Posted on 01/11/2009 10:06:22 AM PST by wagglebee
A December issue of Newsweek featured a cover story entitled “Our Mutual Joy” that purported to offer a “religious case” for gay “marriage.” Author Lisa Miller claimed, “Opponents of gay marriage often cite Scripture. But what the Bible teaches about love argues for the other side.” Really?
It is interesting that apologists for the homosexual lifestyle typically say, on the one hand, that religious conservatives don’t really understand Scripture; if they did, they would see that there is no prohibition against homosexual love or marriage. On the other hand, they tell us the Bible is not to be trusted as a modern-day commentary when it speaks on moral issues—particularly sexuality. As Miller put it, “the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scriptures give us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be married.”
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham was even more direct in his commentary on Miller’s article, saying that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”
In light of these statements, it is obvious that homosexuals do not want to be held to the biblical standards of faith and practice, yet have no trouble embracing some form of religiosity in order to feel sanctified in the eyes of God. As the apostle Paul put it in 2 Timothy 3:1-5:
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
In her attempt to justify what is scripturally unjustifiable, Miller, either consciously or unconsciously, has made a number of grievous errors:
MARRIAGE IS A HOLY ORDINANCE
First, marriage is not a triviality, but a holy ordinance ordained by God in the Garden of Eden. He declares to Adam and Eve in Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh,” which is His model for the union of male and female. Although some patriarchs strayed from this model following the Fall, it was not without consequences. David, for example, lost the son that was born as a result of his affair with Bathsheba.
Jesus is described by Miller as being “indifferent to earthly attachments,” but He reiterates God’s ordinance in Mathew 19:3-5 when questioned by the Pharisees on the matter of divorce:
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife and they twain [two] shall be one flesh?’ Wherefore, they are no more twain [two], but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.
Miller further claims that the “fact” that Jesus was single indicates that the Bible has no model for a “how-to” script on marriage. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Jesus was married—to His church (the community of believers), and His life is an allegory of traditional Hebrew marriage rituals.
In the Hebrew ritual, the father or his emissary would pick out the bride for his son. Next, a price was established for the bride to be paid by the groom. When the bride accepted the proposal, they were legally betrothed, but the marriage was not yet consummated. Gifts were exchanged between the bride and groom and the groom departed to prepare a place for his bride—often in his father’s house. The groom may have left for an extended period, but eventually he returned to claim his bride, take her to the place he prepared, and consummate the marriage.
Similarly, God the Father selects the bride (believers) for His Son (“All that the Father gives me shall come to me and I will in no wise cast out”—John 6:37). Jesus pays for His bride by His sacrificial death on the cross. Believers who accept Christ are sanctified, but not yet in His presence.
Upon a believer’s commitment to trust in Christ, he or she is given the Holy Spirit, who provides each believer a gift of the Spirit. Jesus leaves His bride (the church) to go to His Father’s house, but prior to His departure, says, “In my Father’s house are many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:2-3). In the end times, Jesus will return to the earth to gather His church and consummate his relationship with believers, who will then remain in His presence forever.
Accordingly, marriage is reflective of Christ’s relationship with His church and as such, is not a matter of “indifference” to Him, as Miller suggested, but rather has meaning beyond any other earthly institution—it is holy. In a Spirit-guided Christian marriage, the bride and groom mirror in many ways the relationship Christ has with His church. As noted in Ephesians 5:21-25:
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. For wives, this means submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything.
For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her.
Therefore, whatever two persons of the same sex wish to call their mutual relationship—partnering, co-habiting, or sharing a household—one thing is certain: It is not a marriage in the biblical sense nor in common sense.
COMPARING SLAVERY TO THE ISSUE OF GAY RIGHTS
Another fallacy of the gay rights movement is comparing America’s experience with slavery with the battle for gay rights. Miller accuses opponents of same-sex “marriage” of using Scripture “as the foundation for their objections,” in similar fashion as 19th-century supporters of slavery. Jon Meacham states this case most succinctly: “The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals. This argument from scripture is difficult to take seriously.”
The difference is that Scripture does not support slavery and recognizes it as evil, although it was a reality of the times. Persons who looked to the Bible for support on this issue were guilty of the same proof texting as Miller and Meacham. Paul states the biblical view quite clearly in 1 Timothy 1:8-10:
We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
Those who identify homosexuality as an issue of civil rights and equate it with racial discrimination are both insulting and irrational. Issues of race, ethnicity, national origin, or gender are all real and provable human characteristics. Homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, unlike the other characteristics, which are innate and immutable. There is not a person on earth that can prove he or she is a homosexual—it is a declaration that can change as evidenced by innumerable persons who have abandoned the lifestyle.
The most common factors in those who have entered the homosexual lifestyle are childhood sexual abuse, a poor relationship with the same-sex parent, or seduction. These classic causes were noted in the story of Lisa Miller (not the author) who left her lesbian relationship with Janet Jenkins convinced that the relationship was sinful. She later repented and reaffirmed her Christian faith. It was also revealed that “her mother sexually and physically abused her as a child and later, forbade her to date, telling her ‘men were evil.’” It is easy to see how she could fall into the homosexual lifestyle.
Miller is not alone in this circumstance. Many gay celebrities have admitted they were victims of childhood sexual abuse including Rosie O’Donnell, Ellen DeGeneres, Anne Heche, Julie Cypher, Melissa Etheridge, swimming star Greg Louganis, and Chastity Bono, who disclosed how she was seduced as a child into the “gay” lifestyle by one of Cher Bono’s lesbian friends. Additionally, many of the young boys seduced by priests were drawn into the homosexual lifestyle by the experience.
Gay-rights activists and their apologists have waged an effective brass knuckles campaign to portray homosexuality as inborn and unchangeable and therefore deserving of acceptance, affirmation, and codification into law. Nevertheless, declaring something to be true doesn’t make it so, nor does it make it right.
SCRIPTURE AND HOMOSEXUALITY
Contrary to the opinion of Newsweek's Miller, Scripture is clear and distinct about the subject of homosexuality no matter how hard gay activists would like to wish it away. Beyond the Old Testament condemnation of homosexual practice as an abomination (which Miller refers to as “throwaway” lines), Paul writes in Romans 1:25-27:
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
In view of the above, it is interesting to note that Miller claims, “Nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women.” Evidently, neither Miller nor her source, the Anchor Bible Dictionary, has ever read Romans.
Miller uses certain peculiar passages in Leviticus, which have no modern application, to suggest that statements condemning homosexuality need not be heeded: “[Leviticus is] a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. . . . Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices. . . . Why would we regard homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice . . . on the best price to pay for a slave?”
It is important to understand that there are three types of laws in the Old Testament: moral laws, ceremonial laws, and codified civil laws. Under the New Covenant, the ceremonial laws were abolished, since Jesus Christ Himself negated the need for the sacrificial system (see Hebrews 9:1-15). The moral laws remain timeless and permanent.
God imposed the codified civil laws on the Israelite nation during its formative years in order that the people not be corrupted by the practices of the pagans.
The punishment these laws invoked were not intended to be permanent, as can be clearly seen in Jesus' encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11). Although the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death in accordance with the Mosaic Law, Jesus challenged her accusers to show that they themselves were without sin. Jesus then forgave the woman and sent her on her way with the admonition, “Go and sin no more.” Clearly, her adultery was sinful but not a justification to stone her to death.
As Christians, we are called to follow Jesus' example and be witnesses—not executioners—for the redemption of sinners through entering into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Allan Dobras is a freelance writer on religious and cultural issues and an electronics engineer. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.
These idiots think that ANYTHING that disagrees with them can be dismissed or minimized by calling it a "living document."
If a document, be it the Bible or the Constitution, is "living," then it can also die and this is simply false.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
General Christianity Ping for you lists.
How can “two become one flesh” thru homosexuality? Not possible.
The authority of scripture means that all the words in Scripture are God's words in such a way that to disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God.
> Newsweek editor Jon Meacham was even more direct in his commentary on Miller’s article, saying that “to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.”
I’d love to see this plonker argue his case in front of God. Come to think of it, he is — and he is probably too stupid to realize it.
Just because Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham proclaims something to be so, it does not necessarily follow that it in fact is. God reserves the right to have a second, over-riding opinion.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/PragerHomosexuality.shtml
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
Dennis Prager
Jon tires to come across on TV as very devout Catholic and very moderate in his tone. But, he is far from moderate and one wonders where his theology comes from. He is a deceiver and a good one. Now Obama has won his lies become more evident.
This is an extremely well done piece. Thank you for posting it. One thing I note is that it is a sure tip off that someone is about to engage in this false idea about the Bible when they start telling you about some professor at some seminary who has explained that Paul was homosexual and that is why he speaks out against homosexuality.
How does Mr. Meacham not understand that the Christian tradition is based upon the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition (as handed down by the Apostles)?
Any authentic Christian scholar would certainly understand this.
“...apologists for the homosexual lifestyle typically say, ...that religious conservatives don’t really understand Scripture; ...On the other hand, they tell us the Bible is not to be trusted as a modern-day commentary when it speaks on moral issues...”
Nailed it!
Rather, those who claim homosexuality is compatible with Judaism or Christianity bear the burden of proof to reconcile this view with their Bible. Given the unambiguous nature of the biblical attitude toward homosexuality, however, such a reconciliation is not possible. All that is possible is to declare: "I am aware that the Bible condemns homosexuality, and I consider the Bible wrong." That would be an intellectually honest approach. But this approach leads to another problem. If one chooses which of the Bible's moral injunctions to take seriously (and the Bible states its prohibition of homosexuality not only as a law, but as a value -- "it is an abomination"), of what moral use is the Bible?
This is an excellent point! If the Bible is wrong on a SINGLE point, it could be wrong on EVERYTHING and of no use. We are compelled by faith to accept God's Will and His Word.
Paul was a sinner and did not hesitate to declare himself the "greatest" sinner, he spoke out against ALL sin.
> How does Mr. Meacham not understand that the Christian tradition is based upon the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition (as handed down by the Apostles)?
I believe he actually understands it all too well, yet chooses to justify himself, hoping that by so doing he can trick God and persuade himself of his own righteousness.
Unfortunately, as a wicked sinner wallowing in his own sin, he does not see that God is not so easily tricked. It is conceit and hubris that prevents him from seeing this. And he lacks the humility necessary to see his sins for what they are, and to repent. It is a sinful endless loop.
If you examine Heb.4:12, you can see that “the word of God is quick(living)and powerful”. However,unlike man-made documents it lives forever. 1 Peter 1:25 speaks of “the word of God which liveth and abideth forever”. Jesus said in Matt.24:35: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Unlike man’s words, what the Lord said then is still true today,and will always be so. Lets not the liberal”theologians” draw us into a trap.
"And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." -- 2 Thess 2
Fulfilled prophecy is a fine thing!
Jews no longer stoned for adultery at that time, so it would seem to be another "testing" question they asked: Moses said to stone adulterers; what do you say? I'd guess they saw it as a "Have you stopped beating your wife" question!
It's interesting that when anyone wants to violate Scriptural principles, the FIRST thing they do is attack the traditional, clear, and obvious interpretation of it by claiming that everyone else *doesn't really understand it*.
Sure, all those people were wrong for all those years until they came along and straightened us out.
What really gets me is when the defenders of homosexuality insist that the people in Sodom and Gomorrah were not homosexuals, just idolaters. I always tell them that at that time, everybody except for Abraham’s family was an idolater yet only these 2 cities were chosen for punishment. In Gen.19:5 the people of Sodom asked Lot for the men (angels) who were visiting so they could “know them carnally”. When men intend to gang rape other men (because that’s what they thought the angels were) there’s no way to deny homosexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.