Yep, but look how much backpedaling the douche bag is doing and how quickly. This choice does follow the message of inclusiveness sent during the campaign and I’m beginning to suspect it might be a brilliant political move in the end.
Interesting cartoon, yes Rick Warren is a douche bag (Sandrino must be a Daily Show fan too), but this did point out a hypocrisy I myself am guilty of.
Rev. Wright is an advocate of LGBT rights. Rev. Wright said nothing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson haven’t said. Rev. Wright might be just as deluded as all other supernaturalists but at least you can count on him to not back pedal on his views. Rick Warren is a douche bag with a smile. Nothing more.
Technically, Catholicism allows homosexuality because the person was born that way – you just can’t act on it, because that would be sinful. Gee, great. This is why so many devout gay men became priests (estimates range from 20% to 40% of priests are gay) – to avoid the issue. Except some didn’t.
LLeRay - I do not have to do any of those things for I have asked for forgiveness of my sins from the Lord Jesus Christ, who’s sacrifice is the appropriate means that God has chosen for the propitiation of our sins and the sins of the world. Thank you.
P.S. The Old Testament is a guide for morality and appropriate worship, no longer is it the exclusive terms of the covenant required with the Creator of the universe. Catholicism has many doctrinal errors and plus, we are all born in sin and subject to the whims of our sinful heart, hence the warning to Cain from God before he committed the first murder… see Ge.4:7 .
My goal (I do not know who the “Friends” are, unless you are speaking of the “Quakers”) is not to disprove any particular group - but to prove the veracity of my own special revelation I’ve been given against all doubts and arguments that would lead me to dis-believe the words of Christ. This is all that one person can ask of another. I can try for the rest of my life to gauge what I believe by the beliefs or actions of others but this will undoubtedly lead me to a position of frustrated purpose. The process I partook in I was later able to boil down to the Classic three steps or something similar of which you have probalby heard of : 1. Repent (Feel sorry for your sins and wish to change your behaviour
2.Believe (Believe that Christ is Lord - at the time I was saved this was just a basic understanding of ‘Christ died for our sins’, etc.)
Receive (Accept Christ’s authority over you or “take up thy cross and follow me,etc. If it got much more complicated than this I doubt I could be saved.
I am ready to say more - but your question, fennec, was about special revelation to a small group - Some assumptions have to be made, of course for my salvation to be real:
1.There is a God
2.He has a plan for you (and me)
3.He can communicate that message of purpose to who He thinks needs to hear it.
4.He ultimately is responsible for the means of revelation.
When I was backed into a corner by unhappy circumstances I reached out to Him by praying the scriptures “Where two or more are gathered there am I ” and another which I can’t recall now. The point is I invoked through prayer and action a promise that He made to us through scripture and he answered my prayer with revelation of Himself and the subsequent understanding imparted by the continued reading of His word. Thus I believe that God speaks to the individual and is able to accomplish his will through us, and who that is is ultimately up to God but this is able to be determined by the believer by studying His word and ways.
fennec - I’m sorry, I’m not advocating my “special revelation” beyond what is demarcated in the scriptures and witnessed by the Spirit of God, only that that is the basis for my belief…
And that is the basis for me believing homosexual acts are included in the list of our sins…
And this is the probable basis for Rick Warrens stand against it (reading of scripture)…
And that you appear to replace salvation with “tolerance”, which is not enough to save anyone from their sins.
And thus, the majority of posters here are hypocrites because they accept one man (Rev. Wright) for his agreeable positions on the basis of tolerance yet reject another out of intolerance for his sincere beliefs (which they find disagreeable).
It is not that you lose this argument, but that you cannot win it.
Completely different meanings for the same spelled words. 16th Century and before meaning, based on dictation by men, to consolidate power, and wealth in a few, versus, 20th, now 21st, century meanings, based upon increasing knowledge and intelligence, shared by all, for the benefit of all..
However, your position is defensible, the other is not.
DHLeaky, where’s your proof? And the only “meanings” that I pour into words are those that have been scrupulously studied and preserved by scribes and scholars for centuries. Maybe you need to divest yourself from your modern humanist bias and quit pulling “facts” out of idle and un-supported academic speculation.
HUMPHRIES over 15 years ago
I’m disappoinnted too.
sandrino over 15 years ago
Touché! Rick Warren is still a douche bag though.
claudermilk over 15 years ago
Yep, but look how much backpedaling the douche bag is doing and how quickly. This choice does follow the message of inclusiveness sent during the campaign and I’m beginning to suspect it might be a brilliant political move in the end.
foxglove16 over 15 years ago
Interesting cartoon, yes Rick Warren is a douche bag (Sandrino must be a Daily Show fan too), but this did point out a hypocrisy I myself am guilty of.
patrickometry over 15 years ago
Rev. Wright is an advocate of LGBT rights. Rev. Wright said nothing Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson haven’t said. Rev. Wright might be just as deluded as all other supernaturalists but at least you can count on him to not back pedal on his views. Rick Warren is a douche bag with a smile. Nothing more.
Motivemagus over 15 years ago
Technically, Catholicism allows homosexuality because the person was born that way – you just can’t act on it, because that would be sinful. Gee, great. This is why so many devout gay men became priests (estimates range from 20% to 40% of priests are gay) – to avoid the issue. Except some didn’t.
NoFearPup over 15 years ago
LLeRay - I do not have to do any of those things for I have asked for forgiveness of my sins from the Lord Jesus Christ, who’s sacrifice is the appropriate means that God has chosen for the propitiation of our sins and the sins of the world. Thank you.
NoFearPup over 15 years ago
P.S. The Old Testament is a guide for morality and appropriate worship, no longer is it the exclusive terms of the covenant required with the Creator of the universe. Catholicism has many doctrinal errors and plus, we are all born in sin and subject to the whims of our sinful heart, hence the warning to Cain from God before he committed the first murder… see Ge.4:7 .
NoFearPup over 15 years ago
My goal (I do not know who the “Friends” are, unless you are speaking of the “Quakers”) is not to disprove any particular group - but to prove the veracity of my own special revelation I’ve been given against all doubts and arguments that would lead me to dis-believe the words of Christ. This is all that one person can ask of another. I can try for the rest of my life to gauge what I believe by the beliefs or actions of others but this will undoubtedly lead me to a position of frustrated purpose. The process I partook in I was later able to boil down to the Classic three steps or something similar of which you have probalby heard of : 1. Repent (Feel sorry for your sins and wish to change your behaviour 2.Believe (Believe that Christ is Lord - at the time I was saved this was just a basic understanding of ‘Christ died for our sins’, etc.)
Receive (Accept Christ’s authority over you or “take up thy cross and follow me,etc. If it got much more complicated than this I doubt I could be saved.
I am ready to say more - but your question, fennec, was about special revelation to a small group - Some assumptions have to be made, of course for my salvation to be real: 1.There is a God 2.He has a plan for you (and me) 3.He can communicate that message of purpose to who He thinks needs to hear it. 4.He ultimately is responsible for the means of revelation. When I was backed into a corner by unhappy circumstances I reached out to Him by praying the scriptures “Where two or more are gathered there am I ” and another which I can’t recall now. The point is I invoked through prayer and action a promise that He made to us through scripture and he answered my prayer with revelation of Himself and the subsequent understanding imparted by the continued reading of His word. Thus I believe that God speaks to the individual and is able to accomplish his will through us, and who that is is ultimately up to God but this is able to be determined by the believer by studying His word and ways.
NoFearPup over 15 years ago
fennec - I’m sorry, I’m not advocating my “special revelation” beyond what is demarcated in the scriptures and witnessed by the Spirit of God, only that that is the basis for my belief… And that is the basis for me believing homosexual acts are included in the list of our sins… And this is the probable basis for Rick Warrens stand against it (reading of scripture)… And that you appear to replace salvation with “tolerance”, which is not enough to save anyone from their sins. And thus, the majority of posters here are hypocrites because they accept one man (Rev. Wright) for his agreeable positions on the basis of tolerance yet reject another out of intolerance for his sincere beliefs (which they find disagreeable).
dhleaky over 15 years ago
fennec’
It is not that you lose this argument, but that you cannot win it. Completely different meanings for the same spelled words. 16th Century and before meaning, based on dictation by men, to consolidate power, and wealth in a few, versus, 20th, now 21st, century meanings, based upon increasing knowledge and intelligence, shared by all, for the benefit of all.. However, your position is defensible, the other is not.
NoFearPup over 15 years ago
DHLeaky, where’s your proof? And the only “meanings” that I pour into words are those that have been scrupulously studied and preserved by scribes and scholars for centuries. Maybe you need to divest yourself from your modern humanist bias and quit pulling “facts” out of idle and un-supported academic speculation.