snap!

[besson3c]

So, is one of us actually Rick Warren?

If so, if I had to wager a guess I would guess that it is Abe.

[The Crook]

Oh... snap?

[OldManMac]

Hitchens thinks differently (and I agree).

http://www.slate.com/id/2207148/

[subego]

Hitchens also called Reverend Wright "odious".

I believe your comment on Wright was:

"Because some people need to feel as if they have justification for slamming Obama, for whatever their own reasons may be. Wright gives them an easy excuse; whether it's justifiable is of no concern to them."

Anyone can agree when it's convenient.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Hitchens thinks differently (and I agree).

So what ? Hitchens should STFU.

It's like a vegetarian commenting on a steakhouse.

The outcome is very predictable.

-t

[shifuimam]

I'm probably unnecessarily opening up a can of worms here, but I don't honestly see the problem.

I'm not one for megachurches, but what Hitchens wants is a left-wing. liberal, so-called "Christian" pastor who touts the idea that all roads lead to heaven.

Rick Warren is just saying the exact same thing that anyone who truly believes in the Bible would, which is that the only way to heaven is salvation through Christ. This would exclude both Mormons and Jews.

Of course it's going to bother liberals when a religious figure doesn't include all religions under their umbrella. People like Hitchens will always cause an uproar when anyone who actually holds to their religious beliefs comes onto the scene. It's much more preferred to carry the voice of wishy-washy religious leaders, because that keeps things PC and less likely to offend anyone.

[ironknee]

isn't he in the closet?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

So what ? Hitchens should STFU.

It's like a vegetarian commenting on a steakhouse.

The outcome is very predictable.

-t

Of course it would be predictable. He doesn't believe in the myth of Jesus being a son of some mythical god.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not one for megachurches, but what Hitchens wants is a left-wing. liberal, so-called "Christian" pastor who touts the idea that all roads lead to heaven.

Don't know anything about Hitchens' beliefs do you?

[kobi]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

isn't he in the closet?

Hitchens or Warren?

I'm guessing Warren. He was Mike Huckabee's roommate at seminary. I'm just saying?!?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Hitchens or Warren?

I'm guessing Warren. He was Mike Huckabee's roommate at seminary. I'm just saying?!?

Wow. I hope you're not serious.

So everyone who ever had a roomate must be teh ghey ? WTF

-t

[besson3c]

What does being gay have to do with anything?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What does being gay have to do with anything?

I don't know, ironknee started it, and kobi happily joined.

-t

[kobi]

Being Gay has nothing do to with it.

But if anyone is closeted it's Rick Warren and Mike Huckabee.

Plus the fact that they were room mates just makes it more interesting.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Don't know anything about Hitchens' beliefs do you?

I'm just going off the article, which was complaining that Hitchens said both Jews and Mormons won't go to heaven.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm just going off the article, which was complaining that Hitchens said both Jews and Mormons won't go to heaven.

Hitchens is a staunch Atheist.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm just going off the article, which was complaining that Hitchens said both Jews and Mormons won't go to heaven.

That's one of the problems with processing information. People make snap judgements that are often wrong. People voted for McCain because they were ignorant enough to believe that Obama is a Muslim, or that he has a terrorist agenda, or both. It's called watercooler knowledge; it doesn't do anything other than making people feel like they've contributed something, when all they've done is spread falsities.

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

isn't he in the closet?

Perhaps you're thinking of Ted Haggard?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by kobi 

Being Gay has nothing do to with it.

But if anyone is closeted it's Rick Warren and Mike Huckabee.

Plus the fact that they were room mates just makes it more interesting.

I held off the first time you wrote that crap, but now I can't anymore. You

-t

[besson3c]

Merry Christmas turtle777!

[turtle777]

Merry Christmas to you as well, Besson.

-t

[kobi]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I held off the first time you wrote that crap, but now I can't anymore. You

-t

It's ok. Jesus knows their gay, even if they don't want to admit it. He might even "cure" them of their gay ways, like Ted Haggard, Mark Foley, or Larry Craig.

LOL.

Merry Christmas Turtle.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

I held off the first time you wrote that crap, but now I can't anymore. You

-t

You know what they say about the loudest deniers..........

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

You know what they say about the loudest deniers..........

Are you, by any chance, one of "them" ?

Why should I care about what idiots and morons think ?

-t

[besson3c]

So, what is this thread about again?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hitchens is a staunch Atheist.

My apologies; I meant Warren. Got my last names switched on the author and the subject of the article.

I've been reading about Warren since seeing that Slate article, and I'm still not seeing the problem, aside from the fact that Warren is willing to stand behind what the Bible says about salvation (that those who do not accept Christ's sacrifice as the only way to absolve oneself of one's sins will not go to heaven), and liberals really just despise Christians who don't lapse into weak, spineless, wishy-washy psuedo-beliefs where they're too scared to admit that, no, not all paths lead to heaven.

What Hitchens wants is either no religion, or for all religions to be intercompatible. Neither is possible, and he's going to continue to raise hell as a result. He cites Wallie Criswell as being racist, when in fact Criswell himself in 1968 retracted his previous statements regarding civil rights. He also bitches about Criswell's theology about the rapture and dispensational premillennialism - Hitchens is in no position to determine whether or not a Christian minister's interpretation of a highly symbolic and veiled book of the Bible (Revelations) is "crackpot" or legitimate, since Hitchens himself doesn't believe that God even exists.

The thing is, it doesn't matter who Rick Warren says was the greatest pastor of the 20th century - unless he's one of these liberal dipwads from the Episcopalean or Methodist churches who tries to rewrite the Bible to change moral law and the concept of a single path to redemption and heaven, any pastor is going to be seen as a nutbag and a dismal failure by someone so utterly hostile to religion as Hitchens.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Warren believes "that the Armageddon solution is one to be anticipated with positive glee". He simply believes what many Christians believe - that Revelations indicates Christians will be taken to Heaven by God before the antichrist comes into power on Earth. You can twist that into saying "he can't wait until the antichrist comes", but the reality is that he can't want to meet God. It's quite a different attitude, no?

Hitchens asks several questions, including:

Will Warren be invited to the solemn ceremony of inauguration without being asked to repudiate what he has directly said to deny salvation to Jews?

Why should he not? The Bible specifically says that those who do not accept salvation through Christ's blood will not be saved. This includes Jews.

Will he be giving a national invocation without disowning what his mentor said about civil rights and what his leading supporter says about Mormons?

What more does Hitchens want from Criswell? The guy realized he was wrong about civil rights and racial segregation, retracted what he said, and opened up his congregation to all races. Is that not enough? Would Hitchens prefer us to master time travel so that Criswell can go back in time and never have said the wrong thing in the first place? What the HELL more will satisfy him?

And, regarding Mormons, it's the same thing as Jews - if you take the Bible at its word and don't try to twist it into some bullsh!t liberal ideal, no. Mormons will not go to heaven, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with Warren saying so, except that it's not politically correct.

However, the man he has chosen to deliver his inaugural invocation is a relentless clerical businessman who raises money on the proposition that certain Americans—non-Christians, the wrong kind of Christians, homosexuals, nonbelievers—are of less worth and littler virtue than his own lovely flock of redeemed and salvaged and paid-up donors.

No, Warren (like anyone who is actually a Christian willing to accept the harsh realities of sin as well as the joy of salvation) is saying what the BIble says - that those who deny God and salvation through Christ will not go to heaven; that those who try to use good works instead of salvation through Christ will not go to heaven (Mormons fall into this one), and that those who willingly live in sin (including homosexual behavior) are entirely likely to not actually have accepted redemption through Christ (the concept being that God shapes your mind and soul to choose right over wrong).

Like I said, Hitchens wants a wishy-washy fake minister who just carries around a Bible but doesn't believe a word of what it says, except that "I think God exists, but it's okay if nobody else does".

[besson3c]

shif: you could be right. It's very hard for non-believers to wrap their heads around one form of Christianity having a monopoly on truth when it all seems like nonsense to the non-believer whose beliefs do not deal with the supernatural.

[shifuimam]

The thing is, I doubt anyone's complained about Billy Graham's presence next to the President through the past few decades, but you can be sure he'd say the exact same stuff Warren is saying about what the Bible truly says about salvation.

[subego]

I didn't complain about Graham (or Warren, or Wright).

However, I will state unequivocally that of the three, Graham is the lesser jackass.

[ebuddy]

I find it fascinating how focused on one's gender preference some of our resident leftist shills are. Who cares how one chooses to regard their gender preference? Being silent about it is a right or is it the gayness itself that's got you all ruffled?
someone in complete ignorance of Christianity and Scripture will no doubt pop up to claim that Warren gay-bashes with no regard for the definition of "closeted".

[subego]

Are you asking why people bash the likes of Haggard and Craig?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you asking why people bash the likes of Haggard and Craig?

No. People are speculating on Warren's gender preference as if that matters at all. I find it curious. Now, with the likes of Haggard who chose homosexuality as a battle and in fact lost the battle himself going down in a burst of flames. (no pun intended) He dragged a number of those of faith down with him and in my opinion deserves all the railing he gets. I don't know anything about Craig, but someone who's hitting on people in airport bathrooms has got more problems than public opinion.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. People are speculating on Warren's gender preference as if that matters at all. I find it curious. Now, with the likes of Haggard who chose homosexuality as a battle and in fact lost the battle himself going down in a burst of flames. (no pun intended) He dragged a number of those of faith down with him and in my opinion deserves all the railing he gets. I don't know anything about Craig, but someone who's hitting on people in airport bathrooms has got more problems than public opinion.

Warren seems to piss off the gay community

i honestly thought I read he was in the closet on perezhilton.com.

he has said that he loves gays...meh

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No. People are speculating on Warren's gender preference as if that matters at all.

Not that this is the kind of speculation I like to engage in personally*, but if he turned out to be gay it would matter a little, right?

I mean, as of a week ago (IIUC they're rewriting the bylaws) if he was gay and was unrepentant (for which lying about it nine ways to Sunday I would imagine qualifies) he couldn't be a member of his own church.



* In public

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

Warren seems to piss off the gay community

Anyone who isn't a wimpy liberal so-called Christian is going to piss off the gay community.

Like I said, people like Hitchens don't want actual Christians to have a public voice. He'd much prefer to only hear from liberal types who are too scared to talk about the uncomfortable parts of the Bible.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Anyone who isn't a wimpy liberal so-called Christian is going to piss off the gay community.

Like I said, people like Hitchens don't want actual Christians to have a public voice. He'd much prefer to only hear from liberal types who are too scared to talk about the uncomfortable parts of the Bible.

like the truth?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

Not that this is the kind of speculation I like to engage in personally*, but if he turned out to be gay it would matter a little, right?

Not insofar as his ability to speak against homosexuality yet still speak at Obama's inauguration. I do see above that you're in general support of this so I'm not challenging your statement.

I mean, as of a week ago (IIUC they're rewriting the bylaws) if he was gay and was unrepentant (for which lying about it nine ways to Sunday I would imagine qualifies) he couldn't be a member of his own church.

Let's say that he prefers men, but has decided to remain wholly heterosexual in lifestyle; there's no reason why he should claim to be gay and then support gay marriage or any other host of gay rights issues. I don't see that he would be in conflict with his own church or any other. If he's chosen to entirely suppress homosexuality, that would be his choice. He's not been hateful of gays by any stretch nor has he chosen to make opposition to homosexuality a central premise of his ministry. Haggard et. al on the other hand, have made homosexuality a primary battle of theirs. Having witnessed them completely fall prey to their own propensities (publicly and otherwise) while espousing fire and brimstone for homosexuality is a whole different matter entirely and would be in conflict with not only his own church, but society in general as has been the case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Let's say that he prefers men, but has decided to remain wholly heterosexual in lifestyle

Completely valid point.

FWIW that didn't occur to me because it wasn't what I was imagining when people started implying the possibility he was gay, nor do I think that was the idea being put forth by those who implied it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

He's not been hateful of gays by any stretch...

He's been accused by many of such.

The problem is that in every instance I've found, and I looked hard, his most "damning" quote is redacted.

Until I get the whole quote, this gets put down in the book as a hatchet job.

[OldManMac]

Another excellent expose of the stink that is Rick Warren.

http://www.slate.com/id/2207554/

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Another excellent expose of the stink that is Rick Warren.

http://www.slate.com/id/2207554/

Originally Posted by OldManMac

Because some people need to feel as if they have justification for slamming Obama, for whatever their own reasons may be. Wright gives them an easy excuse; whether it's justifiable is of no concern to them.

Change of heart since April OldMan? Is that what this is; a concerted effort by Hitchens to slam Obama for whatever his reasons may be, justifiable or not? Granted, I find Warren's statements patently moronic, but I find it interesting that Wright gets some sort of benefit of the doubt in your opinion, but Warren does not.

What was missing from Warren's statements that makes the big difference here in your opinion, hatred against the US?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Like I said, Hitchens wants a wishy-washy fake minister who just carries around a Bible but doesn't believe a word of what it says, except that "I think God exists, but it's okay if nobody else does".

I couldn't care less about Rick Warren's beliefs, but given he will be speaking in the context of the inauguration of the next president of the United States, isn't this exactly the kind of attitude we should want? I can't speak for Hitchens, but I'm personally not grading Warren on his authenticity as a Christian.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I couldn't care less about Rick Warren's beliefs, but given he will be speaking in the context of the inauguration of the next president of the United States, isn't this exactly the kind of attitude we should want?

As opposed to the attitude "even though we disagree, we agree on more, and therefore won't push you out of the fold" from the person who's actually being inaugurated?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by subego 

As opposed to the attitude "even though we disagree, we agree on more, and therefore won't push you out of the fold" from the person who's actually being inaugurated?

I think perhaps we are arguing the same point from two different directions. I personally have no problem with Rick Warren's participation in the event, because I am I guess more confident than Hitchens is that Warren is not going to suddenly blurt out something about all Jews and homosexuals going to hell.

I don't think it's fair, though, to take issue with Hitchen's criticism on the basis that if Warren believed otherwise, he wouldn't be a "real" Christian, because the spirit that you just described doesn't demand a "real" Christian (in the sense that shifuimam defines it) at all.