Obama picks Rick Warren for inaugural invocation, gay leaders furious

[panda_priest]

Obama doesn't support gay marriage.

[panda_priest]

It's a freaking invocation.  I don't think it's a big deal who he picks.

It's the symbolism. It's someone who represents more of the same old thing that we've seen for years, as opposed to something different that America voted for. It's insulting to gay & lesbians, it's yet another unnecessary and ridiculous "compromise", and it's just plain stupid.

Why are gays angry about Rick Warren when OBAMA DOESN'T SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE?

[panda_priest]

you know you're in the last days when an inaugural invocation by someone who teaches traditional biblical values becomes "controversial"

I think if we started stoning disobedient children out in the streets that would be a tad controversial.

[panda_priest]

you know you're in the last days when an inaugural invocation by someone who teaches traditional biblical values becomes "controversial"

I think if we started stoning disobedient children out in the streets that would be a tad controversial.

let's see, according to your logic:  "we should stop preaching against murder, theft, bestiality, and incest...since those values also are found in the bible."

sorry, but you're just plain stupid (as well as ignorant of the differences between the old and new covenants)

Traditional Biblical Values are responsible for the murder of children when the old testament was written, which at the time was the "new" testament. Now we have today's Traditional Biblical Values that deny gay rights to Americans. That's why choosing Rick Warren for Obama's inauguration is controversial, though hypocritical since Obama opposes gay marriage.

[panda_priest]

you know you're in the last days when an inaugural invocation by someone who teaches traditional biblical values becomes "controversial"

I think if we started stoning disobedient children out in the streets that would be a tad controversial.

let's see, according to your logic:  "we should stop preaching against murder, theft, bestiality, and incest...since those values also are found in the bible."

sorry, but you're just plain stupid (as well as ignorant of the differences between the old and new covenants)

Traditional Biblical Values are responsible for the murder of children when the old testament was written, which at the time was the "new" testament. Now we have today's Traditional Biblical Values that deny gay rights to Americans. That's why choosing Rick Warren for Obama's inauguration is controversial, though hypocritical since Obama opposes gay marriage.

Eh...there's no evidence that the Law of Moses was ever strictly enforced, and plenty that it wasn't.  Both archeological evidence and the latter parts of the Old Testament are pretty clear that the Israelites' reputation for being "stiff-necked" and not following the Law is pretty well-founded.

EDIT: At least in pre-Exile, First Temple times.

After that, the Talmud is pretty clear that the Sanhedrin were not big on actually giving out death sentences for crimes that Moses wanted to give death sentences for.

After Hellenistic influences set in, the upper crust of the Jewish elite were eating non-Kosher meat, hanging out in the gymnasium, and discussing non-Jewish philosophy, and were rarely, if ever, punished.  After all, it's not like the Hasmonean (and later Herodian) authorities, who were doing the same, cared.

I'm saying there were parents the stoned their children because those were the biblical values at the time. Now we have new biblical values that deny gays they're right to marry because the bible is against it. The bible is also against divorce but christians  and christians divorce all the time and are allowed to do so.