Friday, January 30, 2009

The Sins Of Rick Warren: #3 Homosexuality Disproves Darwin!

Or Should That Be "Evolution Disproves Homosexuality?"
Can Rick Warren Have It Both Ways?

Rick Warren has to decide which he hates more: homosexuality or evolution. He relies on the lame arguments of websites like Renew America and it's "creator" Alan Keyes.

September 8, 2005
Charles Darwin disagrees with homosexuality

By Nathan Tabor

Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all "beings" — as opposed to the outmoded religious idea of "creatures" — are continually adapting to their natural environment in order to have a better chance of surviving. ... the strongest and most improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their genes, and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.
Of course, the Hawaiian-shirted Warren approves of this generalization of Darwin's findings. If he didn't, he would be ostracized from the Southern Baptist Convention sooner than you can say "species." Notice how the author of the piece immediately tells us that science doesn't pay any attention to religion, therefore, religion should never pay any attention to science.

Now according to the great one, represented by the author, Nathan Tabor and literalists like Warren, the rest of the premise goes thusly: Darwin's evolution depends entirely on adaptation via procreation. Gays cannot procreate, therefore they are not part of evolution. Forget that "it's in the genes" stuff. And so...
Not only are homosexuals seemingly blind to their moral conflict with Christianity, they are also blind to their natural conflict with our modern secular god, Science, particularly as espoused by the disciples of Charles Darwin, the prophet of evolution.
Got that? Again, I think Warren wants it both ways: no such thing as evolution and no such thing as a genetic link to homosexuality. "It's a choice."

Right. In Warren's convoluted world (albeit absolute, therefore absolutely convoluted) things mean what he wants them to mean even if they're contradictory.

This is yet again an example of Warren's modus operandi: pick whatever suits your own philosophies best: evolution has been studied by greater minds that Rick Warren's (Gasp!) and has found anomalies to natural selection, but the basic principle is still very strong. A combination of genetics, biochemistry, and neurology can result in homosexuality. The "god of science" cannot be ruled out.

So what is Rick Warren's sin here? The sin of hypocrisy? Actually I think it's the larger sin of hubris: Warren is so enamored of himself that he doesn't think anyone will notice that he picks and chooses from everything that gives him an advantage (that includes translations of the Bible).

And for the people who actually agree with Warren, the above article (in full length here) is a hodgepodge of falsities and fantasies:

(From Ex-Gay Watch - Mike Airhart)
  • ostracized Dr. Paul Cameron’s claims that gay men tend to die by age 42 [totally untrue]
  • rightist hate groups’ myth that gay rights advocates say their lifestyle is genetically determined and claim they have no choice over their behavior;
  • the myth that “most homosexuals reject God,” [too many go to church in spite of what the church thinks about them!]
  • scientifically illiterate distortions of the theory of evolution. [As well as anthropology, history, and archeology]

And remember: when Feb. 12th rolls around (the 200th birth date of Darwin), Rick Warren will celebrate with a sermon about how Adam and Eve and even Jesus, cavorted with dinosaurs but not homosexuals.

Just a thought.

Bigots and Battles: What Gets You Scrapped From Your Ministry?

(From USA Today, Cathy Lynn Grossman)

So you'd think that sexual misconduct, gay or straight, is the downfall of the righteous -- or at least one of the top reasons pastors lose their posts.

Nope. According to 10 years of surveys among pastors in the Southern Baptist Convention, the nations' largest Protestant denomination, sexual misconduct was not at the top of the list in 2006, the last time the survey was done. (Maybe it's creeped up since then.)

The big buggabo: Folks just can't get along. It's far more likely that feuding among the staff and clergy is what drives pastors out.

The top five reasons, pastors leave, resign or just plain get the boot:

  • Control issues (who’s going to run the church)
  • Poor people skills
  • Churches’ resistance to change
  • Pastor’s leadership style being too strong
  • Churches already in conflict when the pastor arrived.

Moving up the list, however were: Administrative incompetence (No. 8); Sexual misconduct (No. 9). Ethical misconduct such as mismanaged monies, dishonesty, etc. (No. 11) and "disagreement over doctrine" (No. 12).

Now we know what is REALLY on the mind of those sinister pastors: they're fascists who want the staff to tow the line and not change anything. Sound like anyone we know? O.K., so Pope Benedict isn't a Southern Baptist, but he certainly wants everyone to goose-step through his tenure. Problem is: the Catholic Church can't get rid of him.

"Disagreement over doctrine" is a poor 12th. Nice to know that religious principles come last. So what if the pastor teaches that Jesus rode an SUV into Jerusalem. He's a damned good administrator (and an even better kisser!).