Updated 12:47 pm.EST, Sun November 22, 2009

Society|Fri, Jan. 16 2009 03:42 PM EST

Warren Praises Invitation of Gay Bishop for Inaugural Prayer

By Jennifer Riley|Christian Post Reporter

Rick Warren, who has been under a cloud of controversy since it was announced that he will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration, applauded the President-elect this week for also inviting the openly gay Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson to pray at the inaugural opening ceremony.

“President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground,” Warren said in a statement. “I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen.”

Warren, in recent weeks, has been barraged with criticism from gay rights advocates because of his support for the anti-gay marriage measure Proposition 8 and for comparing same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia in an interview, although he later clarified that he doesn't believe gay partnerships are the same as the other two sexual behaviors.

Critics have called Obama to rescind his invitation to Warren, accusing the evangelical pastor of being a “homophobe.” They also argue that the invitation contradicts Obama's promise to support greater gay and abortion rights.

Obama has, however, defended his selection of Warren saying that the inauguration will feature “a wide range of viewpoints” and one of the trademarks of America is its diversity.

Robinson was among the critics, calling the Warren invitation a “slap in the face,” according to The Washington Post.

In 2003, Robinson became the first openly gay clergy to be elected bishop in The Episcopal Church. His appointment as bishop, among other issues, has sparked severe division in the Anglican Communion with conservative Episcopal churches and dioceses splitting off from the denomination.

The controversial bishop will give the prayer on the first day of formal inaugural events in Washington this Sunday.

In preparation for the event, the bishop said he has read inaugural prayers throughout history and was “horrified” at how “specifically and aggressively Christian they were,” according to the New York Times.

For his prayer, Robinson said he is “very clear” that it “will not be a Christian prayer, and I won’t be quoting Scriptures or anything like that.”

“The texts that I hold as sacred are not sacred texts for all Americans, and I want all people to feel that this is their prayer,” he said.

Robinson said he might make the prayer out to “the God of our many understandings.”

He also said his partner of more than 20 years, Mark Andrew, would accept an invitation from the Obama team to join him in several inaugural events, according to the NY Times. The two had a civil union ceremony last summer in a New Hampshire church.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:22 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    It is not comparable to idolatry, the way the Pagans were having sexual orgies in temples were what was idolatry, and that is what Paul was talking about. Paul's biggest message was steering people clear of the practices of idolatry, and it certainly wasn't speaking about homosexuality in terms of a committed relationship. Those who say it addresses all forms of homosexuality are not using the historical context to guide their understanding.

  • Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:41 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Agreed, that posting was a hot mess.

  • Fri Jan 23, 2009 7:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "Hawk? 75% LOL yeah right. Man that is a joke! I guess that is if you include Mormons - JWs - Unaversalists - Poligamists - Homosexuals & Lezbians - Adulters - ect ect then the number might be much higher. However the road is Narrow not wide. Few therbe that find the truth!"

    I don't know which this man needs more, valium or a dictionary.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Christian Nation? - Many say we were some say we never were. It all depends upon the definition. To say we never were is based on one's definition and to say we were depends upon that other person's definition. It's an apple and orange discussion until a definition is offered and agreed upon.

    Samuel P Huntington (Who are we?, 2004) offers one concept of a Christian nation based upon a Christian worldview:
    America's core culture has [had] been ... primarily the culture of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century settlers who founded American society. The central elements of that culture can be defined in a variety of ways but include the Christian religion, Protestant values and moralism, a work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music. Out of this culture the settlers developed in the eighteenth centuries the American Creed with its principles of liberty, equality, individualism, representative government, and private property. Subsequent generations of immigrants were assimilated into the culture of the founding settlers and contributed to and modified it. But they did not change it fundamentally. This is because, at least until the late twentieth century, it was Anglo-Protestant culture and the political liberties and economic opportunities it produced that attracted them to America.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:44 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Back to the original topic: It is no surprise that President Obama chose Warren for this, since Warren is certainly America's pastor, meaning he wants to be everythig to everybody-thus he sees no great conflict in telling some people that homosexuality is a sin, while lauding the gay preacher President Obama also invites. Warren would make a consumate politician in this respect, as it's the same thing politicians do-tell people what they want to hear at one time, and then deny saying, or meaning it, to others. He is an apostate, like Billy Graham, Joel Osteen and their ilk. Numbers and popularity are all that matters.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:08 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sawnay~Rah
    I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. Only 4% per Barna can be identified as born-again with a limited Christian worldview. It goes down to 0.3% when tested for a more moderate Biblical literacy test.

    Over 70% are deluded to believing they are Christian.

    The gate and path are very narrow, indeed!

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    @Sawnay~Rah

    That may include Rastas as well.

  • Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:07 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    @HAWK

    Pardon me. I understand what you're saying, so I'll try to word that statement more appropriately.

    "The bond that holds America together, i.e. what she is founded upon and what is her foremost guiding principle..."

    Still, regardless of the population's contemporary worldview at the time or the poetic prose of Alexis Tacoville (ha! see what I did there?), the fact remains that America is not a "Christian" nation. However, the ideals of the equality of humans and the right of each person to seek joy in within the context of what is not harmful is a large part of Christian morality.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hawk? 75% LOL yeah right. Man that is a joke! I guess that is if you include Mormons - JWs - Unaversalists - Poligamists - Homosexuals & Lezbians - Adulters - ect ect then the number might be much higher. However the road is Narrow not wide. Few therbe that find the truth!

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:03 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mtg;
    We are passing the baton on to our children and grandchildren and what we are passing to them is something not to be proud of. Will they persevere? Yes. Could we have done better? Yes. For a population that claims about 75% are Christian, where is the salt and light?

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    johnzon,
    you obviously did not read de Tocquille's Democracy in America. He addressed your concerns very well and even broke down cultural differences between different elements of the population. He even addressed the dynamics between various worldviews where there is no common ground. Being a Christian nation doesn't mean that all citizens were Christians; just the culture mirrored on the whole the Christian principles. There was a mixture of humanists and true Christians as well as notional Christians. The answer to your concerns is more complicated than allowed on this site and something you need to take responsibility for to resolve. I would also lead you to read A Patriot's History of the United States by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen as some Kool-Aid to your wrath.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Believer

    <<..loosen His grip of protection on our nation. >>

    I would think God would have had plenty of reason to "loosen His grip of protection " a long, long time ago say during the terrorist acts commited against his creation's- African's and Native Americans by the white population. Actually though, I do not believe there is a God protecting anyone. We all believe what we choose to believe based on our own personal experiences and what seems to make sense to us. To many, religion makes sense, to others not so much.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 8:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Sawnay~Rah
    Thank you for your response. In this day and age we are not a Christian nation by any stretch of the imagination. It would appear back at the beginning of the US that the majority of the population did adhere to a Christian worldview and worshipped Christ rather than hate Him. At least the founding fathers professed this as truth.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Hawk - you asked: What is your definition for "Christian nation"?
    How can I define something that is not real?
    Here is my proof as if I needed to prove anything
    Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
    ALL means ALL therefore no Christian nation
    Man that is so clear.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    That last post was in response to something HAWK asked me.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    As far as fear is concerned, I have no fear for my children and grandchildren. I am noy being smug when I say that, as far as the future is concerned, I have a peace that passeth understanding. Besides, my descendants (and yours) will be able to handle whatever challenges come their way. i honestly believe that.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:03 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    j, I for one have never believed that America has ever been a Christian nation, but only that it was founded on Christian morals and values rooted in the Word of God. And while we're by no means a perfect nation, God cotninues to have His hand on this nation because many Christians are staying true to His truths and teachings found in His Word, but I fear if our nation continues to become the secular nation many would like it to be God will begin to, if He hasn't already, loosen His grip of protection on our nation.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:37 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK,

    It would appear you dodged my question/point. I understand your evasion, those that proclaim America to be a "Christian Nation" have trouble reconciling their claim and the crimes commited against humanity by the "Christian Nation", ie genocide and terroism commited against African slaves and Native Americans.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Sawnay~Rah
    What is your definition for "Christian nation"? As your statement is against many who claim that our country was a Christian nation; meaning a culture that exudes the morals and values of a Christian worldview, not that the majority were necessarily born-again Christians.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    johnzon,
    I suggest you read all of Alexis de Touqville and you'll find your answer. He weighs the good and the bad and the end result is mostly, predominately good because is was mostly Godly. Afterall, his measure was against the godless Enlightenment of France and the evils of socialism prevailing in that country.

  • Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:21 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    There is NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN NATION!

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:40 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    HAWK

    <<America as a Christian nation>>

    Enslavement and persecution of Africans and the destruction through terrorism of Native Americans was the norm in America during the times before, during and after the drafting of the US constitution. Is that what you mean in reference to "America as a Christian nation"?

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Sawnay~Rah

    <<..shows how ungodly America has become! >>

    Oh sure, America was much more "Godly" when Africans were enslaved, lynched and persecuted, Native Americans wiped out by acts of genocide commited by the white Christians. Oh how "Godly" America was back then. Lets bring back slavery, persecution and lynching of African-Americans and kill off the what remains of the Native American population, then we as a nation can become more "Godly" once again.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular....

    The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims...

    This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation (demonstrated in chapter 2 of Original Intent), they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them. This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," and by John Adams as "rational." A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries.
    David Barton, Wallbuilders

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Reading some of the posts related to this article makes it clear why the founding fathers drafted the constitution in such a way as to minmize the influence of religion in government. Its easy to see here how too much religion poisons the mind from from objectivity and rational thought.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Iconoclast
    I don't agree with you about the Constitution being the bond that holds us together. It was first and foremost a Christian worldview based population. The Constitution originally provided a firm, non-arbitrary foundation for rule-of-law to allow the nation to excel. Alexis de Tocqueville probably made the most cogent observations:
    "Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the US themselves look upon religious belief....

    I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...in her fertile fields....in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

    Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power.

    America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

    Over the past 70 years we've degraded from a Christian worldview society to a humanist society and we cease to be good. I allow God to define what is good and not.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:57 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    mtg;
    It is not fear as much as grieving for what my children and grandchildren are going to have to live with.

    You profess you are a Christian and I would think that you would be more concerned that this nation follow in God's will rather than follow a humanist path which it is on. The original form of government is built upon a Christian worldview though there is no "religion" attached to it. It has been greatly morphed significantly over the recent years. It would work for some other worldviews, but not all. However, it is not the form of government but rather those that govern that should cause the concern for a Christian and whether or not we move towards or away from a Christian based culture.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Anyone who thinks Rick Warren is a real Christian needs their head examined. Obama selecting this fruitcake to pray over his inauguration once more shows how ungodly America has become! Now that RW is applauding this Homosexual who says he is a bishop is another reason to rejoice when Christians - I mean REAL ones - stand up and realize their mistake in thinking Obama is a christian.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    @intek

    I doubt that Warren invoking God to guide Obama is a compromise of his moral values. If anything, Obama's support of what many consider a "sinful agenda" means that he needs divine assistance more than ever. A person can pray for and be civil to a sinner without losing his Christianity.

    @Hawk

    An excellent and eloquent argument that contained some words I had to think about for a second. Still, you assume that the bond that holds this nation together is Christian morality, when it is, in fact, the Consititution.

    @cjconner

    Thank you for the link! Very well written, Reverend. (I assume that you are the good Rev. Conner?) Martin Luther suffered from gout, which is caused by a buildup of excess uric acid, and seeing that a few conditions that effect one's sanity are related to uric acid as well, it's a feasible theory. More feasible than the standing theory, anyways, that his later anti-semitism was actually a sort of temper-tantrum he threw when his earlier, more compassionate literature failed to convert the Jews. It was common place, during his time, for people in power to go completely nuts.

    Nice site. :D

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Rick Warren may be willing to compromise your dearly held prejudices, intek, but that does not mean he is compromising the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Don't inflate your views to that level.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:33 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Rick Warren needs to repent. Clearly, homosexuality is a sin. Rick Warren knows that. It's so obvious that Mr. Warren is so committed to a social agenda that he is willing to ignore a Biblical truth. He is willing to compromise the Gospel of Jesus Christ for his own gain, whatever that is. According to Bible prophecy, there will be a great apostasy from Christs church, a great falling away. It's so obvious that Mr. Warren has gone that route. But there will come a day when these so called "leaders of christianity" will have to give an account to God. And that's a fact!!

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 11:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am a Christian, but when HAWK writes, "This ecumenical inauguration is stating that all religious worldviews are the same," I am not frightened. I don't believe HAWK should be frightened, either. The ecumenical inauguration shows that all religious worldviews are the same - from the vantage point of our secular government. I, for one, think this is the correct view for our United States government to take.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 9:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    This inauguration is a precursor of things to come from this new administration. This ecumenical inauguration is stating that all religious worldviews are the same which in the end dilutes the remaining Christian worldview in this nation and we end up with a meaningless morass of pluralism in a culture swimming in moral relativism.

    The glue that bonds a nation is either a common worldview or a totalitarian government. By unraveling the bonds of this nation we will be ripe for some major changes to even bigger government. The ultimate goal for Marxism is a one world order. The Citizen Of The World assumes the White House this week.

  • Mon Jan 19, 2009 8:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    cjconner, Europe has a very long sad story of anti-semitism among Christians and non-Christians alike. It is very well documented. Most notably, the Holocaust. Without centuries of virulent anti-Semitism Europe, the Holocaust would not have been possible to the degree that it occurred. Anti-semitism is well documented for both Protestant's and Catholic's. Denial of this history is revisionism and perhaps is analogous in some ways to Holocaust denial. It was not until the middle 20th C that many Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church began repudiating the kind of anti-Judaic theology that contributed to persecution of Jews by Christians.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Iconoclast:

    You are wrong about Martin Luther when you said:

    (He was also zealously anti-semitic, but we'll skip that for now.)

    see: http://www.revcjconner.com

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 2:16 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I am a Christian, but my government is not a Christian government. I think we can all live with that concept.

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:59 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Iconoclast is telling the truth in this post:

    "Everyone involved needs to put down their selfishness, quell the burning of their moral egos every time someone picks at it, and realize that, whether they like it or not, the president and this country belong to EVERYONE equally. Those to the left need to learn that they cannot rightly preach tolerance for others if they do not tolerate those opposed to them. Those on the right (specifically Christians) need to realize that our religion does not give us any special right to this nation's path - The US Treaty with Tripoli, Article 11: 'The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.'"

  • Sun Jan 18, 2009 1:56 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    You people have no interest in the "big tent" administration Obama is planning. You also have no interest in any "big tent" church. Go....and all of you just stay together happily in your "little tent." Bless you as you leave (and don't let the door hit your rear end on the way out).

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 10:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    This entire "Rick Warren" business is a farce. The above article was what finally motivated me to share my feelings on the subject at hand. I shall present three ideas for your consideration.

    1.) Rick Warren is a floudering, appeasing hypocrite. He first compared homosexuality to pedophilia, later denied that he did so despite videotaped evidence to the contrary, and now he is praising Obama's invitation of an openly gay bishop. He changes his colors with the ease of a chameleon - he's either spineless, co-dependent, or both.

    2.) The progressive liberals have been lambasting Obama for his choice of Rick the Chameleon, saying that they feel jilted by "their president's" choices. Now, I have always had a soft spot for liberals - I see them as misguided social pioneers with the right ideas but the wrong plans. Heck, Martin Luther was considered radical for his time, right? (He was also zealously anti-semitic, but we'll skip that for now.)

    The progressive ideal has always been "Believe and live as you will, so long as you do not harm those around you." However, with Obama inviting Rick the Chameleon to give his invocation, we may finally see the hidden subtext of their ideals typed out in invisible font: "Believe and live as you will... so long as it's okay with us."

    From where I stand (which is on a soap box :B), it seems like this new progressive way of thinking is just a more insidious kind of bigotry and fascism. Obama isn't "their" president... he's everyone's presidents. They need to deal with it.

    3.) This is how the situation needs to be resolved.

    Everyone involved needs to put down their selfishness, quell the burning of their moral egos every time someone picks at it, and realize that, whether they like it or not, the president and this country belong to EVERYONE equally. Those to the left need to learn that they cannot rightly preach tolerance for others if they do not tolerate those opposed to them. Those on the right (specifically Christians) need to realize that our religion does not give us any special right to this nation's path - The US Treaty with Tripoli, Article 11: "The government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

    This whole thing is ludicrous and needs to be resolved.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    G.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 4:31 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Wow, "the God of our many understandings."
    Is this the god of confusion? OR
    The god of this world?
    The flying spaghetti monster?
    The antichrist?
    Elmo?
    I'm sure whomever he/she/it/them is very pleased to hear our prayer and is just ready to answer us.
    What a expensive mockery of not only governmental ceremony but more importantly, true religious faith this event is turning out to be.
    God laughs.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    ok I give up

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "“President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground,” Warren said in a statement

    James4:4 You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Don't know what happened to my posts.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "In preparation for the event, the bishop said he has read inaugural prayers throughout history and was “horrified” at how “specifically and aggressively Christian they were,” according to the New York Times."

    He's kidding right! How can he possible think he knows the God of the bible and then make a statement like that?
    This is just sickening, but I guess this is how he has to look at things to justify his lifestyle.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    "“President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground,” Warren said in a statement."

    James4:4 "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."

    Wonder how Mr. Warren would spin this scripture?

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 9:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I was going to drop a comment but you all said it all. AMEN.

  • Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:28 am Agree: 8   Disagree: 1

    'The God of our many understandings' is not the God of the bible; Jesus Christ said 'i am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the father except through me' and 'if you do not believe i am who i say I am you will indeed die in your sins'. We know scripture says 'the wages of sin is death' and 'any man who does not believe stands condemned already'. Gay 'Christian' activists like Robinson are trying to paint their opponenets as the 'haters', but it is because they do not believe Jesus is exactly the person he said he was or the God of the bible classifies homosexuality as a sin that they are the haters of men; more willing to redefine truth in light of their desires than redefine their lives in light of their 'so-called' faith. Scripture says men love darkness rather than light. It also says in the latter days many false Christs will preach/be preached of. Bible-believing Christians ought to start dividing and sorting universalist pluralist heresy from our ranks. These are 'doctrines of demons'. If your 'Christian' faith isnt compatible with what scripture says than is it really Christianity? Or is it just your own modified cut-to-suit religion with the term 'Christianity' slapped on it? Many men are being led away from the true Christ because we are too afraid to divide in America. Let us divide and be done with these men; their mouths are filled with passion laced with poison and their hearts are too hard to see what is happening.

  • artm »
    Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    Sorry, I meant to say, It is God who is offended most by the homosexual lifestyle.

  • artm »
    Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:09 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    while mmany do not like mr Robinson's lifestyle,( I am one of them ), Pleaswe remember, His greater Offense is against God.

    It is God who is offended most the honosexual lifestyle.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • Music
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links