![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the section on Terry Schiavo (retained below) from the main text. While correctly cited, the editor of this section took Warren's statements out of context and presented them in a negative and biased manner, quite apart from the original intent. The actual quotes are reproduced below the Removed Section along with my comments.
Begin Removed Section --- In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," [1] and suggested that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." [2] End Removed Section ---
Quote: 'If I were in a vegetative state, I would hope the people that love me would keep feeding me with the possibility I might come back out of that state. She's not on life support. This is not a matter -- this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion. It is the fact that they were just feeding a person who is, right now, mentally handicapped, and I, personally, I fear the day, that if we start saying, well, you don't have a right to live if you are mentally handicapped or you're physically handicapped or emotionally handicapped, and you -- we'll just, you know, stop feeding you. This is starvation. It's not pulling artificial life support, it's saying, we're just not going to feed you anymore. To me, that is an atrocity worthy of Nazism.' [comment - the intent here is to say that IF this is not a right to die issue then starving someone to death because we don't want them around is barbaric and is then comparable to Nazism. The intent does not seem to be, as the editor suggests, a direct criticism of Terri's husband.]
Quote: 'MATTHEWS: So why is he doing this, do you think? WARREN: I have no idea. Well, I don‘t know. There‘s 1,000 reasons you could speculate. What if she came back out of the—out of this state and had something to say that he didn‘t want said? [comment - this is a rhetorical answer and not a direct accusation as the editor tries to imply.] CarverM ( talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think his thoughts on evolution and creationism should be briefly mentioned, and maybe that he believes humans lived with dinosaurs.
On Rick Warren's website he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):
31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?
Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth?
Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.
I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!
...
If you want to study this further... Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses " Darwin's Black Box").
In 2007 interview Warren said:
Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.
On Warren's website he wrote about dinosaurs:
30. What about dinosaurs? Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs?
Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.
What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.
Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct. ...
This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing his beliefs. And add the creationist category per the many sources. [1] [2] Tgreach ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The quotes from the Saddleback website, #'s 30 and 31 are not directly from Rick but a part of the small group leader training Q&A and written by another staff member. So, while a minor point, these particular statements on creationism are not Rick's and should therefore not be in an article about him. CarverM ( talk) 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The phrase: "He has been christened by the media as 'America's Pastor'," keeps getting inserted [3] into the text with no citation. A quick search at Google News shows this is not a phrase that is used widely or consistently. I am removing it for now, and we can hash it out here.
This is also a good time to ask User:Manutdglory, a self-declared "member" of Saddleback Church [4], whether he can be neutral about this topic, and if not, whether he/she should voluntarily withdraw from editing this type of content. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep destroying my edits? Every time i add information to this article by directly quoting from the reliable sources, you revert my work and then threaten to ban me? Several times i have added more footnotes to directly link to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, the Pacifica News Network's broadcasts of Democracy Now, and i have conveniently provided the links to words i used such as "Reactionary" so you can read the literal definition and avoid quibbling about the nuances of vocabulary. If you look up the definitions of 'slander' and 'malign' you will see where i provided concrete examples which are undeniably demonstrated in those interviews and reports. Why are you so eager to obliterate my work when i have gone to the trouble of carefully providing fresh direct links to the specific _verifiable_ sources of information? Instead of arguing about whether an editor's viewpoint is sufficiently Neutral, why not just provide the information (the links, the citations, the quotations, the direct attributions) and allow the readers to decide and interpret and analyse for themselves? Why fight with me, why conduct a Revert-War, when you can just have an article full of citations and concrete examples? How can an editor satisfy your demands for 'Neutrality' if you keep deleting mention of those reports and interviews? Teledildonix314 ( talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed the section on Terry Schiavo (retained below) from the main text. While correctly cited, the editor of this section took Warren's statements out of context and presented them in a negative and biased manner, quite apart from the original intent. The actual quotes are reproduced below the Removed Section along with my comments.
Begin Removed Section --- In 2005, during the Terri Schiavo controversy, Warren called Michael Schiavo's decision to remove Terry Schiavo's feeding tube, "an atrocity worthy of Nazism," [1] and suggested that Michael wanted Terri to die because, if she regained consciousness, she might have "something to say that he didn‘t want said." [2] End Removed Section ---
Quote: 'If I were in a vegetative state, I would hope the people that love me would keep feeding me with the possibility I might come back out of that state. She's not on life support. This is not a matter -- this is not a right to die issue, in my opinion. It is the fact that they were just feeding a person who is, right now, mentally handicapped, and I, personally, I fear the day, that if we start saying, well, you don't have a right to live if you are mentally handicapped or you're physically handicapped or emotionally handicapped, and you -- we'll just, you know, stop feeding you. This is starvation. It's not pulling artificial life support, it's saying, we're just not going to feed you anymore. To me, that is an atrocity worthy of Nazism.' [comment - the intent here is to say that IF this is not a right to die issue then starving someone to death because we don't want them around is barbaric and is then comparable to Nazism. The intent does not seem to be, as the editor suggests, a direct criticism of Terri's husband.]
Quote: 'MATTHEWS: So why is he doing this, do you think? WARREN: I have no idea. Well, I don‘t know. There‘s 1,000 reasons you could speculate. What if she came back out of the—out of this state and had something to say that he didn‘t want said? [comment - this is a rhetorical answer and not a direct accusation as the editor tries to imply.] CarverM ( talk) 02:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I think his thoughts on evolution and creationism should be briefly mentioned, and maybe that he believes humans lived with dinosaurs.
On Rick Warren's website he wrote the following on the evolution (mispellings in original):
31. Is evolotion part of God's plan?
Question: Why is it not OK for evolution to be part of God’s plan? I don’t understand what the problem is: couldn’t God have used the process of evolution as the way that He created the earth?
Answer: When I was a new believer in Christ, I had some very strong feelings about the issue of evolution. Much as you have expressed, I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently. But they didn't push me or argue with me, they simply challenged me to take some time to look into the facts and study the issues carefully. I'll always appreciate them for that, because this was an issue that I had to really think through. Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together... that there are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution.
I would encourage you to take some time to study this issue. I found that, although I'd understood the science side of the equation, I needed to take some more time to read what the Bible really had to say about this subject. Not having taken the time to really read the Bible, I was very ignorant about what it had to say. Let me give you one example. I discovered that the problem of sin, as addressed in the Bible, was much more serious than I had previously thought. When I realized that the world was clearly a perfect place as God created it, and that this perfection was ruined by the sinful choice of Adam and Eve, it really started me thinking. Did the Bible teach evolution or did it teach the creation of a first man and woman named Adam and Eve? If we evolved, which human being would have made the choice that brought sin into this world? If Adam and Eve were just allegorical pictures, why did the New Testament place some much importance upon them as responsible and real individuals? Since God clearly says that it is our sin that brought death into our world, how could there have been death for billions of years before the arrival of the first man who sinned on the earth? As I asked questions about this issue and studied what the Bible had to say, I found it to be one of the greatest times of learning in my life as a new believer. My prayer is that you will have this same experience!
...
If you want to study this further... Here's a web site that you might want to check out: http://web.archive.org/web/20051118164840/http://www.probe.org/content/section/13/67/ (One article that is especially thought provoking discusses " Darwin's Black Box").
In 2007 interview Warren said:
Do you believe Creation happened in the way Genesis describes it?
WARREN: If you're asking me do I believe in evolution, the answer is no, I don't. I believe that God, at a moment, created man. I do believe Genesis is literal, but I do also know metaphorical terms are used. Did God come down and blow in man's nose? If you believe in God, you don't have a problem accepting miracles. So if God wants to do it that way, it's fine with me.
On Warren's website he wrote about dinosaurs:
30. What about dinosaurs? Question: How do they fit in with the idea that God created the world rather than the world evolving on it’s own? Why doesn’t the Bible talk about dinosaurs?
Answer: The Bible tells in Genesis 1 that God made the world in 7 days, and that He made all of the animals on the 5th day and the 6th day. All of the animals were created at the same time, so they all walked the earth at the same time. I know that the pictures we all grew up with in the movies were that dinosaurs roamed a lifeless, volcanic planet. Remember these are just pictures drawn by someone today! The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty.
What happened to the dinosaurs? The scientific record lets us know that they obviously became extinct through some kind of cataclysmic event on the earth. Many scientists theorize that this may have been an asteroid striking the earth, while many Christians wonder if this event could have been the worldwide flood in Noah's day. No one can know for certain what this event was.
Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs may have actually been mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term that includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squid, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct. The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job, chapter 40. We don't know for certain if these are actually dinosaurs or are some other large creatures that became extinct. ...
This aspect of religion and opinion on science is important in describing his beliefs. And add the creationist category per the many sources. [1] [2] Tgreach ( talk) 23:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
The quotes from the Saddleback website, #'s 30 and 31 are not directly from Rick but a part of the small group leader training Q&A and written by another staff member. So, while a minor point, these particular statements on creationism are not Rick's and should therefore not be in an article about him. CarverM ( talk) 02:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The phrase: "He has been christened by the media as 'America's Pastor'," keeps getting inserted [3] into the text with no citation. A quick search at Google News shows this is not a phrase that is used widely or consistently. I am removing it for now, and we can hash it out here.
This is also a good time to ask User:Manutdglory, a self-declared "member" of Saddleback Church [4], whether he can be neutral about this topic, and if not, whether he/she should voluntarily withdraw from editing this type of content. Thanks. -- Fuzheado | Talk 07:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Why do you keep destroying my edits? Every time i add information to this article by directly quoting from the reliable sources, you revert my work and then threaten to ban me? Several times i have added more footnotes to directly link to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the DailyKosTV, the Pacifica News Network's broadcasts of Democracy Now, and i have conveniently provided the links to words i used such as "Reactionary" so you can read the literal definition and avoid quibbling about the nuances of vocabulary. If you look up the definitions of 'slander' and 'malign' you will see where i provided concrete examples which are undeniably demonstrated in those interviews and reports. Why are you so eager to obliterate my work when i have gone to the trouble of carefully providing fresh direct links to the specific _verifiable_ sources of information? Instead of arguing about whether an editor's viewpoint is sufficiently Neutral, why not just provide the information (the links, the citations, the quotations, the direct attributions) and allow the readers to decide and interpret and analyse for themselves? Why fight with me, why conduct a Revert-War, when you can just have an article full of citations and concrete examples? How can an editor satisfy your demands for 'Neutrality' if you keep deleting mention of those reports and interviews? Teledildonix314 ( talk) 21:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)