CLOSED PER OP REQUEST - Newsweek - Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy

[Adammi]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653


It's just a fantastic article that I would like to make sure is read by all of WWMC's members and detractors.

NOTE: Discussing homosexuality is against the rules in this forum. This thread is not intended to discuss homosexuality. It is intended to discuss this article. There is a very fine line between these two things, but there is a line all the same. This line must be respected or this thread will be closed.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

A note on the website says that they received 40,000 responses within a few days of publication. Many of them were prompted by the American Family Association's call for a massive negative reaction.

The article, which I thought was actually very good, will obviously not change the mind of any committed opponent to gay marriage. The fact is, they just plain read the same Bible differently. Hopefully, what the article will accomplish is to show those whose minds are not made up that a reasonable alternative to the religious right exists. One can be a Christian and still support gay marriage.

Also, I hope that it will show some gay individuals that not all Christians are condemnatory.

 

[plum]

I really enjoyed reading that article! thanks for the link

 

[Adammi]

I didn't know that about the AFA.

Also, I think that Liberal Christians are often viewed as if we are being knowingly and intentionally accepting of sin. I hope that this article shows that in reality our beliefs are in part based on Scripture.

 

[TheManeki]

Mrs. TheManeki and I first found out about the article when a friend forwarded us an AFA email. We hoped to start a dialog and asked our friend what exactly he found objectionable in the article (the AFA email likewise gave no specifics), but he said he hadn't read it, and wasn't going to.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

I didn't know that about the AFA.

Also, I think that Liberal Christians are often viewed as if we are being knowingly and intentionally accepting of sin. I hope that this article shows that in reality our beliefs are in part based on Scripture.

I think that liberal Christians are more likely to understand sin as the human condition of alienation from God than to define individual acts as sins.

In my Lutheran tradition everything humans do is considered sinful. Even good acts are done from impure motives. Yup, even missionary position sex between lawfully married partners is sinful. This isn't as grim as it sounds, though. If human acts are sinful, God's acts are pure and God has acted to bridge the gap of separation between ourselves and God.

Mrs. TheManeki and I first found out about the article when a friend forwarded us an AFA email. We hoped to start a dialog and asked our friend what exactly he found objectionable in the article (the AFA email likewise gave no specifics), but he said he hadn't read it, and wasn't going to.

The Newsweek website said that more than 40,000 "readers" responded to the article. I suspect that many of the respondants had not, in fact, read the piece.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Did you read the article? Or...are you just posting the same old Bible quotes that we all know?

BTW...you left out the one from 1 Tim.

 

[Unbroken]

Did you read the article? Or...are you just posting the same old Bible quotes that we all know?

BTW...you left out the one from 1 Tim.

Just wanted to point out how amazing it is that liberal "Christians" could ignore the very Holy Word their faith is centered on.

Time for work though, enjoy!

 

[DeanM]

Just wanted to point out how amazing it is that liberal "Christians" could ignore the very Holy Word their faith is centered on.

Time for work though, enjoy!

Should we post a few other choice bits of Leviticus and see how non-liberals stack up against the "ignore the very Holy Word" concept?

Shall we start with the proper price you pay for your slaves, or skip right on to the shellfish and details of properly dealing with mentruating females?

You pick.

And while we're at it, let's see how well we all stack up against the "judge not" and "do unto others."

In fact Christ's entire central message of acceptance and love seems to be in question.

Don't try to toss your cookie cutters into another flock if you yourself do not fit into it. Didn't Jesus say something about the one without sin casting the first stone?

Oh, and placing the word "Christian" in quotes as it pertains to liberals is very telling. Jesus is quite clear that whoever believes in Him shall be saved. The mere fact that you don't believe that Jesus was correct is more deserving of the quote marks when we apply the word Christian to those who think they know better than God who believes and who doesn't.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Tube Socks Dude]

Just wanted to point out how amazing it is that liberal "Christians" could ignore the very Holy Word their faith is centered on.

What Holy Word is that? Is it the gramma/graphe or Logos/Rhema? I'll give you a clue. One set is capitalized and the other is not. Liberals base their faith on the Person of Jesus and what He "did", not a book about Him. Liberals know that Jesus' compassionat deeds could be passed down verbally without being written, and still enlighten as to Who He is. The actions of Jesus speak louder than doctrines created from what His disciples propositionally thought about Him.

 

[Adammi]

I edited the OP to include this:

NOTE: Discussing homosexuality is against the rules in this forum. This thread is not intended to discuss homosexuality. It is intended to discuss this article. There is a very fine line between these two things, but there is a line all the same. This line must be respected or this thread will be closed.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

Just wanted to point out how amazing it is that liberal "Christians" could ignore the very Holy Word their faith is centered on.

Time for work though, enjoy!

In other words, no, you didn't read the article. Yes, you did come to regurgitate, without any sense of context or understanding, the same handful of clobber verses that we have all heard before (with the curious omission of 1 Tim. 1:10). And now you are perpetuating mistaken notions of what liberal Christianity entails.

Thanks.

 

[spinningtutu]

Well, I'll have more to say after I get a chance to read the article... My wife and I saw it the other day while grocery shopping and picked up a copy of it because it looked interesting. So, I must say, I certainly am curious to read her article. I'm just hoping it isn't a liberal/Spongish "who cares what the Bible says anyways" type approach. But like I said, I'll have more to say after reading...

glad to see it being discussed tho

 

[Adammi]

Well, I'll have more to say after I get a chance to read the article... My wife and I saw it the other day while grocery shopping and picked up a copy of it because it looked interesting. So, I must say, I certainly am curious to read her article. I'm just hoping it isn't a liberal/Spongish "who cares what the Bible says anyways" type approach. But like I said, I'll have more to say after reading...

glad to see it being discussed tho

Ha ha. No, unfortunately, it wasn't much like Spong.

 

[spinningtutu]

No... that's fortunate!

 

[ReformedChapin]

I don't know if any of you here want a right wing opinion. But I must say that the person who wrote the artcile does not understand scripture nor the gospel. If you liberals wants to convince us about homosexuality you better start with some better exegesis. I'm saying this in all friendlyness, if you manipualte scripture to support your own biases that will only pushes further away from you.

That's some loving advice, those of us who spend our life trying to understand the bible will know whats going.

If you are going to turn around 2000 years of biblical theology about homosexuality you better come up with something nothing short of a miracle. It would be better if you just admitted that the bible is irrelavant, it would give you more credability in my eyes.

 

[Peregrino]

Also, I hope that it will show some gay individuals that not all Christians are condemnatory.

It's a hard message to get through when so many loud voices are damning them. Those are the voices making so many, gay or hetero, leave Christianity behind. People want a loving church, people need a loving God.

 

[Peregrino]

I don't know if any of you here want a right wing opinion. But I must say that the person who wrote the artcile does not understand scripture nor the gospel. If you liberals wants to convince us about homosexuality you better start with some better exegesis. I'm saying this in all friendlyness, if you manipualte scripture to support your own biases that will only pushes further away from you.

That's some loving advice, those of us who spend our life trying to understand the bible will know whats going.

If you are going to turn around 2000 years of biblical theology about homosexuality you better come up with something nothing short of a miracle. It would be better if you just admitted that the bible is irrelavant, it would give you more credability in my eyes.

I thought this sort of discussion was not allowed by forum rules.

Please somebody tell me it is allowed so I can answer this post devoid of love and hermeneutical sense.

 

[DeanM]

It would be better if you just admitted that the bible is irrelavant, it would give you more credability in my eyes.

Leviticus 15:19-30 And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Tell me the relevence of this scripture, and it will give you more credibility in my eyes.

And if you'd like to spin this scripture as any way other than the literal, then you yourself may be a liberal.

I'm all ears.

 

[DeanM]

I thought this sort of discussion was not allowed by forum rules.

Please somebody tell me it is allowed so I can answer this post devoid of love and hermeneutical sense.

There's no reason to answer devoid of love.

Fundies cherry-pick scripure all the live long day, but God forbid they catch somebody else doing the same thing . . .

It's easier just to point out that they pick and choose which scriptures they adhere to than it is to explain to them why we seemingly do the same thing with other scriptures.

IMHO, The only people who still wave the anti-homosexual banner are themselves missing Jesus' theme of love and inclusion.