Newsweek article about Gay marriage in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Naztakuan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Naztakuan

Guest
newsweek.com/id/172653?gt1=43002

I read the aricle. Personally I think they’re reaalllly pushing it. And I 've heard this arguement before. They even use it to tie in that IVF is okay. “Be fruitful and multiply” does not mean by any means necessary! Basically their arguement is that since Jesus never mentioned it, it’s ok? Jesus never mentioned alot of things, but I think he figured we were smart enough to make the connection. Ceremonial commands are one thing but issues of morality are another. Just because “Thou shalt not kill” is mentioned in the Old testament, does not make it irrelevent to the New One And why would interepreting the bible in such a way be necessary? I mean, why do they care? It’s not like the people this article is directed at, (obviously to assuage guilt) ever cared about doing any of the other things the Bible says to do. Fornication is kind of a huge no-no regardless of what sex its with. The people at Newsweek are hardly biblical scholars.
Personally its better to just not believe at all than to go and interpret the Bible so that’s it’s more convenient for you. That’s just all kinda crazy. Yes Christianity is hard. Take it or leave it.
That meeting halfway stuff is kinda problematic. Goin all cafeteria on a sister.
 
It also shows profound religious ignorance on the part of the author. Its bases its whole “argument” on scriptural references. This assumes the only religious argument against gay marriage is based on a literalist ‘sola scriptura’ approach, which is popular among many evangelical Protestants, but is decidedly not Catholic. The Catholic church’s opposition is based on the Church’s teachings of marriage as a sacrament, etc. Although this is based on scripture, it is an authority on its own, and one that Catholics believe is just as authoritative. For Newsweek to ignore this, considering Catholicism is the largest single Christian tradition in this country, is a glaring omission in my opinion.:confused:
 
I saw this article this morning, I’m glad someone posted this. What made me the most upset was how Scripture was completely and with obvious bias taken out of context and forced into a proof that it simply cannot give. Unfortunately, Lisa Miller has written a quite a few of these religious doosies. I tried to find her contact information to give her some “constructive criticizm”, but was unsuccessful.

In addition to all the misrepresentations of Scripture in the article (too many to get into), I also noticed that Ephesians 5 was conveniently left out of this so-called Biblical “analysis”. This chapter thoroughly negates her premise that God didn’t define the roles of husband and wife as in traditional marriage in Scripture. The authority of the Catholic Church and her teachings on the Sacrament of Matrimony is an excellent point from jpm1977, but even if you leave out the church for the sake of argument and go only by Scripture, Miller’s position is untenable.
 
Holy cow did these folks not read Genesis 2;24 "for this reason a MAN will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE, AND THEY WILL BECOME ONE FLESH. common sense, natural law, god made MEN and WOMEN to unite. not woman and woman or man and man. In Christ
 
I like how we can just make up our own religion as we go along.

but to be fair, Newsweek did this with the whole “female priest” thing too when they posted the “shocking” front page story of the woman who had the “audacity” to “stand up” to the Catholic Church and ordain herself a priest.

They’ve lost any and all credeibility on matters like that with me.

You can justify anything using scripture if you really wanted to.
 
I have read the article and it is appallingly ignorant of the bible, Catholic doctrine, religion in general, logic, and I could go on and on. My sense is that Newsweek was once a good newsweekly but has been “dumbed down” and sensationalized because the newsweekly is a dying medium in the age of the internet. I regularly find factual errors (most recently one confusing Joseph Schumpeter with Nietzsche, both of whom I know quite a bit about). I checked Wikipedia which contained the same error which leads me to doubt the competency of their writers’ research skills, their general knowledge and the seriousness of their purpose, not to mention the quality of the editors. Except for George Will’s column, the free subscription I get is pretty useless. This sort of cover story is becoming all too typical of what passes for learned public discourse today. O Tempora, O Mores! (Cicero, in case a Newsweek writer scans this forum.)
 
averheyen said:
I like how we can just make up our own religion as we go along.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are not Catholic, you can interpret the Bible anyway you feel is right. Let’s take for an example, Universalist’s quote of Genesis 2:24 “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.” Universalist seems to think that this means only relationships between men and women are valid. Certainly it is one interpretation and I won’t dispute anyone’s choice if that is what they want to believe. But just because the Bible says something is permitted, such as slavery, doesn’t mean the whole world needs to be modeled on that example.

But then, I’m not sure why this thread is in Catholic News since it isn’t directly about the Catholic Church.
 
Why does it belong in the Catholic News forum? For those of us unfortunate enough to read the whole article, we get these words of “wisdom” in the closing paragraph:

“My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is 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.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.” Let the priest’s prayer be our own.”

Talk about a misinterpretation of Scripture & the Bible–coming from a Catholic priest to boot.
 
Posters, please also see the earlier thread on the same subject, in the Secular News Forum on CAF.

Several of us weighed in on this article on that thread.
 
Here is a link to a good article taking on the logical errors in the Newsweek gay marriage “argument.”
biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081212_newsweek.cfm

A previous poster was appalled at Fr. Martin’s alleged statement quoted at the end of the article. Given the sloppy reasoning and factual errors of the Newsweek piece, I would not leap to any conclusions about what Fr. Martin may or may not have said.
 
Just another liberal article to ignore in my opinion. Of course, one could comment on the article and show that marriage is to be between a man and a woman and not two men or two women. The Bible most certainly does not condone gay marriage. It vehemently opposes gay unions.
 
Dale_M said:
Well, if you are not Catholic, you can interpret the Bible anyway you feel is right. Let’s take for an example, Universalist’s quote of Genesis 2:24 “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh.” Universalist seems to think that this means only relationships between men and women are valid. Certainly it is one interpretation and I won’t dispute anyone’s choice if that is what they want to believe. But just because the Bible says something is permitted, such as slavery, doesn’t mean the whole world needs to be modeled on that example.

But then, I’m not sure why this thread is in Catholic News since it isn’t directly about the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Where does it say in the Bible “for this reason we shall make them slaves?”🤷

Your logic and analogy is desperately flayed… The Bible might note that slavery existed and that it was (and is) part of society but it never endorses it, nor promotes it. But it is clear on proper moral behavoir and sexual relationships.

Articles that promote Gay Marriage is always an article aimed at the heart of Catholic moral teachings, and should be considered a direct attack at our very souls and the souls of our children. It underminds civil society at every twist and turn. And it hurts those that struggle with SSA the most, sending wrong and twisted information that causes more suffering within thier psych, thier hearts, and thier souls as they try to deal with the pain of thier struggle. For it is false to believe they will ever find peace by playing house in a twisted psychotic fantasy instead of dealing with thier cross with love and hope in God, who will make all things right…IMHO
 
PoliSciProf said:
Here is a link to a good article taking on the logical errors in the Newsweek gay marriage “argument.”
biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081212_newsweek.cfm

A previous poster was appalled at Fr. Martin’s alleged statement quoted at the end of the article. Given the sloppy reasoning and factual errors of the Newsweek piece, I would not leap to any conclusions about what Fr. Martin may or may not have said.
Click to expand...
I really like this sentence from your link*** “This is methodological schizophrenia at its worst.”** this really sums up the whole “gay” rights agenda on Gay marriage.:rolleyes: All in two words…:cool: *
 
PoliSciProf said:
Here is a link to a good article taking on the logical errors in the Newsweek gay marriage “argument.”
biola.edu/news/articles/2008/081212_newsweek.cfm

A previous poster was appalled at Fr. Martin’s alleged statement quoted at the end of the article. Given the sloppy reasoning and factual errors of the Newsweek piece, I would not leap to any conclusions about what Fr. Martin may or may not have said.
Click to expand...
From one Prof to another, thanks for the article and for the concluding statement about what Fr. Martin alllegedly said.

There is an important point that must be made in favour of Father’s comment. Father did not say that Jesus would endorse a homosexual lifestyle. He said that Jesus did not want anyone to be lonely or unloved. This is true. Newsweek took the statement out of context. Father’s statement has a pastoral context that is consistent with the Church’s teaching on persons with homosexual and lesbian orientation, see the CCC.

There was a pastoral letter written by John Paul II on the care of homosexual people. The Church has not desire to alienate homosexuals any more than it wants to alienate heterosexuals who sin against chastity.

The Scripture and the Church do recognize that man is wonderfully created in God’s image, despite his sinfulness. Thus far, there is no reason to rebuke Father Martin. Unless someone can prove that he said that Jesus would bless sins against chastity, hetero or homosexual, there is no case here. Newsweek is sensationalizaing.

Thank you Prof for the other article.

JR 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top