We all have a fallen nature, it's called sin or the tendency to sin or rebell against God. Sin can be further devided into sins: lust, pride, envy jealosy, wrath etc. That's why Pastor Warren says he has a tendency to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees...this would be under lust. But God can deliver us from this tendency through His Son Jesus Christ, if we repent and humble ourselves.
Rick Warren, of course, speaks the TRUTH. That's the way men are designed.
All he is saying is if we acted out all of our biological impulses, we'd be in a heap of trouble. When AIDS was at its peak in the 1980's, the AVERAGE American homosexual with AIDS had sexual relations with between 700 and 1000 men (!)...and THAT'S Warren's point.
When you play with fire, you're liable to get burned (!)
Everyone has at least one predisposition to do something the Bible would deem wrong or sinful.
Sometimes that particular predisposition indulged can feel good. So, the natural inclination or "feeling" is to indulge that predisposition. This is, however, not always the right course of action.
This argument is sound and shouldn't be interpreted under the guise of a nervous, on-the-spot analogy with perhaps some unnecessary quantification concerning number of partners.
Okay, just watched the whole clip. Rick Warren changes the subject. He starts talking about gay people having multiple sexual partners. If that were all he meant by his comment about "nature inclines me...," that would be fine. However, that is not the issue. Warren sleazily equates promiscuous gay sex with monogamy.
Gay marriage is the opposite of the excess Rick Warren speaks of. He tries to equate the two and act like he's argued against gay marriage, when actually his argument SUPPORTS it.
So he's naturally inclined to have sex with every woman he sees, but he believes it's right for him to settle down with only one woman. Fair enough. I guess that means that for a gay man, who's naturally inclined to have sex with every man he sees, it's right for him to settle down with only one man.
See, Warren's counter-argument addresses the degree of sex drive, not the direction. That's why it's called "sexual orientation," because it's the orientation at which your sexuality is focused.
Rick's example only addresses the degree of sexual attraction. His example shows that moderation is key. After all, he may be sexually attracted to many women, but I can only hope he's sexually attracted to his wife, as well.
What Warren is asking, however, is that either gay people marry people they find completely unappealing, or they don't marry at all.
Simply being attracted to one person of the same sex and wanting to marry them does not constitute excess, as Warren implies.
..except that he doesn't. The fact that he's a chauvanist pig and thinks he's naturally obliged to have sex with any woman he sees--excuse me--naturally feels he should RAPE every woman he sees--and that only his 'superior religious morality' is stopping him from indulging in that fantasy, is disgusting and in no way an argument against people being born gay. If anything it reveals that he has severe mental problems and should be locked up, because the fear of hell is the only thing stopping him
1) There are things you don't literally adhere to in the Bible. Some are analogical. Some metaphorical.
2) Pick up a discrete mathematics book and look up how old some of the documentation therein is. We swear by these centuries-B.C.-old logical tenets in nearly all modern, science-based classrooms. Why?
Age of material doesn't necessarily correlate with validity of material.
The Bible is validated by whether or not its message is valid, not by its scribes. And, I don't think I know any invalid people.
Imperfect scribes were guided by a perfect author to pen scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). A perfect author would make sure his scribes, though imperfect, wrote perfect text.
To invalidate something, one needs to find fault with the 'something' itself.
Simply put: the middle-man for a given message is transcended ultimately by the message itself.
So I need to find some fault in the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
My argument is that we are both atheists, and that I simply believe in one less God than yourself, and as soon as you understand that I don't believe in your supernatural God for the same reasons you don't believe in all the God's of other mythologies, it will become clear that both of us truly don't believe in any supernatural Gods. That is my proof.
I'm offended by Warren. A so called "Christian" who bans gays from joining his church and teaches homosexuality can be "cured".
I don't agree with your use of the word atheist. I also don't see conclusive evidence demonstrating the supernatural as invalid. As for Warren, I don't think he bans 'gays' from his church. If he take's the Bible's stance on homosexual behavior, then he'd see it as sin (which is often prompted by temptation). It seems unfair that one should fight against that temptation because it could be 'built-in' biologically. That unfair predisposition is not God's work, though, but his Adversary's.
Actually, Warren does ban gays from his church. And I really do think you are an atheist, you just haven't come to terms with it yet. The day you realize that you have just as much reason to believe in your supernatural God as you have to believe in your Zeus, will be the day when you are ready to accept it.
Do you also blame mental illness and disease on the devil? How about natural disasters?
Where does it say or show that he bans 'gays' from his church? I'd like to see that.
So, you're saying because a text accounts for the supernatural, it is automatically on equal terms with every other document that accounts for the supernatural?
Anything that robs life or the abundance thereof is the result of sin at some level at some point in time - the devil's doorway into this realm. God can, however, harness the results of sin for his purposes. God is not the author of them, though.
Well, regardless of Warren's position and the media's take on it, let me just say this: a true Christian's attitude is one of reaching out and helping. Aside from those things God specifically forbids, a true Christian will not turn away anyone seeking a more abundant life as long as they want to be on track with God's way to that abundant life.
There is no such thing as a "true" Christian. What you are saying is there are interpretations of Christianity that more or less coincide with your own interpretation, and you personally believe that the ones that most coincide with your own are the "truer" interpretations. The reality is that virtually all Christians cherry pick from the Scriptures and interpret it in the way that best suits their particular situation. Hence why there are tens of thousands of interpretations of Christianity.
Well, Mr. Warren, beautiful women are naturally incline to run the other way!!!
kwadruple 3 years ago
We all have a fallen nature, it's called sin or the tendency to sin or rebell against God. Sin can be further devided into sins: lust, pride, envy jealosy, wrath etc. That's why Pastor Warren says he has a tendency to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees...this would be under lust. But God can deliver us from this tendency through His Son Jesus Christ, if we repent and humble ourselves.
graftedin1996 3 years ago
Rick Warren, of course, speaks the TRUTH. That's the way men are designed.
All he is saying is if we acted out all of our biological impulses, we'd be in a heap of trouble. When AIDS was at its peak in the 1980's, the AVERAGE American homosexual with AIDS had sexual relations with between 700 and 1000 men (!)...and THAT'S Warren's point.
When you play with fire, you're liable to get burned (!)
johnlorican 3 years ago
Thats why all Biblical stories tell about polygamy. Thats natural. Warren doesn't have balls to admit that
freesoul2005 3 years ago
Some scriptural advice to Rick Warren on inauguration etiquette:
"When you sit down with a powerful ruler, put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to gluttony" - Proverbs 23:2
erkekler 3 years ago
well put...
mulliganville 3 years ago
Here's what I heard:
Everyone has at least one predisposition to do something the Bible would deem wrong or sinful.
Sometimes that particular predisposition indulged can feel good. So, the natural inclination or "feeling" is to indulge that predisposition. This is, however, not always the right course of action.
This argument is sound and shouldn't be interpreted under the guise of a nervous, on-the-spot analogy with perhaps some unnecessary quantification concerning number of partners.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
Okay, just watched the whole clip. Rick Warren changes the subject. He starts talking about gay people having multiple sexual partners. If that were all he meant by his comment about "nature inclines me...," that would be fine. However, that is not the issue. Warren sleazily equates promiscuous gay sex with monogamy.
Gay marriage is the opposite of the excess Rick Warren speaks of. He tries to equate the two and act like he's argued against gay marriage, when actually his argument SUPPORTS it.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
So he's naturally inclined to have sex with every woman he sees, but he believes it's right for him to settle down with only one woman. Fair enough. I guess that means that for a gay man, who's naturally inclined to have sex with every man he sees, it's right for him to settle down with only one man.
See, Warren's counter-argument addresses the degree of sex drive, not the direction. That's why it's called "sexual orientation," because it's the orientation at which your sexuality is focused.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
Rick's example only addresses the degree of sexual attraction. His example shows that moderation is key. After all, he may be sexually attracted to many women, but I can only hope he's sexually attracted to his wife, as well.
What Warren is asking, however, is that either gay people marry people they find completely unappealing, or they don't marry at all.
Simply being attracted to one person of the same sex and wanting to marry them does not constitute excess, as Warren implies.
SeenAndNotSeen 3 years ago
I wouldn't probably agree with Pastor Warren on much, but here he absolutely devastates the I-was-born-this-way turd of an argument.
swwaddell 3 years ago
..except that he doesn't. The fact that he's a chauvanist pig and thinks he's naturally obliged to have sex with any woman he sees--excuse me--naturally feels he should RAPE every woman he sees--and that only his 'superior religious morality' is stopping him from indulging in that fantasy, is disgusting and in no way an argument against people being born gay. If anything it reveals that he has severe mental problems and should be locked up, because the fear of hell is the only thing stopping him
ruin3r 3 years ago
Calm down and shut up you feminazi.
malone23kid 3 years ago
And yet literally following a 2,000 year old book is the "right" thing to do? Puh leez!
solandcb 3 years ago
1) There are things you don't literally adhere to in the Bible. Some are analogical. Some metaphorical.
2) Pick up a discrete mathematics book and look up how old some of the documentation therein is. We swear by these centuries-B.C.-old logical tenets in nearly all modern, science-based classrooms. Why?
Age of material doesn't necessarily correlate with validity of material.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
The Bible is as valid as the men who wrote it.
solandcb 3 years ago
The Bible is validated by whether or not its message is valid, not by its scribes. And, I don't think I know any invalid people.
Imperfect scribes were guided by a perfect author to pen scripture (2 Timothy 3:16). A perfect author would make sure his scribes, though imperfect, wrote perfect text.
To invalidate something, one needs to find fault with the 'something' itself.
Simply put: the middle-man for a given message is transcended ultimately by the message itself.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
So I need to find some fault in the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie, who was his own father, can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
Well that ought to be tough!
solandcb 3 years ago
While I don't fully agree with the terminology you used, I can kind of see your argument.
I'm assuming your argument is this: supernatural claims found within a document cause invalidation of that document.
My question is this: can you conclusively prove that argument?
And, as an aside: it seems that you are offended by something here. May I ask what that might be?
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
My argument is that we are both atheists, and that I simply believe in one less God than yourself, and as soon as you understand that I don't believe in your supernatural God for the same reasons you don't believe in all the God's of other mythologies, it will become clear that both of us truly don't believe in any supernatural Gods. That is my proof.
I'm offended by Warren. A so called "Christian" who bans gays from joining his church and teaches homosexuality can be "cured".
solandcb 3 years ago
I don't agree with your use of the word atheist. I also don't see conclusive evidence demonstrating the supernatural as invalid. As for Warren, I don't think he bans 'gays' from his church. If he take's the Bible's stance on homosexual behavior, then he'd see it as sin (which is often prompted by temptation). It seems unfair that one should fight against that temptation because it could be 'built-in' biologically. That unfair predisposition is not God's work, though, but his Adversary's.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
Actually, Warren does ban gays from his church. And I really do think you are an atheist, you just haven't come to terms with it yet. The day you realize that you have just as much reason to believe in your supernatural God as you have to believe in your Zeus, will be the day when you are ready to accept it.
Do you also blame mental illness and disease on the devil? How about natural disasters?
solandcb 3 years ago
Where does it say or show that he bans 'gays' from his church? I'd like to see that.
So, you're saying because a text accounts for the supernatural, it is automatically on equal terms with every other document that accounts for the supernatural?
Anything that robs life or the abundance thereof is the result of sin at some level at some point in time - the devil's doorway into this realm. God can, however, harness the results of sin for his purposes. God is not the author of them, though.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
Just watch this video:
watch?v=Xz4O8j8MIhs
Yes, I would say that the Bible has just as much validity as any other religious text.
I guess you must consider the state to be the work of the devil since it can go to war and put people to death via penalty of law.
solandcb 3 years ago
I saw the video. Thanks for showing that to me.
Well, regardless of Warren's position and the media's take on it, let me just say this: a true Christian's attitude is one of reaching out and helping. Aside from those things God specifically forbids, a true Christian will not turn away anyone seeking a more abundant life as long as they want to be on track with God's way to that abundant life.
jmbarnardy1 3 years ago
There is no such thing as a "true" Christian. What you are saying is there are interpretations of Christianity that more or less coincide with your own interpretation, and you personally believe that the ones that most coincide with your own are the "truer" interpretations. The reality is that virtually all Christians cherry pick from the Scriptures and interpret it in the way that best suits their particular situation. Hence why there are tens of thousands of interpretations of Christianity.
solandcb 3 years ago