maybe it's childhood trauma of growing up near Charlotte in the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker days.

Bruce -

I remember the Swaggart/Bakker days.  Personally, I was just glad that God was cleaning house !  Hypocrites should be exposed for what they are, religious or otherwise.  Should hypocrites be forgiven?  Absolutely.  But they also need to repent and stop being hypocrites.  IIRC, Bakker did repent, but Swaggart did not.  Swaggart's board wanted him to step down for at least a year from public ministry.  He refused.  The board again exhorted him to step down.  He told them he gave a million dollars a year to missions through their denomination, and that they couldn't afford to have him step down.  Talk about ego !  They said they didn't care and told him again to step down.  He walked.  And I think his denomination eventually revoked his license to preach (or something like that).  It's been awhile, and I'm a little fuzzy on the facts.  However, I was quite pleased with that board's stand on integrity.  It really frustrates me when Christian leaders err theologically, financially and morally (sexually).  It's not just that they've become hypocrites, but that they've lost their opportunity to set a godly example.  However, the NT warns us that in the end times (see 2 Timothy, 2 Peter and Jude) that false teachers and hypocrites will abound.  Sad.  I've seen this sort of thing in non-Christian religions as well.  For example, it's a real problem in Tibetan Buddhism where some of the mystic rites involve sexual union between priest and layperson.  Many laity refuse, but often compromise due to pressure from their priests.

The lifestyle we are referring to is the irresponsible lifestyle, in which one denies that there could be any consequences for one's actions, gay or straight.

Don -

Well said !  I agree, as should be noted from my previous post above regarding Bakker/Swaggart and some Tibetan Buddhist priests.

I was speaking of equating Gay Marriage to Incest.

Don -

Is that what Warren actually said?  I'll have to look into that.  The last time I read Leviticus in the OT, incest described the sexual union between members of the same family.  That is different than "gay marriage".  I wonder if Warren was trying to say that the Bible does not endorse either incest or homosexual activity.  That would be the only connnection he could make from Scripture.

I don't believe anyone is implying that AIDS is a "gay disease".  I certainly am not.

****

Warren is in the news because of his stance on homosexuals. If AIDS isn't a "gay disease," then his helping victims of it is not any more relevant than if he helps cancer victims.

There are people (like me) who are uncomfortable with homosexuality who don't believe in The Bible.

There are people who are uncomfortable with homosexuality and use The Bible to justify that.

I think it's possible there are people who are NOT uncomfortable with homosexuality at all, but because The Bible proscribes against it, they feel they have no choice in how they approach the issue.  This could be the Warrens, for all I know.

Thoughts?

I think it's possible there are people who are NOT uncomfortable with homosexuality at all, but because The Bible proscribes against it, they feel they have no choice in how they approach the issue.  This could be the Warrens, for all I know.

Thoughts?

Kevin -

You've presented a category and a subtlety that I had not considered before.  I think I understand what you are saying, but before I comment further, I would appreciate some elaboration from you.  There's a nuance happening between your category #2 and #3 that I am not apprehending.  If you can clarify the differences between the two, I may then be able to give you some feedback.

BTW: I don't know the Warrens personally, and as stated upthread, I don't follow him or his teaching.  So in some sense,  I may not be able to give you any accurate feedback, as it may all be speculation on my part.   I would however like to understand where it is you are coming from.

BTW2: I guess what I am after is clarification in category #3, i.e. they are not uncomfortable with homosexuality. In what sense do you mean?  Being around homosexuals?  Talking about homosexual activity?  Ministering to homosexuals who have AIDS?  Again, I can't speak for the Warrens.  But from the NT, I do know that Jesus was friends with all kinds of people who were not among the religious elite.  It seems to me, he ate with tax collectors and sinners, people that the Jewish religious leaders would not associate with.  What I am getting at in trying to answer your question is this.  Perhaps the Warrens are following Christ's example in being around people who think and act differently than them.  While at the same time, they hold differing convictions on what is considered marriage and sexuality.

Category three, Dan, would be people who don't have a personal problem with homosexuality, but see it as wrong because it says it is wrong in The Bible (or similar holy text for the applicable religion).