-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/rick-warren-told-jewish-woman-she-was.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
"You never go full retard."
Who has the authority or arrogance to make these comments. As I wrote Warren, think what Jesus would do (not that I am an adherent) but not as your ego would do. All of these so-called religious leaders are ego driven. They have no real understanding of "grace" and what it means to be Christlike. Think a second. This man has the largest "mega church" in the world with 22000 sheep following his every word. Man, that makes him a very powerful person! At least in his mind.
I have a friend at the Aspen Institute, I'll check on Monday if there is anything available.
nope. just another no-brainer.
for profit prophet
simply a fat variation on ann coulter. sell a book become the established go to.
a purpose driven lie
Without the Hell biz there is no reason to follow that series of flat earth codified bronze age superstitions.
QUESTION 2: Same-sex marriage. Do you support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry? Do you think it's appropriate that Rick Warren, who campaigned to ban gay marriage, is delivering the invocation at Obama's inauguration? If not, have you expressed that to the president-elect?
ANSWER: "Caroline supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples."
John McCain ditched Hagee...remember?
Edit: I meant to say "The more exclusive..."
I'd also carefully monitor any contact he had with other mebers of my family, especially my children.
--James Neill
Ding. Ding. Ding.
Yes indeed, that's why John 3:16 is considered to be the "Gospel in a nutshell".
That's about as basic a tenet of Christianity that there is.
Rick Warren should not be giving the invocation, but that he tells a Jewish woman that, according to Christianity that she will go to hell is not remotely the reason. He is only saying what the vast majority of Americans who are Christian believe. It is what Barack Obama, if he really is a Christian, believes.
I became an agnostic precisely because I couldn't accept that my Jewish friends are damned. At least I understood what Christianity is and says, and don't pretend that I am a Christian, when I can't be if I don't accept this most basic of tenets.
Ho, ho, ho. Enjoy and happy holidays.
Why have any religious leader involved in the inauguration, in the first place?
Reminds me of a story how during the Vichy government, the French people were forbidden by the Nazis to say DeGaulle's name, so they would hold up a fishing rod (gaule) in each hand---et voila; deux gaules!
Would he have us believe that the very people who supported the weighty heap we now have to dig out from under, who have thus far refused to champion civil rights for all citizens, who from their male mouths exhort misogyny, who feed their love of largess off the poor and gullible, who continually stir the racial and ethnic pots, are the ones who will modify their pronouncements in the cause of common good? Will Warren and his ilk, with continued time at the mic, withdraw their hateful and divisive rhetoric? Will the religious ever recognize the importance of secular government?
Or is it us who are to compromise our beliefs and behaviors?
I tuned this inclusion nonsense out during the campaign, perhaps because I was blinded by love for the promise of his presidency.
But now my love affair is over.
Obama can ease my anger if he rescinds the Warren invitation, but this bell cannot be unrung.
When you are a bigger bigot than a mormon . . . .
Good people who are not mormons can go to the second best heaven. Bad people go to the third best heaven.
Gorgeous, and with the tiniest carbon footprint!
I am getting very close to beginning the conversion to Judaism from the Episcopal church. I was raised VERY agnostic and frankly Judaism appeals to me a great deal...the very word "Israel" means "arguing with God". Jews had the Torah 5769 years ago and have been debating its meanings every day since. They question and debate everything with God. Some of my Jewish students ask me really great questions like "What the hell is Immaculate Conception?" "Why is a baby born with original sin?"...my answer? Damned if I know. For me Christian dogma is full of shit.
I don't see your point of workin' up a big hate for Obama because the fundies are fundies.....
Why is there so much denial about what the Christian church stands for?
I was taught from the time I was small that no human being can ever say who is "saved" and who is not. That is for God to know. We are instructed most pointedly in Scripture not to judge and the most prideful judgment one person can ever visit upon another person is to say that the person is going to hell.
I was also taught that the relationship with God I should be most concerned about is my own.
I was born in 1949, by the way, and so I'm referring to what I was taught in the 50s. This is not some new-fangled, recent, "liberal" teaching.
Are you saying, then, that when John says in his gospel that Christ is THE way, that he doesn't mean that Christ is the ONLY way?
I am a practicing Buddhist, and my salvation (so to speak) comes through my practice. I try to follow the eight-fold path and I meditate. My dogma and doctrine are what I do, not what I think. But my understanding of Protestant Christianity is that salvation comes through faith, and not through acts. If you have faith that Christ will save you, then what happens to those that do not believe in Christ? It goes without saying that, if you believe in one God, an omniscient and omnipotent God, for a mortal to say that a particular person will be going to hell or heaven is an act of extreme hubris. So I understand that proscription. However, I still don't understand how you can be a Christian and believe in the New Testament, especially that very clear passage from John, and not have the understanding that those who do not share your belief will not be saved. How could Christ be "THE way" only to himself? I'm really curious about this, and it may be a great topic of conversation for a group I meet with that regularly discusses religious and philosophical questions, most of which are progressive Christians.
We have had to suffer the depredations of the right-wing fundamentalists over the past 28 (28!) years, and we are seeing that we may be moving into a period where their stranglehold on our "culture" is failing. The conjunction of the passage of Proposition 8 in California and the other anti-gay measures with the choice of Warren as invoculator (my neologism) has really put his bigotry in high relief. Had similar circumstances existed at the time of Clinton's inauguration, we might have been outraged at the choice of Graham also.
Something tells me that the choice of Warren may not turn out to be the triumph that Warren himself seems to think it is. We hear a lot about his work on AIDS and poverty and the like, and he has that best-selling book, but it doesn't seem that much of his bigotry (and he has actually made some pretty stupid statements) has been mainstreamed. It may be that this exposure will take some of the bloom off the rose for those mainline and progressive Christians who have held him in some esteem. And we already know what the fundamentalist evangelicals think of his coming over to the dark side by even agreeing to deliver the invocation.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially if the California Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8. We could be surprised again by Obama's savvy and wisdom. THAT wouldn't surprise me.
These patriarchal religious figures have no place in the political arena. Instead of arguing about which one of them least offends our liberal sensibilities, let's work on getting them off the f**king stage!
Warren's decision to accept Obama's invitation comes shortly after the resignation of Richard Cizek from the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting same-sex unions. Although the left may not realize it, Obama's election will lead the more extreme right-wing Christians to purge their ranks of people such as Cizek--and Warren. Maybe we should encourage them to do so, for this will weaken them politically by drawing them even further from the center. But the better course is to help redraw the political map. This is what both Obama and Warren are doing. They are smarter than their critics on both sides realize.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77a79...
I'm not homophobic, I'm christian!
I'm not racist, I'm christian!
As long as I have my magic sky fairy to hide behind, I can say any ol hateful thing and it's acceptable.
This is why religion is such a problem in this country - people want to be accepted as Christians without understanding what it means.
I understood, that's why I left.
This discussion is really revealing and exposes a lot of faultlines that really need to be exposed.
But think about it: if whatever church you attend can convince you that it is the only means to salvation, they are guaranteed your membership and your contributions. That is why so many denominations adopt this policy, I guess---part of the business plan. Nothing to do with g-d.
At the memorial service, about 1/4 to 1/3 of those in attendance were Jews. The individual chosen to deliver the eulogy was a long-time friend of the deceased's immediate family and a megachurch minister. At this point, you are probably thinking, "uh-oh". And you would be right.
About halfway through the eulogy, Mr. Megachurch could no longer contain himself, and he went into full hell-fire and brimstone mode. "Without Jesus, you *will* not be saved. If you reject Jesus, there is no plan-b that will keep you out of hellllllllll!". It went on and on like that for what seemed to be eternity.
As we headed out to the parking lot after the service, one of my Jewish in-laws said to me in a bit of a snarky voice, "well it certainly looks like we are all going to hell!". I replied with one of my favorite Mark Twain quips, "heaven for the weather, hell for the company".
Later as guests at my cousin's home we were seated on a sofa next to one of her friends, a portly middle-aged woman from Tennessee who dressed exactly like Dale Evans. The white cowgirl dress did not suit her at all. Neither did her body language nor expression of extreme discomfort at having to sit beside us. We tried all our skill at striking up a conversation, but the best she could manage was a citrusy nod sans eye contact. On an adjacent sofa sat her teenage daughter and son. The daughter appeared brain dead. The son appeared to be both brain dead and gay, which is something we'd never seen before. Again we were very polite.
I sometimes wonder what became of the best man and the family from Tennessee. But I don't have to wonder what became of my cousin's daughter. She's divorced.
I also wanted to be Tonto (when I didn't want to be the horse).
But Chuck Connors, the Rifleman himself, made a gay porn movie?!?! Seriously? It's a good thing that my dad never knew that. Even as liberal as he was (he was strongly and vocally against the Vietnam War), I think it might have been too much for him. Although, I think had he lived through Reagan and Bush, he would have been strongly opposed to Proposition 8 AND Rick Warren.
Anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their savior is going to hell, PERIOD. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with it, it's the truth. Calling yourself a Christian when you completely disagree with the central belief of Christianity means you are lying to yourself and to others about your beliefs.
He's right, she is going to hell unless she repents of her sins and believes that Jesus Christ is the son of God, and died for our sins on the cross. Anything else is a lie.
You DO NOT have direct access to any universal truth. Just because YOU think something is, does not simply make it so.
YOu CAN NOT prove your sky fairy exists
You KNOW nothing.
You are GUESSING.
But you are right on one account, it is my belief. I haven't seen God, or spoken to Jesus, I just believe. I believe that Homosexuality is a sin, that doesn't mean I think that people should be forced to live a specific way. People who want to ban any sort of criticism of being gay are just as bad as those who want to ban gay marriage.
Jesus was all about free choice. Why do you think that we have all this evil in the world? God gave us all a choice, and we have made our choice and are suffering because of that.
I don't claim to know any secret truth about why things are the way they are, I just know that an infinitely intelligent and caring God wouldn't allow all this suffering if it wasn't for a purpose. I trust that purpose is just and right and that in the end things will work out as they should.
That said, I won't accept gay's attacking Christians for disagreeing with their lifestyle choice. I also won't tolerate children being force taught that homosexuality is normal and fine when their parents fundamentally disagree with that belief.
First of all, Jesus was not "all about free choice." Where in the name of Yahweh did you get that? The Jesus of the Gospels was about love and compassion and forgiveness and empathy. That is the central message of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, and many of the parables.
Second of all, prophecy is usually read backwards, as it was when the gospels were written in the period after the death of Jesus and the fall of the temple in 70 CE, where the writers looked back into Hebrew scripture and used it to buttress their stories of Jesus' special stature.
And, it is "revelation" (singular), not "revelations." Martin Luther was probably right in wanting to keep it out of the New Testament. It is a madman's nightmare, and to read it as a map of the future is delusional. It has inspired nothing but hatred and madness. There were many, many apocalypses (and many gospels also) written during the decades before and just after the fall of the temple, and I'm not sure that we know why the one ascribed to John of Patmos was chosen as part of the New Testament canon.
People in the LGTB community and their supporters (I am one of many) are not "attacking Christians for disagreeing with their lifestyle choice" (I'll leave the quarrel over whether or not it is a choice to others, as it is irrelevant; and the choice of the word "lifestyle" is ridiculous!). We are protesting the fact that a fundamental right, which is endowed to us by our status as American citizens who have been granted equal protection under the Constitution of the United States of America, is being denied to those of the same sex who wish to enter into a marriage contract. What our founding documents mean is, plainly and simply, that we are all to be treated equally, and have the same opportunities to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not separate but equal - EQUAL . . . PERIOD.
And your last statement is simply absurd. I don't know of anyone whose children have been "force taught" anything about homosexuality. I am certain that there are many things that are taught in public schools that bigots and homophobes and racists do not agree with. There are probably many people in this country who regret the advances made by the civil rights movement, who regret the dismantling of laws banning miscegenation, who don't believe in free speech (unless it is theirs), who don't believe in the freedom to practice the religion of one's choice (unless it is theirs), etc., and, unfortunately, some of these people have children and use their own private bully pulpit to inveigh against people who are different from them. Unfortunately, though (or fortunately, come to think of it), these are only a few of the basic principles that are part of the structure of this republic that we live in, and, as a consequence, they are taught as part of civics instruction.
Out of curiosity, what other Old Testament laws do you follow, or do you just pick and choose those you like? If you're a woman, do you head for that red tent when you menstruate. If you're a man, are you clean shaven? Have you cut your hair? Do you have a mezuzah on your door post? If you're a man, do you plan to marry your brother's widow? Do you keep kosher? Do you leave gleanings for the poor? Do you eat shellfish? Do you light a fire on your altar every day? Do you burn incense every day? Do you ever embarrass others? Do you ever gossip about others?
Actually, this reminds me of something I vaguely remember from either Psych 101 or Ethics 101. A person who does something only out of fear of punishment or retribution is immature (Psych) or inauthentic (Ethics), or perhaps both.
And you're right that there are no "red letter" statements from Jesus on the subject of homosexuality. (However, there is a passage in Romans (1:26-27) that has been interpreted to mean a condemnation of homosexuality. There are a lot of passages in the Pauline letters that marginalize women also. And I have always felt that there are two Christianities (with a third shadow Christianity skulking around). The first, and to me, the most important, is that which is based on the teachings of Jesus, like the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon the Plain, the parables, and the teachings in the Gospel of Thomas (the Fifth Gospel). This is the Jesus Religion. The second, the one which gained ascendancy, is the religion of Paul, the one for which the teachings of Jesus seem to be secondary, but in which the teachings and organizing of Paul are most important, along with the power structure that was built upon Pauline doctrine. This is Paulism, the primary Christianity of the Catholic church and mainline Protestantism. The third Christianity is that of Revelation, which is responsible for a lot of great art and imagery (Dante, anyone?), some pretty scary sermons, some wacko fundamentalist sects, and Tim LeHaye. Enough said.
I think maybe because ...it would be bad for business?
How about that slavery? How about those blended fibers? How about those shellfish? How about all that female subservience?
DO YOU follow the bible 100%?
No, you don't. Don't be a hypocrite.
If a rabbi were chosen, then you'd have someone who has as an article faith that Jews were chosen by God to be separate from others, with special privileges and obligations. I find that idea offensive as well.
You can't have someone give an invocation and not offend some people.
Warren's problem is separate and beyond those core beliefs. But believing what Christianity means at its core isn't one of them.
He believed in equality for non-Christians, sure. But please present one iota of evidence that he did not believe the central doctrine of his religion.
Sorry, I know the truth hurts, but you really need to learn what Christianity means and stop living in a fantasy world.
That he was never asked it (remember Warren, who, again, I don't think should be doing the invocation) means the circumstances are different. Warren could have not honestly answered the question any other way, nor could nearly any other Christian clergyman, Catholic, Protestant, liberal, fundamentalist, black, white - again, it, unlike creationism, status of gays, kosher or non kosher, et al - is the CENTRAL tenet of the religion.
He could, had he been asked, honestly answered it any differently than Warren did.
My father is a Lutheran minister. He despite of that is a liberal, was very pro-civil rights in the 1960s. He supports gay rights, does not believe in creationism. He absolutely believes that Jews are going to be damned, as will anyone (including me) who does not accept Christ as his savior.
What part of this core of the whole religion are people not getting? Why are you denying this? It is what Christianity is. The sorry state of affairs is that you can be anti-black, anti-gay but believe Christ is your savior and gain admission to heaven according to the religion, but Gandhi and Anne Frank were damned. You can't be a Christian and not understand that. It is what the religion says.
There will always be people who are eager to tell others they are going to hell, but we should not act as if they are the majority or that they deserve to be honored at the inauguration.
The beliefs of members is not what is at issue. It is the belief of those Christian clergymen who could be invited to give an invocation. It would be virtually impossible to find one who did not believe that Jews and other non-Christians will be damned to hell, and likewise, if asked in a straightforward manner, would give the same answer Warren did.
Again, he should not be giving the invocation, but by the logic in John's original entry here, neither should virtually any other Christian minister or priest.
According to my understanding of the New Testament, which is what every Christian is supposed to believe in, the only way to God, and heaven, is through Christ PERIOD. And those who aren't saved by faith in Christ are doomed to hell PERIOD. I believe it is in the Gospel of John that the particular statement about coming to God through Christ is found.
I personally would be much, much happier if someone besides Warren had been chosen. As a Buddhist, I would love to hear the Dalai Lama or Thich Nhat Hanh or Pema Chodron. But I know that that would be as likely as having an imam or a rabbi. Warren is a bigot, and some of the statements he has made about members of the LGTB community have been disgusting and totally out of keeping with what I consider to be true Christianity, which to me is living up to the ideals of the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain, and the Golden Rule which came to Christianity through the great rabbi Hillel.
Sorry.
The only sign of his feelings against at least blatant discrimination come from:
1) His defending of movement leader Bayard Rustin, who was a lead organizor for the 1963 March on Washington, when other leaders wanted him not be be associated with the march because it was known he was gay. King's position prevailed.
2) One private conversation his widow relayed three decades later when she said he had inficated a concern about discrimination against gays.
Discrimination against gays in the 1960s meant something entirely different than it does now.
I'd like to think if he were alive today, King would favor gay marriage. I have no proof that he would have. And the idea that he supported it when he was alive would be absurd.
Rick Warren is just being honest in answering the question of what he believes. It doesn't mean he's right. It doesn't mean what he believes has any force or effect on who goes to hell. Rick Warren doesn't make the rules or the decisions on such matters.
There's plenty of evangenital preachers that believe and teach fat old Ricky is a hellbound false prophet himself, leading his flock and anyone that listens to him to the fiery furnace.
Whatever!
Is the Prezelect working for gay americans only? I thought he was suppose to be there for everyone?
Why is it such a bad thing for people of differing views to get together and pray in sincerity to their Creator for help? They're making an attempt to keep an open mind and work together. I don't think that's a bad thing. It's really a step in the right direction.
Throwing a hissy fit because immediate gratification is not realised is not becoming of adults but of small spoiled children and bratty teenagers.
"You can't always get what you want."
Adults deal with that. Brats throw temper tantrums.
It hasn't elevated his opinion or honored it so much as recognized it. Like it or not, it's an opinion shared with most of the people that voted for Obama.
Even if my life depended on it, I couldn't name the last minister that gave the invocation for the last inauguration or for any single one of the previous presidential inaugurations since George Washington . I would bet money that everyone one of those ministers had controversial views on who deserved civil rights and who didn't. From your writing and some others I would think the gay community was the first and only group ever to be denied civil rights in this country. What a perspective on US history the rights of others that is.
Thanks to all the hellraisers, Rick Warren will be forever burned into my memory as the man that set the world on fire by praying to God for Obama and the United States on his inauguration.
I'm pretty sure I could have gotten through the rest of my life without having to know that.
Let's see, what right should we deny to you. Perhaps we can take away your right to free speech, because you have (I'm just being hypothetical here) red hair, and people with red hair are not allowed to exercise the right to free speech. Or maybe we'll take away your right to due process because you are (again, hypothetical) left-handed, and we know that left-handed people are sinister and don't deserve due process. Then we'll take someone who fully approves of taking those rights away from you and others like you and give him or her a position of prominence in an important public national political event. And when you and those left-handed redheads complain, or petition their government for change, or march, or discuss your discontent with others, we will label you as a bratty teenager, "trowing a hissy fit." Of course, judging from your comment, you may well decide not to protest, so that those people who took those rights away from you might think that since things are going so swimmingly, why not take away some more?
are you going to hell?
short answer, "yes", with an "if".
long answer, "no", with a "but".
Just to give you an idea of how extremist Rick Warren's position is, 68% of evangelical Christians believe a good person of another religion can go to heaven. That number rises to 83% among non-evangelical Protestants and 91% among Catholics. If you believe someone is damned to hell, they become subhuman to you, much like how a racist sees certain people as less than fully human. Remember that even GW Bush has said that he thinks Muslims and Christians pray to the same God. Rick's position makes him a political extremist and while he has every right to hold that view personally, he should not be honored at the inauguration.
Why Rick Warren's acceptance of Obama is more important than Obama's picking of Warren.
In reacting to Barack Obama's decision to invite Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inaugural, the left has been focusing on Obama's decision to offer, while the right has been focusing on Warren's decision to accept.
The right has it right
Warren's decision to accept Obama's invitation comes shortly after the resignation of Richard Cizek from the National Association of Evangelicals for supporting same-sex unions. Although the left may not realize it, Obama's election will lead the more extreme right-wing Christians to purge their ranks of people such as Cizek--and Warren. Maybe we should encourage them to do so, for this will weaken them politically by drawing them even further from the center. But the better course is to help redraw the political map. This is what both Obama and Warren are doing. They are smarter than their critics on both sides realize.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=77a79...
Because of President-Elect Obama's choice to invite Reverend Warren give the invocation at his inauguration, we talked about certain faith-based topics: who is saved, who will go to heaven, witches, and others. There are many religious denominations that have some narrow, judgmental and ungenerous teachings. The people who follow these teachings are good people who, because of their faith, follow the teachings of their church. I think all of us need to be more generous in spirit.
I am a black catholic. I believe the teachings of the catholic church. However, the catholic church gave permission for the African slave trade. The catholic church defined blacks as non-human. There are many, many historical acts of discrimination against black people by the cathoilc church. But it is my faith!
In fact the constitution of my country, America, defined my ancestors (and me) as 3/5ths of a person. The men in my family shed blood for this country in many wars, WWI, WWII, Korean, Viet Nam, just to name the most recent conflicts. I love my country, and I would give my life to save my country. Sometimes we need to hear each other, and we all need to be more generous.
I am sure that President-Elect Obama realizes Reverend Warren provided a "set-up event" for John McCain to shine during the spiritual conversation televised during the general election. The President-Elect has apparently forgiven the reverend and turned the event into a teaching moment for the nation. Maybe this is what he wishes for this event as well. Let us try harder to work together, and let us not be the judgmental ones!
Also, does ANYONE have any insights into Obama's thinking on this. I mean, after him reading/listening to all the protesting voices. Anyone have an inside scoop on what he is thinking/doing....
Ah ha! Ah ha! That's it. The DC police have absolutely put their foot down and said that DC cannot possibly accomodate the 4 million people crowds expected for Obama's inauguration and that they must do something to keep people from attending. They wanted to set up fences and gates with machine guns outside the city to machine gun down 3/4 of the people who approached the city, but Obama had a gentler plan. Make himself a revolting figure by embracing bigotry and thus most of those who planned attend would decide to stay home and not even watch the inauguration on TV.
My guess is the bean counters in his new administration also said that they could not afford the bill for such a massive crowd and it would be cheaper to bury them in mass graves. So, you see, Obama just is choosing a kinder, gentler way of keeping down the crowds attending his inauguration and avoiding the bloodshed and violence that would be necessary if there were 4 million adoring people mobbing him on his inauguration. But then even digging mass graves for 3 million bodies would be a massive expense and others are suggesting cremation ovens and recovering the gold, glasses, teeth, shoes and clothes from the bodies to cover the cost of the fuel and even make a worthy capitalist profit.
Seriously, there's no other way Warren could answer that. It doesn't mean he's a bigot; it just means he believes that his religion is correct and that others aren't. It's a fairly difficult theological point to argue that someone is going to heaven by thinking the wrong things if he or she has been told what the right things are. If her version of Judaism had a hell, it might also stipulate that Rick Warren, by not believing in her version of Judaism, is going to it. (The Bible, incidentally, doesn't mention a hell or heaven or an afterlife, except that the dead go to Sheol and can't praise Yahweh there, so if Yahweh saves them from death, they can continue to praise him for a while longer. But that's kinda irrelevant here.)
It's a sad fact that religions are often exclusive. We have this culture of respect for other religions in the US, but not only has this ideal not been attained after hundreds of years, but it has to be imposed externally, because respect for other religions does NOT come naturally given the concept of what a religion is: a system of belief not necessarily subject to the world's changing moralities. I don't think that, for this occasion, Rick Warren is a bigot against non-Christians. He believes, as is natural, that there is a small set of ways of thinking about deities that are right, and that thinking outside this set is wrong and merits divine punishment. Blame his branch of Christianity, and blame him for adhering to it, but bigotry is going too far.
As for me, I'm Jewish AND I'm an atheist, so, to Rick Warren, I'm going pretty far down in hell. But since I believe that my way of thinking is correct and that his is not, I don't believe I'm going there, and Rick Warren will have only oblivion when he dies (unless Yahweh comes alive from the literature and snatches him up to the sky like Elijah). The nice thing about the afterlife is that you can't verify it anyway. ;p
Interesting that his church has a webpage stating that unrepentant gays are not allowed to be members. Since Warren is equating being gay with sinning, are unrepentant adulterers also disallowed from membership? Unrepentant liars? Unrepentant tax cheaters?
-
What kind of God would allow all those children to starve in Africa, or have to live through such horrors in Darfur? He loves them? With love like that, Observer, you can have your God.
You say that they are all his children? What would you think of a parent who would turn his back on such tragedies .. to his own children? I'd want him locked up.
Get real, man. Or else stop telling others about going through life with an open mind.
Thought not.
But, then, exactly who is going to hell? Based on what? Millions believe that it is you, in fact, who are going to hell because you don't believe in Mohammed's teachings. It's all so subjective isn't it?
Let's face it .. there is no physical "hell." And there is no "heaven" either. In truth, one has to deny their own common sense to think there is a "god" at all. Do you really believe that such a superior being would allow all the horrors, famine, etc., in this world? And if you were right .. then is not "god," who you regard as the source of all that is good, in reality, one seriously bad SOB? Come on, be honest with yourself for once.
In order for these "believers" to be believers, in fact, they have to stop any objective thought and strictly base their opinions on "faith." And what is this "faith" they profess? Something someone scribbled down at about the time they discovered the wheel I think. We laugh at those who think God doesn't want women's faces to be seen in public. How silly. But at the same time, we profess to believe Noah and his family was stranded on an ark for six weeks of torrential rains which, in the process, drowned the rest of the population.
Wow. I myself think of the thousands and thousands of poor bastards who didn't make the boat. Hold on, what's that you say? Oh, they must have been "sinners?" Screw them?
No thank you .. I believe in my own two eyes, my brain, and history and science. I think it's the "people of faith" who are the real "non-believers." They are the ones who insist on separating humans from one another - Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. - and causing much of our international (and, now that I think about it, domestic) problems.
In your heart you know I'm right.
I am really, when you start thinking about it, it is all crazy! I remember this song: "Imagine there is no heaven, above us only sky!"
I wonder if he circumcised all the animals as well.
Boy, you got me thinking here, MeFromPhilly. We better check our bibles, find out the truth.