Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Kevin McCullough :: Townhall.com Columnist
Why is Obama's Evil in Rick Warren's Pulpit?
by Kevin McCullough
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Rick Warren, the best selling author of The Purpose Driven Life and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on December 1, 2006. In doing so he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenant of the Christian faith that Warren professes.

So the question is, "why?"

Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit - a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition - to the inhumane, sick, and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?

According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the AIDS/HIV pandemic on the African continent. That rationale however is not only dishonest, but not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.

Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt. Not Obama's!

Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of scripture. As a state legislator he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium.) In his run for the U.S. Senate Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.

Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in their pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing, and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Barack Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage.

Barack Obama advocates continued funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there.

And most damnable of all, when a brave nurse named Jill Stanek brought about national awareness to a practice at a local hospital in suburban Chicago that allowed the starvation and neglect of newly born children who had survived abortion procedures - Obama opposed her. He opposed the right of those children to be given the chance to live and he advocated against a ban on such procedures - then known as "born alive abortions."

Even if they share a professed concern over the AIDS pandemic what difference would Warren and Obama's union actually make?

Barack Obama does not share a view with evangelicals in a belief of moral absolutes. Right and wrong are terms of humor to Obama. All issues are shades of gray.

So how does Rick Warren believe their efforts can legitimately be joined? And what does he have to give up to do so?

By scriptural standards Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms.

If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage" then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in numbers of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "try abstinence - but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom" what do you think the likely outcome will be?

Rick Warren's reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor's conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels' idea was to allow Clinton to "teach pastors" ideas about what "true leadership" was all about? (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a "life of belief in God." Obama doesn't let such non-sense get in his way.

Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008 and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly feel concern for.

It should also be noted that Rick Warren knows better. Both he and his wife Kay have appeared on my broadcast in days gone by. Through some of our combined efforts with World Vision, my radio listeners have raised literally millions of dollars towards the AIDS crisis in Africa. And the truth be told, evangelicals in North America contribute more monies towards the very issue Warren professes worry over than the whole of Barack Obama's liberal friends combined.

There is definitely something for Barack Obama to gain by appearing in Rick Warren's pulpit - the implied endorsement and blessing for the 2008 presidential race. There is definitely something for Rick Warren to gain in promoting Barack Obama and giving him time behind the altar of God's word - power and access to a future heavyweight contender for the highest office in the land.

There is also something definitively risky for me in drawing attention to the matter, but because I am compelled to do what is right -- and not what is expedient -- I can not refrain from asking the question.

My listeners feel the same way. They feel even more so that way when they are hung up on when dialing Warren's church at 949.609.8000 to express their concerns. (That was 949.609.8000.)

Whatever the forthcoming explanation is from Rick Warren, it will be impossible to counter-balance the rock solid truths about Obama and what he stands for.

And for the scripturally literate among us, Ephesians 5:11 says, "Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them."

It may be too late to alter a stubborn heart or mind at Saddleback Church, but the effort should at least be made. So I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama's evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949.609.8000 or info@saddleback.com)

Then gently remind him - that it would be sin to let him do so!

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "'Xtreme' Radio and columnist based in New York. He blogs at www.muscleheadrevolution.com. His second book "The Kind Of MAN Every Man SHOULD Be" is in stores now.

Be the first to read Kevin McCullough's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Evil
Careful not to judge. I had an abortion and I wish I never had the choice but no politician forced me, I made a bad choice. Because God allows everyone to make choices. I strongly do not advocate abortions but I will vote for Obama on for so many other social issues, including WAR(murders of so many troops and innocent Iraqi people). Not to mention mccain has supported abortion and war, and is not willing working towards solving legalized slavery and poverty issues in this "rich" nation for some. I just say becareful, how you judge someone for following civil laws that have been ordained. It should change but no republican president has changed it yet.

Evil?
Careful not to judge. I had an abortion and I wish I never had the choice but no politician forced me, I made a bad choice. Because God allows everyone to make choices. I strongly do not advocate abortions but I will vote for Obama on for so many other social issues, including WAR(murders of so many troops and innocent Iraqi people). Not to mention mccain has supported abortion and war, and is not willing working towards solving legalized slavery and poverty issues in this "rich" nation for some. I just say becareful, how you judge someone for following civil laws that have been ordained. It should change but no republican president has changed it yet.

Rick Warren & Obama
This article was enlightening. I don't know Pastor Warren's heart. We are in the world and we choose who we walk with. This article outlined the many reasons I don't walk beside Obama. Would you send your children to a church that taught hate? If you go there for 20 years, you know what they believe.

Is this author credible? NO!
In the last line of the final paragraph he claims that Obama "contradicts nearly every tenant of the Christian faith that Warren professes"...

Don't you mean TENET, NOT TENANT...

What a professional radical demagogue!

Love one another
"The pulpit should only be for God's ordained." I agree with that statement but I don't know who God ordained and who He didn't. Did God appear to every Christian in a vision and tell us the list of people who are His people, and the list of people who aren't?

Why can a pastor speak from the pulpit, but not another Christian who happens to be a politican?
It turns out the Bible doesn't say what to do when someone named Barak Obama wants to speak about AIDS. It turns out that for the majority of our day to day decisions, the Bible doesn't give precise instructions. That's where we have to use our judgements and our hearts.

Just because someone disagrees with certain Christian values doesn't make that person evil. For all we know, we could also disagree with somebody's else's definition of Christian values, or we could even disagree with our own behavior from time to time. Are we all evil then? The Bible says all have fallen short - it doesn't say that all are evil. If no one is perfect, and only Satan is evil, that means we all lie in the gray area in between. That means any harsh judgements of one another is misguided.

In this life, all we have are each other - and the hope of God's eternal glory. We should not forget in our desire to bring someone to Christ that we are also to love our neighbors. How do we show love? Let us not allow angry men to tell us what it is right and what is wrong. Instead let us ask our hearts and ask God to reveal to us how to love each other, even those who hold different opinions.

Dear Beardy,
The scriptures sum it up best, "Can both salt water and fresh water flow from the same spring?"

I will pray for Saddleback Church and Rick Warren.

It was fun talking to you!!!

God bless you and bless you always!

Meg
No, I'm not being judgemental. The tone of some of your statements have come across very condescending, and you have made assumptions (judgements) about me when you do not even know me. You do not know my heart. So who then are you referring to as the immoral brother?

Do not misconstrue my words about not having to defend Jesus or the Bible. You are right, we should always represent Christ through our lives in all situations. Like I stated, we agree that the word of God is not to be compromised. I have tried to stay on issue, which was related to Kevin McCoullough's article regarding Senator Obama speaking at the AIDS conference at Saddleback. There were many false assumptions and attacks on Rick Warren and Saddleback Church on the blogs. The attitudes of many of the bloggers have not shown a spirit of love or concern, but rather one of contempt. Why should I not refute these things that I know to be false? You talk about wanting to have a dialogue about how lukewarm the Christian church in America is. That's great. I would have to agree that there are many lukewarm churches. And from your comments, you seem to imply that Saddleback Church is one of them. I take great issue with that.

When it comes to the fundamental tenets of Christianity, there is no room for debate. We can have constructive and healthy debate about what is ministry and what is not (I was not referring that you were being divisive in this area). We can discuss differeneces in doctrinal issues such as the return of Christ, etc. We can debate styles of worship and whether it is a ministry so long as it is done in a spirit of love and respect as fellow Christians.

Thank you for your prayers. I will pray for you as well.

beardy
You just called me condescending and judging...isn't that judging? That is actually a comfort to me because Paul tells us to judge eachother and expel the immoral brother. Why?...because immorality pollutes the whole church. If you allow believers to live in their sin you condone it. It's consistent with the old testament, except that the immoral in the body were stoned to death in the OT. It's an act of mercy when Paul tells us to expel the immoral brother(not to be confused with an unbeliever) because that's the only chance they have to come to their senses and recommit to the Lord. I think it's sad that when I honestly want to have dialogue about how lukewarm the Christian church is in America and how they are substituting 'ministry' with the real work of the kingdom you call me divisive. Are we never supposed to challenge eachother to come up higher? You can't cure AIDS unless you get people to live inside the boundary lines of Biblical morality. Singing praise songs is not a substitute for binding the wounds of the brokenhearted? Which honors God more? Which more represents the character of Jesus? Which is a better way to worship? Your pastor is right when he says 'it's not about me'. I don't get anything out of singing a praise song. I'm giving praise to God. It's not about me.

You take heed my brother. It concerns me when you say you don't have to defend Jesus. What is more important? We should always be trying to represent Christ well where ever we are. Be hot or cold. Don't be lukewarm or the Lord will spit you out.

P.S. I have been praying for you and I do thank you for communicating. I think it is so important.

Meg
I don't have to defend Jesus and the Bible amongst the people blogging on this site. We are all in agreement that the God's word shouldn't be compromised, and I believe that most of you who are doing the most criticizing are professing Christians.

Meg, I see you don't have a response otherwise from my last blog. You didn't answer one question that I had for you. You are quite a condescending and judging person. Take heed to the sin of divisiveness, and do more praying for your brothers and sisters in Christ than criticizing them(that even includes Rick Warren.)

beardy
If only you defended Jesus and His book as tanaciously as you defend Rick Warren and his book.

johninoregon: Most of us writing blogs were educated in the public school system. Our spelling and grammar reveal how broken our educational system is in America. Maybe it's time we break up that monopoly and privatize education.

Christian "tenants"
In the first paragraph of his article, Mr. McCullough identifies Senator Obama as "one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenant of the Christian faith that [Rick] Warren professes." I didn't know that the Christian faith kept "tenants," but if it does, I hope they are treated fairly and humanely. I suspect that McCullough meant to refer to "tenets."

RE: Meg
I think our disagreement on the word “ministry” is less than you think. You imply, however, that being a part of the music team isn’t a ministry. Have you not been blessed or God doesn’t speak to you through the message in a song that is sung in the church? You haven’t gone through a struggle or a trial in your life where a particular song sung by a soloist, a choir, or a simple worship song hasn’t ministered to you in your time of need? You claimed that I said serving on the security staff was a ministry. Read it again. I never said that. I said that I served. It is a service, not necessarily a ministry.

The examples you gave as a ministry are absolutely true. I applaud you for the examples ministry that you have been involved in. What bothers me is your constant assumptions that ministry like that is not going on at Saddleback Church. You do not know me, nor our church. You do not know the many ways that I have ministered to people, yet you rush to judgment in everyone of your replies. You even imply in your very last sentence that I don’t read the Bible. How presumptive can you be?

You are right that many people are busy doing the busy work of the church and not digging into the trenches where action is put into place. That is a universal problem of most churches. Perhaps there are people like that even in your own church. I can only tell you what is going on at Saddleback. While I’m sure there are people like that, there are also many people who do more than just give money to ministry and actually are participating in the ministries even doing ministry on a one on one basis. And the numbers of people involving themselves in ministry are growing.

You ask why Rick doesn’t give 100% of the book revenue away. Meg, are you a reverse tither? Do you give 90% of your income to the church? Rick does. He has paid Saddleback Church back every penny the church has ever paid him in salary, and he no longer takes a salary from the church. That remaining 10% of the book revenue is what he and his family have to live on. Rick is not into material things. He still lives in the same tract home that they have lived in for years. He still drives an older model Ford Expedition. He doesn’t live in luxury like so many televangelists do. Unless you are willing to work and give 100% of your income to the church, you have no room for criticism.

You cited several comments that Rick made on TED. I watched the same video. While I was a bit surprised by him calling certain Christians “kooks”, that is a reality. Yes, he could have used better terminology, but you missed the point altogether. He mentioned that Jesus reveals Himself in far greater ways than appearing on a piece of cheese bread. He did not mention specific names and was using it to make a point, not to berate any particular individual. Rick loves the Christian kook just as much as any other Christian. Yes, some people thought Jesus was a “kook” for spitting in the dirt and wiping it on a blind man’s eyes. They also saw the result with the man’s vision restored.

You also misinterpreted Rick’s comments about wanting to do something about the widows and orphans before he became wealthy. God convicted Rick about this. He even has said behind the pulpit to our congregation that he repented for his failure to reach out in this area before now. For years, he was so focused on leading the flock at Saddleback and growing a healthy vital church. He didn’t conveniently wait until he became wealthy, but rather responded to God’s convicting him and leading him. If you want to criticize that, you are not a very forgiving person. I’ve seen Rick in action caring about the lost, accepting the kooks in the church, and about the needs of others. Rick does get down into the trenches and gets his hands dirty, not just providing lip service and money to causes. Who do you think provided the resources for Rick to do the things he has been able to do? God! And Rick gives all credit to God for the provisions of the ministry.

You remain very critical of our AIDS ministry. Why should this problem be left to social agencies and the governments? Why shouldn’t the church lead in dealing with this epidemic problem? Not only will the church help in the physical needs of the people infected with AIDS, but more importantly minister to their spiritual needs. Yes, the answer is found in the Bible. That is why the church as a whole must meet them at their need so that the message of the Bible can be presented. As I mentioned before, many times, the physical need has to be met before a person will be receptive to the spiritual. Our effort with AIDS is a ministry not just a cause. You can argue all you want, but it doesn’t change that fact.

This will be one of my last postings, hopefully. I have much better ways to utilize my time, perhaps ministering to someone, than to deal with people shooting arrows at Rick Warren and totaling missing the target. Perhaps all of you should spend more time doing the same. Have you spent as much time praying for Rick as you have criticizing him? If not, you may just be one of the modern day Pharisees that I referred to in my last posting. If you don’t like Rick Warren or Saddleback Church don’t go there. But just know, you are always welcome.

Blessings!

Dear Beardy
I think we disagree about the word 'ministry'.

I think your pastor is teaching a very thin broth theology to the world and that's why they love it and can accept it.

You say being on the music team is 'ministry'. I think taking care of an 18 yo girl who can recite the word of God in 52 languages forward and backward, but for some reason has chosen to filet her arm with a razor instead is 'ministry'.

You say being on the security staff at a church is 'ministry'. I think it's visiting the forgotten elderly lady in my church and being faithful to care for her personally for years.

I went to big church like yours once. I was caring for a lady who eventually died of MS. I committed to bringing the family meals and being with her. I was so busy myself and waited for help from the big church. They even announced it to the Ladies 'ministry' and I got so excited because I thought the women would jump at the chance to help. There were at least 300 women at that morning meeting where the announcement was made.

NO ONE responded.

I see Christians everywhere, busy doing the busy work of the church and no one seems to see the need to personally help. They'll put money into a collection to pay someone else to bandage a wound but they won't take precious time away from their 'ministry' to do the bandaging themselves. It seems we are gifted and anointed at music and preaching but we're not gifted and anointed at caring for one another. Everyone seems called to lead worship(and I mean everyone) but no one is called to clean the toilets of an elderly woman.

Even your pastor said on TED that he never gave any thought to widows and orphans before he became wealthy, now he wants to do something good...that's convenient. You don't wait to care until you have the resources to care. As a Christian you must personally care deeply every day...about the lost, about the 'kooks' in your church, about the needs of others.

I don't think it's a matter of being called. It's a matter of being able.

Your pastor called Christians who saw Jesus on a piece of cheese bread or on a piece of paper 'kooks'. He is a PASTOR and he called fellow Christians 'kooks' publicly!!!! I personally have never seen Jesus on a piece of cheese bread, but if someone told me that, I wouldn't draw attention to it publicly and mock the person...because that isn't loving, it's unkind, it's not gentle or patient. Some people thought Jesus was a 'kook' for spitting in the dirt and wiping it on a blind man's eyes.

When interviewed on TED, your pastor said he's not in it for the money..he's giving 90% of the book revenue away...why not 100%. I'm sure that 10% of the proceeds provide a lot of comfort. Wouldn't 100% be sacrificial. If he isn't in it for the money why did he draw a salary at all from saddleback in the first place? The part I really take issue with is that he equates his giving with 'service'. To me 'service' isn't dumping money into AIDS, it's caring with YOUR hands and YOUR heart and YOUR time for one AIDS infected person. We already have the cure for AIDS; it is found in the Bible.

Why do pastors write books? To me it's a distraction from the Bible.

Why when Christians talk about all they're doing it's always about them and their 'ministry'?

Your pastor says, 'it's not about you', but he brings the argument full circle to YOUR identity, YOUR influence, and YOUR income. "God gets pleasure from watching YOU be YOU".

NO

God gets pleasure from watching us conform to the likeness of Christ.

Be no longer conformed to the patterns of this world but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

Read the Bible it will renew your mind.


Re: Meg
Saddleback Church has well over 20,000 members. Not only would I say that Pastor Rick would be extraordinary if he knew everyone's name, I would say he was super natural. Whether he knows my name personally is not as important to me as the fact that God knows my name. I have been in several smaller circles of the church where I have spoken to Rick on many occasions. I even worked pastoral security for a few years before I became so involved in the music ministry of the church. We do have a large staff of pastors at our church, many who I do know on a personal basis.

You wrote, "I think a starting point for a Christian to be extraordinary is if they stay married and care for their children. If they can help their own children cultivate a relationship with Jesus. That's faithfulness and self-control right there." Meg, what is your point with what we were discussing? Are you implying something relative to Rick Warren or Saddleback Church?
We have all sorts of ministries dedicated to strengthening the family (i.e. marriage conferences, marital counseling, women's retreats, men's retreats, celebrate recovery, etc.) I would consider parenthood and dealing with the AIDS epidemic both as noble. Who are you to determine that? You were right in your statement, it is only a guess since you aren't God.

You wrote, "A healthy church is a pastor who is preaching the Word as it's written, without sugar coating, and it's received by people who accept it as the word of God without looking for loop holes." Amen! The Word is not sugar coated or watered down at Saddleback as you would like to falsely imply. You have absolutely no right to judge or assume that the people attending Saddleback are looking for loop holes to justify their sins.

Regarding your question asking if Rick Warren has ever preached that homosexuality is a sin, the answer is yes. So is the sin of creating divisiveness within the body of the church, which I have seen a lot of on this web site. He does preach on Grace and Mercy, but it does come about after repentence. Thank goodness we don't hear sermons week after week on turn or burn. We hear biblically based sermons on how to grow and mature in our spiritual lives.

You wrote, "We only have one savior and Rick Warren isn't Him. You don't need Rick Warren or any other pastor to be in relationship with the living God." You are implying that either Rick Warren thinks he is the savior of the world or that the members of Saddleback Church hold him up to that level, neither of which is correct.

Fortunately, Saddleback Church has several teaching pastors who are just as gifted and anointed at preaching as Rick Warren. Our church is healthy enough and supported by a great staff of pastors that we can continue to thrive as a church even when Pastor Rick is gone. We send him out with our blessings knowing that the real mission of the church is beyond the property lines of Saddleback Church.

After reading all of the blog entries on this site, I believe that if Jesus were walking this earth today, many of you would be criticising him for mixing among the homosexuals, prostitutes, the AIDS infected people, and all other sorts of sinners. We as a church need to be a hospital for the spiritually wounded, not a place that goes out and shoots them.

For those of you on this blog committing the sin of divisiveness in the church, take care of the log in your eye before you try to remove the speck in another's eye. You are sounding like modern day pharisees. You will do far more for the church body to pray for the ministry of Rick Warren than to try to tear it apart. You may not agree with his methods, but the message of the gospel is never compromised. Souls are being won to the Lord, and lives are being changed. You should be rejoicing. We can disagree, but it should never outweigh our love for each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm not seeing it here.























You made the statement that we need to return to relationships in the church and have healthy churches before we embark on curing AIDS. I take that to mean that you don't believe Saddleback Church is healthy, which is a false assumption. Saddleback Church is a thriving healthy and spirit filled church that has a heart for the lost and reaches out to the local community needs as well as the needs of the world.

Meg
Sorry Meg, no offense was meant(glad none was taken) but in actual fact the correct term does happen to be AIDS (Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). No unkindness was meant; several people on this site made the same error. I'd want to know if I were making that mistake when talking about a disease that impacts the globe on so many levels.

Pastor Rick does know my name, and I also know many people through the ministries I'm involved in now and have been involved in throughout the years, so what you are saying about me is an assumption on your part. I certainly wouldn't dream of making any kind of assumptions about your pastor or about the relationships you peronally have with people in your church since I don't know either of you.

Our doors are open for just the reason you stated: so that the lost can enter in and find Christ. Including Barak Obama, if the Lord is bringing him to Saddleback Church for that specific reason. I'm certainly not going to try to outguess God.

God Bless.

Dear Maria,
The very first thing you did when responding to my post the first time was to correct my english...that seemed judgmental, unloving, impatient, unkind...since I am a fellow believer. The Bible says that we shouldn't be easily offended, though, so I forgive you.

It really is nice to talk. It's nice to communicate, which is what Christians should be doing.

It's seems sad that you go to a church with 20,000 people and a pastor who doesn't know your name, and you're here talking to me.

This is a better form of relationship than the robotic, predictable activities of most Christian churches. It outside the Christian formula.

Jesus didn't have a big fancy church building. He didn't wait for people to come and find Him. He went out and found the sinners and ate with them.

We should imitate Jesus.



Meg
Meg:

You certainly have the right to speak your mind but you do not have the right to make a blind judgment about me or the way I feel about Jesus and God's Word. I find your closing assessment of me particularly offensive, since you don't know me at all.

It's exactly these kinds of thoughtless, emotional statements that turn a lot of people off to Christianity and keep them away from our churches, where they stand a good chance of finding the peace of Christ. Read the post from Rene on November 20th and weep: "Boy, there sure are a lot of condemning, judgmental people posting comments here. Many of you sound like hate-filled, self-righteous, pompous asses with not an ounce of kindness in you. Doesn't sound the least bit Christian to me."

Nothing you have said is news to me. My pastor and my church do speak the truth in love, not only to homosexuals but to may others who are living sinful life styles, and many people (including me) have repented and changed their ways as a powerful testament to The Holy Spirit's ability to open spiritually blinded eyes and hearts to the truth.

So please don't lump me into that nebulous "we need to" category you speak of. I already do.

Dear Maria,

Everyone is a sinner.

Everyone.

No one escapes sin.

What concerns me as a Christian is that defending the sin of homosexuality keeps those people tethered to their sin and comfortable in their sin. Gays and lesbians are guilty of all the other sins common to man. They have to repent. We're worried about their feelings getting hurt so we never encourage them beyond that subject. We are guilty, not them, for not speaking the truth in love because God loves them and wants them in heaven.

You can't receive grace and mercy without the law..that is chaos. When Jesus spoke with the Samaritan woman at the well, He loved her, but He encouraged her to change..."go and sin no more". We need to do that to.

Anyone who doesn't repent of their sins and give their life to Jesus is going to hell. How many more people could enter heaven if we were telling them the truth?

I have sins but I gave my life to Jesus, when God looks at me he sees Jesus. That's how it is with every Christian. That's how it will be for anyone involved in any sin who gives their life to Jesus.

Everyone should be assessing their lives and actions with the Word of God not the purpose driven life. You can check your actions every day and look for fruit...was I loving, peaceful, joyful, patient, kind, gentle, good, faithful, and self-controlled? None of these should be confused with condoning sin.

You defend your pastor and his book with more love and determination than you defend Jesus and His Book.


Re: Meg
Meg: (FYI: it's AIDS, not aides)

Regarding your comments to "beardy", I am dismayed by your rush to judge. It so happens, by the standards you yourself lay out in your email, Rick Warren is "extraordinary", having maintained a healthy, loving marriage for many years and having raised three children who love Jesus Christ and who are now passing that love on to the next generation of their family. I think many people who have hopped on the "Rick Warren bashing" bandwagon don't realize that people who know him are willing to set the record straight.

Where your logic for assigning nobility to tasks stems from, I truly don't know. Parenthood and Outreach/Awareness...both are noble causes. Who are any of us to second guess what assignment God would deem more noble than something else?

On the subject of sin, sitting right alongside the homosexual who may have been present while your pastor spoke to a specific sinful lifestyle were probably also a guy who lied that week to close a big business deal, a woman having an adulterous affair with her neighbor, a teen who had a secret abortion and countless of others who "don't measure up". I'm not knocking what your pastor said, but there are a multitude of sins just as offensive running rampant in the church body today.

No person God guides to church should ever leave thinking that their sin was worse than someone elses because they were singled out. No one should ever leave church feeling superior because they aren't involved in sins that are perhaps more visible than others. The pastor just may not have singled them out that particular week. It doesn't make their sin any less egregious to God. It's easy to hide sin. People - even those who attend church every single week - do it all the time. Even pastors!

After finishing his reading about homosexuality from Corinthians, I hope your pastor included Romans 3:23. That verse would include him as well as everyone else. None of us deserves the grace God has extended to us; we should all leave a church service humbled and thankful for God's grace and mercy. And yes, that is the message that is preached at Saddleback Church. Every week.

I would challenge you to submit fact-based evidence that Rick Warren has ever proclaimed himself to be or implied that he thinks he is the "Savior of the World" in either the public or the private arena. I've never seen or heard anything close to that from him -EVER - in 14 years. That's a pretty hefty charge to level against someone who loves Jesus and who lives his entire life to reach the world for Christ.

Rick Warren and Obama
Rick Warren is in the frog cooking business. The people who follow his teachings are the frogs, the pot of cold water is all the churches who allow his teachings, and the heat represents the opostasy and his underlying motives to affliate himself with who he feels to be highly influential worldly and ungodly people. It is so subtle that people are not seeing what it really is. It is a feel good, tickle your ear false gospel and by allowing such an evil man like Obama to speak at Saddleback only confirms to me that his congregation getting too comfortable with the water temperature. Obama is evil (how did he ever get in as US Senator) and by allowing someone like him to actually Saddleback sanctuary is an opostasy by itself. Should a warning shot be fired over their heads to get their attention before it is too late and Saddleback and all other churches following Warren (and not the REAL Christ) wake-up dead like cooked frogs!

re: Beardy
I'm really glad you love your pastor. He should do extraordinary things. We all should. It begs the question, what is extraordinary? You see it as hosting an aides conference...the world would agree with you.

I would see Rick Warren as extraordinary if he knew your name.

I think a starting point for a Christian to be extraordinary is if they stay married and care for their children. If they can help their own children cultivate a relationship with Jesus. That's faithfulness and self-control right there.

It says in the Bible that if God is the potter and we are pots, doesn't the potter have the right to make some pots for common use and some for noble use?

He doesn't say which jobs are noble and which are common. My guess is that God would consider parenthood 'noble' and hosting an aides conference 'common'.

We need to return to relationships in the church and have healthy churches before we embark on curing aides.

A healthy church is a pastor who is preaching the Word as it's written, without sugar coating, and it's received by people who accept it as the word of God without looking for loop holes.

My young pastor stood before our church a couple weeks ago and read form Corinthians telling us that homosexuallity is a sin. Does Rick Warren do that? Or does he talk about Grace and Mercy?

Grace without the Law is chaos. You receive Grace and mercy AFTER you've repented for your sin.

We only have one savior and Rick Warren isn't Him. You don't need Rick Warren or any other pastor to be in relationship with the living God.

I don't think Rick Warren feels inadequate at all about hosting an aides conference. That's a substitute for the real work he should be doing; shepherding you and teaching you the God's undiluted truth....

...and knowing you by name.

Rick Warren
Here is a link that everyone might be interested in. It is Rick Warren speaking to TAD. This video clip has made my decision for me. More information and my ideas on this will be on my blog. God bless.
http://ted.com/tedtalks/tedtalksplayer.cfm?key=r_warren&flashEnabled=1

RE: Maria
Thanks, Maria. I agree with you. I might add that there is a disclaimer on the program for the AIDS conference that not everyone will agree with all of the speakers at the conference and that what is said is not necessarily endorsed by Saddleback Church.

Reminder again: Barak is not speaking to the congregation of Saddleback Church. Most of those at the conference will be people who do not even attend Saddleback church.

Got it? Enough said!

RE: Meg
"Rick Warren is simply a shepherd of a flock. He's out of his league hosting an aides conference. Until he recognizes the voice of each one of his bleating sheep he really shouldn't venture into world affairs."

Out of his league? I can think of many people throughout the Bible that certainly felt "out of their league" when God led them to do something. The Bible would have an entirely different account of events if these people chose not to do it because of their feelings of inadequacy.

I thank God that Rick follows the Lord's lead and not that of what people think.

Barack Obama
Ok, forget what this has degenerated into, here are the facts: Barack Obama is a scheduled guest speaker at a general session during an HIV/AIDS Awareness Conference taking place at Saddleback Church this week. Scheduled to speak on the same morning as Mr. Obama are Sen. Sam Brownback, United States senator, Kansas; Kent Hill, director, Bureau for Global Health/ U.S. Agency for International Development and
Eugene Rivers III, pastor, Azusa Christian Community, Boston.

Mr. Obama is not scheduled to "preach from the pulpit"! Are we all clear on that now? Good!

There are also likely to be a fairly large number of people from the (gasp!) homosexual community attending this HIV/AIDS conference. I'm not seeing a public outcry anywhere in this forum to ban any of them from speaking or attending, although I'm sure you don't condone their lifestyle choice and/or some of their political views either. What gives?







Family
This is the reason so many families have constant problems, even Christians..Because they have their priorities all out of whack..
Many families put their children first when they should be third..No offense to the ladies, but they are the worst about this..Men are bad about putting their job or ministry second instead of fourth or fifth where they should be.
Oh, yeah,,so there is no confusion: A person's personal relationship with God is NOT a public ministry..this is a private thing and should not be confused with public ministry.
Until, families get their priorities in line, the devil will always be able to stick his nose in their affairs..to keep him out things have to be done in their proper order.

Meg
You are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All too many have their priorities all screwed up. They need a firm teaching on how to handle their lives. When a ministry destroys a family unit,,it grieves Daddy in a big way because He is God of family..That is why we are here!!!Because He wanted a family, Duh..
I have been taught that it goes like this::::
God the Father of our Lord,Savior, and Great High Priest is FIRST in our lives.
Our SPOUSE is second in our lives.
Our CHILDREN are third.
Every thing else,,including ministry is next in order of importance.
God bless..

beardy
Then you are not a Democrat:-) I understand what you mean because here in Louisiana to vote in the primarys a person has to register Democrat, or not vote. That does not make a person Democrat, the making of a Democrat is total support of the platform.
Perhaps I made my statement to ambiguious:-)
Oh, yes,,and the same goes for Republicans.
I care not about politics as my belief is that true politicians can not be Christians because their party is their religion..Why,,because they put their party before Father, and that constitutes the same thing as worshiping idols.

Baa-Baaaa!!
Mark you are so correct. I have witnessed friends getting divorced and remarrying other people in the same church...and everyone stays at the church!! They stay because they're heavily involved in their 'ministries'.

What!?

I'm picking up the pieces of their broken lives because they've made yet another choice. Wrecked kids, broken hearts...these are believers!!

You can't even teach Sunday school because you have to do so much remedial work with the kids. You spend the whole time telling them that both their parents love them.

It seems men and women should give up their 'ministries' and commit to their first few choices...God, marriage, family..but it's not glamorous enough in our glam culture.

Even reading the above comments, it's always about the Christian getting fed and what the Christian is getting. Jesus was the servant King. He modeled for us how he expected us to live. Serve others!

Jesus does have a problem with sin. He loved the Samaritan woman and He forgave her, but He said 'Go and sin no more'. That requires a choice by any believer. I'm going to choose to do the right thing right now.

You choose to stay married. You choose not to get an abortion

Many Christians are Democrats because they want the government to take care of everyone. It seems sensible but it isn't realistic. Christian Democrats I've met seem jealous of wealthy conservatives. They seem to want equity. Rich people are paying for many social programs indirectly through taxes right now. If we make everything equal and fair who will be generating the money to pay for it all?

Rick Warren is simply a shepherd of a flock. He's out of his league hosting an aides conference. Until he recognizes the voice of each one of his bleating sheep he really shouldn't venture into world affairs.


beardy
Thank you for your well said comments. I could tell that I was being talked to and not at. I hope there are many more like you and I suspect there are. I am a conservative who was raised democrat. I vote republican mostly because it seems they support more of my personal issues more than democrats.

Feminist Churches
I do not wish to split hairs or put myself above another, but I attempt to record God's word on my heart to live from here.

I spoke to Willow Creek Church about their feminist ways, to several members, including Pastor Bill Hybles, but my message was ill received.

I suspect that God has his purpose to allow feminism ideology of divorce, abortion, leadership, and remarriage in his house.

Lydia
I know many Democrats who oppose abortion. I'm one of them. I do recognize that in the case of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger, that it should be their decision, not yours or mine whether they have one.

If change is to come about within the Democrat party, it will have to come from within not people like you who berate and judge people for their political affiliation. On the whole I oppose the agenda of the national Democrat party. There are good prominent Christian Democrat politicians whose numbers I hope will one day increase and have a stronger influence on the Democrat party. People like Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and newly elected Indiana 8th district Congressman Brad Ellsworth are among them.

DaieDaie
Thanks, you may be sincere, but you are sincerely wrong about not being able to be a Christian and a Democrat. I know of several Democrat politicians who are Christians, and I have the upmost respect for them. I've been a Democrat ever since I turned 18 (I'm now 50.) Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean that I agree with everything they support just as I don't support all Republican issues. I have voted for Republicans many times over Democrats in certain offices because I have agreed with a particular politicians stance. Why haven't I switched parties? Because I choose to at least vote in the primary election for the most conservative Democrat on the ticket. In the general election, I hold no preference for one party over the other. My vote is based soley on issues. Now living in California, it happens to be Republican more than Democrat on the state and national level. I could never give my vote to Barbara Boxer or someone like Nancy Pelosi.

Kath's Comments
Regarding Kath's comments about Saddleback Church: Our church does teach the Bible as the inffallable word of God. The scripture is not watered or toned down. Jesus isn't brought down to fit into the worlds mold as you suggest. Perhaps you prefer a hell, fire, and brimstone style of preaching. If that is the case, you won't find it at Saddleback, but that doesn't mean that the scripture is in anyway compromised. If that were the case, I would be finding another church. What you will hear are biblically based sermons that people can understand and apply to their daily lives. I've been there long enough and involved in ministry there to know that lives are being transformed through the blood of Jesus Christ.

beardy:-)
A person can't be a true Democrat and be a follower of Jesus just like a true follower of Jesus can't be a Democrat.
The common saying,'What Would Jesus Do?' pretty well covers it.
I find it best to be free from either political party, for each one has it's drawbacks, but the Democrat party(for which my grandpappy would fist fight a person over) has become the party whose platform is least acceptable. Abortion, same sex marriage, and many other issues plague their platform..
I attended Boys State in LA as a teen and saw first hand how it works and decided right then that politics was one of the biggest jokes on earth. None can be believed for they will only do what is good for their party..Politics has become a religion for many, replacing God.
If a person truly loves the Lord God and His Only Begotten Son, Jesus; then one must be honest with ones' self and bite the bullet and deny support to the ones that are trying to turn this nation into a den of whoremongers, sexual deviants, liars, adulterers, theives, and every other thing that Paul(by the Holy Spirit)said are unacceptable and should be put out of the congregation untill they repent and turn from the evil they are putting forth.

Scripture
Jesus knew all the Scripture by heart and rote as most young Jews did at that time.
this is how he was able to turn to the Scripture in Isaiah which states::::
Luke 4:17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
Luke 4:18 "The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
Luke 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD."

Have you examined the Torah? It is scrolls with no chapter and verse division..The scroll of Isaiah is the largest.Could you turn to the exact spot in your Bible of that verse without reference? I can't. This had to be the Work of God.

Barack Obama at Saddleback
Mr. McCullough should get his facts straight before writing such articles. Yes, Barack Obama is speaking at the World's AID Conference being held at Saddleback Church. No, he is not preaching from the pulpit as has been suggested. Rick Warren has never had a politician speak from the pulpit to our congregation. Barack Obama is one of a number of speakers at the AIDS conference who have a united goal of dealing with the AIDS epidemic. This conference is being held at Saddleback, but it is not an exclusive event for our church.

I don't agree with Mr. Obama's politics even though I am a Democrat(can it be possible to be a Democrat and Christian?). However, there is nothing compromising about him being one of many speakers at an AIDS conference.

For the past week, the receptionists at our church office have received some of the most rude and vicious phone calls from people who purport to be Christians. Unless these people are members of Saddleback Church, it quite frankly is none of their business. Even then the demeanor displayed by these people would have been inappropriate.

We have had well known pastors, celebrities, and politicians alike who have visited Saddleback Church. Not once have I ever seen Pastor Rick acknowledge there presence from the pulpit.

I've grown up in church, mostly conservative churches, and have been a member of Saddleback Church for several years now. It is the most missions minded and evangelistic outreaching of any church that I know. I'm at Saddleback not because of Rick Warren, but because of the people and the ministry opportunities that it affords. The teachings at Saddleback not only from Pastor Rick but all of the pastors are Biblical and presented in a way that can be applied to my daily life. I am proud to say that Rick Warren is my pastor. For anyone to berate him and to put down our church and its ministry surely doesn't know Rick or the church as they really are.

After reading this article and from reading some of the posting of comments, I am convinced that there are some, Mr. McCullough included, who will have to have a straight jacket put on them in heaven until they get over the shock of who else made it.

Here:-)
selmo writes: 5:47 PM
how do you know....
when God revealed to Jesus that judas would betray him? he was born with this knowledge? or did God enlighten Him during His prayer session?
if you have a cd of the bible, punch in "jesus hell", "jesus heaven". i would be interested in that fact.
John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

how do you know....
when God revealed to Jesus that judas would betray him? he was born with this knowledge? or did God enlighten Him during His prayer session?
if you have a cd of the bible, punch in "jesus hell", "jesus heaven". i would be interested in that fact.

Addition, please:-)
Bipsy Quee writes: 9:19 AM
So should you, Matthew
The Jesus you and Rick Warren promote never existed.

The real Jesus spoke more of Hell than He did of Heaven. Remember, Jesus did not "discover" Judas would betray Him; He knew it from the beginning and allowed him to continue in his blindness SO THAT THE SCRIPTURE MIGHT BE FULLFILLED.
Caps are my addition. Daie


Scott
Well said!
The perversion of many denominations has led many astray and caused them to be in danger of missing the one event that no believer should miss,,the Rapture. As with the parable of the Ten Virgins, half would not enter into the Bridal Chamber. Many will be told,'I never knew you.' and will have to suffer along with the rest of the world. A Word from Jeremiah:::
Jer 16:1 The word of the LORD also came to me, saying,
Jer 16:2 "You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place."
Jer 16:3 For thus says the LORD concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place, and concerning their mothers who bore them and their fathers who begot them in this land:
Jer 16:4 "They shall die gruesome deaths; they shall not be lamented nor shall they be buried, but they shall be like refuse on the face of the earth. They shall be consumed by the sword and by famine, and their corpses shall be meat for the birds of heaven and for the beasts of the earth."
Jer 16:5 For thus says the LORD: "Do not enter the house of mourning, nor go to lament or bemoan them; for I have taken away My peace from this people," says the LORD, "lovingkindness and mercies.
Jer 16:6 "Both the great and the small shall die in this land. They shall not be buried; neither shall men lament for them, cut themselves, nor make themselves bald for them.
Jer 16:7 "Nor shall men break bread in mourning for them, to comfort them for the dead; nor shall men give them the cup of consolation to drink for their father or their mother.
Jer 16:8 "Also you shall not go into the house of feasting to sit with them, to eat and drink."
Jer 16:9 For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: "Behold, I will cause to cease from this place, before your eyes and in your days, the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride.
Jer 16:10 "And it shall be, when you show this people all these words, and they say to you, 'Why has the LORD pronounced all this great disaster against us? Or what is our iniquity? Or what is our sin that we have committed against the LORD our God?'
Jer 16:11 "then you shall say to them, 'Because your fathers have forsaken Me,' says the LORD; 'they have walked after other gods and have served them and worshiped them, and have forsaken Me and not kept My law.
Jer 16:12 'And you have done worse than your fathers, for behold, each one follows the dictates of his own evil heart, so that no one listens to Me.
Jer 16:13 'Therefore I will cast you out of this land into a land that you do not know, neither you nor your fathers; and there you shall serve other gods day and night, where I will not show you favor.'
Jer 16:14 "Therefore behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that it shall no more be said, 'The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,'
Jer 16:15 "but, 'The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.' For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers.
Jer 16:16 "Behold, I will send for many fishermen," says the LORD, "and they shall fish them; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain and every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks.
Jer 16:17 "For My eyes are on all their ways; they are not hidden from My face, nor is their iniquity hidden from My eyes.
Jer 16:18 "And first I will repay double for their iniquity and their sin, because they have defiled My land; they have filled My inheritance with the carcasses of their detestable and abominable idols."
Jer 16:19 O LORD, my strength and my fortress, My refuge in the day of affliction, The Gentiles shall come to You From the ends of the earth and say, "Surely our fathers have inherited lies, Worthlessness and unprofitable things."
Jer 16:20 Will a man make gods for himself, Which are not gods?
Jer 16:21 "Therefore behold, I will this once cause them to know, I will cause them to know My hand and My might; And they shall know that My name is the LORD.
May the God and Father of our Lord, Savior, and Great High Priest continue to bless you with all blessings, Amen.

Karaoke Sunday
Christian churches imitate the world by offering a Sunday service bursting with qualities only the world values (because it's tangible and a substitute for real fruit). Like God needs us to sing Him one more boring song. I'm sure He's yawning up in heaven. Maybe He would welcome a reprieve from Sunday entertainment...song and dance and Stars!!! Are they selling tickets to see Mr. Obama?

What did Jesus tell the Pharisees..He told them to produce good fruit.

What is good fruit? Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-control. These are hallmarks of a real Christian, not how big your church is, or the professional entertainment quality of your music... not even the preacher...or non-christian speakers.

It's us!! We're the church. We honor Him with our lives. We try to be loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle and self-controlled...which goes against our selfish, stubborn nature. We change because we love Jesus...and often He's the only one who knows we've chosen to honor Him with our behavior and choices. That's real fruit and it changes the world.

Today Christians honor God with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him.

The fact that Mr. Obama is speaking at a Christian church is just more evidence that Christians are very comfortable having the world inside the Church. Christians should only be comfortable taking the message of Christ into the world.

Mark Ruffolo / Biblical church Part 1


Mark Ruffolo writes: “I desire a biblically functioning church.”

Amen to that. Rather than simply looking for a “biblically functioning church”, why not seek out the Lord’s church itself?

Can a man be saved, unless he becomes a Christian? (John 14:6 - Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. 1 Timothy 2:5 - For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;).

Can a man become a Christian, unless he is added to the Lord’s church? (Colossians 1:18 - And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. Ephesians 5:23 - For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.)

The Lord’s church was established on the first day of Pentecost after Christ’s resurrection (Acts 2:1, http://tinyurl.com/y8d882).

About 3,000 souls were added to the Lord’s church that first day (Acts 2:41, http://tinyurl.com/y6vrzl).

The Lord added to His church daily thereafter, such as should be saved (Acts 2:47, http://tinyurl.com/yxawvu).

To the best of my knowledge, these facts are not denied by any church that is serious about God’s word.

With hundreds of variations on Christianity, and hundreds of different churches and teachings, how can we know which one is the Lord’s church?

Is this not one of the most important questions we could ask?

After all, I don’t doubt the sincerity of many who believe all these different things, but they cannot all be right (Romans 10:2 - For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge). Thinking that every way is right is the wisdom of the world, the doctrine of relativism, the nonsense of “there is no truth” or “every man’s truth is his own”.


I contend that there is such a thing as truth; it is objective, it is absolute, it is knowable and it does not hide itself from those who seek it. It is meant to be understood by all, not just a select few:

(Psalm 19:7) The law of the LORD [is] perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD [is] sure, making wise the simple.

(Psalm 119:130) The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

(James 1:5) If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


The truth of God’s Word is a great and good thing, standing in stark contrast to all of the lies of this world. It is found in one place only; the inspired and inerrant word of God, given to us by revelation, collected together and contained within the book we call the Bible.

(Romans 3:4) God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The truth is not found in the wisdom and words of men; how could it be?

(Jeremiah 10:23) O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

(Isaiah 55:8-9) For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.


If the words of men go further than what the Bible says, they are an addition to God’s word with no authority behind them; why would God be bound by the words of men?

If the words of men don’t go as far as what the Bible says, if they come up short, are they not insufficient to accomplish His plan of salvation?

If the words of men are the same as what the Bible says, then why are the words of men necessary? We already have the Bible.


Is the Word of God sufficient to accomplish His will, or does He require additions (or subtractions) by man?

(Isaiah 55:11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

(Psalms 118:8) [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

(Luke 6:46) And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?


I understand that earnestly contending for the faith (Jude 1:3, http://tinyurl.com/y924db) is not simple or easy, particularly when there are so many different “faiths” competing to be heard. Any serious effort in contending for the faith is going to result in ruffling some feathers, certainly among those who reject God’s word outright (John 15:18, http://tinyurl.com/yn486u) but also among some who might otherwise be generally supportive.

God certainly knew of these problems; we are warned repeatedly of false prophets, false teachers, false doctrines, commandments of men, vain words and vain worship. We are admonished to “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” (1 Peter 5:8)


So what is a man to do? Does the Lord’s church, the one He founded in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, does it still exist?

But of course it does; the better question would be: How could it NOT still exist?

(Luke 21:33) Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

(Ephesians 3:21) Unto him [be] glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

(Matthew 28:18-20) And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [19] Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.

Surely it would be a mistake to think that either man OR time could undo that for which the Son of God gave His life? (Ephesians 5:25 - Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; John 15:13-14 - Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. [14] Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. 1 John 3:16 - Hereby perceive we the love [of God], because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down [our] lives for the brethren.).


So how can a man find the Lord’s church, and those who teach the truth of His word, just as it is written?


yuzzy
"Calling himself Afro-American is a sick joke!!!"

I wonder what his mom thinks about that.

Scott
I'm a little bit to the right of Willow Creek on baptism. While I would never baptise anyone without dunking them completely under water, I'm not so sure the quantity of water really matters.

But I'm sticking on the safe side.

Unscriptural Churches Should Be Honored
with your absence.

Mark Ruffolo / non-Biblical teachings


Mark Ruffolo writes: “I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such. After the church supported my wife's divorce from me and I noticed their sermons becoming ‘man bad, woman good’ messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from them.”

Such recognition of error is a critical step in seeking the truth. It would be proper to raise such concerns before simply leaving, unless you have reason to fear psychological manipulation (or worse) in an effort to prevent you from leaving.

If you are convinced that your church is at odds with the Bible position on such basic issues of divorce, abortion, women in leadership or any other Bible matter, you would be doing a great service to your brethren to point out to them what you see as clear error, and then let them speak.

If your church is unscriptural to its very core, it is not likely you will be able to change the minds of the church leadership by pointing out such errors, if for no other reason than it is difficult to believe they could be so far away from the truth of God’s word without knowing it already. If that is the case, they have effectively opted for human wisdom over God’s wisdom, and human authority over God’s authority.

However, it is probable that there are others in your congregation with honest hearts who will recognize the error, be grateful to you for pointing it out, repent, and change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with God’s word. Those brethren would want to seek a scripturally sound church with you.

On the other hand, if your church is scripturally sound at its core, and the genuine desire of the leadership (deacons and elders) and the preacher is to understand and practice God’s will as it is revealed in His Book, they will indeed be grateful for being shown their error. They will be thorough and honest in examining your position. They will change their beliefs and practices to be in accordance with their new understanding of God’s word, if what you are showing them is found in the Bible, harmonizes with the other scriptures on the same subject, and you can demonstrate that you have divided the Word properly. Such a congregation of God’s people will be interested first and foremost in understanding and following the truth of God’s word, not in preserving traditions and practices which can be shown to be in error.

There is no profit in practicing error, error cannot be pleasing to God, so what reason can there be to continue in error once it becomes known and understood?


Mark Ruffolo / Re: Willow Creek
Hi Mark, thanks for the post, it is always great to hear from someone who has recognized religious error, and who is willing to act on that knowledge, and seek the truth.

I noticed that you posted similar comments on at least two different articles/forums, and I didn’t see that anyone had responded to you yet.

I wanted to respond to a couple of your comments this evening, and I hope to follow up tomorrow with a few more. I have copied my replies to both articles/forums where I found your comments.


Mark Ruffolo writes: “http://www.willowcreek.org”


I checked out the link to the Willow Creek website you provided. Fairly slick at first glance. They even included some of the “language” on their “What We Believe” statement that was part of my own search a while back:

(from the website): “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible, which is uniquely God-inspired, without error, and the final authority on all matters on which it bears.” (http://www.willowcreek.org/what_we_believe.asp).
It is unfortunate that many try to trick people who are honestly seeking the truth of God’s word with such language by proclaiming their beliefs are based solely on the Bible, when in reality they only pay lip-service to that declaration.


Next, I checked their beliefs with regard to baptism:

Statement on Baptism Page (http://www.willowcreek.org/statementonbaptism.asp):

(from the website): “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies, the congregation of Willow Creek Community Church understands the Scripture to teach that only professing believers qualify for baptism.”

What does that mean, exactly, “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice infant baptism if it conforms to their theologies,…”?

If they meant “While recognizing for other churches the right to practice error if it conforms to their own man-made doctrines”, why don’t they just say that? Why not be honest about it, instead of playing PC games with the truth?

And if they didn’t mean that, if they meant that they recognize, condone and seek fellowship with those who practice error, then they have contradicted their own “What We Believe” statement mentioned above.


Next we find the following statement on the same “Statement on Baptism” page:

(from the website): “Willow Creek Community Church offers the option of believers’ baptism in the modes of sprinkling and immersion on the basis of a sacramentarian view of the ordinances…”

If they actually meant what they said in their “What We Believe” statement, they wouldn’t be offering options that cannot be found in the Bible, options which contradict their assertion that “The sole basis of our belief is the Bible” and that the Bible is “the final authority on all matters on which it bears.”

Finally, they admit that the Willow Creek church position on God’s plan of salvation really isn’t based on the Bible OR their assertion of its inerrant nature OR their proclamation that it is the final authority on all things. Instead, the Willow Creek church supports its position on Baptism not from clear, simple and God-inspired scripture, but on a book written by a man in 1962:

(from the website): “The church’s position on baptism is well represented in G. R. Beasley-Murray’s, Baptism in the New Testament, Macmillan, 1962.”

A scripturally sound church would not be “mincing words” on any of these issues. It would be forthright and declarative about what God says on each issue, backed up by clear and unambiguous Book, chapter and verse, in proper context, for every one of the church’s practices.

Barak Obama's strength.........
comes from being raised by his white mother! His African father deserted him and his mother(as many African men do)! Barak Obama is a White-American of mixed descent! Calling himself Afro-American is a sick joke!!!

Feminist Church
I am was a active member at Willow Creek Community Church. Bill Hybles, our pastor, was Former President Clinton's spiritual adviser during his eight years of presidential leadership.

http://www.willowcreek.org

I observe that Willow Creek condones/supports non-biblical teachings, such as, divorce, abortion, woman in leadership, and such.

After the church supported my wife's divorce from me and I noticed their sermons becoming "man bad, woman good" messages (read: feminist), I separated myself from them. I desire a biblically functioning church.

At the end of the day, a liberal church may be a place where people far from God start, not end up.

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/229

exposure of evil
Thank God for you, Kevin, exposing evil, like you do!! You're right about anyone who courts evil.

Probably even more important, i didnt even know that obama is such garbage. Who the garbage are, desperately needs to be exposed, so that anyone who hates evil, and loves good, will try to keep the scum out of authority positions. Already, there are way too many scum in authority positions!!

And you're right that courting evil is a betrayal by someone who supposedly represents God. Apostle paul addressed it happening in his day, too, when he said the scripture to the effect that some dishonestly present the gospel, but at least, it's good that the gospel is presented, even by them. (better, of course, if presented from decent, honest disciples of Christ, such as yourself.)

Spirit-Led or Purpose Driven?
Just google in, “Rick Warren and Berit Kjos” for exceptional, Christian insight about Rick Warren. After reading some of her very wise, well researched articles, including the lengthy ones, the Barack Obama invitation should come as no surprise! I began to question Warren’s modus operandi a few years ago, motivated by a Christian friend’s question: Why not the Spirit-Led vs. Purpose Driven Life? That article is one of Kjos'must reads to be examined about Warren in addition to others such as his P.E.A.C.E. Plan where Kjos concludes: “With management guru Peter Drucker as his mentor, Rick Warren's quest for reformation and transformation serves the UN vision very well. In fact, the two seem to march to the same drumbeat.”


Frey
Christians do care about all those things. They are going about the business of helping people all over the world, without expecting anything in return. You never hear about all that Christians do because the MSM wouldn't consider it newsworthy. A church here locally recently brought an Iraqi child who had been run over during a terrorist bombing and his father here so the boy could have surgery so that he could walk again. All their expenses were paid by church members and the doctors who performed the surgery donated their services. Our soldiers in Iraq do humanitarian acts of kindness all the time, but we don't get to hear about it. Human kindness just doesn't play with MSM.

Question
Not that I expect anyone to answer this, but:

Why is it that so many "Christians" are up in arms about unborn children, but apparently don't care about all the thousands dying in Iraq? Or the plight of the poor in this country? I respect Christians, but not those that ignore 95% of Christ's teachings.

Christians and Science, Jeremiah 1:4-5
Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Thank you Jack,Serious apology follows
I must apologise for the mistake which I have made on Senator Obama's religion. I am only human and wrongly stated he was Moslem when in fact he is United Church of Christ.
I do agree on the abortion issue.
Consider me reprimanded!

Jack
You could possibly be a Christian and a pro-choicer if you didn't believe that a human was formed until some stage later than ferilization. After all, we take the fertilization perspective but have no problem with condoms, because we define human life as beginning at that point. Not everyone is so sure.

Biological arguments really do go over some people's heads. And even if they do understand it in some superficial way, they still aren't able to weigh the evidence for themselves to decide which of two biological perspectives is most compelling.

That doesn't mean they aren't Christians.

We know someone has a heart problem when they admit that abortion is murder and then think it should be legal anyway. That isn't a crazy hypothetical - wasn't it Senator Kerry that said as much? I think there are others, too.

Lydia
I'm almost certain that everyone at my church is a bleeding heart liberal and votes Democrat. Yet I'm sure they're against abortions. But they don't care one way or the other about the gay thing and they probably, in their bleeding hearts, think that the Democrats care more about the little guy and the downtrodden and like the feel of that party better.

I KNOW you can be a Christian and be a Democrat. In my view, it means you're not very thoughtful when it comes to economics, politics, and sociology.

Obama's faith
FYI, Obama attends the Trinity United Church of Christ on the southside of Chicago. He is not Muslim. You need to dig deeper than the name. That is not to say he is a true follower of Jesus Christ. As someone has already pointed out; you can judge the tree by its fruit. Just considering his position on the issue of abortion, I believe he needs to examine his heart. I find it almost impossible to believe that anyone who defends the right to take the life of an unborn child truly knows Jesus.

Diane S
I live in Alaska and I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about. The clubbing of baby seals was outlawed on US soil in 1964 and to my knowledge you can't find a pup-seal coat for sale in this country. Oil drilling in Alaska is done in an environmentally safe way that leaves no discernable scars on the tundra within five years of the drilling pad being moved. I know this because I've been on the North Slope and seen it with my own eyes.

Caribou use the Alyeska Pipeline Corridor as a game trail and caribou population numbers actually increased after the supposedly herd-destroying pipeline was completed. Developing ANWAR in an environmentally safe way won't harm the caribou. That's merely an environmentalist's bugaboo to get people like you to bite and give them money and write letters as if you know what you're talking about.

There's a lot of country up here; most of it unusable because of permafrost or being mountainous, so if we developed the small percentage that is useable, we'd still have more undeveloped land than all the land in Texas and California combined. Alaska will not be destroyed by sensible development. It has been harmed aplenty by insensitive and uninformed environmentalists. It will continued to be harmed by uninformed Lower 48ers who think their opinion matters more than the real knowledge of the people who live here.

ooPS.
STEVE,,
Another point,,Obama is not Christian, he is Islamic..In case you don't know;;they are not the same..Duh.

Steve
Well, Sir, you have proven my point for me without me doing a thing! God is fantastic(Jehovah not Allah)!
I do not consider color as the basis for any discussion of this matter! God cares not of the tone of a person's skin but looks to the heart!
I never mentioned Obama as a black man! I would not care if he were purple with green polkadots!
It is his agenda I am discussing. Your attitude in this proves that YOU are the racist! Also, you assume in your statement that I would not approve a BLACK president! On the contrary, I would vote for a BLACK man/woman (Dem.orRep.)for president if I knew he/she stood for the concepts and morals put forth by our Father of Lights!
Cry and whine as you will but Obama will not be elected in 2008 standing on his Moslem platform.
By the way, God is not Democrat or Republican or any other political party! He is above politics! He does not need politics! :-)
THANKS,LYDIA AND KATH:-)

Warren was Wrong
As a pastors wife for over 25 years, I was shocked that Pastor Rick Warren would allow Obama to speak from the pulpit. It doesn't matter if anyone reading is Christian or non-Christian, liberal or conservative. What matters is that Rick Warren is a pastor, and as a pastor it is his responsibility to protect the people in his church by teaching them the Bible. Rick Warren is a new breed of pastor - part of the "emergent church" and "user-friendly" churches. They don't believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God. They tone it down so it will appeal to the masses. They try to make Jesus fit into the world's mold instead of the right way to do it - having Jesus fill that emptiness in the soul of every human being. Having a nice church building, a huge worship team that is professional, an espresso bar available after church and other ways to draw people to church are doing more harm to the Gospel than good.

Mr. Obama's convictions go against much of what the Bible teaches. He has no business in an evangelical, fundamentalist, Bible teaching church. Sadly to say, he seems to fit in fine at Saddleback....because the truth has been watered down in order to appeal to the masses. So what does it matter if someone of Obama's convictions speaks there?

What a shame. The Christian Church in America is giving in to political correctness and pleasing the masses instead of teaching the pure and peaceable Word of God. The church is in BIG trouble.

steve
Real Christian = follower of Christ, not Obama or any other mortal

Prepare thyself!
Gird your loins, Evangel-nazis!

A Real President is on his way: smart, insightful, funny and.... oh, yeah.... BLACK!

And, with him, real Christians will reclaim our faith from you Fundamentalists, who have managed to make millions of people actually believe that God is a registered Republican.

It may not happen in '08, but Obama's on his way. You have plenty of time to get your sheets (or passports) ready!


Judgement
As I read the posts here on TH, I realize that the US is headed for severe judgement from the Lord. It is a sad time for what is supposed to be a Christian nation:-( Hate is a very strong emotion and causes humans to commit atrocities each and every day. Closer and closer we come to being 'as in the days of Noah, when every man's thoughts were evil all the time continually.' This just tells me that 'the end of the age' is soon to come. Also, helping the people that have Aid/Hiv is one thing, forcing pagan beliefs, homosexual agenda, and other immoral practices on our school children is another. God is very clear on His(not her or it) views on these things. He is also very clear about what He will do about a nation which condones these practices. Every single nation that have let these things become a part of every day life were destroyed. I do not hate homos, Moslems, Wiccans, Buddists, Hindus, etc..but I do not desire for their ways to be forced upon anyone.
Katrina wiped out one of the oldest sin capitals of this nation. God scattered the Jews to all ends of the earth for their disobedience about the seventh year sabbath for the land. Just how will He judge this nation? Selah

Brigitte Gabriel
Brigitte Gabriel gives much information on Islam which is needed by the US at this time.

http://americancongressfortruth.com/

Maybe if enough people will read and digest this info, the influence of Islam on the US can be curtailed and stopped. If not, they will want us to give them land here for a nation, like they are doing in Israel:-)

For the record...
Obama is NOT speaking to the Saddleback Chruch Congregation during a church service, but to a mix of people passionate about eradicating HIV/AIDS during the Race Against Time Global Summit on HIV AIDS.

It is very dissapointing when people assume things and then go on to write a whole article based on those misconceptions.

I just wanted to say...
Well I have read what everyone has been saying about Obama speaking at Rick Warren's church. At my church the one thing that our Bishop would not allow is to let just anyone speak from the pulpit. In the past years at our church, especially around election time, people that were up to no good would speak from the pulpit and talk a little about God and how they could better the state of Maryland if they had our vote. Well for the past 10 years our church members and its leaders have grown a little wiser and we pray before we let just anyone gets behind the pulpit and speak.
I do not agree with Mr. Warren letting Obama speak. God can take any situation and use it for His glory. Let your voice be heard by calling the church and blogging and those who know how to pray and get in the presence of God please pray for Rick Warren and Obama.

Satan is alive and well...
and using the frustration of Christians against them. We see such moral degeneration that we think we need to do something. Too many times we have a reaction instead of taking action in the same ways our Savior would do. I sure a lot of us, myself included, have said or done things we thought were in defense of our faith, only to have it backfire in our faces.

The sword we carry should be the Word of God. Only by knowing and carrying it in our hearts can we convince unbelievers that we are indeed blessed by our beliefs and not just "holier than thou, do-gooders".




reading the comments
Reading the comments here it quickly becomes clear why the electorate voted away from you people in droves.

Try not to totally freak out and murder anyone, OK?

Be methodical and gracious please!
THE METHODICAL DEBATOR

Christians often discredit their public assertions by (a.) presenting them in an emotionally-charged tone; and, (b.) making sweeping statements which without bothering to note possible caveats and exceptions.

The former provides secularists/leftists (my preferred term, as there is nothing "liberal" about most American liberals) opportunity to paint Christians as anti-intellectual. The latter allows debating opponents to raise exceptions to the generalities, or remotely-plausible alternative explanations, and thereby paint themselves as the more careful analysts and the Christians as sloppy thinkers.

In the case of Kevin McCullough and some of those posting comments above, I see all too many examples of a tendency to neglect these concerns. McCullough should note that St. Paul, when advising believers to "be ready to defend [by logical argument and skilled rhetoric] the hope that is within [them]" is careful to add, "with grace and reverence." Paul was, I expect, all too familiar with the tendency of those involved in a debate to lapse into what we now call "flamewars" and ad-hominem attacks. He is clearly advocating that the Christian debator be a calmer, more gracious type of competitor.

So: When you enter the arena, bring your well-sharpened sword (your best arguments). But don't forget your armor (techniques to pre-emptively undermine your opponent's most oft-used arguments). There is probably no more often-used debating technique against Christians, than to paint them as a crowd of mindless fascists, devoid of intellect or analysis, and whipped into a frenzy by propaganda. Therefore Christians should, as a part of their "armor", adopt a demeanor which proves this allegation false.

That deals with a methodical approach to argument in the public square...or, one small part of it.

Now, an even more important issue: Grace.


WITH GRACE AND REVERENCE

How to be gracious to Obama, while disagreeing with him thoroughly?

Well, one can start off by noting "there but for the grace of God go I": Were we raised differently, or did we have different experiences, we might not be aware of how inconsistent Obama's views are with Christian teaching. We might, in fact, support the same views: Many Christians support erroneous positions for years before some better-informed person brings their errors to their attention, or they discover the errors for themselves.

There are many men who supported Communism -- a system designed to reify hell on earth if ever there was one -- because of its superficial resemblance to the sharing of goods in the early Christian church. In retrospect, this is the pinnacle of idiocy, but hindsight is 20/20. Mightn't Obama be the modern equivalent thereof? A well-intentioned dope, rather than an evil man?

I imagine (I can't know) that Rick Warren is using exactly this approach with Obama. Perhaps Obama himself will be persuaded to a more sound doctrine over time?


NON-CHRISTIANS CAN'T BE EXPECTED TO ACT LIKE WHAT THEY'RE NOT

As a final note, let me deal with those who say Obama's not a believer: You may be correct. What then?

If he's not, then we must keep in mind that his moral center (that which, for lack of knowing THE best thing, is still the best thing he knows) is going to tell him that tolerance, especially of all sin related to sex and relationships, is the primary virtue.

Should we not then expect him, as a flawed human being lacking the empowering of the Holy Spirit, to try to live up to the standard which is "the best he knows" ...and even, mistaking it for a truly worthwhile standard, to preach that standard as if it were morality itself?

Christians are, as a general rule, entirely too forgiving of sin amongst their own ranks, and entirely too condemnatory of sin amongst non-believers. So, some non-believers are (practicing) gays: Small wonder! What else did you expect? So some are pagans: How else are the poor saps going to fill their longing for spirituality? So some are hedonistic slobs: You were expecting St. Francis?!

St. Paul advises a church where a man was sleeping with his stepmother to "expel him from among you; do not even associate with such a man." But he notes: "I am speaking, of course, of people who are believers -- who KNOW better, and yet disobey egregiously. I am NOT saying you should avoid all NON-believers who sin; to do that, you'd have to leave this world entirely!"

So, if truly Obama is a non-Christian, as some of you posters suggest, then he is NOT among that group of people whom Christians should shun and condemn. Instead, he is among the group whom Christians should woo by their graciousness and friendliness.

Along the same lines, Christ himself (who alone could condemn the sin of men without hypocrisy) was gracious and friendly to a hated tax-collector (Zaccheus). Christ adopted this attitude PRIOR to Zaccheus' belief and repentance: these were, in all likelihood, the RESULT of Christ's approach. Who are we to do any differently?

response to patsyp
Patsyp: The command to “Do unto others as you have them do unto you” isn’t about tricking someone into engaging in a behavior that you enjoy. It’s about treating people with respect. Which is the way that you, presumably, would want to be treated as well. Surreptitiously dropping acid into someone’s drink just because you enjoy the effect isn’t respectful, it’s selfish, the exact opposite of that which the scripture commands. Your logic in this particular case is flawed.

Phylo: I guess my point is that it isn't always possible to know how other people would like to be treated, and it's quite possible that in following this rule blindly one could make false assumptions about how another person would like to be treated, leading to a bad result.

Medivil (sp?) doctors are perhaps a better example. In many cases they were treating patients with what they presumed to be the best possible treatment (bloodletting for example) and yet they were doing harm to their patients.

And there are some grey areas with respect to the golden rule; whether or not a doctor should prescribe pain killers for example. What if the patient gets addicted to them?

So, under certain circumstances, even with the best of intentions, following the golden rule can lead to a bad result.

patsyp: However, I believe that you’re on the right track with the statement that circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Sort of. For instance, the command, thou shalt not kill refers to murder, not to acts of self defense or defense of others. If you kill someone in defense of yourself or others the “absolute morality” of the law isn’t compromised.

And you don’t have to believe in God to believe this. Murder is always absolutely wrong whether you believe in God or not. Adultery is always wrong. And I can’t for the life of me think of a situation when stealing would be considered acceptable.

Phylo: I'm not sure of what the difference is between killing and murder. I've heard Dennis Prager make this argument before, and he says that murder is "immoral killing". But that's stupid; it's a tautology: immoral killing is always immoral, duh. So you'll have to give me a clearer explanation of the difference.

Secondly, with a little imagination, it's easy to think of rare circumstances in which each of the acts you mentioned above could be considered the right thing to do. It's right to do them when doing them would result in a better outcome than not doing them.

For instance, what about a situation in which a baby with a cough might lead to the discovery of fifty jews hiding from the Nazi army. Is it right to smother the baby, or is right to let the baby cough resulting in the execution of fifty jews?

And if there are circumstances, however rare they might be, in which these acts could be considered right, then they are not absolute.

Phylo out.

Rick and Obama
Thank you for your article. Thank you for bringing Obama's voting record. I have been researching Rick Warren and have been sorely disappointed in several areas. I believe that Rick Warren is sadly misguided in his attempt to battle this disease. I also believe that his tape recording is a "pat" response from someone who cares not for the opinions of others. It is a sad explanation of using someone whose heart is so hard they cannot see that abortion much less partial birth abortion is murder.

My opinion is that the pulpit should not be used to allow people that have voting records such as Obama to further their political ambitions. I am suspicious of his intent because he is not recommending that abstinence be advocated but to hand out condoms. As you say, in Ughanda abstinence until marriage is promoted as the best way in which to defeat AIDS/HIV. That has proven time and again to be the way.
I also do not approve of letting "Slick Willy" speak from any pulpit as his actions tell all.

Again, I appreciate your article and agree with you that this is very misguided. I also appreciate that you will take a lot of flak for this stance and am grateful that you published it anyway. We need to know these things so that we are aware of who we need to promote or demote.

I pass these along to all of my friends who pass them to their friends, etc., etc.

Obama
Someone posted that Obama is "born-again and attends church" and indicates that means he's a Christian. Saying you're born again does not mean you are. Attending church does not make you a Christian. What makes you a Christian is admitting that you're a sinner and outside of the will of God, believing that God through Christ can forgive your sin and make you right with Him, and confessing that you've undergone the first two requirements. It is followed by fruit of the Spirit. The Christian is called to obey God, first and foremost.

From Scripture we can see that abortion, sexual immorality and the starving of babies is immoral. That Obama has supported these activities with attempted legislation to permit them says he's outside of the will of God as described in Scripture. He can go to church as often as he wants and walk the aisle everytime, but if it doesn't reform his spirit, he's not a Christian.

That is not to say that he doesn't have worthwhile things to say about AIDS in Africa. I will have to check out Saddlebacks website to see the specifics. Our pastor has allowed non-Christians to come speak to our congregation for number of purposes. Sunday mornings are for evangelism, but during discipleship times, it would not be unheard of for us to hear from an outside speaker. If that is the case, this is a tempest in a teapot, although I would recommend Pastor Warren seriously consider the long-term propaganda fodder Obama might glean from this visit. Just a thought!

Rick Warren/Barak Obama
Boy, there sure are a lot of condemning, judgmental people posting comments here. Many of you sound like hate-filled, self-righteous, pompous asses with not an ounce of kindness in you. Doesn't sound the least bit Christian to me.

A Little Dramatic
Shouldn't this guy be out on a ledge somewhere?

Author is Correct in His Assessment
Franklin Graham of Samaritan's Purse is a far stronger advocate for the cause of HIV/AIDS in Africa than Obama (who sadly to say, is a Senator from my state). Graham has been speaking out on this strongly for years...as well as raising money and providing aid for Aids victims through his mission. He would be a fitting and far more qualified person in the pulpit of any evangelical church around the world on this subject as well as the subject of the Christian's proper view of this issue. If Warren is wanting to be grandeouse, to me Graham fits the bill. But if "edgy" is what Warren wants, go w/Bono. He at least professes to be and hold the values of a Christian. By having Obama in the pulpit, he is confusing the issue by appearing to condone Obama's politics. Perhaps Warren needs sound Biblical and practical counseling from some more learned and spiritual leaders. "Pride cometh before a fall."

response to phylo
Response to Phylo

dullhammer: And love your neighbor as yourself." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." When should I not obey that law?"

Phylo: If, unbeknownst to me, someone gave me psychadelic "acid" and I genuinely believed that it was a mind expanding experience, should I serupticiously drop acid into the drinks of everyone I know?

This statement, Phylo, indicates to me that you don’t have a clear understanding of the scriptures. The command to “Do unto others as you have them do unto you” isn’t about tricking someone into engaging in a behavior that you enjoy. It’s about treating people with respect. Which is the way that you, presumably, would want to be treated as well. Surreptitiously dropping acid into someone’s drink just because you enjoy the effect isn’t respectful, it’s selfish, the exact opposite of that which the scripture commands. Your logic in this particular case is flawed.

However, I believe that you’re on the right track with the statement that circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Sort of. For instance, the command, thou shalt not kill refers to murder, not to acts of self defense or defense of others. If you kill someone in defense of yourself or others the “absolute morality” of the law isn’t compromised. And you don’t have to believe in God to believe this. Murder is always absolutely wrong whether you believe in God or not. Adultery is always wrong. And I can’t for the life of me think of a situation when stealing would be considered acceptable.

I agree with dullhammer that there are absolutes when it comes to morality. I believe it all comes down to respect for others or, as scripture puts it, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

PP

Democratic Party Leader activities
The more I learn of the beliefs and actions of those calling themselves 'Democrats', the more it makes one believe that 'Democrats' are actually closet atheists.

back to Rick
As for Rick Warren: I would at least like to hear from him on this matter before I launch into a dismissal or condemnation in public.



Rick Warran and Barak Osama Obama
It will never cease to amaze me how easily the citizenry is seduced by silver-tounged, slick politicians whose warm and fuzzy rhetoric is shallow and vapid.

Barak Obama not only has never discussed, in any depth worthy of a man seeking higher office, his position on vital public policy matters of our time, he is also mispositioned on social issues such as abortion rights (a misnomer because the baby does not have any "rights)and the rabid, radical homosexual lobby.

Shame on Rick Warren for pandering to this pathetic pol. Warren has shown a tremendous lack in judgment.

Why do you paint Rick Warren as greedy?
A few comments here have painted Rick Warren as someone who is only out to fill his pockets - I believe that is patently false. He saw a need for spiritual teaching and leadership, and he was rewarded with money and notoriety. What did he do with these riches received? He prayed to God and studied the Bible to find out. This is in Rick's own words:

So I began to ask God what He wanted me to do with this money, notoriety and influence. He gave me two different passages that helped me decide what to do, II Corinthians 9 and Psalm 72.
First, in spite of all the money coming in, we would not change our lifestyle one bit. We made no major purchases.
Second, about midway through last year, I stopped taking a salary from the church.
Third, we set up foundations to fund an initiative we call The Peace Plan to plant churches, equip leaders, assist the poor, care for the sick, and educate the next generation.
Fourth, I added up all that the church had paid me in the 24 years since I started the church, and I gave it all back.
It was liberating to be able to serve God for free.
We need to ask ourselves: Am I going to live for possessions?
Popularity?
Am I going to be driven by pressures? Guilt?
Bitterness? Materialism?
Or am I going to be driven by God's purposes (for my life)?
When I get up in the morning, I sit on the side of my bed and say, God, if I don't get anything else done today, I want to know You more and love You better.
God didn't put me on earth just to fulfill a to-do list. He's more interested in what I am than what I do. That's why we're called human beings, not human doings.
Happy moments, PRAISE GOD.
Difficult moments, SEEK GOD.
Quiet moments, WORSHIP GOD.
Painful moments, TRUST GOD.
Every moment, THANK GOD.

There is no greed here for a man who gives 24 years of salary back to the church he founded. Do you ever hear a secular person doing this? Never -

I think he is wrong to invite Osama to speak at his pulpit though, for he doesn't share an evangelical view, and should not be raised up for his violent support of killing the innocent babies - God's children.

dlhutton1s, evidence and faith
Your view of faith is too low; your view of evidence is too high.

Evidence goes nowhere of any importance without some employment of faith. Warren Buffett gets as much evidence as he can before he makes an investment of his paper. And that is wise. But in the end he employs faith when he spends it . . . or gives it away. Faith is faith. The only difference is the object (and evidence) it is based upon.

You dismiss biblical faith because you can not see any meaningful connection between then and now. I see an unending source of such connections from Genesis to Revelation. And a constant stream of evidence supporting the veracity and value of what it teaches. Not the least of which is: how to be forgiven for when we fail our own ethical standards, let alone God’s.

We disagree. And I, too, appreciate the civil tone. Appropriate, wouldn’t you say, given the subject?

Bring it on, Kevin!!
Reading through the posts here it almost appears Rick Warren awarded certain members of his congregation with tootsie rolls to do damage control.

Here's where the rubber meets the road: Would a truly Christian minister ever allow a public figure aiming for a presidential run - who supports the partial delivery of a fully developed child with the crushing of the child's brain and subsequent suctioning of the child's cranial matter - to speak before a Christian congregation in front of media cameras?

The answer is a resounding NO!

If I were a member of his congregation I'd turn in my departure notice immediately.

Judge not, some may say?

I Cor. 6:2 "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?"

Luke 6:43-44 "For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit."

Spout all the rhetoric you want, but the fruits are very visible for all to see.

The video footage of this is going to be used by MSM to try and sway evangelicals to vote for Obama in '08. Let's pray Christians see through this manipulative effort by Rick Warren and his bud Osama Obama.

I've tried for a while to give Warren the benefit of the doubt, but this is the last straw. I wouldn't trust him with my dog.


Phylo, beyond the point
"In the case of "love God with all your heart and mind", it depends entirely on whether or not there is a God. I don't believe that the God of the bible exists. I think that is a bunch of foolish nonsense. So I don't accept this argument as evidence of a moral absolute. (If you think I'm wrong there is no point in arguing this any further.)"


You at least have this correct: it does depend on whether or not there is a God. What you seem to be reluctant to acknowledge, though, is the reasonable connection between the existence of God and then the reality of morals which could expand your sense of the absolute.

Interesting that you have such a reverence for the word "absolute" and for the "Now" moment of time, and yet consider the God of the Bible, who identified himself as the God of the eternal now with, "I am that I am," as being foolish nonsense.

Such a pronouncement on your part strikes me as an overstatement of what you actually could know about God's existence, or lack thereof. Or at least it's a statement of "faith" on your part, with less supporting ground than someone who may actually know the God of whom he speaks.

I'm sure this is as far as we can go here. I'm glad you responded. Thank you for giving me some of you time.



Thank you
All this talk about hate etc is exactly what helped us defeat Rick Santorum. Thank you so much for your support; it really was invaluable.

Dullhammer
My argument is that Biblical faith is detached from the present world. I fail to see how a 2000 year old document written by men is salient to present day ethics. In previous posts, I argue that there have been improvements in Biblical ethics by western culture. Should today's society hold the Biblical ethics of crime and punishment in high esteem today? In other words, should the crimes laid out in Mosaic law still be punishable by death? I don't think that is very ethical.

You say that your ethics aren't unassailable but the foundation is. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. The only evidence you can point out that backs your evidence is the Bible, and it takes faith to believe it (this fact stems from the Bible itself Heb 1, even though I hate to use the Bible in arguing against it).

As far as your monetary example is concerned. I have evidence that money will be accepted in exchange for goods and services. The shopkeeper took my money the last time I tried it. Maybe you could argue that the first time I paid for something with money it was based on faith, but my parents before me used money to buy things too.

I believe in an absolute ethics, but that is not based on Biblical ethics. There are ethical truths to be found, but they should be based on evidence of the present world. I would also like to say that I appreciate the civility of those who have argued along this thread. It speaks well of the people who use townhall. We may have to agree to disagree on this one, but I hope that my arguements at least appear rational.

A correction
Actually, my comment was incorrect, as I responded in your terms. I think the biggest problem here is that you are misusing the term bounds. For there to be a boundary, there must be something beyond it, and thus, a bounded absolute is impossible in your terms.

However, you use the term bound when you mean limit, meaning a range beyond which one cannot pass, but which does not imply anything beyond.

I can think of unbounded, but not unlimited objects and ideas. And I can also see a limited, but not bounded absolute. An absolute can exist with limits as, despite your implied contention, an absolute with limits is still absolute within its limited field.

For example, "no killing" is limited to the context of killing, limited to those who can act, limited to the living, etc. Yet it is still absolute.

Just because something has a limited context does not mean that it is not an absolute within thos limits.

Also, your contention that an absolute has to exist without any connection to anything else is absurd. All ideas are relational, all language is relational. Without any context or connection, we would be unable to even name the absolute. That is an absurd extreme you create to discredit absolute moral laws. And it is a strawman of your own devising.

To be absolute, a law need only have no exemptions, contextual or otherwise. And, yes, the wording of the absolute law can contain exemptions (eg. do not murder is absolute, but excludes lawful killing), but no additional contextual exclusions may be added outside of the explicit law itself.

There is no need to think of "boundaries" and the impossibility of absolutes. Within terms of a moral law, absolute means that it is true on the terms provided regardless of any other outside factors. It isn't that hard to grasp.

A typo in my typo
One more try:

Sophmore

Not sophmoe or sophmory

Typo
Sophmoe, not sophmory

Phylo
Nice attempt at semantic distortion, but just because something has a boundary, does not mean it is not absolute.

If, as you say, everything is bounded, then absolute would have to be absolute only within those boundaries. To say we can't have absolute because everything has "bounds" is an absurd sophism worthy of a sophmory philosophy major (or an existentialist... same thing.)

So, how do these "bounds" keep us from having absolutes? If nothing exists beyond whatever boundaries you contemplate, then what bearing does this void beyond have on absolutes? If I say "you cannot kill, ever, for any reason", how is this any less absolute by knowing there is a limit to my existence? Or that I live in a shifting framework that makes up the current moment?

In short, what do boundaries have to do with absolutes?


Phylo
No moral absolutes? Then you must really condemn those darned Buddhists, who state there is an absolute prohibition against killing. Are you going to start preaching against their absurd intollerance? (And, yes, they mean ABSOLUTE... Just read their teachings. So, they must be worthy of condemnation, right?)

response to dullhammer
Even if God sent down some moral admonitions from on high, it doesn't mean that those admonitions are absolute. They are still just admonitions. Unless you believe that God wants everyone to act like robots and follow the admonitions without regard to the circumstances.

In the case of "love God with all your heart and mind", it depends entirely on whether or not there is a God. I don't believe that the God of the bible exists. I think that is a bunch of foolish nonsense. So I don't accept this argument as evidence of a moral absolute. (If you think I'm wrong there is no point in arguing this any further.)

In any event, it seems to me that you are failing to understand the true meaning of the word absolute. If you take that word seriously, there is nothing we can think of that is absolute because everything we can think of has a boundary to it. And because it has a boundary, there is a relationship between what is inside the boundary and what is outside the boundary.

In order to concieve of something absolute you would have to concieve of something that has no boundary and therefore could not possibly be related to anything else. But this is impossible because to conceive of something is to draw a boundary; it is to say I mean "this" and not "that".

The only "thing" if you will, that can accurately be called absolute is This Moment (or Right Here, Right Now).

If you'll notice, there is no outside to This Moment. Try to step outside of it and you'll soon see what I mean. It's impossible.

This Moment is also inconceivable. It's not possible to wrap our minds around This Moment; it's far too big and complicated and dynamic to possibly squeeze into a singular static idea.

The word absolute is the single most important word in the English language. And, sadly, it is also the most misunderstood and misused word in the English language.

I'm doing my best to save it from being lost in a sea of confusion.

By the way, have you noticed that, nowhere in the bible does it say anything about moral absolutes? That's because "moral absolutes" are a modern invention based on a misunderstanding of the word "absolute".

Phylo out.








What's really scary here
is what McCollough had to say about Obama and some of his political stands. This is the first I've heard where this guy is on these important issues, and since I didn't see anyone dispute it, perhaps they must be mostly true.

All I've got to say to that is -- TERRIFYING!!! Sheesh -- I'll take Hillary over this guy. I've never really thought that any left-wing dimwit could destroy this country (mess it up a lot, probably), but this guy sounds like he's got the potential.

Bad news.

celtic-dragon
Heh-heh! I try, even if I don't always get it right. Thanks!

Truth of the Matter
is that Biblical literacy would give people descernment of what is right and wrong. That would save alot of ink, in this case computer memory.

RedWhite and Blue
Shame on you for saying something sensible and practical! Don't you know that has no place here?

Weak Pastors
I agree that it is wrong for Warren to bring a politician into the pulpit who supports everything that contradicts a Christian worldview. I am tired of it. I was driven away from inner-city churches by preachers who loved to bring liberal democrats into the pulpit like John Conyers and Carl Levin. I don’t care what Bible verses you quote to try to justify endorsing someone who is pushing an agenda that is hostile to God and his Church. If the pastor is dim enough to let someone like that into his pulpit to speak, why waste your time going to his church?

Politicians in Pulpits, AIDS Prevention
Personally, I don't think churches should let ANY politicians or unordained persons in the pulpit. That should be reserved for ministers of the Word imho.

On the AIDS crisis in Africa, I've heard that part of it is because the men refuse to wear condoms (let alone abstain). I don't know why many conservative Christians oppose condoms and many liberals oppose abstinence as complimentary approaches to fighting AIDS. Why does it have be one or the other? I guess it's because whatever policy one side advocates, the other side thinks it has to embrace the opposite. I believe it should be taught that the safest way to avoid STD's is abstinence or monogamy with a tested partner, and that condom use, while not completely safe, is much safer than unprotected sex.

SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53030

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52969

He is working for the CRF, and the plan is to put Hillary in in 2008. Maybe Obama and Hillary.

Rude truth.

Can you say wolf in sheeps clothing?

The common ground…

Life should be the common ground for all freedom loving peoples.

‘I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live: That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for He is thy life, and the length of thy days…’ [Deuteronomy 30:19-20]

God is the giver and sustainer of life. Life and blessing are linked to loving God and obeying His commandments. The ways of death transgress the commandments.

The new culture thinks it can pick and choose from the 6th and 7th commandments. They both are to preserve life. Those who would embrace abortion have chosen death and are against the God of life. Those who would normalize sodomy and lie about its consequences have traded life for immorality.

Who is it that advocates abortion and sodomy? These things are the opposite of loving and obeying God; they are the ways of death. Mr. Obama is a spokesman for the new culture. He sympathizes with sodomites, but not with the victims of abortion.


As for Pastor Warren, the words of Jeremiah seem appropriate…

‘My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken Me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.’ [Jeremiah 2:13]

Is the word of the Lord exhausted so that the people of God require edification from a Worldly Wiseman? No, the ‘commandments of the Lord are exceedingly broad’. The Lord told Peter to feed My sheep.


As for Mr. McCullough, again from Jeremiah…

‘To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the Lord is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it.’ [Jeremiah 6:10]

You can write against liberalism and the new culture and expect to get more liberal hypocrisy, but exposing this stuff will win you the same approval that Jeremiah enjoyed from the leadership and people of Israel.

There was a time that Moses asked, ‘Who is on the Lord’s side?’ Many on the other side thought they were on the right side until they came to a tragic end.

The dreaded "a" word
I've read countless posts on TH similar to ones here earlier vilifying promoting abstinence. It's would appear that guttural hatred for Christians/Christianity is blinding many to sound medical advice.

The facts are that unwanted pregnancies and STD's continue to occur at alarming rates. Abstinence is the only preventive measure that is 100% successful at preventing both pregnancy and STD. Further, suicide rates are significantly higher among sexually active teens. Abstinence therefore significantly impacts this as well. We in the medical community recognise the benefits of abstinence. There are solid clinical trials that support the promotion of this therapy in preventing disease and pregnancy. It should be taught and promoted by all individuals and institutions that claim to be concerned about our young adults.

Sadly, despite the obvious benefits of abstinence over "safe sex," many in our society fight equal funding and promotion of abstinence mainly because abstinence is taught in the Christian religions. Worse, they try to block our young adults from hearing the benefits of this prevention under the guise of "separation of church and state." They applaud organizations like Planned Parenthood that come to schools and teach "safe sex" while handing out condoms with greater than an 80% failure rate (based on independent testing) We teach young adults that oral sex is not sex. The result has been huge increases in oral incidences of STD's, some of which have no cure. At the same time, we sneer at the wisdom of teaching abstinence.


It's past time to let common sense preside over our emotions. Abstinence is not a moral or religious issue, it is a medical issue.

Politicians in the Pulpit
I have appreciated Rick Warren's ministry, but this does have me concerned. I don't think it is a good idea to have politicans in the pulpit period - regardless of their party affiliation. I don't want to judge Pastor Warren's motives, I believe he does want to see the Body of Christ rise up to address this pandemic. We need to be salt & light in our world.

I, however, am concerned about Senator Obama's motives. I do hope that he does not consider this as an "endorsement" as the IRS has made pretty clear churches are not allowed to do anyway.

I can't even remember the point
Kevin --

Your web site is so bad that it took me 5 tries to actually post a comment. Are you trying to make it impossible?

You are a fool, and as the comments to your site prove, there are a lot of other people who feel the same.

Why don't you just give it up?

Peter Schmitz

completely off thread, but...
after threats, intimidation and the odd bribe or two, I have finally updated my blog. Many thanks to Jimmy Carter and Mountain Rose for the quick comments. For all of you just dying to learn more about the newest armoured vehicles about to join the fight in Iraq...just click on my name!

Mow, back to your regularly scheduled arguments, bitterness and recriminations....;)

Phlyo, moral absolutes and God
The weight of my examples is not upon my belief in the God of the Bible; it is in the reality (be it hypothetical in your case) of such a God. And you really are not addressing that. My whole point is this: if there is this God of the Bible in reality, then there are rational statements of morality which can be accurately described as absolute. The fact that atheist or Hindus don’t feel the convincing weight of this is irrelevant. You are saying that one should not refer to “absolute” morality. I could say, “That carries no weight to a Christian or a Jew.” But to say that does not deal with the real issue.

The reply about the acid drink also does not really address the issue for the one in question is in no position to answer any matters of right or wrong choices. He might as well be a cabbage.

I know it’s late, but I will check again to see if you reply— in case you’re interested.




dlhutton1s ethics and faith
Interesting point on the practical effect of moral relativism.

But you make faith out to be something detached from reality, or entrenched as you say, in a time not our own. This is quite unfair to the word ‘faith.’ It is not a thing only religious people employ. In fact, faith is employed by everyone who exchanges pieces of paper as if it were actually valuable for food, clothing and SUVs.

My ethics are not unassailable. The foundation of my ethics is. There is quite a difference. I simply work out my ethics from the position of the reality of God and my understanding of his best selling Book. And that brings us back to that word again. Both of us can have all the greatest ethical teaching in the world. But it amounts to precious little if we simply can not be faithful to what we know is right. The only way I know how to be ethically faithful is to know the forgiveness of God and to desire to be more and more like his Son, Jesus Christ.



Church of the Poisoned Mind
"Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst...."

Its true, Obama does represent the views of Satan. So does Kevin McCullough. Or any other flawed sinner on the planet. If you are looking for a Church that doesn't allow sinners, you are out of luck.

Besides, these childish hysterics have little to do with Obama, no matter his faults. This is just a little inter-denominational warfare that has been going on for quite awhile.

McCullough's problem with Warren is that Warren is not enthusiastic enough for his tastes when it comes Smiting Sin, and throwing the first Stone and all that. He just plain isn't mean enough to be considered a Man of God in McCullough's book. McCullough is a strict adherent to the Church of the Poisoned mind.

McCullough should put down the Bible and pick up the mirror for a change. As far as the typical rants about homosexuals go.... Well, if we were not around he would pull out some other kind of bogeyman to rally his fear and hate around.

Hear this McCullough. You are nothing special. Just another immature bully slouching across the playground. Boy George would kick your butt. So come get some.

Marla
"And it is wrong to kill animals for sport; to club to death baby seals."

Don't knock it till you've tried it!

Differing opinions
I am a conservative. Not a Republican, although I usually vote that way, but a conservative. People like this Mccullough spouting off that opinion's different than thier own are therefore evil are doing no kindness to conservatives or Republicans. I have numerous friends who are fairly liberal, and they find conservatives scary for this reason. Mr Mccullough is free to believe that anyone that does not agree with him is evil and the devil-in-blue-jeans or whatever, but it does make conservatives look like nutcases.

Wrong is wrong, Morality ain't relative.
Quote
HMichaelH writes:
MORALLITY OF BARACK OBAMA - OR ANYONE
What a self righteous loudmouth (another poster) is! Who made him the god of deciding what is ethical or moral? Everyone must decide for themselves the ethical standards by which they will live. Just because Obama's eithics differ from McCullough doesnt' necessarily make them immoral or criminal.

Let Kevin McCullough live by his own morality, and stop playing god to decide what is right or wrong for someone else.
End Quote

Cool! So if I feel that blowing Obamas's head off is morally OK for me, that means I can go do it. Thank you so much HMichaelH, now I can do anything I want.

Come to think of it I wonder where that babe with the nice butt and big boobs I saw earlier at Wally World went. It doesn't matter if she objects, now I can have sex with her, cause I have decided it is morally OK for me.

And there's all that money in that bank down the road.

HMichaelH you are a symptom of all that is wrong with the liberals. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It doesn't matter who you are.


http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html

Animal rights
To DianaS:
It is true that we should do more to protect this planet than we do. And it is wrong to kill animals for sport; to club to death baby seals. However, each of us has only a finite amount of time to spend on causes, unless we are independently wealthy. Each person has his/her issues to work in, give money towards, etc.
You said we do not need fossil fuels to survive. What source of energy do you favor? Not nuclear I assume. Do you feel we should all use public transportation and not cars? In northern VA, where I live, that will not work.

Funny how quick we are...
To point one finger, yet ignore the three fingers we have pointed right back at us, telling us to look in the mirror. I can't count the number of times I have heard Christian's quoting Paul. How many Christian's, including infants and children did he kill before his eyes were opened? We ourselves have not had such a picture perfect past; ourselves.

How many innocent children die each night from starvation because we same Christians in our Republican beliefs, believe they are not our responsibility? How many die of AIDS? How many animals are tortured because we refuse to stand up. What makes anyone think that God who gave us this perfect planet to live on wants us there to destroy heaven in the same manner we have this planet? Yes we have dominion over the animals, but a king has dominion over his people does that mean he has a right to do with them as he see's fit?

For everything you can point out to me the Democrats do and much of it I disagree with, as in abortions. The fact they are willing to die to protect a tree, an animal from extinction, yet could care less about a human life sickens me. I can point out things Republican's do that causes just as much death and add into that destruction. They don't want to protect anything other than themselves. I don't mean going nuts either, to the opposite extreme. But, we have to use a little common sense. We don't need fossil fuel, we are supposed to be the leaders into the future. We don't need to go around destroying the environment to survive. We don't need wolf hunts you can't feed your family wolf. We don't need to club to death baby seals for fur. We have other means to keep our bodies warm. We don't need to destroy the rain forest or Alaska for the betterment of mankind. There is a very good reason that rainforest is there. Believe it or not there is also a reason every animal we have on this planet is here.

We don't need to kill our food in barbaric ways and I am not talking about the hunter that makes a clean kill to feed his family and the animal isn't made to suffer. Go and see how the animals we feed our family are killed. Yet we say nothing. We don't need to feed animals food that is un-natural for them. We don't need to shoot them up with antibiotics or feed them antibiotics. We don't need to poison our food to make it safe for our children, when in fact we are doing the opposite.

"You" have to give people a reason to think you care. Want to know what I see as a line voter, although I am sure many of you could care less what I think, which is the biggest problem. Republican's care about protecting human life and that's it. Democrats care about Animals, the environment and could care less about human life. Which is where both sides fail.

I have given them the keys to the kingdom of heaven, they have chosen not to enter, nor to allow anyone else to enter...quote from Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls. I understand exactly what he was talking about...how easy it is for us to point out other's faults. To refuse to see the board that protrudes from our own eye.

Sorry - Retraction on Rick Warren

It was his good friend and fellow evangelical Bill Hybels

http://www.gospelgrace.com/falseprophets/billhybels/BillHybels.html

Read it here:

Willow Creek Church Welcomes Muslim Cleric's Perspective

Oct17, 2001 - Religion Today Summary

Following the Sept. 11 attacks, Pastor Bill Hybels, of the Willow Creek Community Church, was increasingly bothered by reports of hate crimes and misinformation about Islam. "I was so concerned by the gap between Muslims and Christians that I thought Willow could do something about that," he said, according to the Chicago Tribune.

That "something" was to have his church invite a local Muslim leader, Fisal Hammouda, to talk about Islam to a total of 17,000 churchgoers, spread out over four services. "There are some Christians spreading half-truths that the Koran encourages violence," Hybels told his congregation. "(When) you take some stuff out of context ... we've got major problems."

Hammouda, a U.S. citizen, an engineer and religious leader in the Islamic Center in Naperville, first visited Willow Creek as part of the church's world religions weekend in March. In one of his current appearances, Hammouda was questioned by Hybels, onstage in the 4,500-person auditorium. Hybels asked, "It appears that Osama bin Laden directed the attack (on Sept. 11) ... What do you think?" Hammouda said at first he thought "it couldn't be a Muslim," explaining that the Koran does not allow violence against innocent people ... "We believe in Jesus, more than you do, in fact," Hammouda said, drawing laughter when Hybels, smiling, ventured to disagree.

"Muslims consider Jesus and other biblical figures to be Islamic prophets -- though not as important as Muhammad -- and we have all the prophets from the Bible," Hammouda said.

Birdman here: The rest of my previous post remains unchanged.

We are in bad shape spirtually.

Fundamentalism; Rick Warren; Obama
I am saddened to hear that Warren has invited Obama to preach from the pulpit of his church. I do not believe, however, that it is wrong to try to physically minister to those in Africa who are dying. Jesus commanded us to meet not only spiritual needs, but physical ones as well ("when I was...sick...in prison, you visited me...")
But to give someone like Obama the forum of a pulpit is wrong. Mark my words: we will all see a clip of Obama speaking at that pulpit in one of his future political ads.
Obama's stance on partial birth abortion is enough to prevent his gaining a platform in a Christian church.
I was also shocked to hear that Warren likened fundamentalists to radical Muslims. I would like ot read those quotes myself, though. If anyone knows where they can be found, please forward them here.
It is true that some fundamentalists have added many "rules" to Christianity which are NOT Biblical (eg, Some Baptists saying one cannot dance or ever touch alcohol. Neither is Biblical.) I recall when my sons were in a Xhristian school, and I asked them if they wanted to attend the summer camp sponsored by the school. However, one of the rules was that no one could wear shorts during camp (in the middle of August in Virginia!!) They required all the kids to wera long pants. When my kids and I discussed this rule, my youngest son (who was 6 at the time) exclaimed "Wow! That really IS a Christian camp!" I had to spend several minutes teaching him that wearing long pants does NOT make one a Christian.
I for one am tired of all the added rules some fundamentalists have added to the Biblical teachings; reminds me of the Pharisees in Jesus' time who were puffed up w/ pride because they kept all the Jewish laws, yet their hearts were evil; they thought themselves to be so very holy that they did not even recognize the Messiah when he stood before them. We all need to remina true to what Scripture teaches, and stand up for that in the public arena, but also stay humble in our hearts.

Rick Warren of Willow Creek Church

Rick Warren of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois is the same who invited an Islamic Imam from one of the Western Suburbs to share the pulpit (I think it was November immediately after 9/11). It was an article in the Chicago Tribune. This Imam said to the people that he knew all about Jesus Christ probably better than they did themselves. This is the type of pastor at Willow Creek. This is the type of discernment in the churches today.

dl
I didn't disprove your point. However, I do disagree. We each have ample justification. I don't think the single-wife idea is a consequence of Western culture because it pre-dates Western culture as an ideal within the Bible.

Also, lots of things we learn from the Bible through reason. For example, one reading of the Bible would say that it's a sin to pray in public. But that would have made Jesus a sinner. So you have to reason, okay, when is it okay to pray in public?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a part of Christianity. You can't fulfill that and have multiple wives, because no man worth the name would share his wife.

ProfGene
Unless you are a poodle I doubt you have the power to "sense" "evil".

When watching Manson you already knew he was a killer. Same thing with the terrorists.

You're using your feelings incorrectly. Feelings are to be enjoyed, not relied on.

response to dulhammer
Thanks for the substantive challenge––so much better than being called names.

dullhammer writes: "Phylo, you prove too much. Are you then saying there is no reality of right and wrong? Just circumstances which dictate such and such as being better than such and such? Like animals deciding everything strictly from within their own habitat."

Phylo: No. There is right and wrong. My point is that the word "absolute" is being misapplied. And yes, circumstances do determine the morality of an act. Where people often go wrong is when they try to apply a long-held principle in a circumstance in which it is inappropriate. And, yes, human morality is derived, largely from culture and from the application of some level of reasoning ability. Every culture has slightly different ideas of morality, but the basics such as "do not kill", "do not steal", etc. apply almost universally because otherwise human society could not function.

dulhammer: "Try these laws for a sense of the absolute:
How about the first commandment? "You shall have no other gods before me." (Exodus 20:3) What circumstance can you find where that law can be changed due to circumstances? "And how about, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind and all your strength.

Phylo: These would be convincing to someone who believes in the God of the bible, but not to athiests or Buddhists or Hindus, etc.

dullhammer: And love your neighbor as yourself." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." When should I not obey that law?"

Phylo: If, unbeknownst to me, someone gave me psychadelic "acid" and I genuinely believed that it was a mind expanding experience, should I serupticiously drop acid into the drinks of everyone I know?

dullhammer: And as for the other laws, such as murder, adultery and false witness, does it really negate the law if you find an extreme circumstance where it might be better to do a greater good than keep the letter of the law? Is not the law still there? It just yields to a greater one. Like speeding to a hospital. Such an act does not take the speeding laws off the books.

Phylo: No, it doesn't have to negate the law altogether. I look at something like the Ten Commandments as moral guidelines. And, to a point, moral, guidelines can be helpful. The problem, again, is the word "absolute". It's fine to say this is right or that is wrong. It just doesn't make any sense to say they are "absolutely right" or "absolutely wrong".

dullhammer: And just as man is behind manmade laws like a speed limit, so God is behind the moral laws. And as such, they are absolute because God is absolute. Even according to Webster.

Just because you believe in God doesn't make any particular moral admonition "absolute".

It's fine to talk about right and wrong. My only point is that the word "absolute" is being misapplied by those who think that they believe in moral absolutes.

Phylo out.

Whatever
Perhaps a better example of the ethical antiquities of the Bible would be the punishments laid out in the Mosaic Law. Most violations of the Law were death. Do you honestly believe that people who commit adultery should be put to death? I don't think that is the ethical way to go.


The above was directed at dullhammer
See above.