Skip to main content

View Diary: Chelsea Clinton takes on Rick Warren over marriage equality (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will never understand the obsession with (19+ / 0-)

    human sexuality that pervades the worldviews of some Christians. Serious Christians should be able to evolve their views. The Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America have recently done this. Very sensitively worded documents surrounding these issues, based on Biblical insights and social justice, demonstrate just how possible it is for Christians to radically welcome the Other. As a Christian, I feel that the Gospels call me to greater inclusion, not to ostracizing others. If you look at whom Jesus associated himself with it wasn't Pharisees like Rick Warren, it was with prostitutes, "untouchable" women, lepers, tax collectors, and at least one midget (does anyone remember the story of Zacchaeus?).

    What Rick Warren sees as "redefining" marriage, is really the attempt by both society and sane, progressive religious institutions to broaden their reach and inclusion, not to narrow it, and certain religious institutions do this because it is what they hear in Christ's message to us (in so far as we know what that is, another good reason to avoid saying "What Would Jesus Do" when you are looking for a legalistic answer). Frankly, I think a man like Rick Warren would applaud people like my partner and I who see marriage also as a religious institution as well as a civil one and for whom marriage in the Church is of the utmost deep, personal (and public) spiritual importance.

    Christians like Rick Warren miss so much of the message of the Christian Gospels and are highly selective about what St. Paul has to say, too. The obsession with LGBT folks and their morality has them unable to see the forest for the trees. In my opinion, it makes them blind to the Truth.

    Get your goddamned guns out of my church. This means you.

    by commonmass on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 11:45:31 AM PST

    •  Jesus (who is a mythological character) (7+ / 0-)

      also chose to hang out with men who left their families high and dry to follow him.  I am less than impressed with that.  He even told one disciple that following him was so urgent that he couldn't even take the time for a family funeral.

      Sorry, but I get discouraged when people trot out "nice Jesus" and just pretend the other stuff wasn't said or didn't happen.

      Plus, above all else about Jesus is the fact that he endorsed the concept of hell...eternal torture for deeds done in a finite lifetime.  Most moral people I know would never come up with that as a cosmic system, much less endorse it.

      •  Well, what Jesus says about hell is (13+ / 0-)

        extremely allegorical. Most main-stream Christians (including the Roman Church) understand "hell" as state of being permanently separated from God. It is really unclear if anyone is even in such a state.

        As for other things, Jesus spoke in heavy allegory, which is why anyone is having this discussion to begin with: no one can seem to agree on what it means or does not mean.

        That being said, there are plenty of progressive Christians--myself included--who are on your side, no matter what you think of Jesus or for that matter, no matter what Rick Warren thinks of Jesus.

        Get your goddamned guns out of my church. This means you.

        by commonmass on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 12:54:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  So some things "Jesus said" are (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          commonmass, skohayes

          allegorical and other quotes not?  He did not refer to hell as a state of separation from God. At one point he talked about angels gathering up all offenders and casting them into a furnace of fire where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

          So a state of separation may be what the official interpretation of some groups, but it's not what he was quoted as saying.  And again I say "quoted as saying" because there was no such man and the gospel writers were free to put any words they wanted in this character's mouth.

          •  Clearly, we're going to disagree on finer points (8+ / 0-)

            of theology. I would point out to you, though, that people who make the these kinds of arguments are--I would assume accidentally--embracing the same sort of literalist reading of the Bible in their criticism of it as Rick Warren is doing in his promulgation of it.

            There are centuries of thought surrounding what the Bible says, and the best of it is not literalist.

            Get your goddamned guns out of my church. This means you.

            by commonmass on Sun Dec 23, 2012 at 01:23:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "embracing" and "believing in" (0+ / 0-)

              are not the same. Millions of christians in this country embrace a literal reading of the bible.
              It's quite obvious Fishtroller doesn't believe any of it is true.
              This is a problem I have with religionists- each embraces their own set of thoughts, and thinks that the others are less legitimate, simply because they don't come to the same conclusion after reading one or several passages in this book.
              The fact it, it's been rewritten, retranslated, parts added, parts removed, according to the dominant religion at the time, that's there is no telling what the original writings said.
              If you don't like what it says, say it's allegorical. If you do, say it's literal.

              “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

              by skohayes on Mon Dec 24, 2012 at 04:23:14 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site