The American Spectator

Mike| 12.9.08 @ 5:17PM

The Newsweek article is weak to say the least. Anyone who has read or is at least familiar with the Bible would have no problem dismissing her selective, out of context attempts at an argument that is unsupported by God's Word. I'm more surprised Newsweek's editors didn't kill the article simply for its rambling incoherence. I'm also not sure this is the kind of argument the gay movement wants in a "mainstream" magazine either.

athelstane| 12.9.08 @ 7:47PM

"...and no, Miller, the Bible didn't refer to marriage as 'between one man and one woman,' that phrase just came about some time after the inspired Word did."

Well...

"And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” Matt. 19:4-6

The Greek is equally...clear.

Jay| 12.9.08 @ 8:18PM

I thought the Newsweek article was very good. It clearly illustrates a number of things:

1) The 'tradition' of marriage has changed many times and in many ways throughout history, making the 'traditional' marriage argument absolutely ridiculous.

2) The Bible's discussion of homosexuality does not discuss the relationship of two loving partners. To apply the Bibles admonitions to a loving couple simply reflects age old prejudices and bigotry.

3) Christianity preaches a message of inclusion. Those who would exclude a minority group from inclusion in civil marriage are not behaving in a Christ-like manner.

4) Since different Christian sects have different beliefs, some including same-sex marriage, it is ridiculous to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage on religious grounds.

There is no doubt in my mind that civil marriage of same sex couples will happen universally, and it will happen fairly quickly. Additionally, as people learn that same-sex marriage is completely consistent with Christian teaching, religious same-sex marriage will happen as well. It's just a matter of time. Religious institutions are slow to admit their mistakes. After all, it took until 1992 for the Roman Catholic Church to admit that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and for the Church to "express regret" for how it had treated Galileo. It took the Catholic Church 359 years to admit that mistake! I will be surprised if mainstream Christian churches move any faster regarding same-sex marriage.

Trurl| 12.9.08 @ 8:39PM

SOOOOOOOooooooo...

Did anyone see the Boston Legal finale *g*

Nicole Russell| 12.9.08 @ 9:17PM

Athelstane,

I like what you're saying and see your point. I should have been more clear in the post. I was referring to Miller's assertion that "First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman." Though I don't agree with her, I could see where-- given where she went with the piece--she might think technically, the Bible does not explicitly define marriage as such, in the words we use today. Because we don't speak the way the Bible does. But I do agree with you, Mt 19 says it as clear as the Bible is going to say it. It's just not the exact verbage I think she was looking for...

Jack's Pipe| 12.9.08 @ 9:51PM

"The Bible's discussion of homosexuality does not discuss the relationship of two loving partners."

Well, true, but the reason it doesn't is that sodomy is an abomination and the actions of those destined for hell. Need I quote the numerous Scriptures... Rom 1, 1 Cor 6, 1 Titus, etc. This is the kind of anachronistic false teaching that the churchmen in all ages, in old and new testaments, would have seen as absurd.

"Christianity preaches a message of inclusion. Those who would exclude a minority group from inclusion in civil marriage are not behaving in a Christ-like manner."

No, 20th and 21st century worldliness teaches a message of inclusion. Jesus didn't. He spoke of the wide road and the narrow gate.

4) Since different Christian sects have different beliefs, some including same-sex marriage, it is ridiculous to exclude same sex couples from civil marriage on religious grounds.

REALAMERICAN| 12.9.08 @ 11:40PM

INCLUSION????? Yes, to those that responded to him. Everyone has that choice. Some choose not to.

From John chapter 8
33 “But we are descendants of Abraham,” they said. “We have never been slaves to anyone. What do you mean, ‘You will be set free’?”

34 Jesus replied, “I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave of sin. 35 A slave is not a permanent member of the family, but a son is part of the family forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you are truly free. 37 Yes, I realize that you are descendants of Abraham. And yet some of you are trying to kill me because there’s no room in your hearts for my message. 38 I am telling you what I saw when I was with my Father. But you are following the advice of your father.”

39 “Our father is Abraham!” they declared.

“No,” Jesus replied, “for if you were really the children of Abraham, you would follow his example.[h] 40 Instead, you are trying to kill me because I told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham never did such a thing. 41 No, you are imitating your real father.”

They replied, “We aren’t illegitimate children! God himself is our true Father.”

42 Jesus told them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, because I have come to you from God. I am not here on my own, but he sent me. 43 Why can’t you understand what I am saying? It’s because you can’t even hear me! 44 For you are the children of your father the devil, and you love to do the evil things he does. He was a murderer from the beginning. He has always hated the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, it is consistent with his character; for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 So when I tell the truth, you just naturally don’t believe me! 46 Which of you can truthfully accuse me of sin? And since I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Anyone who belongs to God listens gladly to the words of God. But you don’t listen because you don’t belong to God.”

There are sides, and those that refuse to hear the word, well.... he clearly states what side they are on.

Jay| 12.10.08 @ 3:35AM

Dear Jack's Pipe,

"sodomy is an abomination and the actions of those destined for hell."

So, opposite sex couples, if they engage in sodomy are also destined for hell? Yet opposite sex couples are allowed to marry. Hmmm. Quite the double standard. If same sex couples limit their sexual activity to oral only, then that would be ok? Can they get married then?

I know, how about you keep your nose out of other people's bedrooms and leave it to God to judge them.

Until they meet with God's judgment (and it would be very presumptuous of any of us here on earth to think we know that that judgment may be), how about treating all people with the same love, decency, and respect that you would like other people to show you? You cannot deny anyone the rights and privileges that you enjoy and claim to be a child of God.

Jay| 12.10.08 @ 3:48AM

Dear REALAMERICAN,

"INCLUSION????? Yes, to those that responded to him. Everyone has that choice. Some choose not to."

Witness the fact that the world has many different religious groups, all claiming to be the one true way, and know that different people may see different ways of responding to Him. By all means, feel free to preach all you want, but the use of the state to take away other people's God given free will is distinctly un-Christian. Christ never used force, be it physical force, or the force of law, to get people to follow Him.

I think it interesting that you chose "REALAMERICAN" as your identifier here. Any "real American" would respect the Constitutional role of the First Amendment in establishing the doctrine of separation of Church and State. Anyone who considers themselves a "real American" *must* support same-sex civil marriage. Since the only argument against same-sex marriage is a religious one, using the state to ban same-sex marriage clearly violates the First Amendment, as it puts the state in the role of endorsing a particular religious view. Once this happens, then your own freedom to observe your own religious views in the conduct of your personal life is in jeopardy.

Ryan| 12.10.08 @ 9:20AM

Jay,

Your arguments are circular and don't make sense. I am sorry you don't accept God, but I believe if you will open your heart to Him you will experience more freedom and life then you can imagine. The problem is this country was founded on Christian principles and our society has decided to this point that same sex marriage is not acceptable. Trying to distort the Bible to say what you want still doesn't make it right. Throughout the Old and New Testament homosexuality is an abomination to God. The same could be said for any religion for that matter, but this discusion is about Christianity. And yes, Christianity is inclusive of all who choose to accept Christ and repent and turn their hearts toward him.

It is clear you are not going to be converted to Christianity in an internet discussion so I'll just stick to the flaws of the article in Newsweek. True Christians rightly laugh at its obvious distortions. But the article is offensive in the way it blasphemes God and its attempt to minimalize Christian beliefs with outright lies. The article isn't going to change a Christian's beliefs, but it is an attempt to steer those who may be seeking away from the truth. If anything this kind of unread argument makes the gay lifestyle movement look foolish.

Oh, and by the way we are promised freedom of our religion by the bill of rights, that does not mean we have to be a secular society. This issue isn't about pushing some kind of state religion on anybody. This is about societal norms and behavioral choices. If you want to turn this into a religious argument as Newsweek attempts, the Bible is quite clear where God stands on the subject.

J David| 12.10.08 @ 9:21AM

"Jay" makes an EXCELLENT case...for the ban hammer. There are occasions when "free speech" simply invites abuse.

J David| 12.10.08 @ 10:09AM

Anyone trying to revise what the Bible says to fit their own perversions doesn't really care what it says, or even the context in which its main characters, including the Living Word(Christ) are portrayed and quoted. Christ spent more time warning of Hell (that place created for Satan and his co-rebels, but that will receive all those humans found in his camp at the Great White Throne Judgment for the unrepentant -unregenerate) than describing Heaven. Jesus Christ was not just an Israeli, he was an observing JEW, living under laws dictated to Moses, who "came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill every jot and tittle" (which was completely done in the blood sacrifice of the Lamb of God at Calvary, which is the real "Reason for the Season"), and any kind of fornication/adultery(homo or hetero, or beastial) was a stoning offense that He never repudiates, and in fact, states that even active lust after another person illegitimately was SIN (any sin carries a spiritual death penalty before the all-holy Almighty). Purposeful, intentional corruption of the Bible carries with it a curse:V18 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophesy of this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. V19 And if anyone takes away from this book of prophecy God will take away from him his share in the tree of life..." Revelation 22:18-19

R. Dittmar| 12.10.08 @ 10:26AM

I still say that responding to people like Miller is a waste of time because they are not showing good faith in what they write. Lefties don’t give a d**n about anything found in the Bible because Christians in their eyes are a bunch of stump-toothed knuckle-draggers unworthy of inclusion in the body politic. Miller’s piece is just another in the long line of Biblical exegesis written in the vein of - “You inbred hayseed oogedy-boogedies can’t even read the Bible properly. Insofar as it says anything worthwhile, what’s said is in complete agreement with liberal orthodoxy.” You can’t debate theology with such people because their first instinct is to dismiss Christianity outright. Next they cherry-pick words and phrases that they think they can use to show off their interpretive genius and reinforce their own prejudices. I’m sorry to say it, but they are not the least bit interested in anything you say in response to them. Even if you were to be convincing, it would only lead them to deride the religious even more.

J David| 12.10.08 @ 11:15AM

Lefties try to use the Bible (with a twist) because they are children of the "Father of Lies", and because deep in their hearts they know the truth in the same way they use the Lord's name to curse (not Budda's or Allah's, or Confucius') because they know what name carries the REAL power, and they hate Him and His followers so much more because of it.

Joshua| 12.12.08 @ 10:04AM

I must admit, the judgmental attitude of some people on this comment stream is a bit upsetting. You (J David) accuse people of being "children of the 'Father of Lies'" because they interpret the Bible differently. If someone reads a verse and it means one thing to them, why does anyone else have the right to decide whether they are right or wrong. Is it not a matter between God and the reader at that point? As far as sodomy being an abomination, I don't believe that we're living under the Mosaic Law anymore. Is it a sin for man to lay with man as he does with woman, yes, because it is a sexual sin, beyond the bounds of marriage. It is outside of marriage because Judeo-Christian teachings do not permit such unions, and that's the way it is. I would never presume to make any faith change because of a law. Expecting a church or other religious group to accept gay marriage, or forcing it on them, would be the worst violation of the first amendment.

So yes, it is a sin. Is someone going to hell for it? Decidedly not. To say someone is going to hell for such a transgression is to spit in the face of the salvation Jesus promised to ALL people. For "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." I would just like to quote Matthew 22:31-40. This way there will be no confusion about interpretation.

"34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

If what Jesus said is true, and Jesus was without sin/lying, then someone's misinterpretation of the Bible is not going to lead them to hell. However, hate for fellow man, regardless of his actions or his personal choices is certainly contradictory to Jesus teachings, more than any other action save hatred of God.

Gandhi said: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
I believe we should all strive to be more like Christ, rather than like the sadducees and pharasees, worrying about the laws. Love God, love one another. When we can do this, everything else will fall into place according to Jesus.

The marriage issue is a seperate issue all together and if a state institutes it, it should be accepted, but the laws of each state, and indeed of the United States, are subject to change by the will of the people. If the majority of the people in an area don't want to accept gay marriage, that's democracy and that's how it works. If that majority sways, again, that's democracy and that's how it works.

biniki| 8.28.09 @ 10:40PM

bikini
bikini swimwear