Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/10/2008 10:36:21 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: NYer

This would be comedic if it was not truly happening.


2 posted on 12/10/2008 10:37:39 AM PST by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Newsweek: Just doin’ the Devil’s work.


3 posted on 12/10/2008 10:37:42 AM PST by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
And from Carl Olson at Insight Scoop ....


A little bit more on that...thing...in Newsweek

Really, what do you call itthat thing featured on the cover of the December 15, 2008, issue of Newsweek? It's not journalism. It's not news. It's not coherent, logical, well-argued, or well-written.

Honestly, it reads like an essay tossed off by a partially-drunk, angry, sexually-confused sixteen-year-old who thinks Oprah is an intellectual giant and traditional Christianity is responsible for every ill in the world. Yet, the Newsweek blog claims that Miller "lays out the religious case for gay marriage"—in which case it appears there is no religious case for "gay marriage" other than "it's on its way, so you religious bigots need to accept it."

I've already addressed some of this, as you likely know, in a previous post. What I missed was Newsweek editor Jon Meacham's appalling and insulting editorial about Miller's article, which nearly accomplished the nigh impossible task of making Miller's piece sound reasoned and mature:

In this light it would seem to make sense for Americans to look anew at the underlying issues on the question of gay marriage. One can decide to oppose it in good faith, but such opposition should at least be forged by those in full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context. The reaction to this cover is not difficult to predict. 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. (As it has been with reform in America from the Founding forward.) The NEWSWEEK Poll confirms what other surveys have also found: that there is a decided generational difference on the issue, with younger people supporting gay marriage at a higher rate than older Americans. One era's accepted reality often becomes the next era's clear wrong. So it was with segregation, and so it will be, I suspect, with the sacrament of marriage.

Meacham would do well to remove the 50,000 acres old-growth timber from his eye before complaining about splinters in the eyes of those wretched, mentally-challenged religious conservatives. Miller's article not only fails to demonstrate a "full possession of the relevant cultural and religious history and context," it demonstrates a complete failure to even try to achieve such a possession. And of course religious conservatives are going to be upset with the piece; the fact that Meacham snidely and proudly says so indicates that it was written and printed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: anger those who are opposed to "gay marriage." Miller's piece, boiled down to its farcical essence, makes this "argument": Gays are wonderful and gay sex is beautiful, so gay marriage must be accepted.


4 posted on 12/10/2008 10:38:20 AM PST by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Good grief...and I thought Time was trash.....

[Well is IS but still....]


5 posted on 12/10/2008 10:40:47 AM PST by Adder (typical basicly decent bitter white person)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Every day the left is working feverishly to prove that my user name speaks the truth.


7 posted on 12/10/2008 10:48:58 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged (liberalism = serious mental deficiency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

I wonder how he explains away Leviticus 20:13 and Romans 1:26-32. God hates all forms of sexual deviancy.


9 posted on 12/10/2008 10:55:15 AM PST by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
“I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”


12 posted on 12/10/2008 11:25:52 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer
he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us

Yes, yes he would. And he would follow it up withwhat he told another sexually immoral person he reach out to, John 8:11 go, and sin no more.

13 posted on 12/10/2008 11:38:53 AM PST by bird4four4 (God Damn America!!! - Mr. Wright, your prayer has been answered 11-4-08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Just heard Laura Ingraham with Lisa Miller, and I think Miss Ingraham should have allowed Albert Moeller (Babtist seminary), who was also and with her at the same time, more opportunity to take Miller down with true knowledge of the Bible. Miller talked about how there is slavery and polygamy in the Bible (and so we must cherry pick what lessons to learn because these “biblical” lessons are clearly behind the times), but no one confronted her about how it is clear that these practices caused problems to whoever engaged in them in the Bible. Total pass on that. Miller also said that Christians have a high divorce rate, but again, where was the pinning Miller down on the fact that there is an ideal presented in the Bible that many are not living up to but we are blessed to the extent that we are. We are just not countering the Leftists effectively in my humble opinion.


16 posted on 12/10/2008 5:04:01 PM PST by WKTimpco (Traditional Values Counter Revolution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: NYer

Good post. Thank you.

However ....

****But there’s an important doctrinal point to be made. Jesus IS alive, and he speaks to us, today, through his Vicar, the successor of Peter.****

Uh, ..... no. Yes, Jesus lives. No He does not have a ‘Vicar’ here on earth.

If Jesus had meant to set up a religious system in the mode of the one that murdered Him ( High Priest and all that rot) He would have told us so. He did not. So papists can take their one little misunderstood half a verse and go fish.


18 posted on 12/10/2008 5:21:27 PM PST by gost2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson