Malott's Blog: Pastor Rick Warren: "I Am Not Anti-Gay Marriage"

Friday, April 17, 2009

Pastor Rick Warren: "I Am Not Anti-Gay Marriage"

Please see the video below.

This guy is a fraud.

I don't believe in persecuting anyone trapped in sin, but this guy seems more concerned with his image than with the truth.

How sad.

5 comments:

Christina said...: This is a completely untrustworthy man.

I also find it interesting that as a pastor, his agenda is to talk about his work in Rwanda and glorifying his 30-year career at the Saddleback church.

I guess I foolishly thought the agenda of Christians was supposed to be promoting Christ and His teachings, not oneself.

Silly me.; 4/18/2009 12:03 PM
ChuckL said...: Uninformed theology like this is killing Christ's Church in its ability to witness truth in its entirety. The acceptance of homosexual immorality (as well as all sexual depravity) will end in two results I consider inevitable.

First, it opens the door for the enemies of Christ to persecute his Church in America. There are already suits against some in business who do not cater to the homosexual agenda. Many are probably aware of the suit preventing E-Harmony from doing business in California unless they provide profiles & matches for homosexuals. There are other assaults on innocent business owners, too. A young couple in New Mexico who run their own photography business have a same-sex discrimination complaint filed against them through the state's Human Rights Commission. Their crime? They turned a business request to do a photo shoot of a same-sex ceremony. (They have also turned down other types of requests in the past that they felt uncomfortable doing). So, in a state where homosexual marriages are legal, how long will it be before suits are filed against clergy and churches that refuse to accommodate such a marriage? And how long before suits are filed against clergy and churches that refuse to disavow the "hate speech" Bible passages that condemn homosexual behavior? These charges and suits will have even more merit in the eyes of some because there will be clergy and churches that are racing to accommodate homosexual sinfulness.

Second, and even more insidious, it paves the way for the cultural and legal acceptance of adult-child sexual relationships. (We currently call this molestation, but expect that to become a word that is politically incorrect). There are those who will no doubt accuse me of calling homosexuals pedophiles; I am not making such an accusation. It is the rationale and precedence created by the homosexual agenda that will be followed by this movement, along with the always expanding circle of "rights" legally granted to children. For example, a recent Readers Digest article raises the issue of "sexting." One 15 year old girl took revealing photos of herself and sent them to at least one adult male. Not only is the adult charged with possession of child pornography, but so is the 15 year old girl. I may not understand all the legalities here, but it seems like an argument made on her behalf will be something like, "It's her body, and she has a right to do what she wants with it." Carry this now to its logical conclusion in our current cultural environment. If minors have a "right" to engage in exhibitionism, then it will follow that they have a right to engage in sexual activity if they want. And if they have a "right" to engage in sexual activity, then they can choose any partner they want regardless of age. That's the "child's rights" angle.

Now the pedophile's angle. The most straightforward path is to follow the "born that way" argument used by the glbt community. In part, their argument has been that no rational person would willingly choose a behavior and lifestyle that would alienate them from family and society and expose them to so much ridicule, pain, and even disease; therefore, they must be compelled to behave in this manner because it is a part of their genetic makeup. Voila! They are born that way and, since they are born that way, cannot be prevented from acting out their natural compulsions. Any prevention is discriminatory and, thus, a violation of their civil rights.

If this is an acceptable argument of the homosexual community, then how much more acceptable is it for the pedophile community? Not only do they expose themselves to the alienation from family & society, but also to legal prosecution. Who in their right minds would do such a thing if it was simply a matter of choice? It must run deeper than that. Wait, I know! It's part of their genetic makeup, and they are unavoidably compelled to act upon this behavior they are born with. Any prevention, therefore, is discriminatory and a violation of their civil rights.

There may be some who come along and consider these predictions completely insane. I've heard it before. Fine & well, but I offer a reality check. More often than not, those who pursue pressing the boundaries of established morality promise that the more shocking consequences of their actions will never happen - like open, militant homosexual rights. As sodomy laws were being challenged, it was all about privacy rights. It was all about what consenting adults could do in the privacy of their own home or, more often than not, in the "privacy" of orgy clubs. All right, all right... a privacy rights issue. We can tolerate that. After all, society was told by their advocates, it's not like they are pursuing legal standing as married partners.

So of course we will never see legal standing for pedophiles. ChuckL is merely engaging in wanton alarmism. Yep. Right.

Another reality check comes from pedophile advocates themselves. I don't know if it's still accessible, but I have found these very types of rationale posted on the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) website written by licensed, practicing psychologists, psychiatrists, and other medical professionals. These are not knee-jerk, reactionary articles; they are very professionally reasoned and written. And guess what? Replace references to pedophiles and adult-child sexual relationships with homosexuals and consenting adult relationships, and you find the same arguments and rationales on pro-homosexual websites.

But ChuckL is merely engaging in wanton alarmism.

Well, this is another of my long posts on what is supposed to be a short, pithy, quick-to-read format. Sorry, Chris, but you did ask about my take. :); 4/21/2009 8:44 AM
ChuckL said...: Update... already!

I googled "readers digest sexting" to see if their article is online. Not yet, but I found a Reader's Digest poll asking participants if they know what "sexting" is. A comment left at the site 4/17/09 says, "A US District Judge sided w/ the ACLU and blocked a prosecutor from filing charges against 3 teen girls."

Any surprises here?; 4/21/2009 8:50 AM
ChuckL said...: And one other element I left out of my essay...

This one actually pertains more to Warren's newfound belief in homosexual acceptance.

James 1:27, "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

Engaging in the social ministries of alleviating suffering, especially among the poor and defenseless is Scripturally mandated. But guess what, my theologically challenged & liberal friends who may stumble onto this? So is proclaiming the moral truths of the Christian faith. This is both/and, not either/or.; 4/21/2009 8:57 AM
Bryan Alexander said...: I wish we could have leaders - both Christian leaders and political leaders, better yet, Christian political leaders - who stand on principle and do not waver. It seems that those kinds off leaders are few and far between.; 4/21/2009 2:34 PM