- List All

  • Web   The Point


+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory

« The gift of perspective | Main | The Point Radio: Recession Gardens »

April 13, 2009

Daily roundup

AddThis Social Bookmark Button


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Daily roundup:



I am sorry, but Rick Warren's comments are still not adding up(see his Christiantiy today Q and A)Am I missing something? If he stands for marriage as one man and one woman and he follows the Biblical principles that homosexual behavior is immoral, wrong and sin and that it should not be sanctioned or condoned by the state, then what did he have to apologize for when emailing gay leaders who he knows. It appears he apologized for standing up for Biblical priciples and recanted his belief in them. Is that an incorrect reading of what he did?

Jason Taylor

He can apoligize that he has to hurt someone's feelings just as a dentist can apoligize that he has to pull someone's tooth.


Dear Jason,

That is a good point. Thank you for your thoughts, but is that what he did? I did not get that impression. What did you read or learn about that gave you the impression that Warren apologized for hurting feelings, but did not back away from Biblical truth if he apologized for backing the marriage proposition? Thanks.

Ben W

Well, he does give the impression of being strong on his stance on homosexuality in the interview. What else could he be apologetic for? It seems he bears no ill will towards homosexuals while maintaining his own boundaries very clearly.

Jason Taylor

I didn't read or lean anything of the kind. Perhaps I just assumed that was what was meant.


Anyone who has raised teenagers can say, along with Pastor Warren, that it is challenging to respond to the statement "If you don't let me (fill in the blank with some behavior that is not only self-destructive, but hurts others as well), then you don't love me."

We are told repeatedly that we must accept the GLBT political agenda, or else we hate them. In fact, we're often confused about it ourselves.

I try to maintain relationships with the gay activists here at The Point. I do the same with the gays I know in my community. When they say that a vote on an.issue like gay marriage is a statement of personal animosity, I want to apologize - to attempt to repair the relationship. I don't believe a person can be reduced to an issue. (Brian, where *ARE* you, my friend?) I believe it's a lie that a person's worth can be reduced to even several issues.

I admit that an apology can sound like the compromise of one's convictions. (As my kids would say, "So I can go, then?" No, you can't. "BUT YOU JUST SAID... AUUUGH!") But I'm reasonably certain that's not what Pastor Warren did.


Lee Quad,

I am not sure I quite follow you when you say"I don't believe a person can be reduced to an issue." Could you please exand on that statement. Thanks


Thanks for the opportunity, PRL. Check out the Susan Boyle video as posted by Diane, then read the backstory in the article referenced by Gina. Read the excellent comments from Dan Gill and Steve (SBK). This woman has been deeply wounded, and yet her spirit soars. Then, read (somewhat between the lines) of other bloggers here at The Point; some of them have experienced and/or witnessed horrible situations, including one who has faced his own mortality and others who have been deeply wounded emotionally. Yet, they post these wonderfully inspiring messages for us. So a person cannot be reduced to a cancer survivor, a child of divorce, a lonely single, or whatever.

So when the gay lobby tells us that a vote against a marriage amendment is a personal attack, I don't believe it. Whatever terrible situation that might occur by not being married to one's gay/lesbian lover, it is not the end of one's life, the end of one's value as a person.

It particularly says that retaliation on the basis of having been "attacked" by Prop 8 donors is ridiculous.

Catherine's book (or rather, its excerpts I've seen so far) points out that even a murderer of one's family in an act of genocide is still a valuable person. (I think this is a large part of why PFM exists at all.) A person is not a single event, even if they caused it.

Marlee Matlin, brilliant actress, is not one event in her life. William Hurt, brilliant actor, is not one event in his. (Gina'd probably get justifiably angry if I asked to vote in the poll for the upcoming movie "The River Why"; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1241329/ Check out the cast.)

And Rick Warren is not just a prominent gay-basher; ask all those he's helped with the AIDS crisis. That is, if they can speak about him without apoplexy; they disagree with me, saying that a person can in fact be reduced to one issue, objectified, and treated as if they were an object - of scorn, in this case. Sadly, they see themselves reduced in the same way.

Gina Dalfonzo

Well, there is an "Other" option. :-)


Gina wrote: Well, there is an "Other" option. :-)

True, and while I'm sure you'd applaud my broadening the discussion from merely the most interesting major movies to instead the impact of actors' personal lives on success at the box office, once you figured out that I was really just seizing an opportunity to, as Rolley would put it, "yank your chain", well, I'm sure my name would be Mudd. What he did to Marlee is, after all, no laughing matter - even indirectly.

That said, I actually *am* interested to see if the film does worse than expected, or if there really is no such thing as bad publicity.

The comments to this entry are closed.