Posted on 12/08/2008 12:58:13 PM PST by WKTimpco
This interpretation of the scripture passage is interesting in light of the many FR debates about celibate clergy.
What do you think about counter protesting the gay marriage issue?
What do you think about counter protesting the gay marriage issue?
You’ve intentionally taken my post out of context, or you’ve misunderstood. I’m addressing “...long term relationships were of less consequence...”
Would you please define what you mean by “counter protesting”?
If our protests, in various forms, becomes a priority before our growth in Christ, His word, His church, and His people, our protesting does not serve the Lord. Our motive in protesting is key.
I have, if you will, protested; in the way I vote, the products I by, the organizations and companies I support, in my interaction with other people.
I did not understand because you were ambiguous. It's not an assumption; it's a logical inference. It stands too.
I assure you that I would never go against the will of the one who shed his perfect blood for me.
What I’m talking about is the calling on some people’s hearts to make our voices reverberate down the halls of power in the county.
The California Supreme Court was ordained by God to carry out His will as represented (in this case, certainly) by democratic processes. They are not acting in accordance with God’s plan; therefore we must not allow their folly to negate the blessings God has faithfully granted us.
When the Supreme Court starts to look at this issue again, they will not, because of our protests, be able to point to the militant homosexual movement as proof that their passion for their cause outweighs our “homophobic” vote.
Do you think that the Supreme Court is not looking for some excuse to ram a perversion of the God-given blessing of marriage down our throats?
If we and all the others passionate about protecting traditional marriage will collectively protest on the steps of the California Capitol building, for instance, then the leftist ideologues cannot use the homosexuals’ ferver of a sign of the people concerning how important their sign of the argument is.
In other words, leftist judges are not merely dispassionately rendering legal decisions based solely on their understanding of the Constitution. Their motives are political and ideological. We show them that we will never back down on this issue, and they WILL come up with justifiable legal reasons for allow the people’s votes to finally stand.
In Exodus, Moses asks, “Who will stand up for the Lord.” Only the Levites were willing to do so, and God blessed them by making them priests for the whole nation forever.
If you, anyone you know, or anyone reading this wants to travel regularly to state capitols around the country, we can make our voices heard. They think that we are a bunch of hate-mongers that want to take people’s rights away. They don’t care that our children’s right to keep from being radicalized in the public schools that we fund through our own taxes.
Visit http://www.meetup.com/Counter-Protest-Prop-8/ to understand more about what I’m suggesting. If we got 10,000 people to protest (with signs and shouts) in Sacramento, the media would have to cover us and the judicial despots woul know that we mean business.
Will you stand up for the Lord?
“Will you stand up for the Lord?”
I cringe when I here that kind of language. The Lord doesn’t NEED us to stand up for Him. Furthermore, you are insinuating that if Christians do not protest in the same way that you are, they are not standing up “for the Lord”.
You are sorely mistaken if you believe that if we marched on the state capital, the media would be forced to cover our story, and by doing so, this will generate publicity that the justices will be compelled to recognize.
The voices of those in California were heard... twice; on two separate propositions. Although the passing of the first proposition was overwhelming (as was the second), it was the justices that ignored the voice of the people.
Also, there have been countless occasions when Christians marched on Washington in support of such issues as a baby’s right to life, and the media down played the turn out.
I am not suggesting that Christians should not demonstrate peacefully. It is our right, privilege, and duty. But the way in which we choose to demonstrate is just as diverse as our denominations.
You and I are in agreement on the importance of these issues.
“I did not understand...”
If you did not understand, why did you post a comment? How can your “logical inference” carry any weight if you failed to understand?
You addressed something you said in my post. You did not address my comment regarding “long term relationships”.
I'm sure you understand.
Homosexual cultists cannot admit there is an axiomatic state of reproductive mammalian biology scientifically consistent with evolutionary theory.
Homosexual monogamy is impossible because the union has zero potential to procreate.
Ping to #51...
Not exactly correct. "Monogamy" only points to a relationship among adults; it does not depend upon whether there is successful procreation. With artificial insemination however, lesbians can raise children from donated sperm, and in fact do so in reasonably surprising numbers.
There’s an excellen response to this over at http://www.getreligion.org whichs emphasizes the journalistic flaws:
Well, Lisa Miller certainly made a splash with her Newsweek cover story advocating for same-sex marriage on religious grounds. It was probably not the splash she intended.
It is no exaggeration to say the piece was an embarrassment. My analysis of the belly flop is here. On a radio show yesterday, the host asked me whether the piece was more offensive to my sensibilities as a journalist or a Christian. I went with “journalist” since the piece wasn’t anywhere legitimate enough, theologically speaking, to be considered seriously. As a journalist, it violated almost every rule in the book. It failed to accurately represent the viewpoint being scrutinized. It was riddled with errors. It was driven by emotion. More than a few journalists — one at a competing weekly news magazine — wrote to me yesterday asking, “Where was her editor?”
Newsweek editor Jon Meacham is no dummy. He has written extensively on religion, everything from magazine cover stories to a book on civil religion that sits on my bookshelf. He co-edits the Washington Post/Newsweek religion site “On Faith.” He is a liberal Episcopalian and tends to advocate that approach in his journalism and essays.
So where was her editor, then? A good editor helps shape the story, makes sure it’s well researched and reported, notices blatant mistakes or errors in logic or of bias. Well, I have bad news. Based on his editor’s note, Meacham completely failed Miller and her readers. His note introduces and praises the piece.
Here’s a sample:
No matter what one thinks about gay rights — for, against or somewhere in between — this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, 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.
Yes, that’s right. The editor of Newsweek thinks that argument from the Bible is “the worst kind of fundamentalism.” Can you believe that? Can that be serious? Proper exegesis is difficult and requires a great deal of understanding of languages, types of writing styles, history and tradition — but determining what the Bible teaches is very serious work. Lutherans such as myself believe that Scripture is the only divine source and the norm for our teachings. That may be shocking to a liberal Episcopalian but to call such exegesis intellectually bankrupt is ignorant. And Biblical exegesis sort of defines the “great Judeo-Christian tradition.” Perhaps Meacham’s focus on civil religion and American history has made him blind to this fact.
We’ve noticed the tendency of the media to use the term “fundamentalist” to describe any conservative Christian. There was a particularly bad example of this in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year when I think the author was using “fundamentalist” to mean “people whose politics I disagree with.”
But if the worst kind of fundamentalist is someone who quotes Scripture in a policy discussion, the word fundamentalist has no meaning. I also question whether, say, Meacham considers religious liberals who use, say, the Sermon on the Mount to argue for domestic policy to be the worst kind of fundamentalists. Based on past coverage, I’m going to say no. In fact, this piece — and Miller’s — basically skirt the fact that the vast, vast majority of religious groups share a support of heterosexual marriage.
But apart from that, this bizarre preachment suffers from the same ignorance of the Miller piece — that opposition to same-sex marriage is based on Scripture instead of a wide variety of sources and tradition. Opposition to same-sex marriage is mostly based in Natural Law. I feel as if I’m doing a public service by repeating this for journalists but conservatives support defining marriage as a sexual union between a husband and wife, based around the ideas that babies are created via intercourse, that procreation is necessary for the survival of society and that babies need fathers as well as mothers.
Meacham’s note is an unserious response to conservative Christian views or conservative political views related to homosexuality. He assumes that Miller in any way understands Scripture when her piece was riddled with obvious errors. He compares world-wide, millennia-long support for heterosexual marriage with the post-Civil War anomaly of racist marriage laws (What I have called the Loving Corollary to Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies).
And then . . . and then he tells anyone who disagrees with Newsweek’s shoddy advocacy journalism and unfair agenda-driven hackery to buzz off:
Religious conservatives will say that the liberal media are once again seeking to impose their values (or their “agenda,” a favorite term to describe the views of those who disagree with you) on a God-fearing nation. Let the letters and e-mails come. History and demographics are on the side of those who favor inclusion over exclusion.
What a scold. And the fact that, as a progressive, he seemingly doesn’t realize he’s a scold makes it so much worse. Has he ever spoken with a conservative? Does he know anyone who disagrees with his religious views from a more orthodox perspective? Doubling down on Miller’s hackery with this arrogant editor’s note reveals that Newsweek is willing to sacrifice everything from factual accuracy to basic civility in service to its agenda. And if the word “agenda” isn’t appropriate, it’s only because it understates what we’re dealing with.
Here’s what I wonder, though. Why is Newsweek considered mainstream media when it has a doctrinal agenda like this? Why do we consider conservative publications such as The Weekly Standard and The Nation to be outside the mainstream media but Newsweek to be in it? What is our standard for making that distinction?
I apologize for insinuating that if you didn’t do what I was calling you to do, you were not standing up for the Lord. I respect your response to my call, but the quote is what Moses said to the Levites and they did stand and do what God asked them through Moses. Now, I’m not saying this is an equivalent call. For one thing, I’m not asking anyone to cull the twelve tribes. In my post, I did say that some are called to do things differently than others. As for God, he does seem, from what you are saying, to ask you to stand up for him, just in a different way. So you are heeding His call to stand up for him, but your call is more personal and “quiet” vis-a-vis louder, public voices. God doesn’t need us to do things; he wants us to do things. The media may down play, but as Laura Ingraham pointed out in her book, “Power to the People,” we have all sorts of new-media ways to report on our own protest. As for the Supreme Court, I’m saying that the justices will hear and feel the pressure. As I’ve said, they are not the dispassionate scholars on fine points of law so much as they are political and ideological “animals.”
TGDunbar,
If I were a journalist, I too would have first opposed the Miller piece on journalistic grounds. The research into the conservative Christian perspective is appalling. Another excellent point you raise is the fact that she, like the recent Jack Black video poking fun at the whole Prop-8 issue, points to us “kooky” religious people as the only opposition to gay marriage. Miller and her liberal cohorts are trying to marginalize the pro-traditional-marriage proponents by painting them into what they see as an out-of-the-way corner of society. The first half of your response, I think, can be summed up like this: Miller’s article looks as if it were written by an 8th-grade girl passing a note about a boy in class who had pulled her hair during recess to get laughs from his friends. Where was her editor? Indeed. But as my tagline shows, we are in a brave new world of using the hard-news media to reshape society, and we need to fight back. Not with the same trash, but to show the leftist warriors that we will not go quietly as the culture is hijacked by their minority “agenda.” Miller’s article did not just so happen to pass by her editor by accident, as I think you are aware.
Illogical.
The word "monogamous" denotes a biological procreation.
The Greek prefix "gamos" does denote union and is accepted to mean marriage only in a social sense. This does not apply to biology.
Gametocytes are reproductive cells and gametogenesis only occurs with a union of male gametocytes and female gametocytes.
Two females cannot produce gametogeny. Two males cannot produce gametogeny. There has never been in the history of natural biology one single recorded case of a mammalian hermaphrodite reproducing on its own.
Psychologically speaking, the desire to have children is a heterosexual desire.
Depends upon whether the context is biological or social. Literally, from the Greek it means "one marriage," from which the biological term was later derived.
not only college students. I’ll never forget the middle-aged American gent who was on a tour in Rome that I over heard — the guy was saying, so where is the Da
vinci stuff? and then expounding on whether it was true or not. He didn’t have a clue about the Bible.
anyone here who still has a subscription to this rag? Cancel it please
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.