Tony Wicher,

Thanks for the print out on some of the language from Jerry Brown, (California Attorney General for those of you who don’t already know that).

I think this pretty much says it all:

“..“There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights,” Brown said in an interview. “If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it’s not a fundamental liberty.”

That’s it in the nutshell.

What a hoot it is that Ken Starr will be arguing, (in his case, sprouting delusional religious platitudes) for the homophobes. Why is is that so many of the homophobes somehow ‘appear’ to be homosexuals themselves? Ken Starr has always appeared to me at least, to be about as queer as a three dollar bill,and no one that any self-respecting gay man would have anything to do with. (too many identity issues - too much drama).

Warren is another political gadfly, (or wannabe) and apparently he does have a ‘following’, though I’m more inclined to call it a cult. What amazes me (yes, again) is all the attention this is creating, which only legitimizes the hidden agenda of the people behind Warren. How different are they from the John Birchers, or any of Tom DeLay’s former coalition, or any other of these extremist groups, hiding behind a ‘church.org’ address?

No different, but it’s been gussied up like so many of the Charities and other organizations that the cults establish in the name of religion, and more sophisticated than the kind of organizations/alleged churches that the Southern Poverty Law Center hunts down. The stuff about addressing poverty and the needs of millions of orphans or unwed parents is just so much BS in my opinion, if only because we’ve seen it for so long with these types before.

At the end of the day, Warren is just another slickster doing the same political maneuverings under political power of the clerical collar. (and we have the nerve to talk about the ‘stain’ of theocracies in other places on the the globe.)

On the one hand, I can *only* see people like him, (and his cult) as best ignored. If society has any effective self-correction, the majority would simply ignore or condemn such thinking in a way that provided immediate curtailment of such ideologies. But on the other hand, (since I know that self-correction doesn’t always work for the best)I think that ignoring them could be (has been proven to be) dangerous. In fact, that’s been one of the most difficult of life’s lessons for me. We can’t just ignore crackpots or other dangerous evil doers who might do us harm, just because we know that we don’t mean THEM any harm.It SHOULD be a ‘given’ that if I don’t bother you, (or anyone else - this is just a hypothetical) then you won’t ‘bother’ me. But, that’s not the way it works.

So just ‘ignoring’ these types could be hazardous to one’s health. (like one could find a knife in his or her back). So I’ve decided when that is the case, the better option is to expose them. Rick Warren represents a lot of people, (or so they say)so let’s have some transparency here, and see who they are, and what they’re about. In all sincerity, I honestly don’t know who Warren’s most important ‘backers’ are, because they always remain secret. It would be interesting to know, but I don’t think all of that is gonna come up in a prayer recited on Inauguration Day.

Meantime, the Law is on our side.

RE David Eason, December 20 at 7:59 am #
“Inclusivity run amok.  What’s next?  An Illinois Nazi leading the pledge of allegiance?”
—————————————————————————-
David,

I understand your point, but unlike Warren, Illinois Nazis do not represent millions of people that Obama needs to put together his governing coalition and his economic policies. To understand Obama you have to look at the big picture rather than any single issue. Obama has said many times that he opposes a gay marriage constitutional ban. But it’s up to us. The Mormons got the jump on us and out-organized us to get Prop 8 passed. We can beat them next time out if the courts don’t overthrow it first.

To “dihey”:

I was responding solely to your statement: “Jesus, a fundamentalist Jew who wanted to be a rabbi, would have abhorred “gay marriage”.”

There is nothing in that statement to indicate you were saying anything other than “Jesus condemns gay marriage”. Your own support for it was not expressed in what I saw, so don’t expect me to somehow know you were doing anything but throwing Jesus against the issue.

And while we’re at it, you elsewhere stated, “one cannot ever be certain what Jesus did or did not exactly say,” so what’s with all of your certitude? I quoted from Galatians to point out that it says Jesus taught that “love is the fulfillment of the (Old Testament)Law”. And if the Galatians quote isn’t enough for you, here are a few more:  “Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, ‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?’ Jesus said to him, You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.’” Matthew 22:35-40

He also said this: “For there are eunuchs who have been so by birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:12) There is considerable scholarship indicating that the original word that was translated as “eunuch” INCLUDES HOMOSEXUALS. (Google: “eunuch,homosexuality,New Testament”)

Do I expect everyone to agree with all of this? No - but enough with the certitude.

Outraged and I’m not even Gay!
Haven’t these so called ‘Evangelical Christians’ had enough time in the spot light. haven’t we heard all their ‘ideas’, haven’t heard enough from them to deterimed if they are open to compromise.
We KNOW they are Not! So why must we?
Their condemnation, ridicule, and general hatred of anyone Not in their cliche has not been ‘explored’ enough to realize they are exactly what we must defeat? and this Assholes giving the invocation?
No Group since the nazi’s is more deserving of being Ignored, silenced and Rebuked.
They Started the Devisive Culture Wars. We were beginning to make gains on social issues and concerns during the ‘70’s. and then Wham in came the Moral Majority who changed the convestions about poverty, equal rights and the environment into Wars over Gay marriage & Abortion!
Instead of working towards World Peace they want to set off a Holy War so to hasten End of Days!all so they can ride the exclusive bus up during the delusinal ‘Rapture’...what makes these idiots any saner than the Heavens Gate cult or Jim Jones? those folks committed suicide, These ‘Evangelicals’ want to destroy ALL of Us! St John Must be rolling over in his grave..what a disservice to his name. John was not forecasting the Future he was talking about what was happening at the time and WARNING future generations about such Evil empires!!The fore Horsemen, you idiots, is the Abuse of Power and people by Gov’ts, Religious doctrines, commerce and how they operate through the use of Propaganda (media).
So while all you have been looking to the sky for four guys on horses…these Beasts have been attacking and Destroying the village!
Everytime someone proclaims they’re an ‘evangelical’, I am immediately waiting for how they are going to try to screw me over. I’ve met enough to know they are ruthless, heartless,self serving and Greedy as hell!
this is a kick int he teeth to every American who has had enough of the Religious ‘right’ controlling our Free Democracy for the last 30 yrs!!!

This just in: Jerry Brown asks California Supreme Court to invalidate Prop. 8.
Saying Proposition 8 violates constitutionally protected liberties, Attorney General Jerry Brown on Friday asked the California Supreme Court to strike down the same-sex marriage ban, even as supporters filed a brief that would erase the legal recognition of couples married before Election Day.

In a brief filed with the high court, the state top’s lawyer argues for the first time that Proposition 8 should be invalidated, saying it is “inconsistent with the guarantees of individual liberty safeguarded” by the California Constitution. Brown had not taken a position on the measure until now.

“There are certain rights that are not to be subject to popular votes, otherwise they are not fundamental rights,” Brown said in an interview. “If every fundamental liberty can be stripped away by a majority vote, then it’s not a fundamental liberty.”

Proposition 8 supporters on Friday further pumped up the wattage of the coming legal confrontation by naming Kenneth W. Starr, the former U.S. solicitor general and independent counsel in the Whitewater investigation against then-President Bill Clinton. Starr, dean of the law school at Pepperdine University, will argue the Yes on 8 case before the Supreme Court, in arguments that could begin as soon as March.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11273340?source=most_emailed

Ken Starr, of all people, is going to argue for the homophobes! I think we’re gonna win this one!

SteveL has a good point on more than separation-of-church-and-state grounds;  with the economy going down the crapper, the last thing we need is an all-day party on Inauguration Day!

Dihey,

You chose the figure of speech to bring to mind that Jesus said, “I am the alpha and the omega”...which he never did. 

I’ve actually read the Bible, have you?

Looks like a good moment for tossing shoes.

1 of 2
It was only an hour or so ago, and ONLY because of a routine conversation with my dad, (he informed me of how huge the ruckus over Warren had become)and then from reading the latest here and elsewhere,  that I became aware of the fact that Warren is NOT the ONLY minister to be involved in this State ceremony!!

That makes all of this hoopla even MORE outrageously stupid than I already interpreted it when I wrote these comments earlier, in response to a piece at Mother Jones.

•  “…and that it was wrong for him (Obama) to grant Warren this high-profile platform…”

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/12/11402_warren_obama_inauguration_not_about_gay_marriage.html?welcome=true

The above ‘partial quote’ is admittedly slightly clipped of the authors intended context, but I’ve done it to try to make my more fundamental argument. This quote is an opinion that Obama committed a political error in ‘granting Rich Warren a high-profile platform’, despite his despicable ideology in reference to homosexuality. (or at least that’s it in the nutshell.)

But my question is…DID HE (Obama) actually do this? Where/when/how did this ‘high-profile platform’ for Warren really come about? Who gave Warren a so-called ‘platform’ to begin with? Well, who gave Rush Limbaugh HIS platform? Who takes these crackpots (ANY of them) seriously enough to elevate them to the kind of ‘high profile’ existence that they somehow acquire, despite (but really more BECAUSE of) their crackpot ideologies?

No. Obama isn’t responsible for the already high-profile that Warren had prior to the elections even. Now it may have been politically STUPID on Obama’s part to even acknowledge that Rick Warren EXISTS, let alone allow him to do a prayer at an Official State Ceremony.  My guess is that Obama is ruing his failure to consider this political fallout from something that I doubt he puts as a priority. (the invocation giver of anything). So, he didn’t do his homework, if ONLY because he never even considered it, or knew that it was assigned. Like, he didn’t give it any thought, anymore than the groom in a wedding party makes the choice of the flower girls a priority. (I’d be leery of any groom that did.)

So maybe Obama should have been more aware when he ‘picked’ him as the prayer giver, if in fact he did. And while I don’t generally indulge in mind reading, (other than my own) I’m making an exception here to speculate that Obama has already decided (in hindsight) that it was a really boneheaded thing to do, and he probably wishes he’d chosen ANYBODY but Rick Warren, or that he could make Warren disappear, if only for a little while.

Still, my point is that ‘he’ hasn’t handed Warren a high-profile platform – the high profile has been defined by the socio-psychological environment in certain time and space, and it’s always changing, because it’s a dialectical phenomena. Society itself, (or portions of it) decide what they want to legitimize or not, based on the attention that they give it. Since the US mainstream media has for a long time acted as the Ministry of Propaganda in the furthering of ideological conflicts, many (if not most) Americans have long ago been programmed to react to red herrings, and turn them political.

2 of 2

People like Rick Warren are no different than any of the other politically high-profile ‘clerics’ of the past, many of whom have been largely accepted by the mainstream population, if they paid any attention to them as clerics to begin with.

Actually, that’s a lot of people. Ask 999 people in my neck of the woods, and you’d probably be lucky to find anybody that’s even HEARD of the guy. (and several of them are planning to attend the inauguration. I guess the late running crowd will miss that part of the ceremony without ever knowing that it was even a planned part of it.)

*~-

OK so, I wrote that before I heard/read all of the continued hysteria, and more importantly, before I became aware that Rick Warren is only ONE of several ministers to perform at the ceremony. Now I’m reading all of these comments dissecting the Bible, and obviously NOT for Christ’s sake, but for political ammunition’s sake. That’s how religion and politics are part of the same corrupting influence on the sheeple who can be so easily manipulated that way.

And of course people like Karl Rove and Folktruther will manipulate ANYTHING to spew criticisms of the overall enemy, whomever he perceives him to be. That’s now Obama, and such will probably remain his (FT’s)obsession until the end of his days above ground.  In the case of Karl Rove and similar GOP operatives, they feed what they want to the media, (to control the terms of the discourse that will whip up a lynch-mob type mentality) and that provides yet another prompt for the likes of Folktruther, to sprout stuff like “Obama has SOLD out!”

Care to connect the dots there FT, without using the Bible or other totally subjective and politically, ideologically, biased bullshit?

And just as a matter of trivia, how many more American’s do you suppose are familiar with Joseph Lowrey, (slated to deliver the Benediction) than they are with Rick Warren? Maybe this would be a good time to find out, since the ‘ostensible’ cry is supposed to be against Rick Warren’s blatant discrimination and Joseph Lowrey has made it his lifetime goal to battle exactly that.

I see more ‘created’ political controversy just like the spectacle that Rev. Wright was used to create, and I believe it’s been instigated by the same political actors. Why else would there be this political reaction to the guy when it’s been clearly on the record that Obama does NOT espouse the Rick Warren ideology?

Jackpine Savage
“Jesus knew the Old Testament from alpha to omega”.  Really?  Did he read it in Greek?  Jesus never even said “I am the alpha and the omega”, because he didn’t speak Greek.  Which brings me to a point about relying on translations of translations to understand the word of God…especially when the languages in question are such doozies as ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and Aramaic.

Sir, you are obviously ignorant that “from alpha to omega” is a figure of speech meaning “from beginning to end”. Why then do you accuse me of ignorance? Look into the mirror please.

Obama made a HUGE mistake with this one, or possibly it was handler David Axelrod (whose contact link at his business - http://www.akpmedia.com - is now dead) who came up with Warren.  In any case, Obama addresses the issue as if it’s about diverse voices and opinions, when it’s about a snake oil salesman of a bogus “mega church” who prays for the return of sanctioned discrimination in this country.  His remarks on homosexuality are those of an ignorant charlatan preaching to his hordes of, to put it kindly, intellectually, historically, biblically-challenged people.  We’ve had eight years of a “president” catering to these morons, it’s a terrible blot on Obama that he’d also pander to the ignorant and help publicize Warren’s fraudulence as a credible religious leader.  This major, very stupid mistake does not bode well for America as a forward-looking democratic nation.

If Obama wants to impress people here is an idea:  Skip the inauguration crap, go to the nearest courthouse, get sworn in and get on with business.

bwahahaha…

“Jesus knew the Old Testament from alpha to omega”.  Really?  Did he read it in Greek?  Jesus never even said “I am the alpha and the omega”, because he didn’t speak Greek.  Which brings me to a point about relying on translations of translations to understand the word of God…especially when the languages in question are such doozies as ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and Aramaic. 

But never mind all that.  What about all the texts/gospels that don’t get included in official versions of the New Testament?  The very few works that make up the New Testament are a small fraction of the total Christian texts, and the rest give a very different idea of Christianity.

And Jesus was not a Jewish “fundamentalist”, dihey has a very bad understanding of the Essene community and other Jewish communes.

The “messiah” of the Old Testament was never referred to as a divine figure.  He was to be an earthly king that would restore the state of Israel.  Propping up Christ with Old Testament prophecy was a theological trick of the early church fathers…who, by the way, did not get along at all with the communities that Jesus lived in.

Modern American evangelicals (like Warren) aren’t Christian.  They’re messianic Jews, that’s why they’re consistently quoting the Old Testament and ignoring the gnostic gospels that are almost certainly closer to the actual philosophy of Jesus.  That’s also why the Lord of evangelicals is so concerned with justice and vengeance and sin, etc.  They’re just plastering Christ’s face on Yahweh.

American evangelicals would nail Christ to the cross so fast that the pharisees wouldn’t even have time to get upset much less act.

Religion has no place in Government.
Government has no place in religion.
The religious right insist on changing and creating our laws to suit their religious beliefs. Is this a good thing?

Ga

Since the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death and contradict one another on several points one cannot ever be certain what Jesus did or did not exactly say.

What is wrong with that?

It is also not connected in any logical way with the preceding sentence. It connects to your earlier flippant statement “Yeah sure, go ahead and quote us some Old Testament about Jesus”. That was an unnecessary put down on your part because you ought to have known that Jesus is said to have debated the Torah and perhaps also Pentateuch with famous biblical scholars of the time who were amazed that this young man was so knowledgeable of ...... the Old Testament which Jesus knew of course from alpha to omega. My point has been all along that Jesus knew the Jewish laws and, in my opinion, agreed with all of them. I have never needed any firm proof that Jesus appeared in the Old Testament for that opinion. The need for providing that proof exists only in your imagination to show me wrong. Drop it for your own sake. It’s a non-starter.

Even if nothing was said about Jesus in the Old Testament, the history of Christianity makes abundantly clear that many laws of the Old Testament were unquestionably accepted by the early and current followers, including homosexuality = sinful. Even in the tolerant Netherlands homosexuals were shunned, beaten, and even jailed until quite recently. I know because I grew up in Amsterdam.
I am sure that you know why Oscar Wilde was jailed. These punishments were not meted out by savage barbarians, nor by Jews or Muslims, but by upstanding followers of Jesus because that is what they firmly believed Jesus meant.

The tragic and fundamental problem of Christians who accept homosexuality and same-sex marriage is in my opinion that theirs is a modern and very humane belief but that they cannot call themselves “followers of Jesus” at least with regards to homosexuality. Warren is a bigot but he is correct in this respect and so are his followers. I repeat that you cannot ever change their ways on homosexuality without very gently and consistently prodding them to stop being “followers of Jesus” on this issue. Would that be “utterly futile” in your opinion?

Nobody expected Obama to sell out so quickly and so massively.  Instead of triangulating an issue, he is triangulating the whole political process.  He is appealing to the right of both Gops and Dems to continue the policies of the Bushites.

By going to the center of the power structure consensus, he is going to the right of the population consensus.  He therefore must leave behind progressive minorities that supported him in the election, like gays. 

But Warren also discriminates against women by striving to make women who get abortions declared criminals.  But this is sanitized in the mainstream progressive truth and attention diverted away from it.  Just as Obama will discriminate against the entire working population and continue the enormous class inequality that has arisen in the US.

By seeking the center of the Elite consensus to continue the Bushite counter revolution, Obama must continue the deceit and corruption of the Bushites.
In this endeavor he will have the usual cooperation of the mainstream Progressive and Conservative media.  And of right wing religious leaders like Warren with whom Obama has struck up an alliance.

More religion, more war, more class inequality, more policstateism, more poverty, more prisons.  Change You Can Believe In.

dihey,

One last thing for the record since I missed where you had elaborated somewhat on the differences of Old and New Testaments. Okay.

But you make the same mistake that many do. You on the one hand say that we can’t know for sure what “he said,” and then on other hand say that “he said this” to support your argument.

By picking and choosing particular passages or particular scholars you can pretty much support any ideology. Or you do not understand that the reason why there are so many differing sects within Christianity—Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinism, Baptist, etc.—is precisely because of differing interpretations of the meaning(s) of scripture?

You make the same mistake they all do—you adhere to your interpretation as the only true way and that all others on earth must adhere as well.

dihey: ... your request is a sign of desperate weakness. Since the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death and contradict one another on several points one cannot ever be certain what Jesus did or did not exactly say.

You are going to make me say it…

The Old Testament says nothing about or by Jesus since it was written before his appearance on earth.

And, since you say here now that “one cannot ever be certain what Jesus did or did not exactly say,” then your statement previously that “Jesus would have abhorred gay marriage” means that, unequivicably, you have just contradicted yourself AND, unequivicably, that you have no understanding of either scripture or logic.

Now, I can continue to discuss this, but it will be utterly futile.

Ga: your request is a sign of desperate weakness. Since the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death and contradict one another on several points one cannot ever be certain what Jesus did or did not exactly say. Much might indeed be what the gospel writers and their friends wanted him to have said. However, do you disbelieve that Jesus said that he had come to maintain all Judaic laws from the Old Testament? There was a good historic reason for making that statement then because some Jewish groups were collaborating with the Romans and were beginning to get “soft on the Mosaic laws”. To me it is pretty clear that Jesus despised them for both reasons.

Sketchartist:

I think that I get the gist of your list but if you have concluded that I am opposed to same-sex marriage let alone that I advocate the execution of homosexuals you are guessing and are way off base. My position is simple: states have no constitutional justification for denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples which is precisely why many antis, who also know this, clamor for an amendment of the constitution. Without that they are on legal quicksand and they know it. If I am correct I urge you to stop the habit of reading language that is not there on the screen.

The point of my piece was to prick holes into the simplistic and erroneous notion that Jesus must have approved homosexual acts because he was such a nice guy. He almost certainly thought that homosexual acts were a sin. This, I think is the justification of Warren’s medieval judging. He is not making it up out of thin air. He truly believes and on solid grounds that Jesus despised homosexual acts. His followers believe the same. We cannot ever change their minds by arguing that it was not so.
 
Little Brother taught me on this site what to tell them: “Times change, Mister Christ, sir.  Times change”.
Amen! Great!

A really interesting historical question is the following. Just as there are homosexuals today there must have been gays in Israel during Jesus’ times. How did they deal with their sexuality? (By the way, the Romans did not mind a bit). I’ve had many good talks with rabbis and historians about this. They unanimously said something like: there was among the Jews a don’t ask, don’t tell, but don’t get caught! And Kings were essentially untouchable.

All of this does not whitewash what is in my opinion Obama’s most egregious social blunder since he won the election.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The oath or affirmation of office of the President of the United States was established in the United States Constitution and is mandatory for a President upon beginning a term of office. The wording is prescribed by the Constitution (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8), as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It is uncertain how many Presidents used a Bible or added the words “So help me God” at the end of the oath, as neither is required by law; unlike many other federal oaths which do include the phrase “So help me God.” There is currently debate as to whether or not George Washington, the first president, added the phrase to his oath. The earliest known source indicating Washington did add “So help me God” is attributed to Washington Irving, aged six at the time of the inauguration, and first appears 60 years after the event.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

”... and just skip watching the swearing-in ceremony.”

No, don’t! For this inaugural just may be historic. (And the invocation comes before the actual swearing-in.)

Warren just may say something interesting. Certainly he is not going to say anything “gay” but just maybe Obama has made some sort of deal (pure speculation on my part) and Warren will say something not so endearing to The Right.

Also, and this may also be BIG: There is talk on the Web about that there will be no “so help me God” by Obama this time. This in itself will be historic!

Yeah, we got these creepy “Christian” prayers and shit going on, but just wait and see. Maybe there will be less! Which will be a HUGE start in a better direction.

P.S. dihey and his ilk,

It matters not one whit what Jesus said or thought or whatever with regard to marraige, for we are a Government “instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” and “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.”

Just leave, dihey, for you know not what you do.

Obama is a Christian and therefore wants a Christian Invocation in his “all inclusive no matter the differences” schtick.

The problem is, so far Obama has been reaching out to much to the “right”.

Warren has a morbid, rabid, twisted view of homosexuality—as do many church leaders (but not all) and many of their followers.

And their views are really based on their own personal fears of sex, of the images that they see in their own heads of gay sex when ever they think of “gay”. They do not think of love and family and companionship when they hear the word “gay” but of, as dihey says, “Pedophilia, incest, etc.” which has nothing to do with being gay and has nothing to do with marraige.

“Christians” of this sort fear that they will go to Hell for the images of gay sex that they create in their own heads and therefore they lash out out against “liberal society.”
END OF LESSON.

See the Rev. Gene Robinson’s speech for a real lesson, dihey—not that it will change your mind, but, ya never know:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=202567-1&showVid=true

Someone on HuffPo mentioned that some on the right don’t like Warren for this choice by Obama either—but why? Because he is not “Christian” enough!

I’ve learned important lessons here!

WWJD = What Would Jesus Despise?

1.) Homosexuality
2.) Craven images

Discussion Topic:  Read the following sentence carefully at least twice, and discuss whether it contains a scintilla of sense, or is Comedy Gold.

With regards to what Jesus said or did not say on these subjects, and who knows what he really said, he did not have to say anything and yet be perfectly clear because he stated emphatically “I have not come to change the law but to uphold the law”.

dihey,

Yeah sure, go ahead and quote us some Old Testament about Jesus.

The “change I could believe in” would include the affirmation of the separation of Church and State by the removal of all vestiges of religious ritual from any civil ceremony (such as the Inauguration and, for that matter, the convening of the Congress):

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-we-got-into-this-mess-faith-based.html

CQuil
No this is not a joke. Read up on the Old Testament. His disciples called him rabbi from time to time.

You have given a perfect description why Jesus was not a Christian or else that Christianity has little to do with Jesus. Let me just give you none example. This fierce monotheist would be appalled to learn that some of his followers consider him godlike if not a god and make “craven images” of him.

There is no doubt that Jesus would have detested homosexuality.

Lesson ended.

What about this?
“For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14)

And how would Jesus answer these questions?
(a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

(b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

(c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

(d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

(e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on Sunday (the Sabbath). In the book of Exodus verse 35:2 it clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

(f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don’t know. Can you settle this?

(g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

(h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

(i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

(j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16). Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14).

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging, and we should do what the bible says.

(From http://www.cropcirclesdeciphered.com/a__theological__joke.htm)

By dihey, December 19 at 8:56 am

“Jesus, a fundamentalist Jew who wanted to be a rabbi, would have abhorred “gay marriage”.”
——-
This is a joke, right? There are all kinds of things the doctrine of Christianity disagrees with, otherwise it wouldn’t be Christianity, including all the hard-line, old-testament-type punishments.

I read a newspaper headline this morning that said the choice of Warren was a sign of Obama’s move to the center. Obama never moved AWAY from the center, and he’s veering rightwards minute by minute.

Warren centrist? Did somebody move the centre way, way over to the right when I wasn’t looking?

It doesn’t matter about all the “good” things Warren has supposedly done. He’s a misinformed or willfully ignorant homophobe.

Loads of people do just as much good as Warren without any recourse to Christianity or religion, and don’t make their living off the deluded and gullible.

“Jesus, a fundamentalist Jew who wanted to be a rabbi, would have abhorred “gay marriage”.”
_________________________________________

Times change, Mister Christ, sir.  Times change.

I find myself in the strange situation of having to explain but not defend the source of the Rev. Warren’s statements on pedophilia, incest, etc. which I heard on TV myself. It is obvious that he was using a passage from the Old Testament. With regards to what Jesus said or did not say on these subjects, and who knows what he really said, he did not have to say anything and yet be perfectly clear because he stated emphatically “I have not come to change the law but to uphold the law”. Pedophilia, incest, etc. were part of the “Jewish Law” and were punishable by death at his time, I believe. Jesus, a fundamentalist Jew who wanted to be a rabbi, would have abhorred “gay marriage”.