Sally Quinn on Rick Warren

Honestly, I'm less concerned whether he is Baptist than I am whether he is a Christian in compromise. (But many Baptist churches and other denominations..... for that matter.... are using his 'Purpose Driven' resources and, in effect, looking to him for authoritive leadership and example....... which not only promotes his fame, but also his position of influence.)

When there's a lack of evidence currently available re: RW showing an active conviction, then there appears to be enough assertions by others which give evidence to compromise. I'm hoping and preferring that this is not the case..... but, as I responded in a thread regarding "The Purpose Driven Life", I felt there were many opportunities in the context of the book to make Christians aware of the authority and guidance of the God who bought our salvation, and to call all to repentance..... and those of the body of Christ to renewal..... but were lacking in the text.

The Bible, which is the foundation and the first and the last word, says far more than any 'self-help book' can ever say about our need and deprivitey and dependance on God, and how God can help us; but he (RW) paraphrases and uses so many various translations, which he explains is to make the familiar clear..... says the opposite to me as it causes a confusion when I must occupy my library with more copywrite Bibles just to verify the authenticity of his quotes and he doesn't present enough consistancy of usage to make one translation as sufficient for memory work. And familiarity and memory is the strength of the Word when we must depend upon knowledge and memory and the spirit for discerning in times when we are without a Bible to consult.

Oh, dear Lord! I understand that these people who have difficulties with their lifestyle, which they've choosen but deny that they had a choice, differ little in their excuses from the rest of us in the way we excuse our desires and excessive appetites, instead of conforming to the discipline required to bring us more into conforming to the image of Christ: However dispicable we behold their lifestyle, however abdominable it is to Almighty God; as humans in need of stable relationships in our own lives, it is too easy to understand the difficulty of those who chose a lifestyle which offers no permanance, no stability, no recognition, no security, no recourse for breech of promise.......... BUT................ WE MUST REMEMBER ALWAYS,.... that this was a choice they exercised to sin and these problems are the result of their choice and continuance to sin. Altering these conditions which are the product of their sin is not our problem, nor that which will bring them closer to God. We can have compassion and understanding but WE OWE NO COMPROMISE to the unrepentant regarding that which God has concluded as abdominable.

I stand by my earlier post:

May God show RW the possibility of being a Daniel! May God raise up a holy boldnest in both the pulpits and the pews of churches across the nation! We need many Daniels. There are too many fronts for one person to fight the spiritual battles ...... and one person who becomes a spokesman for the people of God, who may feel he stands alone, is too easy for others to accept to follow instead of accept their own leadership and servanthood.... and too easy to topple, compromise, or give the appearance of compromise.raying:

 

Why do you buy gas and support Islam?

 

pssst...satan called. You were aware he had the accuser job locked up, right?

 

:tear: :tear:

Very dangerous!

 

Homosexuals already have rights.. they are citizens...

And accusers of the brethren is just as bad a sin as homosexuality...

Playing God and pretending you are God's answer to all us non fundies is just as bad as homos...

Sin is sin.. and some baptists need to repent.

 

YOU lied about RW... either repent or I am reporting it...
Show where he endorsed Civil Unions.

YOU sir are lying.

 

What do you expect, a treatise for the Christian to read?

If you want a longer version so you read more words then take a look at http://www.sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp

 

No I didn't. His words are right there easily comprehended by anyone at a third grade reading level.

 

Aaron, Where is your source for this?

Show he is in favor or civil unions.. you said you "know"... now show us how you know.

 

My question in this thread was regarding columnist's assertion that Warren "removed anti-gay material from his website." Now there is one post that says none can be found, but that doesn't answer my question. Was it removed? In other words, was it there before and now is it gone?

As the columnist stated, he has essentially come out in favor of civil unions. That's obvious from the transcript of the interview posted by Marcia. You can swallow his double-speak and wrest his words to mean something else if you wish. I don't particularly care in this thread.

But MY question remains unanswered. If the answer is yes, and I believe the columnist to be accurate, it's just another nail in his coffin. You will find Warren to be losing standing among evangelicals as he panders to Sodom.

And what really bites you is, we had him pegged when he was belching his subterfuge concerning worship.

 

Aaron, how's that career in writing fiction going?

Man, it's amazing to see that much hate for a man of God.

 

Man up and provide the source so us "third graders" can read this material. If not, repent of being a liar.

 

I bolded the part where I think you were directing us 3rd graders to look at...

Again, since you are smarter than us 3rd graders, please show us in the OP where RW said he was in favor of Civil Unions.. If not, you are bearing False Witness.. Especially since RW is quoted as saying in post 18 of this thread...

The closest I can see it the way you do, is that Melissa Etheridge said something to someone else that RW was supposed to have said..
That someone, 'the reporter', doesn't even mention "Civil Unions"

You are reading into the article more than is there.. and taking a lesbian's word at that! Hmmmm... Imagine, a lesbian telling a lie.. on a man of God.. .to stir trouble...

Nah.. couldn't be!

Aaron, your hate for your brothers and sisters is very telling.

 

What are you implying in your sarcasm this time?

 

Watch this.

Sounds to me like RW is in favor of civil unions.

 

How? From your link...

BOTTOM LINE:
1. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God's idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God's parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.

2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.

3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage." And many saw the Teacher's Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.]

 

Did you watch the video?

RW says plainly that he does not "have a problem" with civil unions.

 

You called this pastor a "compromising fool." You are aware of what Jesus said regarding calling people fools...right?

Or are there special rules for non-IFB targets?

 

Yes, did you read the transcript below it? He edited on 12-15 to add that he thought they were talking about civil RIGHTS not civil UNION.

 

That's where he did the back peddling. It's clear from the video that he knew the interviewer said "civil unions".