It's been snowing off an on for the past five days or so and more snow to come. Somehow it doesn't put off the shoppers. Every place I've gone has been packed with people. Hopefully that will be good for the economy. D4 should be ecstatic about the snow, since she insisted that we have snow for Christmas. I took some pictures of my dog running in the snow. She is the smartest dog in the world. I got out the camera and opened the door to the back yard where there is at least a foot of snow. Most dogs would just run back inside, but I showed her the camera and said, "Run!" and she took off bounding through the snow. Then when I had taken three pictures (posted here), she decided that was enough and ran into the house. It's good to have something to make me laugh.
Christmas time is a wonderful time. We rejoice over the birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ and we rejoice in His plan for our family to be together forever.
We are so blessed this year in spite of missing my mother, who died in April. We have enough and to spare when so many others are hurting. Part of having enough was started years ago when I felt the need to pursue a Ph.D. and also when my husband changed to his present job. Both moves seemed a bit risky at the time, but because of those moves we are employable during recession times. So, we're OK.
But the most important thing this year and every year is family, family, family. All of our family are safe. Most of the family will be home during the holidays. I'm super excited about that. I will miss D2 and SIL1, who are staying at their home, but we hope to visit them in the next few months.
I am reminded of D1 when she was just six years old. I had just had our fourth baby, D3, and D1 cuddled the new little one, saying, "Isn't it wonderful that the more babies we have, the more people there are to love them." Think about it.
By the way, it's snowing big time here. I just shoveled our walks and will have to do it again in a couple of hours. I know that D4 will be happy. She asked for snow for Christmas--notice I said Christmas, not the holidays.
Just an explanation of what I posted yesterday about the Newsweek article--because of the formatting of my blog, it turned out that Lisa Miller's text was white and mine was red. Also, the paragraph just after the title and citation of the article is about me, not Lisa Miller.
Additionally, after reading the main editorial for Newsweek, Dec. 15, 2008, I have to admit that there is a fundamental difference between people who believe in a God-inspired Bible and those who just think it's a nice book with some good advice. Editor Jon Meacham parrots the arguments that those who truly believe in the Old and New Testaments are just wrong, wrong, wrong, and to stick with those beliefs is "the worst kind of fundamentalism" and because scholars have studied the origins of the Bible and find that they are just stories, so to "argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than "intellectually bankrupt--it is unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition." However, he doesn't say why it is intellectually bankrupt or unworthy--maybe because believers don't believe what he wants us to believe, so he resorts to name-calling and poisoning the well. Meacham also points out tradition and "relevant cultural and religious history and context" as being authoritative above what God says but says nothing good about the authority of biblical text. In other words, scholarship by man outweighs the word of God according to Meacham.
Another logical fallacy posed by Meacham is that sexual preference is somehow like skin color. His argument is that both are inherent. His argument is an apples to oranges logical fallacy because for an analogy to work, there must be more than a superficial equation between the two things being compared. Skin color is something that all of humanity is born with. Sexual preference seems to be something that is born into many people, but that develops later for others, and is chosen by still others. Skin color is always present for others to see. Sexual preference is not. Sexual preference is performed, while skin color is not. Finally, for Bible believers, skin color is not a sin, while homosexual behavior is.
Actually, I believe that the worst kind of fundamentalism is the fundamentalism of liberalism, intellectualism, and humanism that tries to oppress believers. For millennia believers have had to fight such persecution.
Have you ever noticed that there is no good answer to belief. No one can claim that I don't believe something if I do or they're liars. Their only resort is to try to shout me down, as if being louder than I am makes them right. I think that's what makes them so angry--they have no answer to belief.
I have a Ph.D. in rhetoric and composition. I am not a Bible scholar, but I have read the Bible several times and Miller’s statements seemed to not correlate well with what I remember, so I took each sentence and analyzed and responded. I found that, like the thousands of students I have taught to write at the university, Miller’s logic is faulty and full of wishful thinking, her organization is confused, and her evidence is not always factual, or scriptural, for that matter.I say to Newsweek, “Thanks, though, for providing me with so much material to use in the logical fallacy unit next semester.” Here is my analysis. Lisa Miller's text is in black and my answers are in red.
Let’s try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does.
OK. How does the Bible define marriage, partially by example and partially by statute? The first marriage was between Adam and Eve—one man and one woman. That was the precedent. Deuteronomy and Numbers give laws concerning marriage between men and women. The other type of marriage sanctified by God was polygamy (one man and more than one woman—never between people of the same sex), but only in certain circumstances. Even King David and King Solomon were chastised for operating under the polygamy model incorrectly, and David lost his sanctity and his birthright because of his lusts.
Shall we look at Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile?
Miller makes this event seem salacious. First, the servant Hagar was Sarah’s handmaiden. Second, legally according to their society norms, Sarah could have Abraham impregnate her handmaiden and the handmaiden’s son would then be Sarah’s and take away Sarah’s shame over being infertile. Abraham did not sleep with Hagar in a wanton manner, but under a legal system to give his wife a child. Miller makes it sound like a matter of lust or something shameful. That is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well in order to prejudice her audience against Abraham, a prophet, and thus, perhaps, all prophets who practiced polygamy. Through tone and a flippant style, Miller seems to be treating the Bible at this point in the article, and later (although she isn’t consistent), as an authority in itself without anything, such as revelation from God, behind it, which robs it of its authority except as a historical document of such antiquity that it deserves to be honored, a weak reason to revere something.
Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)?
Jacob was the prophet of God, and sanctioned to practice polygamy. There were the same laws in place that applied to Abraham.
Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.
God-sanctioned polygamy. Miller’s tone sensationalizes polygamy. Not only is Miller assuming that her audience feels that polygamy was wrong because of their own modern societal norms, but she negates the office of prophet as one who is told by God what to do. She uses sensationalism for effect, which foreshadows how she is going to justify her homosexual marriage stance.
The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better.
What an interesting thing to say. So, polygamy is bad even when practiced by a prophet of God who presumably knows what God wants him to do? On the other hand, all of the people who are married who are in the New Testament are in marriages of one woman and one man. Is she also insinuating that such marriages are bad?
Jesus himself was single
True, as far as we know, which doesn’t make it absolutely true. Unprovable.
and preached an indifference to earthly attachments
Ah, another logical fallacy, a sweeping generalization, which is not entirely true. Sheep? Talents?
—especially to family.
Logical fallacy—hypothesis contrary to fact. Although he did preach to the twelve disciples that they should leave their families to follow him, he did not tell most others to do so, but sent them back to their homes at night. Not only that, but it seems that the twelve did not entirely leave their families, since Jesus preached in Peter’s mother’s home and healed her. Jesus’ own example is one of love and respect for his mother, even from the cross, as he admonishes John to care for her. Jesus is also extremely caring towards those with families in trouble, such as the Widow of Nain whose son he raises from the dead and Mary and Martha, whose brother he raises from the dead.
The apostle Paul (also single)
Although nothing is said in the Bible about Paul having a wife, it does not mean he did not have one, since the practice in the Bible seems to be to not mention wives very much. Not mentioning his marital state was a societal norm, but is not a proof that Paul was not married. For instance, Paul was a Pharisee and might possibly have been married at one time because he would want to fulfill Jewish law, including laws on marriage.
regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust.
Wow, this one is a can of worms. It is interpreted in this way by the Catholic Church to justify celibacy of nuns and priests, and their status as holier than married couples. It never occurred to me to read it that way and neither have many others whom I have talked to about it. See next comment.
“It is better to marry than to burn with passion,”
It could also mean marriage left too long encourages fornication because desires get out of hand. Paul also taught quite a bit about the sanctity of marriage in the epistles.
says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered.
Taken out of context, it might seem so, but not when taken with the rest of his teachings on marriage.
Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?
Although Miller’s tone is mocking and superior, her tone does not make her right; she is once again making a hasty generalization. She also shows that she hasn’t been to church lately. Many young couples have done just that and pastors are constantly encouraging their congregations to study the Bible for ways to improve their marriages. There are many marriage manuals based on the Bible, and these books on Bible-based marriage evidently sell well enough to justify to publishers that they continue publishing such books. Go to any Christian bookstore and you will find books on marriage based on the Bible. Additionally, Miller cannot assume that there are not many young couples who have views about gender equality who are not interested in these books without actually interviewing or surveying all contemporary heterosexual couples. Besides, couples with views on gender equality are not the only type of couples today, nor is gender equality and romantic love the only basis for marriage.
(new paragraph)
Of course not, yet the religious opponents of gay marriage would have it be so.
Probably because people do turn to the Bible for advice. Once again, in reference to what I said in the previous comment, Miller makes an assumption that is not based on fact. As for religious opponents of gay marriage having “it” so, she’s pretty hazy about what “it” is, but whatever “it” is, “it” seems to be based on unqualified assumptions and hasty generalizations made by Miller and what she assigns as motives to the religious opponents to gay marriage.
(new paragraph)
The battle over gay marriage has been waged for more than a decade,
Interesting use of passive voice by Miller, making it sound like some heroic nonentity has been waging the war for gay marriage without acknowledging that the war has also been waged against it by those who wish to protect the Biblical sanctity of marriage against gay marriage.
but within the last six months—since California legalized gay marriage and then, with a ballot initiative in November, amended its Constitution to prohibit it—the debate has grown into a full-scale war, with religious-rhetoric slinging to match.
Miller does not acknowledge the gay-rhetoric slinging that is also taking place. In fact, as far as slinging goes, the gay-rhetoric is as hate-filled or even more so. Also, Miller uses the term rhetoric in a pejorative way, as if the ability to persuade is somehow tainted with evil. The term rhetoric actually means the study of strategies used to persuade.Rhetoric can be used for good or evil purposes, but is not evil in itself. Ironic for Miller to use the term, when she is using several rhetorical strategies herself, albeit rather badly so far.
Not since 1860, when the country’s pulpits were full of preachers pronouncing on slavery, pro and con, has one of our basic social (and economic)
institutions been so subject to biblical scrutiny.
OK, but she’s painting with a rather broad brush here. The example as far as it goes shows that preachers preached a great deal about slavery and preachers are also preaching a lot about gay marriage now. But she must be careful to end the analogy there. Another logical fallacy is commonly called comparing apples to oranges, and slavery is not related to gender or marriage. However, to bring up the preaching about slavery without commenting on it ever again is an inefficient use of an interesting fact. Hint—she does get to it again and she does compare apples to oranges. It’s as if she is trying to prepare her audience for her fallacious argument by introducing them to it here, so it sounds familiar when she does lower the boom.
But whereas in the Civil War the traditionalists had their James Henley Thornwell—and the advocates for change, their Henry Ward Beecher—this time the sides are unevenly matched.
And so what? How does this statement further any argument of hers? It seems to hang out there without much purpose. It is almost like Miller found this interesting tidbit and felt she had to use it somehow without being able to use it to further her argument in any logical way.
(new paragraph)
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist Minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: “The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition.”
OK—a common way that religious people might express their position.
(new paragraph)
To which there are two obvious responses:
I can think of at least three or four. She leaves out anything about tradition or the responsibility of the church to uphold scripture as the law of God.
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.
Logical fallacy. Once again Miller makes a hypothesis contrary to fact. In the Old Testament there are plenty of instructions on how to conduct a marriage ceremony and how the groom shall behave and the bride shall behave and that his military service is over for a month, etc., indicating marriages between men and women. In the New Testament there are references in many of the books to a man and wife in marriage, including in Romans where a woman who has a husband is bound by the law, and in 1 Corinthians where every man should have his own wife and that, in the Lord, a man cannot be without the woman, as well as in Ephesians where it says that a man shall be joined unto his wife and be one flesh and also that a man should love his wife. There’s more, too, along the same line. Sounds fairly explicit. How can Miller ignore these instances and maintain credibility?
And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else’s—to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes.
First, there isn’t much in Miller’s examples that illustrate much of anything biblical that is distasteful about marriage, except maybe polygamy, which is distasteful to our societal sensibilities. Second, Miller also makes another senseless and unfounded statement by presuming to assign motive to all married couples by saying “no sensible modern person.” Many spouses are pleased if their partners show love to them and if they can share their religious beliefs in the Lord as a couple and several other very positive things the Bible encourages in relationships. She actually says the same later in her article, which means she flip-flops.
“Marriage” in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two.
In what way is it messy? She doesn’t say. I guess the reader is supposed to take her word on it. Her statement is subjective. Let’s see if she supports it. Nope. Doesn’t come up again. This statement just hangs out there all by itself.
As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance.
Sounds fairly straightforward. I agree.
As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God’s will.
An example of pathos. She certainly makes such marriage seem very attractive. Strange, considering her previous mocking stance and her statements that no modern couple would want a Bible-inspired marriage. She also acknowledges the importance of God’s will in seeming opposition to her earlier stance. Another flip-flop?
In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them.
Another example of pathos. Miller does make that kind of union seem desirable, probably so it seems really cruel to deny it to anyone, including homosexuals.
Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history.
Once again, Miller assigns stances to people without foundation. Some Bible literalists might be narrow enough to insist that the Bible is only to be interpreted as an ancient document, but many religious authorities, literalists included, encourage people to interpret the Bible so that it relates to them and their special circumstances in modern times. She needs to qualify her statements if she wants to be credible.
In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married
Miller illustrates her ignorance of the Bible by ignoring all of the verses in the Bible about marriage between men and women. Additionally, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah violently illustrates what happens to homosexual societies when God himself passes judgment and destroys the cities. It’s as if her own desires have blinded her to what is actually in the Bible. It would seem prudent, though, to have studied the Bible thoroughly before making such statements in a national magazine.
—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
Yes, the Bible gives several admonitions to treat others well, but that hardly conflates with supporting gay marriage. Miller uses high-flying language, but fails to support her statements with any concrete evidence.
In the Old Testament, the concept of family is fundamental, but examples of what social conservatives would call “the traditional family” are scarcely to be found.
Hypothesis contrary to fact. Miller ignores several such examples—Adam and Eve, Isaac and Rachel, Moses and Zipporah, to name a few. I suppose that polygamous marriages would not fit the traditional family example of today, but there were plenty of those, and they were all heterosexual.
Marriage was critical to the passing along of traditions and history, as well as to maintaining the Jews’ precious and fragile monotheism.
Nothing wrong here, but Miller does forget that marriage and family were also the way to order their community and increase the population in an orderly manner as well, as regulated by God.
But as the Barnard University Bible scholar Alan Segal puts it, the arrangement was between “one man and as many women as he could pay for.”
Or as many women as one man could support, perhaps a way to care for widows and fatherless children, as suggested by some scholars, but Segal doesn’t say so, maybe because to do so would lend a positive light to polygamy and that would ameliorate the way modern people look at it.
Social conservatives point to Adam and Even as evidence for their one man, one woman argument—in particular, this verse from Genesis: “Therefore shall a man leave his mother and father, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.”
I did, but I added others as well. Miller seems to be trying to put down social conservatives with this statement, but if she is, she’s doing a poor job.
But as Segal says,
I hope Miller is not suggesting that Segal’s opinion takes precedence over God’s, nor that he is the ultimate authority.
if you believe that the Bible was written by men and not handed down in its leather bindings by God, then that verse was written by people for whom polygamy was the way of the world.
Oh, my—so people who do not believe that God inspired his prophets to write scripture are the ultimate authorities and ultimately right? These unbelievers are the ones who decide God’s reality and nature? Segal presumes that God is not a God of prophecy or inspiration, nor of power. Besides, of course, it was collated by men, so some things might be included that probably ought not to be there, such as the Song of Solomon, another heterosexual text (so gays ought not to balk at removing it). Additionally to only give two choices—being handed down in its leather bindings by God or being written by men—is an either/or logical fallacy—and therefore is false.
(The fact that homosexual couples cannot procreate has also been raised as a biblical objection, for didn’t God say “Be fruitful and multiply”?
This little parenthetical part is out of place. It’s as if the author couldn’t figure out where else to put it and stuck it at the end of this paragraph, but it has nothing to do with the previous part of the paragraph. If it were my student writing this, I’d grade them down for lack of organization.
But the Bible authors could never have imagined the brave new world of international adoption and assisted reproductive technology
These are tools that could be used for good or ill, (and Miller either forgot, or didn’t know that adoption was practiced in ancient times). Those against gay marriage would say that using those tools to place children in homosexual homes would be to use those tools for evil because it exposes innocent children to the intimacies of abomination and perversion, to use biblical terms for homosexuality.
—and besides, heterosexuals who are infertile or past the age of reproducing get married all the time.)
Ah, but Abraham and Sarah could not have children for a long time and they remained in a married state, not that we would expect older people to have children as they did, because not everyone has been promised by God to have children at that age. So, remaining married while old has biblical precedent.
(new paragraph)
Ozzie and Harriet are nowhere in the New Testament either.
Now what is this supposed to mean? It’s a snappy and energetic statement that has nothing to do with what follows, as cutesy as it is. Makes absolutely no sense. Minus points.
The biblical Jesus was—in spite of recent efforts of novelists to paint him otherwise—emphatically unmarried.
Old material already discussed, except for the clever inclusion of novelists, who have no godly authority. Miller’s use of the term emphatically does put her in the bad position of having to defend against any possibility that Jesus might have been married. Possible black swan, or logical outlier that would make her look foolish if anyone ever proved that Jesus was married. She needs to qualify her statements, but from what I’ve seen so far, Miller is going for sensationalism and controversy—maybe to stir up the types of response I’m making now.
He preached a radical kind of family, a caring community of believers,
Naming a community of believers a physical family is a modern take, such as sociologists calling any group with ties a family. It would make more sense to call them a community bound by their belief in God—or a church as Paul did.
whose bond in God superseded all blood ties.
Miller may not have read the Bible enough to realize that the entire Old Testament is a treatise about how important the covenant with God is, important above everything else, to the point of wiping out entire groups of people who violate their covenants. Why? Because the covenant with God is the only way to salvation and no other covenants can offer salvation, not even familial ones.
Leave your families and follow me, Jesus says in the gospels.
Miller fails to take into account the context or audience of those verses. Jesus said such things to the twelve apostles, not to the rest of the congregation except a handful of others. When an author takes text out of context to make a point, the author is either uninformed or deliberately misleading readers.
There will be no marriage in heaven, he says in Matthew.
This verse has caused quite a bit of controversy. Some feel it means that no one who is not married here on earth will be married in heaven. Others feel it means that the marriage covenant will not be in force in heaven. However, whatever the meaning, Miller does not make clear why she includes this verse or how she could use it to further her own argument. It seems to be another of those instances where she has something she found in the Bible about marriage and wants to use it somehow. In fact, Miller’s use of the verse is ironic, since in the previous verse, Jesus says, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
Jesus never mentions homosexuality, but he roundly condemns divorce (leaving a loophole in some cases for the husbands of unfaithful women).
Miller misses a great opportunity here. She does nothing to capitalize on the fact that many gay couples are monogamous and faithful to one another. However, it’s another of those unconnected sentences that don’t mean anything or further her argument—wasted text.
(new paragraph)
The apostle Paul echoed the Christian Lord’s lack of interest in matters of the flesh. For him, celibacy was the Christian ideal, but family stability was the best alternative.
Miller makes another organizational faux pas. Old information, already gone over. See previous comments on the topic.
Marry if you must, he told his audiences, but do not get divorced.
Ah, here is where Miller is going to talk about divorce. Organization problem—then why is the other comment on divorce in the previous paragraph? She does make the point, though, that Paul thought marriage is important enough to maintain.
“To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord):
By including this part of the verse, is Miller acknowledging that the Lord is a law-giver? Then what does that do to her desires for gay marriage when so much in the Bible is against homosexuality?
a wife must not separate from her husband.”
Yes, very heterosexual, which is very curious considering that Miller is trying to promote gay marriage.
It probably goes without saying that the phrase “gay marriage” does not appear in the Bible at all.
So what? Why is this significant? Why doesn’t Miller clarify her comment. It sounds like a capitulation to her anti-gay-marriage opponents.
(new paragraph)
If the Bible doesn’t give abundant examples of traditional marriage,
Miller starts this section with a phrase that she has used before, but which has no basis in fact. See previous comments .To base an argument on something that is already proven to be false doesn’t do much for the argument—in fact, it’s a prime example of beating a dead horse.
then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about?
I have a feeling she is going to tell us—once again taking the authority on herself to presume to know what others believe. She’s also taking on that flippant tone that indicates that she thinks her opinions are superior and therefore right.
Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men.
Miller presumes to put words in gay-marriage opponents’ mouths as she introduces a red herring fallacy. Sex between men is not the main issue in gay-marriage, but affording gay marriage the same status as traditional, God-approved marriage. What kinds of sexual behaviors men in particular engage in is not the most important aspect of the issue, but if Miller can get people to discuss sexual behavior rather than the type of marriage, then she can avoid having to answer some hard questions that, so far, she has not been able to answer. A red herring is often used by someone in an argument who doesn’t have enough ammunition to logically rebut an opponent.
In its entry on “Homosexual Practices,” the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, “possibly because it did not result in true physical ‘union’ (by male entry).”
Logical fallacies abound. It could be because women were not considered important enough to discuss. Or maybe because, as in other places in the Bible, using the male as an example was supposed to suffice for the entire population. However, I fail to see how the Anchor Bible Dictionary authors came to such a conclusion. If this article is an example of their scholarship, I wouldn’t trust the Anchor Bible Dictionary writers, too much because in Romans 1: 26-27 Paul writes “that for this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned with lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” I wouldn’t put too much stock in the Anchor Bible Dictionary if they can miss an entire verse or two—ruins their credibility. What else did they miss?
The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages.
Paul, an apostle of God, certainly condemned it in several passages.
Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as “an abomination” (King James Version), but these are throwaway lines
What right does Miller have to call a code of conduct mandated by God for his chosen people throwaway lines?
in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, 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.
These were all very important for day-to-day living as a community at that time. Miller makes the mistake of discounting them and mocking them because we do not follow these practices today, but they made living the Judaic creed easier to follow by giving people things to do, rather than restrictions on what not to do. Miller might as well mock Hindus or Bantus for following their religious laws. She’s not being very thoughtful or logical.
Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions.
She needs to define surpassed, since the ancient society that followed the law seems to have been better in ways than our violent, crime-ridden society today. Miller would do better to say that our society is different from that society, rather than that it is better. Additionally, just because we don’t practice something does not make us right. It just means that we behave differently.
Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Because condemnation of homosexuality appears throughout the Bible, while the price of a slave does not, indicating that condemnation of homosexuality is a constant from the Old Testament to the New Testament—a principle of doctrine—rather than something only of interest at a certain time.
(new paragraph)
Paul was tough on homosexuality, though recent progressive scholars
So now a scholar is progressive if he or she can argue against what the text actually says? Is Miller insinuating that progressive scholars have higher status than Paul, God’s apostle, who was inspired by God?
have argued that his condemnation of men who “were inflamed with lust for one another” (which he calls “a perversion”) is really a critique of the worst kind of wickedness: self-delusion, violence, promiscuity and debauchery.
Who defines the worst kind of wickedness? Evidently, not God but Miller or those progressive scholars, because God’s list is different, like the 10 commandments or the list Paul makes at the end of the same chapter where he condemns the homosexuality of men and women. A couple of these sins here might make the 10 worst sins list, but are nowhere near the seriousness of homosexuality. It’s as if Miller uses them to get homosexuality out of the spotlight and have the reader focus on other sins (using them as another red herring). These sins, defined as worst by men not God, rather than homosexuality, also seem to be substituted as a kind of wish fulfillment that there are worse things than homosexuality, since Miller has introduced them and she is pro-homosexual. Progressive scholars, then, might even be homosexuals themselves and trying to validate their lifestyle choices by saying, “See, we aren’t so bad after all, at least not as bad as these sins are.” It’s interesting that gays and other liberals are focusing on violence as the worst evil, which then makes their sexual perversions and immoral activities farther down the list of sins.
In his book “The Arrogance of Nations,” the scholar Neil Elliott argues
Now Neil Elliott, a mere scholar, is more knowledgeable than Paul, who was on site at the time, as well as being an inspired apostle with the authority from God. I would be more impressed with Miller’s argument if she stuck with the Bible to make her point rather than what some man says. Her problem is that she can’t make her point from the Bible, even though her opening premise was to take on the Bible. She has had to shift her focus or appear foolish; she is grasping at straws.
that Paul is referring in this famous passage to the depravity of the Roman emperors, the craven habits of Nero and Caligula, a reference his audience would have grasped instantly.
The problem with this argument is that not once in Romans 1, or 2 even, does Paul say anything about the Roman emperors. He does, however, say he is writing to the saints in Rome and that he is doing so because he does not want them to be ignorant, evidently about the evils of homosexuality, among other things.
“Paul is not talking about homosexuality at all,” Elliott says.
Now Elliott is attributing meaning without any foundation. He presumes to be in Paul’s head.
“He’s talking about a certain group of people who have done everything on this list.
Actually, when read in context, Paul says that because these people committed homosexual acts and would not keep God in their knowledge, God abandoned them to sin and the list of sins that follow are the sins that they then committed because their homosexuality had put them on the path of evil.
We’re not dealing with anything like gay love or gay marriage.
It’s so sad when even scholars can’t read. We must do something about our educational system. Maybe the 3 R’s are what we need most of after all.
We’re talking about really, really violent people who meet their end and are judged by God.”
Once again, Elliott can’t have read the actual text. Additionally, it’s so convenient in today’s immoral society to talk about violence as if that is the ultimate sin, rather than the use of sacred God-given powers of procreation in perversion and abomination. As if the condemnation of violence makes sexual sin A-OK. However, just saying it is so, does not make it true.
In any case, one might add, Paul argued more strenuously against divorce
Another statement contrary to fact—Miller can’t have read the text itself if she thinks that several verses in Romans and Corinthians and Timothy where Paul defines homosexuality as unnatural, unseemly, and a defilement compare with Paul’s one or two verses telling Christians not to divorce.
—and at least half of the Christians in America disregard that teaching.
Miller’s statement here is so childish, it’s almost laughable, except she says it like it carries some weight and it’s sad that she’s so deluded. Saying that just because many Christians have ignored Paul’s strictures against divorce, doesn’t make divorce right. For goodness sake, then all the murderers would be right in having murdered because there are so many of them that have done that terrible thing and the same for people who have committed other heinous crimes. Numbers do not influence what is right, especially when God has said otherwise. It’s like a little child making the excuse that the other children did something, so it must be all right for that child to have done it, too.
(new paragraph)
Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition
Hypothesis contrary to fact. If anything in Miller’s previous text had been logical, she might be able to say such a thing. However, she has deluded herself into thinking she has made a logical argument from the Bible in spite of the fact that she has done anything but that. Maybe she thinks that if she says it often enough, her readers will think it’s true.
(and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).
Miller brings in an aspect that has nothing to do with biblical evidence—another red herring—in spite of the promised argument based on the Bible. Most people get uncomfortable hearing about intimate sexual details from anyone, heterosexual or homosexual. But personal embarrassment is not the issue, the validity or fallacy of homosexual marriage is the issue.
Common prayers and rituals reflect our common practice:
Common practice, what men and women do, is not comparable in authority to the Bible, which contains the commandments of God. Apples to oranges.
the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer describes the participants in a marriage as “the man and the woman.”
At least the Episcopal Church’s doctrine seems to follow biblical commandments.
But common practice changes
Yep (not always for the better), and like lemmings we can all go off the cliff together and make a big, happy splat at the bottom, having communally destroyed ourselves. Socially constructed norms do not negate God’s commandments.
—and for the better,
Define better.
as the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice.”
As great as Martin Luther King, Jr. was, he was not God, nor an apostle of God. Nice saying, but not scripture. Notice how Miller tries to use the appeal to authority, or ethos, by invoking not only someone as famous as Martin Luther King, Jr., but also his title of Reverend—obviously someone with religious ties—and associating herself with his title might lend her some credibility. Now watch, though, having brought in this great civil rights leader, Miller is going to try to equate the issue of slavery or civil rights with gay marriage. Apples to oranges. Race is not gender. Most of the oppressed people who benefitted from the civil rights movement were most likely not engaged in sexual perversion, defined as such by the Bible.
The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric.
In places, however Abolitionists also used the Bible to prove that slavery was wrong.
It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with other men, for that matter).
Yes, that was the law in their time. So?
It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites.
After calling the Jews the chosen people, they are also vilified as the murderers of Christ, but Christ forgave them, so that bit of information doesn’t work, unless she meant something else. She doesn’t explain this statement—another one that just hangs out there.
A mature view of scriptural authority
Miller’s definition of mature seems to be only insofar as the “mature” view agrees with her “mature view.” So her view is what “requires us” to do what she wants.
requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism.
Miller implies that literalism is bad. Here is where Miller’s argument falls down even further. The Bible has been very clear on the issue of homosexuality and most Christians would agree that its laws still stand. Additionally, if the Bible is the word of God, through His prophets in ancient times, Christians also agree that God is still inspiring his religious leaders today with directions for the children of God. The Catholics have the Pope, who gave the statement only a few years ago that homosexuality was a sin. The Mormons have their prophet who said that God has not changed and that homosexuality is still a sin. The leaders of most Christian churches, who claim to be similarly inspired, also claim that homosexuality is a sin. The commandments of God as found in the Bible are evidently still in force today.
The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it’s impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours.
Dicto simpliciter fallacy—some people are able to apply many of its rules for the most part. In fact, our system of law in the United States is based on the Bible. Many moral and ethical issues are as relevant today as they were in the Bible. Additionally, if we have religious leaders who are receiving inspiration from God, we can be directed to apply these laws to situations today. Is Miller suggesting that there is no more inspiration? The heavens are closed?
(new paragraph)
Marriage, specifically, has evolved so as to be unrecognizable to the wives of Abraham and Jacob.
Miller does not mention Isaac because he was monogamous (and that would negate her argument), but since he lived about the same time as Abraham and Jacob, I doubt that their wives would not have recognized the format of his and Rachel’s marriage.
Monogamy became the norm in the Christian world in the sixth century; husbands’ frequent enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes became taboo by the beginning of the 20th.
Neither factoid justifies immoral behavior and the enjoyment of mistresses and prostitutes only indicates how depraved those men were, not that what they did was right or sanctioned by the Bible.
(In the Newsweek Poll, 55 percent of respondents said that married heterosexuals who have sex with someone other than their spouses are more morally objectionable than a gay couple in a committed sexual relationship.)
Once again, what do numbers have to do with what is right? How do these people have as much authority as the God who made them and commanded them not to engage in homosexual behavior or any unchaste behavior, for that matter? So what does this bit of information have to do with a valid argument?
By the mid-19th century, U.S. courts were siding with wives who were the victims of domestic violence, and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their “head and master” laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be unable to take a job.
Although Miller seems to be trying to show that social norms have changed, she has drifted from her original premise of showing how marriage is depicted in the Bible or trying to justify homosexual marriage through the Bible. Social norms do not have the authority of God-inspired commandments, even if some people treat them as such. Miller promised to take on conservatively religious views based in the Bible, and so far she has not succeeded in justifying her stance, except to say that we should accept gay marriage because some people want to do it—pretty weak.
Today’s vision of marriage as a union of equal partners, joined in a relationship both romantic and pragmatic, is, by very recent standards, radical, says Stephanie Coontz, author of “Marriage, a History.”
Finally, an authority who says something she can be authoritative about. But, once again, all it does is show that there is a change in attitudes, not in the basic form of heterosexual marriage.
(new paragraph)
Religious wedding ceremonies have already changed to reflect new conceptions of marriage.
Once again, only certain aspects of the traditions surrounding heterosexual marriage, and perhaps some gay marriages, but the union between a man and a woman is still a commandment of God. Changing tradition, does not change doctrine.
Remember when we used to say “man and wife” instead of “husband and wife”?
Traditions, not doctrine. Interestingly, not every Christian denomination actually uses what she is calling a traditional set of words in the marriage ceremony.
Even Miss Manners, the voice of tradition and reason, approved in 1997 of that change.
I’m just glad Miller is keeping Miss Manners in the social realm instead of the doctrinal realm. It would be hard to swallow Miss Manners superseding God.
“It seems,” she wrote, “that dropping ‘obey’ was a sensible editing of a service that made assumptions about marriage that the society no longer holds.”
Tradition only, not doctrine.
(new paragraph)
We cannot look to the Bible as a marriage manual,
Once again, she is using a fallacious statement to open another segment of her argument. See previous comments on the same statement used on the first page of the argument.
but we can read it for universal truths as we struggle toward a more just future.
However, Miller is willing to admit that there are some universal truths in the Bible, just not inspired doctrine. I guess she believes in the cafeteria style religion that allows her to pick and choose what she wants out of the Bible. It’s certainly an easier way of studying the Bible than trying to grapple with the harder doctrines and we as a society seem lazy enough that we would rather not grapple—such a difficult thing to do and heaven forbid we do anything difficult.
The Bible offers inspiration and warning on the subjects of love, marriage, family, and community.
Whoa! Another pendulum swing. Is she going to mock the Bible or revere it? We need some consistency.
It speaks eloquently of the crucial role of families in a fair society and the risks we incur to ourselves and our children should we cease trying to bind ourselves together in loving pairs.
Wishful thinking and the logical fallacy of ad misericordium—no logical basis because the argument is based on emotions and desires. Because she is pro-gay, Miller probably does not mean the kinds of risks that Paul meant when he said in Romans 1 that homosexuality leads to unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness, envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. And what does she mean by loving pairs?What bunk—loving pairs indeed—the Bible never discusses loving pairs in terms of homosexuals—not even on the Ark. That was a joke. I’m not going to get into bestiality. That’s another discussion. Seriously, though, these kinds of consequences listed by Paul for disobeying God are much more disastrous than the warm fuzzies Miller hints at.
Gay men like to point to the story of passionate King David and his friend Jonathan, with whom he was “one spirit” and whom he “loved as he loved himself.”
Of course they like to, because their take on the story makes them feel better. And it is a nice story, but it can’t be proven that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship any more than it can be proven that they didn’t, except that David was still in God’s good graces when Jonathan died, which, considering the strictures against homosexuality, means they probably did have a platonic relationship.
Conservatives say this is a story about platonic friendship, but it is also a story about two men who stand up for each other in turbulent times, through violent war and the disapproval of a powerful parent.
Military personnel will tell you about similar relationships with men they serve with that have nothing to do with homosexual behavior or desires.
David rends his clothes at Jonathan’s death and, in grieving, writes a song:
Yes, they did have a strong friendship and David would react strongly to Jonathan’s death, but that does not prove he was homosexual.
I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother;
You were very dear to me.
Your love for me was wonderful,
More wonderful than that of women.
Roughly the same as the King James Version. However, to say that Jonathan’s love for David passed the love of women (KJV), does not indicate that they had a homosexual relationship, it only means their friendship was very strong indeed and David could not think of a stronger analogy than love for a woman.
(new paragraph)
Here, the Bible praises enduring love between men.
Miller seems to assume that all love is sexual in nature, which negates the love between children and parents, siblings, and friends, or turns it into something perverted. Freud tried the same thing, pretty much, and it turns out his theories only partially work, so don’t expect much from gays who suggest the same thing.
What Jonathan and David did or did not do in privacy is perhaps best left to history and our own imagination.
I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. What a coy and immature statement—totally out of keeping with the tone that Miller has developed toward the end of the article.
(new paragraph)
In addition to its praise of friendship and its condemnation of divorce, the Bible gives many examples of marriages that defy convention yet benefit the greater community.
Miller offers a crumb, although since none of her examples include gay marriage, they really don’t further her argument. And what does she mean by benefitting the greater community? Are we supposed to make the leap in logic that Miller thinks that gay marriage is beneficial to the community? How does gay marriage benefit anyone except gays? Are these examples supposed to lay a foundation for accepting other marriages that are outside the norm?
The Torah discouraged the ancient Hebrews from marrying outside the tribe, yet Moses himself is married to a foreigner, Zipporah.
Zipporah was the daughter of Jethro, the priest of Midian. The Midianites were close relatives of the Hebrews and Jethro practiced the same religion as the Hebrews, so technically Moses married in the faith and in the family.
Queen Esther is married to a non-Jew and, according to legend, saves the Jewish people.
Not just legend, the Bible backs it up. But hers was a special situation, so how does her marriage justify gay marriage?
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia, believes that Judaism thrives through diversity and inclusion.
That’s nice, but why is he the authority on all of Judaism? Perhaps, he is only expressing his personal opinion because he doesn’t have the doctrine to back it up. Why is he quoted in this section at all? Miller was listing different marriages and suddenly, in the middle of it, she quotes a rabbi on being inclusive. Minus points on organization.
“I don’t think Judaism should or ought to want to leave any portion of the human population outside the religious process,” he says.
Again, personal opinion not backed up by Jewish doctrine.
“We should not want to leave [homosexuals] outside the sacred tent.”
Nice warm fuzzy sentiment—opinion only.
The marriage of Joseph and Mary is also unorthodox (to say the least), a case of an unconventional arrangement accepted by society for the common good.
The outward appearance of the marriage followed all the conventions of the time. Only we, who read about it afterwards, know the difference, and maybe Elizabeth and her family. So who had to accept anything unusual except Joseph and Mary? Doesn’t make sense.
The boy needed two human parents, after all.
For all Miller’s mockery of what’s in the Bible, it seems strange that she accepts Jesus’ divine parentage. Maybe she redeems herself to herself with her flippant tone.
(new paragraph)
In the Christian story, the message of acceptance for all is codified.
OK, let’s see where she’s going with this idea. I hope she isn’t trying to suggest that acceptance is more important than following Jesus’ other teachings. Is this another of Miller’s doctrinal cafeteria selections, like a nice piece of pie?
Jesus reaches out to everyone, especially those on the margins, and brings the whole Christian community into his embrace.
Yes he does, even as he tells them to follow him, come to him, and obey his commandments or they will perish. He does make some requirements for inclusion.
The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author,
A man, not God, so I hope Miller is not trying to once again supersede God’s authority with a man’s opinion.
cites the story of Jesus revealing himself to the woman at the well—no matter that she had five former husbands and a current boyfriend
All heterosexual relationships. Notice that not once does Jesus interact with a homosexual.
—as evidence of Jesus’ all-encompassing love.
Yes, this example gives solace to anyone who needs to repent. Notice that Jesus also told her to not live sinfully anymore.
The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary,
A man, not God.
quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: “For there is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ.”
How is this supposed to support gay marriage? Not one of the things listed is anything like being homosexual. If people believe in Jesus Christ, then they must believe what he said as well, and he said to follow his example, which was chaste, and his commandments, which do not include homosexual marriage—or they would perish.
The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, “is not generally made with reference to particular texts,
So even Brueggemann admits that gay marriage cannot be supported through biblical texts.
but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness.”
Another warm fuzzy without concrete evidence. Another instance of wishful thinking. I wonder what he thinks of Jesus’ commandments. Maybe he thinks they’re more like guidelines.
(new paragraph)
The practice of inclusion, even in defiance of social convention, the reaching out to outcasts, the emphasis on togetherness and community over and against chaos, depravity, indifference—all these biblical values argue for gay marriage.
Only if you wish them to and want it really, really badly, so much so that you ignore all the biblical condemnation of homosexual behavior. Wishing doesn’t make something true. It’s kind of sad, really, that Miller wants so much to be accepted in her beliefs, but doesn’t have anything but her desires and the opinions of people who are willing to put a spin on certain scriptures to back her up.
If one is for racial equality and the common nature of humanity,
Apples to oranges. What does racial equality have to do with monogamy or family? What does the common nature of man have to do with them either? The jump in logic is too extreme to make sense. If Miller were my student, I’d tell her to clarify her statements.
then the values of stability, monogamy and family necessarily follow.
Who says? Miller?
Terry Davis is the pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in Hartford, Conn., and has been presiding over “holy unions” since 1992.
Fascinating that a pastor should go against his church, although I guess Martin Luther did, so there is some precedent, but only if you want to get kicked out.Even Davis didn’t dare call them marriages, though. Highly illegal and definitely anti-biblical.
“I’m against promiscuity
So’s everyone who has any sense or who believes in the Bible, or both. Is he trying to say that people in gay relationships will be promiscuous if they can’t be married?
—love ought to be expressed in committed relationships, not through casual sex, and I think the church should recognize the validity of committed same-sex relationships,” he says.
Noble words that sound good, until you realize they aren’t based in doctrine, but only his opinion. Besides, his logic is faulty—see previous comment.
(new paragraph)
Still, very few Jewish or Christian denominations do officially endorse gay marriage, even in the states where it is legal.
They can’t if they want to be scripturally grounded and law-abiding organizations.
The practice varies by region, by church or synagogue, even by cleric.
Obviously not church sanctioned as a whole.
More progressive denominations
Once again, Miller uses that term “progressive” as if her definition of progressive is what is progressive, which means only if gay marriage is promoted and then there is progress.
—The United Church of Christ, for example—have agreed to support gay marriage.
Maybe it’s good that they are so small. Still, because one or a few do something does not make that something right.
Other denominations and dioceses will do “holy union” or “blessing” ceremonies, but shy away from the word “marriage” because it is politically explosive.
Maybe because some of their members recognize that the practice is not biblically sound and might report to the higher-ups or leave the congregation or because it isn’t legal in most places.
So the frustrating, semantic questions remains:
It is only frustrating to someone who can’t make a good argument for gay marriage. It is only semantic because Miller is trying to redefine what some words mean to fit her agenda.
should gay people by married in the same, sacramentalsense that straight people are?
Such a practice is not supported by biblical scripture. If she wants the churches to negate the authority of their sacraments and make them available to anyone, even those who do not fulfill the necessary requirements, thereby taking any efficacy and meaning out of the sacraments, then those churches risk losing any authority to act for God and Miller so very much wants a marriage sanctified by God (but she isn’t willing to pay the price—repentance).
I would argue that they should.
Of course, that has been Miller’s goal all along.
If we are all God’s children, made in his likeness and image,
Being God’s children doesn’t have anything to do with her argument, except that being God’s children inherently means that we have the capacity to act in godly ways and follow his commandments, which the Bible says is not through homosexuality. The benefits of being God’s children only come through following his commandments.
then to deny access to any sacrament based on sexuality is exactly the same thing as denying it based on skin color
Apples to oranges. Some people may argue that sexuality is as inherent as skin color, but the way people react to either or enact either is not the same. Sexuality is enacted or performed. Skin color is not. Sexuality can be controlled. Skin color cannot. A person can be sexually chaste or licentious. A person cannot be skin color chaste or licentious. Being sexually licentious is a sin. Skin color is not a sin. Miller is on shaky ground. Jesus said over and over again to follow his commandments in order to achieve heavenly rewards and Paul, his apostle, made it clear that avoiding homosexual sins was one of those commandments. Jesus made following the commandments a requirement for entry into heaven. Evidently, even he was willing to deny some people certain blessings because they did not fulfill the requirements. His inclusiveness was founded on people becoming righteous and obedient servants and moving toward him, not the other way around. Jesus did not become more sinful so he could be with people. They had to be more righteous to be with him. People need to come to him to be included, not the other way around and Jesus said, “and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.”Paul explains, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof” and he went on “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” So coming to Jesus is not just physically coming to him, but spiritually drawing near by following his commandments to obtain salvation.
—and no serious (or even semiserious) person would argue that.
Another hypothesis not based in fact.How does she know that all serious or semiserious people would not agree that sexuality is the same as skin color. I’m very serious and I don’t agree at all.
People get married “for their mutual joy,” explains the Rev. Chloe Breyer, executive director of the Interfaith Center in New York, quoting the Episcopal marriage ceremony.
Sounds good.
That’s what religious people do: care for each other in spite of difficulty, she adds.
Noble words, but that is not all that religious people do. They follow the example of Christ in obeying the commandments, including the ones about not practicing homosexuality. By using these warm fuzzy statements and quotes, Miller is ignoring the complete essence of the Bible and, in cafeteria-style picking only those doctrines that appeal to what she wants—to justify the unjustifiable so that she can feel comfortable about sinning. She may object to such an idea and say that by condemning homosexual sin, I am trying to oppress a defenseless minority and make them conform to my own notions. If telling homosexuals that they are not following God’s commandments is wrong, then the Bible is wrong and Miller should not even bring it up. Her whole argument is moot.
In marriage, couples grow closer to God.
Only if they are doing godly things, such as keeping God’s commandments. Perhaps homosexual couples can improve on a few things, like being kind, but not the ultimate commandments and requirements for salvation because they have placed themselves outside the realm where Christ is. They have not come to where he is, where he would greet them with open arms, a place of righteousness. He still loves them, but is forced by their behavior to not be there fully for them. Perhaps it is this lack, so painful for homosexuals and other sinners, that is so apparent in Miller’s article.
That’s what marriage is about.”
Although coming closer to God would be a good thing, this quote is Reverend Breyer’s opinion and not supported by scripture. Breyer can voice all the platitudes she wants, but she is not the authority that God. Marriage is also about helping the husband or wife obey the commandments, which, I suppose would help them come closer to God, but not in the context that Miller obviously means.
(new paragraph)
More basic than theology, though, is human need.
Since when did human need take precedence over God’s commands? Did not Christ say that we must deny ourselves to take up his cross? Did not Paul tell us that we must deny all ungodliness? It seems that human need must be subdued at times. Desires and needs do not make right. Even single heterosexuals must be chaste, even if they never find a marriage partner, if they want to be saved.
We want, as Abraham did, to grow old surrounded by friends and family and to be buried at last peacefully among them.
A fine example of pathos and ad misericordium. Boo hoo, now our sins are making it so we can’t have what we want, but we don’t want to repent, so boo hoo some more. So, anyone who denies homosexuals such an old age, must be cruel, not that homosexuals are denying themselves such an old age by their behavior. Also, notice how Miller now invokes the name of Abraham as a revered patriarch where before she mocked him.
We want, as Jesus taught, to love one another for our own good—and not to be too grandiose about it, for the good of the world.
That’s nice—be righteous so you can really love others as Jesus would. Acting out homosexual desires is not being righteous.
We want our children to grow up in stable homes.
Then you may need to repent. Jesus said, “Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” The result of perishing is a kind of stability, but it is not the kind of stability Miller seems to desire.
What happens in the bedroom, really, has nothing to do with any of this.
Wishful thinking. Hypothesis contrary to fact, considering all the scriptures contained in the Bible equating homosexuality and sin.
My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to this question of homosexuality is in Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”
James Martin, the priest who is not God and does not have the authority to speak for God, sure uses weak verses to support his claims—weak because great leaps of logic must be made to associate verses like this to in any way support gay marriage. Please explain the concrete connection, or is it another warm fuzzy platitude? Martin seems more intent on being well-liked than being scripturally sound.
And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today,
Rather presumptuous to put motive into Jesus’ head without any basis other than that Jesus loves us, ignoring, of course, that he wants us to qualify to be with him as righteous people who obey his commandments.
he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us,
Does she mean like he did the money changers in the temple? To exhort them to repent? People are so much more comfortable with an easygoing, loving, non-judgmental Jesus with no expectations, rather like a nice pet dog, than the one who cleansed the temple and told people to repent or they would perish. If Jesus were non-judgmental, then we wouldn’t have to repent and we could be comfortable in our sins.
for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.”
But he does want us to be righteous and repent so we can be with him—come to him and lay down our burdens—for his yoke is easy and his burden is light, because it is righteous and right, not full of the sorrow that can be sensed in Miller’s article. If we are all righteous, then we can be included in the warm, loving, circle of Jesus’ arms and never be lonely again. If we sin, we choose to put ourselves outside that circle and must work to regain what we have lost. We choose to be lonely and sad.
Let the priest’s prayer be our own.
Only if you don’t want to be saved by fulfilling Christ’s commandments. Only if you just want to be comfortable in your sins.
