I canceled my Newsweek subscription today

[…] I cancelled my Newsweek subscription today Newsweek, December 15, Religious Case for Gay Marriage.jpg I cancelled my Newsweek subscription today. They get to return $84 dollars to me in the mail which I think I'll give to someone who needs it more than I. I've been a subscriber … […]

The gay manager at work walks past my desk several times a day. I smile, but she rarely does, and I always greet her with a friendly, "hello." I silently pray for her. God loves her just as much as He loves any of us.

CNN interviewed someone this week in regards to "Your own personal Jesus." I saw it at work, and the volume was turned down on the TV, so I could not hear it. I was too far away to read the words scrolling on the screen - the dialogue between the reporter and the guy being interviewed. People make Jesus into who they think He should be. One of my unsaved co-workers was watching this interview with what looked like great interest. Things like that interview on national TV blind people to the truth. I immediately knew it wasn't biblical or Christ-centered. I then saw the word, "enlightenment" in the caption, and that's a word that's used in false religions.

There is coming a day when every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Until then, He will continually be blasphemed. As much as it hurts me to see my Lord and Savior scorned, mocked and belittled in front of millions, I give thanks that He takes it. When someone mocks Jesus in front of me because they know I am a Christian, it feels like I have been punched in the gut. I thank God that He is taking the insult and not me. I still feel it, though, and it's all the more reason to pray for people to see the truth.

haters.

It amazes me how you and your followers pick and choose scripture to accommodate your beliefs.
You hate and pass judgment.
How do you feel about your wonderful hero George bush speaking yesterday saying that the bible probably isn't literally true.
That probably puts a burr in your butt.

In the bible it was okay to have many wives, but as a society now we have condemned that. It was also an abomination to eat shellfish, but I'm sure both you and marcee have enjoyed you share of Red Lobster.

So what, it's okay to put your convenient spin on some things but still take other things as gospel.

SIN IS SIN - it your ideals you are no better than the loving gay couple who want to have the same rights as you, or marcee's manager who walks past her desk several times a day.
Shame pastor hickey!

AC,

By what you have written I can see you do not know that ceremonial (diet and cleansing, civil ordinances) laws are distinguished in the Sacred Tana'kh from Moral Law? Further, ceremonial law is not upheld under the New Covenant while moral law is upheld as Amari {eternal}. The disdain you express toward this minister and his followers as you do on this subject shows you have no regard for or understanding of the laws of Elohim. Perhaps my admonishment to you will be received that you should be swift to listen and slow to speak {JS 1.19}. These people know something you have still to learn.

To speak to your polygamy statement the fact that Elohim permitted polygamy for four or five reasons in the patriarchal period does not change that the Scriptures present monogamy between a man and a woman as the plan which conforms most closely to the divine ideal for marriage.

b’rakhot

Moreh Na’im

The Devi can cite Scripture for his purpose, and the texts have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women, among other things that few people in the first decade of the 21st century would think reasonable.

Devi = Devil

AC - right! The devil, Newsweek, Jack Black and whoever can and do cite Scripture for their purpose.

Do you see now what my post was really about? Not so much homosexuality. The post was about what the devil (ultimately) is doing to and with Scripture all through Newsweek. Prooftexts is what they've grabbed. Then, fully abandoning the standards of hermeneutics (principles of Biblical interpretation) they end up with isegesis. Isegesis is to read into the text. Exegesis is to read out of the text. Isegesis is to get the text to say what you want it to say. Exegesis is to listen to what the text (in the context of all the other texts of Scripture) is saying. Isegesis is to read the walking on water text and seek to walk across a lake only to drown. Exegesis would say that text is telling us to put our total trust in Jesus. I've never seen a better example of pathetic Biblical interpretation and isegesis as is in this weeks Newsweek.

Liberals everywhere rejoiced last week at the Jack Black musical interpretation of Jesus that made it's way around youtube. Do you understand that people who understand the rules of Biblical interpretation and exegetical steps look at these Hollywood Stars as some of the most ignorant, agenda driven and dangerous people in the planet? Here's why… because so many people out there who know far less than even they do, think these stars know what they are talking about when really, they so don't.

My post last week about the need for Biblical literacy in this nation comes to mind. Those who are literate in the Scriptures look at Newsweek and Jack Black and know immediately what they've done wrong. The rest of America just accepts whatever. But here is the sobering reality to those of us with influence… greater judgment comes on those in those in "teaching" (influential - journalism, Hollywood) positions when they use them to lead people astray.

There is no doubt that Jesus loves gay people. But for someone to think that His love justifies sinful behavior is totally false and out of the flow of God's Spirit and truth.

2 Timothy 3:1-7 Talks about perilous times when people will be (among other things): unholy, without self-control, despisers of good, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying it's power.

My friends we are in perilous times. I challenge those inclined to the gay lifestyle to read the bible from Genesis to Revelation and find out what it means to know Jesus and live out a life in the flow of His Spirit and Power.

You'll find out He loves you and has a better plan for you than you currently have for yourself.

Homosexuality - yet another very highly misunderstood event in human culture (both in and out of the church). People think they understand because of science or psychology but…well..

I disagree entirely that there is a physical, chemical, or psychological difference in those who believe they are homosexual. I don't need to point out the scripture from the Christian Bible that states homosexuality is wrong. That would prove redundant to most readers. The reasoning and explanation as to why and how homosexuality has take such a grasp on humanity is more that a mere simple act of evolutionary chemical or hormonal make-up.

Homosexuality, is driven by an oppressive demonic spirit. Satan(in scripture) is called the father of lies, but he is also called son of the morning, and an angel of light.

Essentially, homosexuality is a lie. Now, I know that I will be asked then "how can you say that they are living a lie"…or "how can you judge them"….the answer to both of those questions is I am not. I love people who say they are gay, but I abhor what they do. Just the same as I love the murderer, but I despise what he has done. I am not judging them - I am judging what they do. In our culture, we mistakenly associate what we do with who we are. I am not saying that they are living a lie - but that they believe a lie. And I am sure that some will see this as "having my cake and eating it too", and that is simply because those who feel that way don't have a complete understanding of who we (all of humanity) are.

As far as it being a "sin" Yes it is. And so is stealing a pencil from the office. Both (according to the Christian Bible) have the punishment - death. There is no grading scale….sin = death. But, the sin does not make the person, and therefore I know that the lie that is believed can be broken, overcome, and the life that was created and designed can be lived.

These are my views according to what I know and believe based on my understanding of the Christian Bible and what is taught there, and unless there is a question for the need to explain (not debate) I will address that.

Let me also state…for the 'record'; I don't think it is anyone's constitutional right to Marry. I don't think I have a right based on the laws of man to be married, and …even if the state wouldn't recognize my marriage, it wouldn't make any difference to me….

When the state does not 'recognize' or acknowledge my marriage, it matters not to me, because I know I am married in the ordained and arranged marriage that was established for me before time. (But, I suppose that's another discussion)

I won't defend a lifestyle (such as the discussion)…but I will defend the person within that lifestyle. I see a difference between the person and the lifestyle they live…as I have said before, what they do is not who they are. What I do is not who I am….my identity is not grounded in what I do.

I do not demonize gays or homosexuals…the people. I do demonize the lifestyle. I know that to some that may seem as though I am condemning the person. But, as I have stated before - what they do does not constitute their identity (who they are)…

now they are combining porn and religion whats next? But hey, it's Christmas and it's just the virgin mary

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1094198/Mary-Christmas-readers–Mexican-Playboy-puts-nude-Virgin-Mary-cover.html

I'm all for gay rights and believe the government should treat all marriages as civil unions, but using the Bible to try and justify it is more than a little silly.
No matter how you twist it and turn it, the Book says no.

I agree Some Dude…the government should stay out of marriage all together.

Politically, I believe legal (civil) unions by each state should be allowed according to the constitution of any state and the US constitution. The US constitution does not allow the federal government to make a ruling one way or the other on the issue.

Marriage, in my opinion, should be left only to the church. They are extensively different in point and purpose from unions. Should a church dare say they will grant a homosexual couple marriage – then so be it within that church and we (the people and government) should let judgment up to whatever god that church would claim to be serving.

Unions are a contract relationship (sometimes also considered a treaty). And those who want to go into a contract relationship can do that. If the issue for homosexual "marriage" is argued, it is argued more for tax and other financial reasons than anything else. And a contract should grant those privileges. Scripturally - those arguments have no influence.

Marriage is a covenant relationship. Those who have the desire to be in a covenant relationship should first of all, know what that means. And, secondly know how it is vastly different than a contract (union) relationship.

Why were common-law marriages outlawed in most states? I don’t know. And what about Betrothal - I still think that's a good idea and should be allowed as well.

A contract relationship asks the parties involved to follow points outlined in the contract, and if you don’t live up to those established and pre-agreed on points, the contract is null and void.

A marriage covenant (based on scripture) is not looked at in the same sense as a union because it is not based on a contract agreement. A covenant marriage relationship is not based on what I need or what the other party needs. It is based on what I say I will do regardless if the other party keeps up their end (those vows that people say and many forget by the time the reception begins). In sickness and in health, better of worse, etc etc. That means, whatever the circumstances arise I promise that I will keep this promise and stay committed to the promise that I have made to you. No matter if you cheat on me, become an alcoholic or just plain lazy. I will be the mature one and do what needs to be done to make the covenant work. A union contract, if any of the "shortcomings" occur to either side, either party can eradicate the contract.

God made a covenant with His people in scripture - He has kept and will continue to keep His promise even though we, His people, have failed miserably to keep our "end of the deal" - His promise and covenant will still stand. That is the difference between the Biblical understanding of marriage covenant and the American understanding of marriage.

I, personally, would like to see more unions in America and a whole lot fewer marriages. I would like to limit marriage to those who actually have the passion, integrity, maturity, understanding and desire to keep their covenant promises.

Marriage and Unions in our sedated culture do in essence by law carry the same ends. But, a true understanding of marriage is in fact not a contract - whereas if demands are not met the contract is void. What I was trying to show is that in the covenant it is not contingent upon those 'demands' being met, but rather the commitment to the promise. To really be able to explain this in completeness, we would have to walk through much of the scripture of the Christian Bible because the revelation of marriage as a covenant is fully understood upon seeing the fulfillment of the physical aspects expressed in the law and history with the manifestation of the Mashiach in ‘the end of times’.

Our culture has watered down the covenant of marriage to make it seem to be nothing more than a meaningless paper contract that can be voided, a union. It matters not what the law says about my marriage, to me, that's irrelevant. I don't even care if the law would recognize my marriage, that's not what is important to me. What is important to me is that our marriage is a manifestation, in the physical, of the covenant promise the God has made with His people through His Son, Jesus.

Our culture has limited the marriage covenant to a contract state, which diminishes its purpose.

According to Christ, homosexuality is wrong. But, I have not been instructed to condemn those who live in such a way. Regarding unions and marriage: I don't think the state should be granting marriages at all, because the state is to keep itself separate from the Church (at least they say that when it's popular to be separate). The state should grant unions to whom-ever requests a union, because a union can be made void. (Implying that a covenant marriage can not).

In reality…if one man should want to have a union with another man, then let him or a woman with a woman, a man with his dog, a man with 3 women, whatever…since the state is a civil group, for the people, they should have to authority to do so. Sure that doesn't align with what is taught in the Christian faith, but that's not for the government of man to decide.

The Church however, is not for the people - it is for The Lord and should be motivated by and representative of Him, not in condemnation but in life giving. Not acceptance and tolerance, but forgiveness and leadership.

I don't understand the terms "gay rights"…

Regarding rights…There is no right that has been granted by the governments and laws of man that will not be taken from me, and for those rights - I will not fight - as they are but fleeting. My rights come from the Lord that which no man can take from me, (also here. For I know where and in whom my authority is governed. And there is no amount of "rational" thinking or tangible evidence that will disprove or convince me otherwise.

"In reality…if one man should want to have a union with another man, then let him or a woman with a woman, a man with his dog, a man with 3 women, whatever…since the state is a civil group, for the people, they should have to authority to do so."

Not so fast. Homosexual unions make the same sense as the hetero type. However, when you start adding polygamy, pedophilia, or beastiality to the mix, it gets messy.
The reason pedophilia and beasiality will never become reality is because children and animals cannot enter into a contract - which is what a civil union is.
The issue of polygamy is slightly dofferent. There is a societal benefit to a person having ONE other person with whom debts, assets, and worth are shared. It makes for a much easier transition of property when one person dies. It also allows for ONE person to make difficult medical decisions for the other. Add another or two more people to the mix, and the system breaks down.

Dude…

So - polygamy is illegal because it's too confusing for the paperwork?

The same arguments were made some 30+ years ago in regard to homosexual relationships (arguments such as what you present with pedophilia & bestiality)…

While I find all of those relationships to be an abhorrence and disgusting…it will not surprise me one bit if our culture, desensitized to any moral direction, will begin to condone and accept these as well. They certainly are nothing new to human civilization.

the state is a civil group, for the people majority rules right? If you get enough people who want this kind of acceptance to stand up, speak loudly and complain to their legislators (and even more so - these kind of people in office)…the "it could never happen" idea will be washed out of the society's idea in the light of "equal rights", "tolerance" and "acceptance".

Man made equal rights are a fable…

Don't get me wrong however, I do not condone, accept, or think that any of these relationships are viable, healthy, good, or right. I believe that marriage is only for one man and one woman - unconditional and unequivocally never to be made void. I am only pointing out the very near sightedness of current culture with (at often times recent) history regarding these matters.

Nations that condone and accept unhealthy relationships - soon fall prey to disease, famine, and many other unthinkable ends.

Rome was one….they allowed and celebrated the homosexual lifestyle….they also had widely performed government sanctioned abortions….Rome came to a tragic end.

"So - polygamy is illegal because it's too confusing for the paperwork?"

No, it's illegal because it doesn't make the same sense as having ONE person to whom property/debt is transferred at death and make medical decisions on one's behalf.
Having two or more possibly conflicting interests involved ends up costing the system too much money.

"The same arguments were made some 30+ years ago in regard to homosexual relationships (arguments such as what you present with pedophilia & bestiality)…"

They were actually made longer than that ago in regard to interracial marriage. Adult human beings can enter into contracts. Children and animals cannot. Do you see this ever changing? Didn't think so.

"Rome was one….they allowed and celebrated the homosexual lifestyle….they also had widely performed government sanctioned abortions….Rome came to a tragic end."

Rome was an empire that flourished only because it was able to expand and conquer new territories and plunder their wealth. It became over-extended and too big to keep up the conquest. When conquest stopped, the economy stagnated, the very large army became restless and underpaid/equipped, and barbarian tribes in the north, east, and west were able to grow in strength to the point that they could challenge Rome.
A while before that, some guy named Jesus lived in the Roman province of Judea. His followers eventually took over the empire and lead to its splitting. The empire itself began slowly dying after that.
Homosexuality and abortion have been parts of nearly every society that has ever been.

Dude.

I can not debate opinions…

It's not opinion, it's documented history.

You know as well as I know - that it depends from which documented history you are reading….

chris, you make a lot of sense, but you might want to reconsider your stance on civil unions, the constitution, and the government staying out of marriage, altogether.

All the pretty and sophisticated words in the world don't turn hate into something else. Homophobia and transphobia are what they are. If you think you're justified in telling me I should not enjoy the same benefits as any other citizen because of who or what I am, That's bigotry. Hating what one does and then saying you don't hate them doesn't make one darn bit of difference to them; the results are the same. Be who you are, and stop trying to make yourself feel better by adding that you don't hate gays, or you tolerate them in your office or church. What hypocrisy. Maybe, just maybe, you could try not worrying about other's private lives and accept that some things are simply none of your damn business. By the way, It's not a frickin "lifestyle"-it's who a person is, and wasn't a choice. But I realise that many of you will never come to terms with that.