Sally Quinn on Rick Warren

[tinytim]

WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there. ]
BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
WARREN: You know, not a problem with me.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.]
The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

From the link Amy gave...


Call me liberal if you want.. but I don't believe in taking away rights that are already afforded to gays in the constitution.. because, like it or not, they are citizens.... THEY ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS...

And this is what RW is saying...
Notice the big bolded, underlined part that RW said..
I do disagree with giving them any special rights just because they are gay... They are not a minority... And RW never suggests giving them special rights.

So, go ahead and call me liberal...

 

[tinytim]

rbell.. .shut up!! lol.. I know you want to be the first!

But you have to give Aaron the chance.. he does it so poetically, and with conviction... lol

BTW.. I love you all even though I disagree with you...

 

[webdog]

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

Who are we to judge motivations? Are you claiming he is a liar?

The man is human afterall...we have al "backpedaled" from something we said. Ours are not done in front of the whole world, though.

 

[Amy.G]

RW said what he said and it is what it is. How in the world can you say that you have no problem with receiving health or insurance benefits from another person's insurance without a civil union? Of course gays have civil rights, but that was not the question. The interviewer said plainly "civil unions" and it is clear from RW's response that he understood the question.

The statement was made in this thread that RW endorsed civil unions, to which many replied, "that's a lie".

This video proves that RW did indeed say he has no problem with civil unions. So there was no lie.

 

[webdog]

RW said what he said and it is what it is.

Exactly...notice the highly bolded and large portion of Tim's post.

How in the world can you say that you have no problem with receiving health or insurance benefits from another person's insurance without a civil union?

Easy, my children are not married to me and they receive benefits.

Of course gays have civil rights, but that was not the question

...but that's what Warren thought was the question.

The interviewer said plainly "civil unions" and it is clear from RW's response that he understood the question.

...and here we are climbing into his head again knowing what he understood the question to be...

The statement was made in this thread that RW endorsed civil unions, to which many replied, "that's a lie".

This video proves that RW did indeed say he has no problem with civil unions. So there was no lie.

It is a lie. He has since come out and clarified what he was trying to say. His true intentions are known...and he doesn't support civil unions. It is a lie.

 

[Amy.G]

WD, your children receive benefits because that's the law. But try getting your best friend covered under your insurance. That requires a change of law. That's what civil unions would do. That is what RW stated he has no problem with. He even stated it in his edited response.


At the very best, his comments and opinions on civil unions were convoluted and wishy washy.

But as usual, that is my opinion and doesn't mean that I have hatred for RW or anyone else.


And with that, I depart from this converstion.

 

[dcorbett]

WD, your children receive benefits because that's the law. But try getting your best friend covered under your insurance. That requires a change of law. That's what civil unions would do. That is what RW stated he has no problem with. He even stated it in his edited response. At the very best, his comments and opinions on civil unions were convoluted and wishy washy.

But as usual, that is my opinion and doesn't mean that I have hatred for RW or anyone else.And with that, I depart from this converstion.

I have no hatred for him either, but that doesn't mean I am going to accept his wishy washy behavior. When the man starts talking about the need to repent and follow the Lord, I will listen. "God is good" is not going to cut the mustard. I can hear that in any church, not just in a scripturally correct church. I want the truth to burn a hole in a sinner's heart.

Debbie Mc

 

[Amy.G]

I have no hatred for him either, but that doesn't mean I am going to accept his wishy washy behavior. When the man starts talking about the need to repent and follow the Lord, I will listen. "God is good" is not going to cut the mustard. I can hear that in any church, not just in a scripturally correct church. I want the truth to burn a hole in a sinner's heart.

Debbie Mc

Ok. I'll come back to say that I agree with you. :wavey:

 

[webdog]

I have no hatred for him either, but that doesn't mean I am going to accept his wishy washy behavior. When the man starts talking about the need to repent and follow the Lord, I will listen. "God is good" is not going to cut the mustard. I can hear that in any church, not just in a scripturally correct church. I want the truth to burn a hole in a sinner's heart.

Debbie Mc

Come a little closer...let me help you get that oak out of your eye...

Your slander of a fellow brother is pitiful.

 

[Amy.G]

Come a little closer...let me help you get that oak out of your eye...

I'm back again. You've got a lot of nerve. You are completely blinded by your love for RW that you cannot even admit that he is wrong about some things.

 

[webdog]

WD, your children receive benefits because that's the law. But try getting your best friend covered under your insurance. That requires a change of law. That's what civil unions would do. That is what RW stated he has no problem with. He even stated it in his edited response.


At the very best, his comments and opinions on civil unions were convoluted and wishy washy.

But as usual, that is my opinion and doesn't mean that I have hatred for RW or anyone else.


And with that, I depart from this converstion.

We're not talking about whether we agree with his idea of universal healthcare...because I don't. I don't believe I should be able to add a stranger on the street to my healthcare, and he is wrong that "I'm paying for it". I'm paying a VERY small portion of it...my employer pays the majority of it. He is wrong in this aspect.

However, he does NOT support civil unions, and that is the matter in this discussion.

 

[webdog]

I'm back again. You've got a lot of nerve. You are completely blinded by your love for RW that you cannot even admit that he is wrong about some things.

...now I'm being accused falsely. This seems to be a traight amongst the RW bashers. I do have lots of nerves, they are connected throughout my body. Slander and false accusations are not the trait of a Christ follower, and those that do so and pat each other on the back will be called out by me. Get used to it.

See my last post, he IS wrong about some things. I have no special love for the man as "America's Pastor" as he is often called, but I respect his ministry and his target. FTR, it is NOT the seasoned believer, and this is why he takes so much heat.

If those who constantly berate and hate the man would do half what he does for the Kingdom...

I know it's the "in thing" to bash the man, as it was to bash Falwell, Graham, etc. a few years back. Satan's hand is not far away from someone who is doing God's will.

 

[Amy.G]

...now I'm being accused falsely. This seems to be a traight amongst the RW bashers. I do have lots of nerves, they are connected throughout my body. Slander and false accusations are not the trait of a Christ follower, and those that do so and pat each other on the back will be called out by me. Get used to it.

See my last post, he IS wrong about some things. I have no special love for the man as "America's Pastor" as he is often called, but I respect his ministry and his target. FTR, it is NOT the seasoned believer, and this is why he takes so much heat.

If those who constantly berate and hate the man would do half what he does for the Kingdom...

I do NOT hate the man. Now who is falsely accusing??

But think about it. Why is he called "America's pastor"? Why do people like Oprah Winfrey like him so much? Would she like he as much if his main message was that one has to trust in Christ as his savior or burn in hell? I don't think so. He appeals to America because he is so inclusive and ecumenical. He blends in well with the world.

I have every right (and a responsibility) as a Christian to measure every preacher, pastor and teacher against the straight and true word of God. I do not believe RW measures up.

Now I really am leaving, because I get tired of being accused of hatred and having logs in my eye because I don't agree with some people.

 

[webdog]

I do NOT hate the man. Now who is falsely accusing??

But think about it. Why is he called "America's pastor"? Why do people like Oprah Winfrey like him so much? Would she like he as much if his main message was that one has to trust in Christ as his savior or burn in hell? I don't think so. He appeals to America because he is so inclusive and ecumenical. He blends in well with the world.

I have every right (and a responsibility) as a Christian to measure every preacher, pastor and teacher against the straight and true word of God. I do not believe RW measures up.

Now I really am leaving, because I get tired of being accused of hatred and having logs in my eye because I don't agree with some people.

He's called America's Pastor for the same reason Billy Graham was...his interest in politics NOT because he preaches a watered, down ecumenical (another false accusation) Gospel.

The Gospel message is presented different to different people, and just because you would like it to be a cookie cutter model doesn't mean that approach is right, either. For someone who grew up in a Leave it to Beaver home, the person may need to have God's wrath emphasized more than someone who was beaten and abused as a child, where God's love is emphasized moreso.

When one person deliberately lies about another brother in Christ (which is witnessed right here in this thread), that is hate. That is not a false accusation, and if you took it as such, then you need to understand what a false accusation actually entails.

Waiting for the retraction of the statement I agree with everything he says and does, btw...

 

[tinytim]

I hope God uses RW to bring sinners to Christ.

With that we should all agree.

If you can't agree with that, go check your heart...

Paul said that some preached Christ out of selfish motives, but he was thankful Christ was being preached.

RW is preaching Christ and Him crucified.. he reaches people that most Fundamental preachers don't even want to be around. And he is bringing them to Christ.

For that we should be thankful.

 

[thegospelgeek]

I hope God uses RW to bring sinners to Christ.

With that we should all agree.

If you can't agree with that, go check your heart...

Paul said that some preached Christ out of selfish motives, but he was thankful Christ was being preached.

RW is preaching Christ and Him crucified.. he reaches people that most Fundamental preachers don't even want to be around. And he is bringing them to Christ.

For that we should be thankful.

Well said :thumbs:

I've never understood why christians hate christians so much. Is that even possible? My Bible tells me it is not. Maybe it's wrong?

 

[Aaron]

Again, my question was, did he really take the "anti-gay material" off his website? I'm going to assume the columnist was accurate unless someone can show otherwise.

Tim and Webdog, if you want to swallow Warren's double-speak, you go right ahead. I don't particularly care in this thread. I'm comforted by the fact that Amy can see it for what it is. :thumbs:

 

[thegospelgeek]

Aaron,

I don't know if he took the "Anti-gay material" down, but I can make a fairly good logical assumption that Mr. Warren never had anti-gay or anti anything else up on his site. It is not in his nature nor his history to do so. He is typically inclusive in his message and approach, hence the large number of fundamentalist who oppose him so vehemently.

Warren most likely had information supporting to Prop 8 or whatever the California proposition number was that Opposed gay marriage, and has removed it since the election has passed.

I can not prove any of this since I have not done a before and after screen capture of his site (whatever that is since he is associated with several), so please don't ask that I do.

For the record, what few times I have heard Mr. Warren and the books I have read of his, I can not speak against him the way many do. I understand if you do not like his books or methods, but I have seen nothing about them that one can say he is preaching a false gospel and I am quite the fundamentalist.

 

[webdog]

Again, my question was, did he really take the "anti-gay material" off his website? I'm going to assume the columnist was accurate unless someone can show otherwise.

Tim and Webdog, if you want to swallow Warren's double-speak, you go right ahead. I don't particularly care in this thread. I'm comforted by the fact that Amy can see it for what it is. :thumbs:

I would rather have someone come out and say I was wrong, than being self-righteous, hateful and pios.

There are many more who see it for what it is..and not the accusations and lies that have come from it.

Why take someone elses word for it....look yourself.

 

[annsni]

We're not talking about whether we agree with his idea of universal healthcare...because I don't. I don't believe I should be able to add a stranger on the street to my healthcare, and he is wrong that "I'm paying for it". I'm paying a VERY small portion of it...my employer pays the majority of it. He is wrong in this aspect.

However, he does NOT support civil unions, and that is the matter in this discussion.

It depends on the employer. Many employers now have their employees pay most if not all of their health insurance.